1) The first plague was turning the Nile River into blood. By reason of this miracle, Pharaoh and his people learned that Jehovah was superior to the Nile-god, Hapi. The death of fish in the Nile was also a blow to Egyptian religion, for certain kinds of fish were venerated.
2) Next, Jehovah brought a plague of frogs upon Egypt. This discredited the Egyptian frog-goddess, Heqt. (Exodus 8:5-14)
3) The third plague confounded the magic-practicing priests, who were unable to duplicate Jehovah’s miracle of turning dust into gnats. The Egyptian god Thoth, credited with the invention of magical arts, was unable to help those charlatans.
4) During the fourth plague, gadflies ruined the land, invaded houses, and probably swarmed through the air, which was itself an object of worship personified in the god Shu or in the goddess Isis, queen of heaven.
The Hebrew word for this insect has sometimes been rendered “gadfly,” “dog fly,” and “beetle.” (New World Translation; Septuagint; Young) If the scarab beetle was involved, the Egyptians were plagued by insects they considered sacred, and people could not have walked about without crushing them underfoot.
5) The fifth plague was a pestilence upon Egyptian livestock. This blow disgraced Hathor, Apis, and the cow-bodied sky-goddess Nut. (Exodus 9:1-7)
6) The sixth plague brought boils upon man and beast, humiliating the deities Thoth, Isis, and Ptah, wrongly accredited with healing abilities. (Exodus 9:8-11)
7) The seventh plague was heavy hail, with fire quivering among the hailstones. This blow shamed the god Reshpu, supposed master of lightning, and Thoth, said to preside over rain and thunder. (Exodus 9:22-26)
8) The eighth blow, a locust plague, showed Jehovah’s superiority over the fertility god Min, supposedly the protector of crops. (Exodus 10:12-15)
9) The ninth blow, a three-day darkness over Egypt, poured contempt on such Egyptian deities as the sun-gods Ra and Horus. (Exodus 10:21-23)
10) As already mentioned was a blow to the Pharaoh god himself...supposedly the son of Ra.
Now, where's your source that it was
these specific Gods? And why, if all this was so clear, did polytheism in Egypt continue? These Gods are still worshiped today, remember, so their power has hardly dwindled.
Egyptians were not not nice people by all accounts.
They should join the club; neither has anyone else ever been.
Because the Hebrews were increasing in numbers, according to scripture, it was decreed that all male infants be put to death.
Cite the relevant Egyptian lawbook where this was recorded, because without such a source, there's no reason to believe such a decree was ever made.
Moses survived that threat and was raised in Pharaoh's own household. ...but he never forgot who he was.
Aw... but it's a MUCH better story in Prince of Egypt when he
does forget!
Despite justifiably killing an Egyptian guard who was beating one of his brothers, this "son of Pharaoh's daughter" would still face the death penalty and had to flee. He didn't return to Egypt for 40 years....sent by God to liberate Abraham's offspring, now perhaps numbering into the millions.
Wait, you weren't actually going anywhere with that? I already know the story. What's under question is its historicity.
Basically, your response to my rebuttal to your claim that they would not have recorded such humiliation, is to just retell the story. That does not do well for your argument.
I was presenting a likely scenario, not a factual historical account. The Bible does not provide the detail. So I'll leave that to you.
The Bible's scenario is not supported by any other records, including Egypt's. Therefore, its scenario and any that are derived from it is, by default, counted among the least likely by default unless extra-biblical sources can attest to the events.
Come on! Haven't
you seen Prince of Egypt? There's two Pharaohs in that account: it starts with Seti as Moses' "father", and then the Pharaoh upon whom the plagues are heaped is Ramesses II, who is also Moses' "brother" in that retelling. There's two more Pharaohs I've named.
Of course, neither of them would work historically; they lived some 300 years
after Moses would have been there, and Ramesses II died at the age of 90 of natural causes.
How about we take a look at the Pharaohs from the rough time period that Moses is traditionally thought to have lived?
According to Wikipedia, the traditional date of Exodus's start is 1496 BCE. That puts Moses' birth as being during the reign of Thutmose I. That means it would have been him to supposedly make the decree to kill all male infants of the Hebrews, and since he died in 1493, he would not have lived to see the plagues. Since his Wikipedia page makes no mention of such a horrible decree (and considering the vast power and popularity of Christianity, that would have been thoroughly investigated and reported upon if he did), I can safely assume he did
not issue that decree.
His son, Thutmose II, succeeded him and ruled until 1479. Did he get to see the plagues? According to
his Wikipedia page, he's "one of the more popular candidates for the Pharaoh of the Exodus." Despite Egypt's reputation, just reading through this article, it turns out there's comparatively very little remaining about his time as Pharaoh. He also died with no son, and was succeeded by his widow, the famous Hatshepsut.
On the other hand, despite what little there
is, there's one crucial element that basically debunks the whole possibility, according to your argument. You say that Pharaoh was drowned? In that case, his body would have been lost forever. But guess what we found? Thutmose II's mummified remains in his tomb, right where it should have been. If the Exodus Pharaoh was supposed to drown in the Red/Reed Sea, that should not be there.
Which just leaves us with Hatshepsut, which is impossible because the Bible clearly calls the Pharaoh by the male pronoun, and Moses would have known that detail.
That leaves us with Thutmose III, who's firstborn son did die first. But, again, we have his mummified body. Plus, he lived a long and glorious reign, expanding the empire further than ever. I find it unlikely that someone so successful would have been so petty as to chase after a mob of escaped slaves.
So, the traditional dating of Exodus seems highly unlikely to the point of King Arthur levels of historical improbability, if we're to assume every detail recorded in the Bible to be literal historical fact. All of this is with very quick and dirty fact-checking on Wikipedia, which, if I were more inclined to dig further, is more than enough information to do just that.
