Do you believe Moses parted the Red Sea?

[metis]

Why do you think Moses never made it to the promised land? He schlepped through the desert for 40 years, saw it in the distance then dropped dead. The message may be that even Moses wasn't perfect. He wasn't worthy to enter the promise land. But he came very very close.

His passport had expired.

 

[Demonslayer]

I doubt any two people on this site agree on everything.

I strongly disagree with this.

 

[First Baseman]

I strongly disagree with this.

 

[rosends]

Why do you think Moses never made it to the promised land? He schlepped through the desert for 40 years, saw it in the distance then dropped dead. The message may be that even Moses wasn't perfect. He wasn't worthy to enter the promise land. But he came very very close.

traditionally, that consequence is tied to Mo's hitting the rock and not speaking to it. The killing of the Egyptian was done to stop the Egyptian from killing the slave.

 

[El Conquistador]

traditionally, that consequence is tied to Mo's hitting the rock and not speaking to it. The killing of the Egyptian was done to stop the Egyptian from killing the slave.

Killing? That's assuming a lot. I thought I saw that the Egyptian was smiting a Hebrew. Unless back then, smiting and killing meant the same thing. It certainly does not now.

 

[Jedster]

Of course you do. I doubt any two people on this site agree on everything.

I strongly disagree with this.

Clearly, you are both right!

 

[Demonslayer]

Clearly, you are both right!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Or disagree to agree, either way. Do you agree?

 

[First Baseman]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Or disagree to agree, either way. Do you agree?

No.

That would make life too easy.

 

[First Baseman]

Clearly, you are both right!

Okay......

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***​

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

 

[Jedster]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Or disagree to agree, either way. Do you agree?

hmm.... skip to 2:30

 

[rosends]

Killing? That's assuming a lot. I thought I saw that the Egyptian was smiting a Hebrew. Unless back then, smiting and killing meant the same thing. It certainly does not now.

No, the words are distinctly different, but the same word is used for what the Egyptian did (makeh) and what Mo did (vayach). Same root. The accusation of killing comes from others later on and traditionally, this teaches that it wasn't the hitting at all which killed the man -- it happened separately via different means. The word used for the accusation is also not "murder" but a word which indicates a judicial process ("are you going to judge us and execute us the way you executed the Egyptian" is what was asked) and then later the Pharaoh wants to execute, same root, Moses specifically for the crime of having killed the overseer, again as a judicial execution, at least in his mind.

 

[roger1440]

His passport had expired.

In a way, yeah. His credentials were not in order.

 

[roger1440]

Moses comes across an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave. Moses then gets caught up in the moment, loses his temper, sets himself up as judge, jury and executioner and kills the Egyptian. But before he kills the guy Moses looks around too make sure no one sees him. Moses then realizes he was wrong. He pretty much says to himself. “Holy crap what did I just do. I just killed this poor sap. I have to hide the evidence.” The following day he sees two Jews fighting. He asks the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Jew?” The Jew then replies with, “Who died and made you boss? Are you gonna kill me too bigshot? Moses then realizes his secret is out. In fear for his life he leaves town. Moses never shows any regret or remorse for killing that poor sap. He was only interested in saving his own skin.

 

[El Conquistador]

Moses comes across an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave. Moses then gets caught up in the moment, loses his temper, sets himself up as judge, jury and executioner and kills the Egyptian. But before he kills the guy Moses looks around too make sure no one sees him. Moses then realizes he was wrong. He pretty much says to himself. “Holy crap what did I just do. I just killed this poor sap. I have to hide the evidence.” The following day he sees two Jews fighting. He asks the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Jew?” The Jew then replies with, “Who died and made you boss? Are you gonna kill me too bigshot? Moses then realizes his secret is out. In fear for his life he leaves town. Moses never shows any regret or remorse for killing that poor sap. He was only interested in saving his own skin.

That sure does make for a more interesting read.

 

[First Baseman]

Moses comes across an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave. Moses then gets caught up in the moment, loses his temper, sets himself up as judge, jury and executioner and kills the Egyptian. But before he kills the guy Moses looks around too make sure no one sees him. Moses then realizes he was wrong. He pretty much says to himself. “Holy crap what did I just do. I just killed this poor sap. I have to hide the evidence.” The following day he sees two Jews fighting. He asks the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Jew?” The Jew then replies with, “Who died and made you boss? Are you gonna kill me too bigshot? Moses then realizes his secret is out. In fear for his life he leaves town. Moses never shows any regret or remorse for killing that poor sap. He was only interested in saving his own skin.

So what's your point?

 

[Shad]

ohoooo....so all the Jews are living a lie!

No, just believing in an interpretation as if it was history.

whatever will you do with it?

Keep educating people regarding a field few show interest in.

 

[Shad]

Then let me ask you this: why do we say warmth instead of thermal radiation?

Since it is a sensation experience and common language rather than technical

If they are literally the exact same thing with no pragmatic differences in everyday communication, what's the point of such redundancy?

Everyday communication is more often than not non-technical in order for all participants to take part without requiring a technical understanding provided by training, experiences, etc. The redundancy in language, in part but not all, is due to this gap between expert and layman.

My experience is irrelevant to those mechanics. Is that really so hard to understand?

Your experience is relevant since you are identifying the sun as the source of said "warmth" to you rather than another source say a geothermal vent. This source of warmth must include the mechanic that generate what you feel. Otherwise you can not identify the source of said warmth with justification.

 

[Thief]

No, just believing in an interpretation as if it was history.



Keep educating people regarding a field few show interest in.

and what shall they learn from you?
I don't lean on history books to teach me of God
and I don't rely on scripture either.....however....
there are far too many willing to nod their heads
and I have some expectation of meeting Moses

 

[Riverwolf]

Since it is a sensation experience and common language rather than technical

Everyday communication is more often than not non-technical in order for all participants to take part without requiring a technical understanding provided by training, experiences, etc. The redundancy in language, in part but not all, is due to this gap between expert and layman.

Wrong.

The technical (or more properly, Greek and Latin) terms do not contain the necessary associations that we culturally have with the "common" (again more properly, English) ones.

That is to say, "thermal radiation" doesn't conjure feelings of winter covers, hugs from kith and kin, and other things we might describe as "intimate."

This is how Modern English distinguishes contexts and classes. Common, intimate things are described with words that generally come from Old English. Sophisticated, "high-class" things are described with French loanwords. (Consider this example: what different images are conjured by these two phrases which technically mean the same thing: "a hearty welcome"/"a cordial reception.") Meanwhile, scientific matters are described with Greek and Latin terms, probably because those languages are associated in our culture with the "people from the great past who are superior in intellect and achievement to us dirty English-speaking peasants."

Your experience is relevant since you are identifying the sun as the source of said "warmth" to you rather than another source say a geothermal vent. This source of warmth must include the mechanic that generate what you feel. Otherwise you can not identify the source of said warmth with justification.

Why is "justification" needed for an experience, something which is inherently subjective? Sun provides warmth regardless of whether she's a ball of plasma or a giant firebird, and she's always provided the same warmth regardless of what peoples in the past thought she was. You may notice that I'm using the "she" pronoun to refer to her, which is mostly from tradition: Sun is no more "female" than "male", which is how the Romance languages gender her. Yet it's not just tradition; "it" simply does not sufficiently convey my experience of Sun, despite technically being "correct" in Modern English.

Do you understand what I mean when I say "experience"?