Who hardened Pharaoh's heart?

Originally posted by joelek
You (and many others) make the argument that God holds responsibility because he hardened Pharaoh's heart. I could just as easily make the argument that Pharaoh holds responsibility because he hardened his heart.

these arguments echo alot of the very reasons that i severly questioned that god=good=love
as a xian you must accept all that is written in the bible on blindfauth(sorry blindfaith not you) and to me i am an inquisitive type by nature
and alot of what is in the bible the OT especially sounds harsh
not at all like the loving god of the NT
my assessment????god is bi polar....needs meds

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't have to explain it because [b]they don't.

That is, God commands us to obey 'thou shalt
not murder' but breaks the Commandment Himself, but this doesn't cause any turbulance
in your head.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
By explanation, that is to mean, without the historical aspect of the exodous, how does anyone explain the existence of the Jewish race, period? The tradition just morphed on its own accord, without any historical reference or argument on the part of objectivity? Impossible to explain the origin of a tradition that doesn't have some historical element to the same. Even less likely is one that encourages questioning and unflinching examination of truth and source.


I never said that it didn't have some historical element. It's clear that
the Jews were in Egypt. It's clear that they were much maligned and even some
were enslaved. It's clear that they escaped and formed their own nation.

I'm sure they had a leader of some sort. I don't doubt his name was Moses. I
don't doubt that he was charismatic, clever, and a man of vision.

What I doubt is the literal veracity of the Exodus account. Why do I doubt this?
Because from the time it happened to the time it was written down was quite
extensive. And the Jews have a long, long, LONG tradition of interpolatory creative
writing. So, where the shores of the Red Sea might have been severely receded so
that they could cross, but the chariots could not, the story evolved into God's
parting of the sea and slaughtering the Egyptians afterwards. I don't object or even
am bothered by the use of metaphor because, like today, the Jews were angry at the
Egyptians and anthropomorphized their anger unto God.

Murder or killing? Two distinct propositions resulting in the same physical conclusion. Murder can only be done by a creature, as only a creature is capable of the required emotion. Please do not bring anthropomorphisms into the argument.

First of all, what is the 'required emotion?' Second, why can murder only be done
'by a creature?' Third, can lies and theft only be done by creatures, too?

And most importantly, you should review the first three chapters of Genesis, wherein
it is stated that we are made in the likeness of God. And, particularly in chapter 3,
it is clear that immortality is the defining characteristic that makes us different from
God; both God and we have knowledge of good and evil, by His own words.

It would seem that, given the fact that we are made in His image, anthropomorphisms
have a very relative place -- God gets angry, God shows mercy, God blesses this, God
is swayed by that, God talks, God listens...He does a lot of anthro-things. Why is it if
He kills, it isn't murder? What if He says something that isn't true, is it not lying?

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Murder can only be done by a creature, as only a creature is capable of the required emotion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
By explanation, that is to mean, without the historical aspect of the exodous, how does anyone explain the existence of the Jewish race, period? The tradition just morphed on its own accord, without any historical reference or argument on the part of objectivity?
Impossible to explain the origin of a tradition that doesn't have some historical element t ...[text shortened]... re is capable of the required emotion. Please do not bring anthropomorphisms into the argument.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
First off - the Commandment is "Thou Shalt not Kill" - even though the newer bible versions say murder...

Second - The requeired emotion? There are slews of examples of God loving, being angry, being spiteful, being violent, being volitile, being forgiving, being in every other FREAKING emotional state that humans experience.... so God DOES possess the required emotion to murder.

Nemesio: I never said that it didn't have some historical element. It's clear that
the Jews were in Egypt. It's clear that they were much maligned and even some
were enslaved. It's clear that they escaped and formed their own nation.

I'm sure they had a leader of some sort. I don't doubt his name was Moses. I
don't doubt that he was charismatic, clever, and a man of vision.

What I doubt is the literal veracity of the Exodus account. Why do I doubt this?
Because from the time it happened to the time it was written down was quite
extensive. And the Jews have a long, long, LONG tradition of interpolatory creative
writing. So, where the shores of the Red Sea might have been severely receded so
that they could cross, but the chariots could not, the story evolved into God's
parting of the sea and slaughtering the Egyptians afterwards. I don't object or even
am bothered by the use of metaphor because, like today, the Jews were angry at the
Egyptians and anthropomorphized their anger unto God.

For example, this commentary by Chaim Potok:

“We are told there were among them more than six hundred thousand males capable of bearing arms—but that is perhaps a flourish a people permits itself when it remembers a glorious and terrifying moment in its early history. A force that size, even if poorly armed, would have had little to fear from the chariots of Ramses II; and the total, including women, children, and the aged, would have numbered more than two million souls and taken up much of the wilderness through which it wandered.

“How many slaves made that escape? Three thousand? Thirty thousand? We shall probably never know.”

Wanderings: Chaim Potok’s History of the Jews, p. 90.

Now the phrase in Exodus 12:37 is shesh-meot elep ragli: six-hundred thousand ragli. ragli can mean footmen, men on foot, or foot soldiers, hence Potok’s reading that they were men “capable of bearing arms.” In 1 Samuel 15:4, for example, ragli is distinguished (as foot soldiers) from ish, which can mean simply men or “mighty men/champions.” Here it seems to be a distinction between, perhaps, infantry and “knight/warriors.”

Potok also point s out that the Hebrew words yam suf mean “sea of reeds,” and notes that there are several places to which this designation could apply.

Originally posted by Nemesio
First of all, what is the 'required emotion?' Second, why can murder only be done
'by a creature?'
we are made in the likeness of God.
God gets angry, God shows mercy, God blesses this, God
is swayed by that, God talks, God listens...He does a lot of anthro-things.
Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Emotion is one of the distinguising characteristics of murder. Being void of emotion, God is not capable of murder.
Our likeness to God refers to the similarity of mind-body-spirit to the Godhead.
When the Bible speaks of God's supposed display of emotions, it is done in language of accomodation. Being emotional, being French, being number-driven, the language used accomodates the needs of the reader.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Emotion is one of the distinguising characteristics of murder. Being void of emotion, God is not capable of murder.

Originally posted by joelek
First of all, Genesis makes no mention of the exodus story (thus the book, Exodus).

Secondly, your response is very typical on here, just as typical as flawed. You (and many others) make the argument that God holds responsibility because he hardened Pharaoh's heart. I could just as easily make the argument that Pharaoh holds responsibility becaus ...[text shortened]... false conclusions that have been reached on here, somehow blaming God for mankind's wrongdoing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Many murderers display no emotion at all during their crimes.

Originally posted by Nemesio
How do you explain this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is based, of course, on the plethora of murders you have witnessed.

By your own definition, one can have legal justification for killing another person. Does this infer rational thought, and (only in some cases) reactionary thought? In those cases of reactionary thought, only self-preservation is protected. Rash decisions, heat of the moment, et ...[text shortened]... rst intending to do so. What situation(s) would allow one to murder another without an impetus?