Figurative and you know that how?Hidingfromyou wrote:
"Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible . Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."
If you're a believer, you're free to ignore language differences, cultural meaning and historical times.
That drinking from the river doesn't quench thirst - i.e., there was no respite from the drought and hunger. That's apparently what it meant in Ancient Egyptian. It was figurative.
For the Temple of Solomon?Uh...the date is known - why do you need to lie?
They revolted. They left. Things do not survive history.Where did it say "all the Jewish slaves are leaving"? You think they'd notice a glaring detail such as that.
Inference. Neither Amenhotep ii or Thutmose 1V were firstborn sons.Or "all our firstborn children are dead. That sucks."
That is what the account says and is given the benefit of the doubt. Again, all the ancients regarded it as valid history. You, on the other hand say it is all myth based on your atheism. To question your philosophy of science is to somehow question Science itself. To be guilty of anti-science. When it is your atheistic assumptions which is in question and subsequently your interpretation of history. That is not exactly the same as being anti-science.Or "wow. Our army just got wiped out when it thought, without much discussion, to chase the Israelites through an ocean that seemed to just part for them. In hindsight, that was a bad idea."
No, Lightbeam, you're the one reaching here - doing anything at all to support your religion. But that's exactly what we expect - no critical thinking, no self-reflexive thinking (and yes, I mean "reflexive" and not reflective. Look it up).