I was going to post this in the homosexual heaven thread since the discussion of correct translations was occurring there but I decided to start a new post.
I was listening to a podcast about Ancient Egypt a while back and they were talking about the Moses story (Exodus). This brought back to mind a quote that always confused me. I have looked at various translations and they seem to say the same thing.
The quote is Exodus 4:21
Now, it seems to me that god wants Moses to tell the Pharaoh to let his people go but then god arranges it so that the Pharaoh cannot let them go. Then he proceeds to punish them for not letting his people go. That sounds like a bit of a bastard thing to do.
Is this translation correct or does “I will harden his heart” mean something different from what I interpret it to mean.
[quote=“Gilgamesh”]I was going to post this in the homosexual heaven thread since the discussion of correct translations was occurring there but I decided to start a new post.
I was listening to a podcast about Ancient Egypt a while back and they were talking about the Moses story (Exodus). This brought back to mind a quote that always confused me. I have looked at various translations and they seem to say the same thing.
The quote is Exodus 4:21
Now, it seems to me that god wants Moses to tell the Pharaoh to let his people go but then god arranges it so that the Pharaoh cannot let them go. Then he proceeds to punish them for not letting his people go. That sounds like a bit of a bastard thing to do.
Is this translation correct or does “I will harden his heart” mean something different from what I interpret it to mean.[/quote]
What it means is that God, in His foreknowledge, knows that the actions He is asking Moses to take are going to result in Pharaoh resisting. Pharaoh still has the power to declare Israel free, as in fact he frequently does. But every time the plague which punishes Pharaoh is removed, Pharaoh decides he won’t let Israel go after all. This is his own decision (as Exodus 8:32 says, ‘Pharaoh hardened his heart time also, nor would he let the people go’). After all the plagues have been inflicted on Egypt, Pharaoh still has the choice to let Israel go, and this time he does.
[quote=“Gilgamesh”]I was going to post this in the homosexual heaven thread since the discussion of correct translations was occurring there but I decided to start a new post.
I was listening to a podcast about Ancient Egypt a while back and they were talking about the Moses story (Exodus). This brought back to mind a quote that always confused me. I have looked at various translations and they seem to say the same thing.
The quote is Exodus 4:21
Now, it seems to me that god wants Moses to tell the Pharaoh to let his people go but then god arranges it so that the Pharaoh cannot let them go. Then he proceeds to punish them for not letting his people go. That sounds like a bit of a bastard thing to do.
Is this translation correct or does “I will harden his heart” mean something different from what I interpret it to mean.[/quote]
yes, God means to say, Moses, go tell this man to let the Israelites go, but I’m going to harden is heart against you so that he will not do it.
I know, it seems like God is being mean, but He has His reasons! I don’t pretend to understand the mind of God, mind you. But this is my take on this.
Moses was raised as a brother to this Pharaoh. Had God not interviened, Pharaoh might have freed the slaves into Moses’s hands simply because he was his brother. Expediant? Yes. Functional to the purpose of God? I guess not.
That would have made Moses a kind of leader of his own might, or by the might of Pharaoh. Pharaoh was seen as a god. He could do what he wanted no matter what he wanted. In fact, it was by Pharaoh’s pardon that Moses lived long enough to do all these things in the first place, as he should have been killed for killing the Egyptian slave guard–the reason he fled Egypt in the first place.
Moses’s obediance in going back and facing his death to do this thing God commanded showed his faith in God and his submission to, and reverence to, God as being higher than, or first over, Pharaoh. This, too, would have gotten him killed.
He lived long enough to do these things because Pharaoh was his brother. Hardening Pharaoh’s heart against Moses severed those ties. That was needful. Those Israelites had be subjects for genearations, and were subject to Pharaoh. If Moses was going to be seen as a new leader for them to follow, he could not be Pharaoh’s brother. That would simply have made him a substitute Pharaoh for them to submit to.
It was important for the people, Israelites and Egyptians alike, to see that the powers Moses had came directly from God, not from Pharaoh, and not from himself. Moses had to be seen to be subject to God, as the people he was to lead were also to be subject to God directly, not just through Moses.
I hope this makes sense a little, and hope it helps.
I used to have a lot of problems, actually, with God getting tired of the Israelites moaning about mannah and dumping enough birds on top of them that the horses couldn’t even walk. But we are created in His immage, right? So I guess I can understand getting fed up of hearing that this nutritionally perfect food that I was MIRACULOUSLY providing every single day was not good enough. And I might just decide to make my point by dumping so much bird flesh on you that you could not possibly eat it all, nor could you escape the putrid rotting mess left by what you couldn’t eat–something that never happened with my perfect manna. No. I send you perfect food that simply vanishes if it’s not eaten, and all you can do is moan for the birds that bring it? I’d get pretty ticked, too. Wouldn’t you?
What normally happens is that the editor says to the writer “What the hell is this supposed to mean? It’s gibberish, rewrite it.” I mean, it’s the Bible after all, they should take more care.
[quote=“Gilgamesh”]I was listening to a podcast about Ancient Egypt a while back and they were talking about the Moses story (Exodus). This brought back to mind a quote that always confused me. I have looked at various translations and they seem to say the same thing.
The quote is Exodus 4:21
[/quote]
You mean the exodus myth. The jews were never in Egypt.
All reputable archeologists admit there’s no evidence of it.
[quote=“Sleepyhead”][quote=“Gilgamesh”]I was listening to a podcast about Ancient Egypt a while back and they were talking about the Moses story (Exodus). This brought back to mind a quote that always confused me. I have looked at various translations and they seem to say the same thing.
The quote is Exodus 4:21
[/quote]
You mean the exodus myth. The jews were never in Egypt.[/quote]
You have a habit of making sweeping statements which are either wildly inaccurate generalizations or simply expressions of your personal prejudice, without any attempt to provide substantiation for them, or any reference to relevant academic method. Why?
All reputable archaeologists agree there’s no direct evidence of it. Indirect evidence abounds. This is hardly unique in ANE archaeology. Take the Battle of Kadesh for example. It took place around 1274 BC, and involved 70,000 men (20,000 on the Egyptian side, 50,000 on the Hittite side).
Yet despite knowing when it took place, and the location of the battle, not a scrap of direct archaeological evidence has ever been discovered to verify that it happened, not a single chariot wheel, not a broken sword or spear, not a single skeleton or handful of bones, nor any evidence which might have been expected to have been left by massive troop movements involving tens of thousands of men traveling between Egypt and Syria. It isn’t unreasonable to expect that a two day battle involving around 60,000 men and around 5,000 chariots would leave some physical evidence, especially since we know exactly where it took place and when, and especially since smaller battles have left abundant remains (the famous last stand of the Spartans at Thermopylae is demonstrated by dozens of arrowheads at the place where the Greek records claim they were finally cut down by a shower of enemy arrows).
But for the Battle of Kadesh, the only evidence for the battle is indirect, consisting of an Egyptian record and a Hittite record. The Egyptian record is recognized by historians as a propaganda piece, and the Hittite record consists only of a treaty between the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittites (the Hattusili III treaty), which contains no details of the actual battle. Scholarly assessments of the Egyptian record as scathing:
[quote]‘This romanticized record of the Battle of Qadesh cannot be treated as a truthful account of what happened, and I doubt whether many ancient Egyptians would have accepted it wholly as an historical record.’
TG James, Pharaoh’s People: Scenes from Life in Imperial Egypt, 2007, page 26[/quote]
Archaeologists have been unable to verify independently any of the events recounted in the Egyptian and Hittite records of the Battle of Kadesh. Knowledge of the battle is inferred entirely from the accounts of Hittite and Egyptian records, both of which disagree with each other (each side claiming victory). The Egyptian record is the most lengthy and detailed, but contains factual errors, propaganda, references to supernatural events, and hyperbole. Yet despite this, historians use the Egyptian record as the primary source for the Battle of Kadesh. Why? Because for all its flaws and faults, it is still the most relevant indirect evidence for the event.
The following convergences constitute significant corroboration with the Exodus record, constituting indirect evidence:
Adoption of low born foreigners by high ranking ruling class (as Moses was), ‘is typical enough of the New Kingdom, especially in the Nineteenth (Ramesside) Dynasty of the thirteenth century’ (Kitchen, OROT, page 297), with some of these individuals eventually serving at court as cupbearers, royal heralds, scribes, or even high stewards and generals
Foreign corvee labour starts in the New Kingdom, with Nubians and Asiatics specifically mentioned, brick making is the main task, there is a tiered labour management system and brick tallie, all as recorded in Exodus
However, after the New Kingdom, Levantine corvee labourers are used much less, and not for brick building or cultivation (5th century BC Hebrew fraudsters managed to get the ancient history accidentally correct?)
Work registers record requests for time off to celebrate religious festivals, which are granted, individuals or crews sometimes absent for days at a time, as the Hebrews requested from Pharoah in the Exodus account
Pi-Ramesses was a city of store houses, but was abandoned by the 12th century and its stonework recycled - 5th century Hebrews would know nothing of this city’s history, even modern archaeologists confused it with Tanis due to the stones being reused there||
‘Buying off a deity’s wrath (especially against health) is well enough known in the thirteenth century’ (Kitchen, OROT page 263)
The plagues follow seasonal climactic conditions and dangers of Egypt
Portable dismountable tabernacles made from skins, with frames in socketed bases (such as the Hebrew Tabernacle was), are known in Egypt from the 3rd to the late 2nd millennium, but ‘Mesopotamia proper (Assyria and Babylonia) shows almost no use at all of such divine tents/tabernacles, at any period’ (Kitchen, OROT pages 276-277). He notes ‘only a four-pillared canopy’ from the late 13th century in Ashtur
A sacred ark (accompanied by cherubs), which is an implied throne but empty of any symbol of the deity is found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, and the temple of Hatshepsut shows scenes of a similar ‘throne’
Metal ritual trumpets are characteristic of the New Kingdom religious practices, used (as with the Hebrews), to assemble people, summon the army to war or announce cultic rituals, just as they are in the Law of Moses
The formulaic narrative account of shrine building in the Law of Moses has late 3rd millennium analogues, but not later
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
What it means is that God, in His foreknowledge, knows that the actions He is asking Moses to take are going to result in Pharaoh resisting. Pharaoh still has the power to declare Israel free, as in fact he frequently does. But every time the plague which punishes Pharaoh is removed, Pharaoh decides he won’t let Israel go after all. This is his own decision (as Exodus 8:32 says, ‘Pharaoh hardened his heart time also, nor would he let the people go’). After all the plagues have been inflicted on Egypt, Pharaoh still has the choice to let Israel go, and this time he does.[/quote]
The trouble I have with this explanation is that the quote doesn’t say that “I know Pharaoh will harden his heart”, it says “I will harden his heart”. If this translation is correct then to me that means god hardened Pharaoh’s heart on purpose
so that he could mess with the Egyptians.
I don’t like the “God moves in mysterious ways” argument. There are a lot of things that I don’t understand but that doesn’t make them right.
[quote=“Sleepyhead”][quote=“Gilgamesh”]I was listening to a podcast about Ancient Egypt a while back and they were talking about the Moses story (Exodus). This brought back to mind a quote that always confused me. I have looked at various translations and they seem to say the same thing.
The quote is Exodus 4:21
[/quote]
You mean the exodus myth. The jews were never in Egypt.
All reputable archeologists admit there’s no evidence of it.[/quote]
I think there were some Jews in Egypt but probably not as many as the Bible claims. In regards to the Exodus story, in the podcast, the speaker concluded that there was a lot on internal consistency with the story and that if it didn’t really happen then it had to have been written by someone with a lot of knowledge about Ancient Egypt. He didn’t look at archaeological evidence (if I remember correctly) he just looked at the story to see if it matched what is known about Ancient Egypt and a lot of it did.
Why nitpick? Do you listen to your parents? Are they always 100% correct? Just because your momma lied about how much pumpkin pie she ate on Thanksgiving, are you going to discount everything she says? She said sit up straight. Don’t pick your nose. Thou shalt not put thy elbows upon my table when you eat or whosoever shall not get dessert.
[quote=“Gilgamesh”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
What it means is that God, in His foreknowledge, knows that the actions He is asking Moses to take are going to result in Pharaoh resisting. Pharaoh still has the power to declare Israel free, as in fact he frequently does. But every time the plague which punishes Pharaoh is removed, Pharaoh decides he won’t let Israel go after all. This is his own decision (as Exodus 8:32 says, ‘Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, nor would he let the people go’). After all the plagues have been inflicted on Egypt, Pharaoh still has the choice to let Israel go, and this time he does.[/quote]
The trouble I have with this explanation is that the quote doesn’t say that “I know Pharaoh will harden his heart”, it says “I will harden his heart”.[/quote]
I’m agreeing that God would harden Pharoah’s heart. The question is how? I have demonstrated (using a verse which said ‘Pharoah hardened his heart this time also’), that the method God used to harden Pharaoh’s heart did not involve overriding his free will. Pharaoh was ultimately responsible for his own action.
That’s how it’s traditionally read by Calvinists (and other Predestinationist theologians), but that’s not what it actually says.
I agree with you.
It’s actually difficult to determine precisely how many the Bible claims were in Egypt. The textual tradition is divergent, with the oldest extant evidence recording a most number of around 20,000 leaving Egypt, not 600,000 or more.
This is true. I’ve listed some of the convergences above. Even the archaeologist William Dever (a secular humanist), who believes that much of the Bible constitutes myth or heavily edited historical traditions, believes that there is sufficient evidence for some kind of Hebrew community having endured corvee labour in Egypt and left later to establish a new covenant community.
Does Santa Claus really go down chimneys? I’ve read this in a lot of books, but it seems a little implausible. Surely his white hair and beard would be permanently black from all the soot?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
I’m agreeing that God would harden Pharoah’s heart. The question is how? I have demonstrated (using a verse which said ‘Pharoah hardened his heart this time also’), that the method God used to harden Pharaoh’s heart did not involve overriding his free will. Pharaoh was ultimately responsible for his own action.[/quote]
Sorry, I don’t quite understand what you are saying here. You agree that god hardened Pharaoh’s heart but he did it in a way that made the Pharaoh responsible. If god made me do something, how am I responsible? Could the Pharaoh have gone against god’s power and let the Jews go even though god stated he would harden Pharaoh’s heart so he wouldn’t let them go?
[quote=“Gilgamesh”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
I’m agreeing that God would harden Pharoah’s heart. The question is how? I have demonstrated (using a verse which said ‘Pharoah hardened his heart this time also’), that the method God used to harden Pharaoh’s heart did not involve overriding his free will. Pharaoh was ultimately responsible for his own action.[/quote]
Sorry, I don’t quite understand what you are saying here. You agree that god hardened Pharaoh’s heart but he did it in a way that made the Pharaoh responsible. If god made me do something, how am I responsible?[/quote]
I said that the method God used to harden Pharaoh’s heart did not involve overriding his free will. I demonstrated that by a verse which said ‘Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also’ (Exodus 8:32, see also Exodus 7:22;8:15, 19; 9:7, 35), indicating that whatever method God was using to harden Pharaoh’s heart, it did not override Pharaoh’s free will. Pharaoh was still responsible for his own decision. Pharaoh is described as ultimately responsible for his own heart being hardened.
In my previous post I explained the mechanism by which God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God undertook actions which He knew would result in Pharaoh changing his mind. But God was not the only one to undertake actions which hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Here are some examples:
Exodus 7:22, ‘And the magicians of Egypt did the same with their magic: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, nor did he listen to them; as the LORD had said’ (Pharaoh hardens his heart when he sees his magicians do the same as God had commanded Moses and Aaron)
Exodus 8:15, ‘But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart, and did not listen to them; as the LORD had said’ (Pharaoh hardens his heart when the plague is lifted)
Exodus 8:19, ‘Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them; as the LORD had said’ (Pharaoh hardens his heart as a result of what the magicians said)
Exodus 8:32, ‘And Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, nor would he let the people go’ (Pharaoh hardens his heart when the plague is lifted)
Exodus 9:7, ‘And Pharaoh discovered not one of the Israelites’ cattle had died. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go’ (Pharaoh hardens his heart as a result of seeing the Israelites escape the plague)
In every case Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by a circumstance extrinsic to Pharaoh.
God never said that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he would never let them go. On the contrary, God assured Moses that Pharaoh eventually would let them go. Which he did.
A number of your quotes could be interpreted in a different way given the previous quote where god states that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart. The quotes “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” could mean that god hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
Remember, god did not say I will arrange things so that Pharaoh will harden his heart he stated “I will harden his heart” which seems to mean that god will take direct action to cause Pharaoh to harden his heart.
Even if god only set the preconditions for Pharaoh to harden his heart, if the only possible result of these actions is that Pharaoh’s heart is hardened then how does the Pharaoh still have free will. Do you believe that the Pharaoh had the ability to ignore what god wanted?
That God hardened Pharaoh’s heart is not under dispute. The question is how God did so. I’ve already demonstrated that the record plainly says on more than one occasion that Pharaoh was the one hardening his own heart, in response either to God’s actions, or the actions of Moses and Aaron, or the actions of his own courtiers.
Yes, I remember. Since the phrase ‘I will harden his heart’ tells us nothing about the means by which this was to be carried out, we must look to the broader context in order to determine how it took place. When we do so, we find that the method used was to create situations in which Pharaoh would predictably change his own mind. This typically took place when God performed the miracle of removing a plague. Not once is any miraculous direct action on Pharaoh’s heart ever described, though all the other miracles are identified specifically.
It wasn’t. The record is clear that Pharaoh changed his mind plenty of times.
Absolutely. And so he did. God wanted him to let the Hebrews go. He kept refusing to do so.
Actually, nothing there at all proves that God did or didn’t harden the Pharaoah’s heart. All that we know is that some people wrote that the Pharoah’s heart was hardened by God. There is a big difference.
That God hardened Pharaoh’s heart is not under dispute. The question is how God did so. I’ve already demonstrated that the record plainly says on more than one occasion that Pharaoh was the one hardening his own heart, in response either to God’s actions, or the actions of Moses and Aaron, or the actions of his own courtiers.[/quote]
You seem to be saying two different things here. You state that it is not disputed that god hardened the Pharaoh’s heart but then state that the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Are you claiming that sometimes god did it and other times the Pharaoh did it?
The record only plainly says that the Pharaoh hardened his heart twice in the quotes that you provided. The other ones only stated that “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” which could be interpreted to mean that god did it, particularly given the previous passage where god quite clearly states that he will harden the Pharaoh’s heart. These quotes do not support your argument.
Absolutely. And so he did. God wanted him to let the Hebrews go. He kept refusing to do so.[/quote]
I think you are wrong here. The Pharaoh is doing exactly what god wanted. Sure, god eventually wanted the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go but not right away. He wanted to be able to punish them first.
God is quite clearly stating that he will harden the Pharaoh’s heart so that he will not let the people go. I am not claiming that he never wanted them to go, just not right away because he wanted to mess with the Egyptians a bit.
I am saying that there is no contradiction between the two. Referring to God’s involvement in actions which caused Pharaoh to harden his heart, the record says ‘God hardened Pharaoh’s heart’, but the record is clear that Pharaoh was ultimately responsible for doing so. You are actually using the same argument when you interpret the record of Pharaoh’s heart being hardened in response to the actions of his courtiers, as God hardening Pharaoh’s heart.
I think you need to read the quotes again, in context. One of the quotes I provided says that ‘Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also’, indicating that this was not the only time that he had hardened his heart. The other passages directly connect the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart with the actions of his courtiers, or the words of Moses and Aaron. That’s why they support my argument.
It is tenuous to suggest that ‘And the magicians of Egypt did the same with their magic: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened’ (Exodus 7:22), is not saying that the actions of the magicians caused Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened. Likewise, '‘Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened’ (Exodus 8:19), indicates implicitly that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by the words of his magicians, but doesn’t even implicitly attribute this to God. If you came across a sentence which said ‘Dragonbones objected to Bigtone’s mischaracterization of Christianity, and Bigtone was angry’, do you believe you would have grounds for interpreting this as intending to convey ‘Dragonbones objected to Bigtone’s mischaracterization of Christianity, and Bigtone was made angry by Namahottie’?
This doesn’t contradict what I’m arguing, since it doesn’t demonstrate that Pharaoh was unable to do anything other than what God wanted. I agree that God planned to have Pharaoh release the Hebrews later rather than earlier, but the fact that Pharaoh was able to harden his own heart and was able to say ‘Yes I’ll let them go’ and ‘No I won’t let them go’ demonstrates that he still had a choice.
If God had really wanted to simply mess with Pharaoh’s mind directly, as you’re suggesting, there would have been no need for the plagues at all. But it’s clear that the plagues were instrumental in hardening Pharaoh’s heart, not simply the means by which Egypt was punished. It was the action of God (ending each plague act Pharaoh’s request), which caused Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened. God was therefore the indirect agent of Pharaoh’s heart being hardened, not the direct agent.
Okay, I think I understand your point. I didn’t think about Pharaoh’s heart being hardened because of the ending of the plague. I’ll give it some more thought and maybe read exodus a bit more carefully.