ExodusFromEgyptProvenByScienceHistoryChannelTonigh t

ColdSteel

ColdSteel

Active Member
History Channel will show a documentary which someone proves by scientific means that the Exodus did acutally take place. The preview was very interesting last week.

It airs tonight at 8:00pm EST

I am probably going to tape it for later viewing. CS
 
Well I watched it instead of taping.

First off it was really interesting and very informative and maybe not or maybe so correct and they actually were trying to prove whether it took place but not in the time line most scholars of today say it happened and if it happened.
I know all I've got to go on is the Bible translated as of today. In one story about parting of the Red Sea they say had been translated wrong. It's not the Red Sea but the Reed Sea. All the scientific information didn't work out with the Red Sea but with the Reed Sea it was correct. All I know is how scholars interpreted in my Bible as of today because I don't have a clue or any knowledge of translation.
Another instance is the water into blood was actually caused by volcanic gases which came up through the water. A lake in today's time period actually done this and they had footage to back it up. The water actually wasn't blood but very red due to a chemical reaction. All the animals would die in the water and frogs would live because they hopped out onto land and invaded Egypt.
About the first born males. In Egypt at that time the firstborn sons were in a special area of the house. Down low near the floor but on a bed. All the other family members slept on the rooftops. Carbon dioxide gas seeped up into the house from the volcanic earthquake cracks and then dissipated in the atmosphere so it only killed the young males. The story was backed up with a story of today's time period in which the gases came up and killed almost a whole village and all the livestock and smaller animals while those who were higher up in the buildings didn't die for the carbon dioxide.
The story of Moses at Mt.Sinai and the place where they say it is today was quite different. The way they drew out the days traveled and distance walked had to be pretty correct and the did find a Mt. there which had a spring on top of it at one time with a very large place for 10's of thousands of Israelites to camp. The other place was nothing but dry rocky mountains with no place for anyone much to camp.
There was so much in this documentary I cannot describe it or remember it all in the way it was told.
If you ever get a chance to watch it I feel like you should. The things I covered here don't mean I believe it happened in the places they say it did but then again this is another mans side of what he thinks is the way it may have happened scientifically.
Interesting for sure.
 
Trying to use Science to prove the Bible is irrelevant. We don't need Science (capital S intentional) to prove our faith. It is faith because it is not proven, yet we still believe it (Faith is the evidence of things unseen!). Does it make a difference one way or another whether God used scientific or miraculous means to accomplish his purpose?

Next, are they going to run a special about how it was a meteor that happened to fall at just that time that destroyed the prophets of Baal in their standoff against Elijah? Maybe how a volcano just happened to erupt underneath Elijah and carry him into the atmosphere in a chariot of fire? How the resultant gust of wind just happened to part the Jordan river at the exact moment Elisha struck it with Elijah's coat? Maybe ball lightning exploded in front of Saul on the road to Damascus, frying his cornea, and three days later the afflicted part of the cornea fell off like a scab at the exact moment Ananias prayed for him?

Maybe if Science can explain everything, then we don't need Faith?

Or maybe, just maybe, miracles can have their place in the minds of scientific-minded believers who have Faith that God can break any natural laws He chooses at any time He chooses to affect the outcome He desires.

I guess I just don't understand this desire of some people to find natural explanations for clearly miraculous events (perhaps the natural means weren't miraculous, but that does not explain the miraculous timing).

By the way, sorry to turn this into an RD topic.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff;173881 said:
Trying to use Science to prove the Bible is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

We don't need science to prove the Bible but it's thought provoking to theorize about HOW God accomplished certain things.

Faith answers WHY. Science answers HOW. They're two different facets of the same topic, and an explanation by one doesn't render the other irrelevant.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff;173881 said:
By the way, sorry to turn this into an RD topic.
Click to expand...

No problem here. My Mrs. wouldn't watch it because it was science trying to prove how it happened. I guess I am a little more open minded than most and things like that I take with a grain of salt but interesting none the less.
 
I didn't watch it (I live in the UK and don't think I get that channel), still from what you have written it sounds like the program was trying to "explain away" what the bible says happened.

For example, the bible says the angel of death passed over the houses and killed the firstborn from the houses without the blood of a lamb on the door lintel. Saying that carbon dioxide gas seeped-up and killed the people is to cast doubt on what God says happened in His Word. Many people watching the program would likely come away with the thought that the bible what the bible states to have happened is not true and so it cannot be trusted. Hence, they conclude, why should we listen to what it has to say? Has science disproved the bible? These kind of programs annoy me (there have been similar on TV here about the miracles of Jesus etc.).

I would prefer to trust in the Word of One who was there when it happened, not on a scientific theory based on speculation that is subject change.

I understand that you watched it with a pinch of salt, but the annoyance is that most will not. My friend is a secondary school teacher and said (this is both funny, but alarming) one of her pupils told her that science has proved the big bang theory correct, because "I saw it on TV". This stuff is not profitable IMO
 
Last edited:
I think communication between Science and Faith almost always breaks down at the point of assumptions. Those in the Faith "camp" assume that those in the Science "camp" are trying to break down and destroy their faith--a sort of "Science evangelism," if you will. Those in the Science camp assume that those in the Faith camp are a bunch of judgmental, religious zealots who want nothing other than to make all people homogenous.

Both assumptions are rarely accurate. There are a great number of Christians who examine science, accept many of its findings, and still hold on to a strong faith.

I think when people say, "Oh, he or she is just a Bible thumper," or, "He or she is just trying to destroy the church and Western civilization with their science talk," communication breaks down, conflict erupts, and nothing constructive comes of the yelling back and forth.

Though not directly pertaining to interpersonal relationships, Isaiah 1:18 gives us an image of the Lord asking us to sit down, connect with Him, and search for answers. It's not an image of a judgmental person throwing a Bible at someone. It's not an image of a scientist looking down his or her nose at the estimated 95% of the world's population who believe in a god of some kind. It's an invitation to come together, cast aside our baggage, and explore the truth.
 
Tek7 said:
I think communication between Science and Faith almost always breaks down at the point of assumptions. Those in the Faith "camp" assume that those in the Science "camp" are trying to break down and destroy their faith--a sort of "Science evangelism," if you will. Those in the Science camp assume that those in the Faith camp are a bunch of judgmental, religious zealots who want nothing other than to make all people homogenous.

Both assumptions are rarely accurate. There are a great number of Christians who examine science, accept many of its findings, and still hold on to a strong faith.

I think when people say, "Oh, he or she is just a Bible thumper," or, "He or she is just trying to destroy the church and Western civilization with their science talk," communication breaks down, conflict erupts, and nothing constructive comes of the yelling back and forth.

Though not directly pertaining to interpersonal relationships, Isaiah 1:18 gives us an image of the Lord asking us to sit down, connect with Him, and search for answers. It's not an image of a judgmental person throwing a Bible at someone. It's not an image of a scientist looking down his or her nose at the estimated 95% of the world's population who believe in a god of some kind. It's an invitation to come together, cast aside our baggage, and explore the truth.
Click to expand...

I guess that what upset me is that when someone tries to put a scientific explanation to a Biblical event that was orchestrated by God, it almost invariably brings up the possibility that the event happened to be a giant coincidence, and not part of a Master's plan. I have no problem with scientific explanations within the context of the Bible-- I think it's interesting as well finding out exactly what processes were at work. HOWEVER, when the Bible says that a supernatural occurrence (such as the angel of death) is the cause of an event, any scientific explanation will fail because science explains the natural, not the supernatural.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff;174275 said:
I guess that what upset me is that when someone tries to put a scientific explanation to a Biblical event that was orchestrated by God, it almost invariably brings up the possibility that the event happened to be a giant coincidence, and not part of a Master's plan. I have no problem with scientific explanations within the context of the Bible-- I think it's interesting as well finding out exactly what processes were at work. HOWEVER, when the Bible says that a supernatural occurrence (such as the angel of death) is the cause of an event, any scientific explanation will fail because science explains the natural, not the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was trying to say - I didn't mean to start a "science versus christianity" argument, simply say that it is very annoying that many scientific theories are presented as fact, causing discredit to the supernatural events described in the bible.
 
I pretty dismiss whatever I see on TV as false. When the bible says the water turned to blood, I believe it. 100%.

However, I'm a fan of systematic theology. I know that science, when doen correctly without bias, supports scripture completely.

And you gotta love the title to this thread. Mad props.
 
Let me propose a question for you: What is super natural to God? To us, we see all sorts of events throughout the Bible that are supernatural. They are supernatural to us because they are nothing we can do on our own or through any type of invention we have created through science.
To God, nothing is supernatural because he created the entire world. It is natural for him because it is not beyond him (which nothing can be beyond God).
How God does what he does, does not matter as much as why he did it. I think this has been established and agreed by all. God could have killed the people of Sodom and Gamorah by simply speaking a word and having them fall down dead. So, why did he choose to rain down burning sulfur? I don't know. I am sure God had a reason for doing it. Might modern scientists try to prove that it was a metor that destroyed the city? Maybe. Does it matter to us how God did this? I'll not venture to know the mind of God, but in my personal opinion, I'd say no. Does it matter if science can or does "prove" (I say this in "" because science is only theories and can actutually "prove" nothing) how it happened by a natural cause? Yes and No.
No. We as Christians know that God did it, just maybe he did it through this natural cause. It does not shake my faith if science "proves" how something happens in the Bible, it strengthens my faith and give me more hope because it verifies for a larger audience that it did happen. However, let me explain the "Yes" answer.
Yes. When a non-Christian (and even some Christians) see these reports, specials, etc. that explain how something in the Bible "really" happened. It will get thier attention. When they just hear one such explanation, it may not affect them much, but if they hear multiple explanations of multiple Biblical events, then they start to wonder..."Hey, all of the first born of Egypt died at the same time. These Christians (Jews at the time) saw this and attributed it as a judgement of God." and "Hey, Sodom was destroyed by a meteor, and the Christians (again, Jews at the time) are attributing this to an act of God." When this thought line progresses, the people seeing these reports begin to think that nothing in the Bible is real, and the writers of the Bible just saw the meaning they wanted to see. That is the negative side to this entire issue of Science specials that prove Biblical Events.
What I would really love to see is a special like this:
1. Scientists find the existance of evidence that the Egyptian Army was destroyed on the bed of the Red Sea. (They have)
2. Historically they show that Egypt shows a great fall around this time. (They lost thier Pharoh and thier entire army. Ouch!)
3. Scientists show 36 1/2 theories we have to prove why this happened.
4. Commentor for the Special shows how each one of the 36 1/2 theories are not possible and the only explaination is that God did it just like it says in the Bible.
5. End TV Special.
6. People who I described above say, well, maybe there is something to this Bible after all; why don't i read it?

By the way. If you like this stuff, I reccommend Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. It explains the existance of Christ, geographically, historically, scientifically, logically, and medically.

Keep the discussion going!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top