How much is too much evolution?

But see the Egyptians *do* record captivities  and enslavements pretty throughout their entire 3,000 year history.  There are records of enslavements of numerous, various groups of people, but 'Israelites/Hebrews' were not a thing at that time (i.e., not a consolidated nation) so they wouldn't have been referred to by those designations.  But there are clear records of enslavements of Semitic peoples in Egypt.  The question is whether or not these include references to people groups that later became known as the Israelites/Hebrews.  Some scholars think references to the Hyskos are references to the early Hebrews.  Other scholars dispute this.  We also have clear evidence of the brick-making type of work that slaves did that corresponds to the description in Exodus.  Also the environment of the Nile River Delta is not conducive to papyri preservation like the more arid regions of the upper Nile so we know for a fact that we are missing countless records.  Even so there are still intriguing fragments that seem curiously similar to accounts of plagues described in Exodus but from an Egpytian perspective.  But as you've correctly noted everything is contentious and circumstantial.  For every piece of supporting evidence cited by a scholar, we find another scholar disputing it.  I agree with you that there is no smoking gun, but given the circumstantial evidence that does exist, claiming that Exodus is pure fiction through and through goes too far (and indeed is a minority position among scholars).

Were-hebrews-ever-slaves-in-ancient-egypt-yes!

Glad to see you made it Gen ch 1 v 2! I have a question for you and a different translation of the word 'moved.'

And the Spirit ( capital S ) of Eliohim 'moved ' upon the waters.

In the original Hebrew, the word 'moved' is the Hebrew word 'rachaph' ( raw-keff ) and means to 'vibrate ; shake; flutter; indicating the Holy Spirit was doing something at the time of creation. Can this translation differ your #259 comment? But i really want to ask is there any way we can know what this type of movement was accomplishing at the time?

A former member here at C.C. who claimed to be fluent in the Hebrew language said the context of the original writing indicated the Holy Spirit is still (  even to this day !?? ) vibrating, shaking and fluttering...............

So let's not fall into the error of representing the Biblical 'Exodus' as an established matter of fact because it's some way from being that!

Not really, because there are very few 'established facts' about anything in ancient history.  MOST 'established facts' of ancient history are based on SINGLE source records unbacked by archaeology!  The Exodus is still a source--a source with it's own bias like everything else, but a source nonetheless.  As nice as it would be to have multiple attestation for every 'established fact' of antiquity that is not the reality.  Multiple attestation is a nice perk when it occurs.  And to require that everything in the Bible be independently attested to or if the Bible conflicts with an independent source to accept the independent source over the Bible as a matter of course reflects a biased, skewed approach itself.

In the end, 'established facts' are matters of probability, and on balance the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convince the majority of scholars that it is more probable that the Exodus is based on a real captivity of a Semitic group that later became identified with Israel--even if there is skepticism over much of Exodus and no independent confirmation of details in the account---than that it is wholesale fiction or fable.

I'll have to get back to you on that.  But just as an initial comment the Hebrew ruah translated 'spirit' is also the same word for 'wind' in Hebrew and it is sometimes translated that way.   So there is uncertainty on whether 'ruah' in Genesis 1:2 should be translated as 'spirit' or 'wind', and there are fine biblical scholars who believe 'wind' is how it should be translated and they give compelling reasons for why this should be so.  But there are also good arguments on the other side, so I'm not sure if it should be translated 'spirit' or 'wind'.

I've only read the 'wind ' translation in one bible, a Catholic bible my younger brother has.

'Ruah' or 'Ruach' ( as i understand it to be ) i'm thinking has about 4 - 5 different possible translations.

Please disregard my question on your #259. Got a little ahead of myself

P.S. Strong's # 7363

I get the impression you think a plain reading of the text isn't good enough, something needs to be changed due to culture. So what text isn't accurate in light of culture as it's plainly read?

A 'plain reading of the text' is an illusion and impossible.  'A plain reading of the text' simply means we're reading Genesis through the lens of our own culture/world view and not a different one.

I have to assume God is well aware of our culture/world views and has made truth available if it isn't, what hope is there? You do believe the Holy Spirit gives insight to God's Word do you not?

So you have a clear understanding of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, do ya?  All by yourself?  No need for Bible study helps/resources?

Of course, I use resources, but at the same time, you don't think God plays an active role in this?

God plays an active role in everything 

Yes, and you think culture and worldviews something the Holy Spirit cannot dispel to get God's point across? Who are we supposed to lean on for teaching? 

Why would God want to dispel human culture, when it's clear He uses it as vehicle to communicate truth to us, whether it be with the setting of Genesis in its Ancient Near East context or Jesus' frequent use of agricultural themes in his parables that a predominantly agrarian society could relate to.   If Jesus were teaching in America today, he would no doubt use parable themes drawn from our own culture/society.   But just because it's understood by the recipient culture/audience, doesn't mean it will be understood by subsequent ones without help.

The gospel message "For God so loved..." is easy enough to understand, but that doesn't mean that every part of the Bible is equally easy to understand.  There are SO MANY obscure cultural references throughout the Old Testament that are very difficult to understand and that people get confused about all the time.  There is nothing wrong with seeking out help from Bible study aids, resources, and learned men and women that God has gifted as teachers.  One almost has to in order to understand a lot of things in the Old Testament (like Leviticus!).

Importantly, seeking out help from Bible study aids or those more learned than us does NOT mean we don't rely on the Holy Spirit too.  We do both!  (When you consult Bible resources to understand Leviticus does that mean you can't rely on the Holy Spirit too?  Of course not). 

The different parts of the Body have different gifts including gifted teachers who also rely on the Holy Spirit (Isn't 'teaching' one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit?).  

We can learn a lot by relying on both the Holy Spirit AND learned teachers gifted by the Holy Spirit....Such as learning that the verse you quote above (John 14:26)--when understood in its proper context--is NOT saying that the Holy Spirit will teach you everything about the Bible so that you accurately understand it!  It's Jesus telling his disciples that after he departs he will send the Holy Spirit who will not only enable his disciples to recall Jesus' teachings, but also understand their significance, and thereby *teach* the disciples to grasp the revelation of God brought by Jesus in its richness and profundity. 

Without such 'helps' how would we know the Exodus plagues are attacks on specific Egyptian gods/goddesses?  How would we know that 'God hardening pharaoh's heart' is NOT God taking away pharaoh's freewill, but that the Hebrew word carries the connotation of 'to make heavy' and is thus more likely Yahweh's pronouncement of judgment on pharaoh for pharaoh's own hardening of his heart---a picture that Egyptians would understand as an allusion to the weighing of pharaoh's heart against a feather by Annubis from the Book of the Dead: pharaoh's heart has been weighed by God and found heavy (sinful)--it does not pass the test.

If we need additional helps when reading Genesis in order to understand betrothal customs and hospitality customs and why Rachel wants the mandrakes Reuben found for Leah and why Jacob put striped branches before his breeding sheep to get speckled flocks and why Jacob wrestles with God, etc., etc., etc., then why should it surprise us if we also need help to understand other parts of Genesis, too, like Genesis 1?

Do you think a plain reading of scripture can lead one astray? I'm trying to get what you find in error by reading the first chapter of Genesis. What is wrong with that text? If anything can be thought of as an error if we just read it, if nothing, then is there a conflict with man's understanding of the universe and the Word? When that happens, who, more often than not is, is an error?

I explained this at length already.   It's not that a plain, straightforward reading leads you astray, it's that it's not possible to do in the first place.  I keep telling you there is no such thing as a 'plain' or 'straightforward, unencumbered reading of the text' where we 'just read and believe' without being influenced or receiving outside help to understand. When we read a translation of the Bible we're already reading someone else's interpretation of what they think the text says and means.

There is NO such thing as a 'plain, straightforward, unencumbered reading'.   Now *what I mean by that* is that NO ONE reads the Bible with an empty head devoid of any pre-conceived ideas.  EVERYONE reads and interprets the Bible in the context of a world view perception THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.

For example, when I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet.  Now someone might think that's a plain, straightforward, unencumbered reading of the text.  But it's not.  The reality is that I have read my own cultural understanding about planet earth into the text.

If someone lived in a culture/society that taught a flat earth or Ptolemy's geocentric view or Aristotle's crystalline sphere view of the universe, then they would read the Bible through that lens and world view understanding.

Once again, this is why it's essential that the Bible be read through the lens and world view of the time and culture in which it was written. 

You keep asking why we can't 'just read it'.  I keep telling you that no one 'just reads it'.

But isn't this hugely disingenuous? People generally have in the past (and some still do) read the Bible with little understanding of it's historical or culteral context, largely because they've been persuaded that the book contains all manner of 'truths' that exist beyond both history and culture. In that sense what the Bible tells them is beyond time and human interference.

This is simply what many ordinary people do. Historians, theologians and other interested scholars may understand that the text should be heavily interpreted but I'm not sure the average reader does.

Disingenuous implies that there is some form of underhanded deceit at work.  Who do you think is doing that?

Perhaps you're mistaking my meaning.  I'm pretty sure you understand my overall point.  No one 'just reads' something.  We read and interpret through a cultural lens and interpret within a framework of cultural understanding.  This isn't just true of the Bible.  This is true with ANYTHING that we read.  You know that.

But what exactly do you mean when you assert "..no one 'just reads it' [the Bible]"?

Of course they do - all kinds of people pick up their Bibles, read them and believe the plain text states all manner of facts. This has always been the case and still is today, especially so for Bible literalists, so I don't understand what you're trying to persuade us to believe.

Perhaps those who read the Bible should be warned about the dangers of doing that but for the most part that doesn't seem to happen. I come back to my point that if the publishers of Bibles thought it necessary to offer guidance on how the text should be read, they'd provide an introduction to do this, or at the very least provide cautionary footnotes.

With the exception of the copies you referred to once before, I've never seen this done.

Surely you understand what I'm saying.  I've seen you and @MindWalk make similar statements.  Of course people pick up the Bible and read it.  But they don't 'just read it'.  They interpret it--and EVERYTHING they read--within an interpretive framework WHETHER THEY REALIZE IT OR NOT.

Perhaps you and @TruthMuse are referring to the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity.  That's a little bit different from what I'm referring to (*how culture affects our reading).  The doctrine of perspicuity or 'clarity of scripture' doctrine is ironically NOT something clearly taught in scripture, but *assumed* of scripture.  The 'clarity doctrine' is also UN-clear to a lot of people.

The doctrine derives from Martin Luther's teaching that you don't need the ecclesiastical papacy of the Roman Catholic Church to understand scripture, *particularly the gospel message*.  It's mainly a reaction against any form of elitism that claims to have controlling power over the truth.  But people have misunderstood Luther's statement to mean each and every verse of the Bible may be understood with plain reason.  But that is not what the doctrine of perspicuity actually means.  That is what it has erroneously come to mean in SOME Protestant branches (*It is incorrect to say this has ALWAYS been the case.  That is false.  More often than not it has NOT been the case and is only a relatively more recent phenomenon that has developed as literacy rates have increased.  Reading, afterall, used to be largely restricted to the aristocratic 'elite').  Even the Westminster Confession of Faith says "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all" and cites 2 Peter 3:16, which says:

"16 He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

And even among those who have an erroneous understanding of the doctrine of perspicuity, even these people will read the Bible and get stuck on a particular passage they don't understand and then go seek out help from a Bible study aid, or Bible commentary or pastor, etc.

If this is what you are referring to, then yes, absolutely, we are in agreement.  A lot of Protestants have this unfounded belief that EVERYTHING in the Bible is clear (even though the Bible never makes this claim, and even though they know from THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE that not everything in the Bible is clear).

The basics of the gospel message are clear enough for a child to understand.  You don't need any specialized training or education to understand the gospel.  But it's a little absurd to think that applies to everything in the Bible and that everything in the Bible is equally clear, though you're right that a lot of people erroneously say or believe that (even they don't actually practice that in any pragmatic sense as evidenced by when they go seek out help for understanding).  On this we agree.