We now conclude considering claims by a Bible skeptic that they may have “worked something out that would, if I'm correct, destroy the Abrahamic religions.” This is the volcanic eruption argument against the Abrahamic religions.
Picking up from the previous segment we ask: what of the holy of holies being a chasm into a flaming lava vent and this being the reason for Moses’ face being flushed bright red?
Obviously, the reference to Moses’ face being flushed bright red is in Exodus 34:29 which refers to his face shinning or glowing (no reference to color). This was due to his proximity to YHVH. The reference to Moses’ face glowing was not, at least initially, due to his being in the holy of holies but upon his coming down from Mt. Sinai. Yet, it appears as if this was a continual occurrence:
…whenever Moses went in before the LORD to speak with Him, he would take off the veil until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to the sons of Israel what he had been commanded, the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone. So Moses would replace the veil over his face until he went in to speak with Him.
Oh, wait, then Mt. Sinai was one of the places where there was a vent and so Moses was up there staring into it and getting hot. You now see how assertion is piled upon assertion as assertion begets assertion. Once you tell a tale about volcanoes and lava, you can tell another about hot flush faces and you can plug in whatever you please.
As for the holy of holies, there was the temporary one in the mobile tabernacle and the stationary one in the actual temple that was later built. We are dealing with the temporary one since Moses never saw the temple which came later. Thus, the issue is the fact that the tabernacle was mobile and thus, could not have been continuously upon a volcanic vent. Wait, wait, unless that is, they kept finding them and building a tabernacle upon them—so the story may go.
Now, what of the “virginal female war booty” that “was also sacrificed to” YHVH. Show me the evidence. Where is the citation? Where is the quotation? There is none to be had, see: Atheism, Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible, and EvilBible.com
The rest of the “something” assertion consisted of emotive references to Moses being a murderer (which we know because the Bible tells us so, before, that is, he met YHVH), “He was obviously a psychopathic type,” etc.
We are also told that the reason that YHVH’s name became unpronounced is because “That might have been because the proper name meant 'explosion' or 'eruption', which was a bit of a give-away.” Sorry, no evidence, no reference, no quotation, no citation, no etymology. Nothing but an assertion.
But wait: no citations or quotations, really? Well, citations and also quotations were provided. It appears that in a form that seeks to read preconceived notions into the Bible, what was done is that a keyword search was performed for references to YHVH and “fire,” “flame,” “burn,” “flames,” etc.
In this way, a text is taken out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext so that an isolated partial statement is tied into the “something” assertion.
Now, if, for example, your “something” assertion was that originally YHVH was a giant bird, you could perform a keyword search for references to YHVH and wings, feathers, flight, etc. You would then claim to have found hidden evidence.
Or, if your “something” assertion was that originally YHVH was the gate to a city, you could perform a keyword search for references to YHVH and gates, ways, doors, etc. You would then claim to have found hidden evidence. And on it goes.
Overall, the “something” assertion discredits its conceiver whilst leaving the Bible unscathed. It is a great heuristic devise whereby to learn how to balance speculative assertions versus actual historical evidence.
Comments