But this claim is complexly wrong, mistakenly documented only with a passing remark in a two-volume microbiology work about the algae occurring in Europe-not Africa (Hort 1957:94, fn. Hort claims that this biological chain reaction began with one of two species of red algae in a Nile source, Luke Tana in East Africa. Her theorized algae cannot survive and do not naturally occur in the Nile or Egypt, are the wrong color, are utterly harmless not toxic, and anthrax does not infect rivers, just to list a few of the many scientific blunders made by Hort. As it turns out, her complex scheme is wracked with insuperable scientific, historical and factual difficulties. Hort’s theory has become highly respected and is “widely cited” (Huddlestun 1992:1109) in numerous encyclopedias, commentaries and Biblical reference works though never subjected to any independent scientific review until now. Every succeeding Plague is seemingly accounted for by Hort. Then anthrax bacteria in the river infected animals and humans. This “ecological domino” effect (van Biema 1998:4) started with a Plague of Blood consisting mainly of a massive “red tide” of algae in the Nile River plus red mud (Sailhamer 1992:254 Kitchen 1962 Cole 1973:90 Elwell 1988 Humphreys 2003:114–18, 125, 144). The most popular naturalistic theory of the Plagues of Egypt began in 1957 with Greta Hort, a scholar of medieval English literature and religion, who published a theory explaining the Plagues as an interconnected series of catastrophic natural events. 9–12 ( nega’, negeph, magephah) refer more broadly to “sharp blows” and “calamity,” not just disease (Brown, Driver, Briggs 1979:550a, 619a–620a-620a). The Biblical word “plague” in English suggests only infectious disease when the actual Hebrew word and variants translated from Exodus chaps. Disease epidemic theories rely to some degree on a misnomer. According to many conservatives the miracle involved is one of soft subject data of timing and severity, or of otherwise scientifically acceptable “natural” phenomena. Such a theory is attractive to those who presume that it actually provides a kind of stunning scientific proof of the Biblical account of the Ten Plagues. This middle ground asserts that the Bible is correct that these events really did occur, but as natural occurrences under unusual conditions, not as miracles. Why are naturalistic theories so popular? For some, they avoid complete skepticism of the Bible on the one hand and complete supernaturalism by Divine miracle on the other. The leading “natural phenomena’” theories of the Plagues are reviewed in-depth here for the first time and found to be fatally flawed, the main one so lacking in scientific merit that it has the appearance of an elaborate hoax even though most likely proposed with the utmost sincerity (Hort 1957, 1958). Such theories have escaped serious scientific scrutiny until now. These Plague theories have been widely and uncritically accepted among Biblical scholars, and believed quite mistakenly to be scientifically established, but they are virtually unknown and undocumented in the scientific community. Naturalistic theories of the Ten Plagues attempt to account for the miraculous events of Moses and the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt using natural phenomena in an exotic biological chain reaction of red algae, anthrax and various other epidemic pathogens and insects, plus flood water, red river mud, and/or wind.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |