How Did Moses Get Water from Rocks?

[Dānu]

No.

Well that's interesting. So you just pulled that out of a hat?

No.

[mordant]

No.

Well that's interesting. So you just pulled that out of a hat?

What I see in the foreword is this:

Since the pioneering days of Petrie, Naville and Garstang, considerably more archaeological data has been uncovered in Egypt, and yet, even as the discipline of archaeology is about to enter a new millennium, direct evidence for the events and figures in Exodus remains elusive.

Later of course he says, 

In this book I will challenge the premise that the absence of archaeological evidence can prove what did or did not happen in Bible history.

So it's just another version of, "it COULD have happened, and that the evidence is lacking isn't important". He admits twice there's no evidence.

[Dave Armstrong]

Well that's interesting. So you just pulled that out of a hat?

What I see in the foreword is this:

Since the pioneering days of Petrie, Naville and Garstang, considerably more archaeological data has been uncovered in Egypt, and yet, even as the discipline of archaeology is about to enter a new millennium, direct evidence for the events and figures in Exodus remains elusive.

Later of course he says, 

In this book I will challenge the premise that the absence of archaeological evidence can prove what did or did not happen in Bible history.

So it's just another version of, "it COULD have happened, and that the evidence is lacking isn't important". He admits twice there's no evidence.

Israel in Egypt, p. 10: "[T]he historical minimalists, for the most part, ignor[e] the available indirect evidence. It is my contention, and the purpose of this book, that in the absence of direct archaeological or historical evidence, one can make a case for the plausibility of the biblical reports based on the supporting evidence."

He's gotta write about sumpin' for 580 pages . . . He ain't just copying-and-pasting the Boston phone book . . .

[Aliza]

I, a dedicated theist, would like to explain to you how it was that Moses got water from a rock.
 
He used the same technique his sister Miriam used when he helped her pull the stunt off years prior. 

Honestly, I have no idea what the mechanics were. It’s a miracle! Whatever. Who gives a shit? The point here is that the three-million people in the desert didn’t die, because they relied on G-d to take care of them. And let me tell you, they didn’t always want to rely on G-d. They often wanted to do things their own way. The Jewish Bible isn't a story about how the Jews are always right... it's manual on how to live your life, and examples of how the Jewish people fuck up; story after story after story about how the Jews drop the ball.

So anyway, Miriam had passed away and their water source dried up with her passing. The people were like, “Mother fucker! We need water! Doesn’t G-d realize that we’re thirsty?” and Moses was like, “Okay, okay, okay! I’ll go to the Big Guy and ask for some water.” And so he went to G-d and he was like, “Yeah, G-d? You’re making me look like an asshole out here. I got 3 million thirsty people, and they’re starting to think maybe I’ve led them out of Egypt only to make them die of thirst in the desert.” And G-d was like, “OH MY ME! All you people do is complain! I pulled you from slavery, and I opened the sea, and subsequently drowned your enemies, and I ensured that you got reparations from your years as slaves, and I gave you mana, and I gave you this awesome fort-like temple so you could look cool like the other religions, and I GAVE YOU THE MOTHER FUCKING TORAH! It’s gonna be this awesome book that if you don’t let the Christians get their hands on it, is totally going to take care of you and guide you through life. But you know what, Moses? Fine. Go to the rock and sweet-talk like the cool cat I know you are.” And then in front of the nation of Israel, Moses was like, “This is bullshit!” and he struck the rock with his staff in anger. And G-d was like, “Oh, that's how we're doing this? That's fine. We can do it your way. Your people get water, but you don’t get to enter the Land of Israel.” And Moses was like, “What the fuck? I have been a perfect servant all this time, and you’re going to deny me entry into the land of Israel? After all I’ve done?”  And G-d was like, "Yup!"


The moral of the story isn’t how the rock spewed forth water. I mean maybe G-d put a portal on the rock straight from Lake Eerie, creating worm hole to cause the rock to gush water. (Maybe it’s all just a parable!) Who knows?

The point here was that Moses lost his cool and acted in anger in front of the Nation of Israel. As a leader, he had an obligation to act in a certain manner, and he didn’t. Moses had the freewill to make the decision he made and strike the rock instead of seducing it as he was told. There was a consequence that he had to deal with as a result of changing the plan, but the consequence wasn’t eternal damnation or the loss of the land of Israel. The Jewish people regard Moses as this incredible man who launched the Jewish nation. He was a role model, and he was pretty fucking cool… but he tripped at the finish line; even someone as great as Moses was, could screw up.

It’s said that if Moses had gone into the Land of Israel, he would have been the messiah, and the messianic era would have started right then and there. We learn from this that our actions have consequences, and we have to be mindful of those consequences. We also learn that tripping at the finish line does not mean never finishing. When we make mistakes, there's a fallout to deal with, but we acknowledge the error, learn from it, dust ourselves off, and keep moving.

So, the Jewish people are not hung up on how the miracle occurred. It's interesting at best, but our focus is on how the Torah directs us to live a lifestyle that we have been very satisfied with for thousands of years. We don't live our lives this way out of fear. Proving the miracles wouldn't change much. We live like this because it works for us.

[Dave Armstrong]

I, a dedicated theist, would like to explain to you how it was that Moses got water from a rock.
 
He used the same technique his sister Miriam used when he helped her pull the stunt off years prior. 

Honestly, I have no idea what the mechanics were. It’s a miracle! Whatever. Who gives a shit? The point here is that the three-million people in the desert didn’t die, because they relied on G-d to take care of them. And let me tell you, they didn’t always want to rely on G-d. They often wanted to do things their own way. The Jewish Bible isn't a story about how the Jews are always right... it's manual on how to live your life, and examples of how the Jewish people fuck up; story after story after story about how the Jews drop the ball.

So anyway, Miriam had passed away and their water source dried up with her passing. The people were like, “Mother fucker! We need water! Doesn’t G-d realize that we’re thirsty?” and Moses was like, “Okay, okay, okay! I’ll go to the Big Guy and ask for some water.” And so he went to G-d and he was like, “Yeah, G-d? You’re making me look like an asshole out here. I got 3 million thirsty people, and they’re starting to think maybe I’ve led them out of Egypt only to make them die of thirst in the desert.” And G-d was like, “OH MY ME! All you people do is complain! I pulled you from slavery, and I opened the sea, and subsequently drowned your enemies, and I ensured that you got reparations from your years as slaves, and I gave you mana, and I gave you this awesome fort-like temple so you could look cool like the other religions, and I GAVE YOU THE MOTHER FUCKING TORAH! It’s gonna be this awesome book that if you don’t let the Christians get their hands on it, is totally going to take care of you and guide you through life. But you know what, Moses? Fine. Go to the rock and sweet-talk like the cool cat I know you are.” And then in front of the nation of Israel, Moses was like, “This is bullshit!” and he struck the rock with his staff in anger. And G-d was like, “Oh, that's how we're doing this? That's fine. We can do it your way. Your people get water, but you don’t get to enter the Land of Israel.” And Moses was like, “What the fuck? I have been a perfect servant all this time, and you’re going to deny me entry into the land of Israel? After all I’ve done?”  And G-d was like, "Yup!"


The moral of the story isn’t how the rock spewed forth water. I mean maybe G-d put a portal on the rock straight from Lake Eerie, creating worm hole to cause the rock to gush water. (Maybe it’s all just a parable!) Who knows?

The point here was that Moses lost his cool and acted in anger in front of the Nation of Israel. As a leader, he had an obligation to act in a certain manner, and he didn’t. Moses had the freewill to make the decision he made and strike the rock instead of seducing it as he was told. There was a consequence that he had to deal with as a result of changing the plan, but the consequence wasn’t eternal damnation or the loss of the land of Israel. The Jewish people regard Moses as this incredible man who launched the Jewish nation. He was a role model, and he was pretty fucking cool… but he tripped at the finish line; even someone as great as Moses was, could screw up.

It’s said that if Moses had gone into the Land of Israel, he would have been the messiah, and the messianic era would have started right then and there. We learn from this that our actions have consequences, and we have to be mindful of those consequences. We also learn that tripping at the finish line does not mean never finishing. When we make mistakes, there's a fallout to deal with, but we acknowledge the error, learn from it, dust ourselves off, and keep moving.

So, the Jewish people are not hung up on how the miracle occurred. It's interesting at best, but our focus is on how the Torah directs us to live a lifestyle that we have been very satisfied with for thousands of years. We don't live our lives this way out of fear. Proving the miracles wouldn't change much. We live like this because it works for us.

I've never heard it told like that. You have a way with words, 4 sure. Glad 2 hear that u think Moses existed.

[airportkid]

^^^^^

THAT was the most entertaining, and lucid, post in this entire circus!  VERY nicely set forth!

[Aliza]

I've never heard it told like that. You have a way with words, 4 sure. Glad 2 hear that u think Moses existed.

I may have taken a *few* liberties with the story for creative purposes. Don't tell the atheists. It's Hollywood!

[epronovost]

Israel in Egypt, p. 10: "[T]he historical minimalists, for the most part, ignor[e] the available indirect evidence. It is my contention, and the purpose of this book, that in the absence of direct archaeological or historical evidence, one can make a case for the plausibility of the biblical reports based on the supporting evidence."

That's terrible historiography. The biblical report is not plausible because the story itself is absolutely fantastic. It involves magic, natural disasters caused by spells, a nation on the move, destroyed armies, tens of thousands of dead people.

Imagined if I were trying to prove the historicity of the Remus and Romulus story and I did it by conclusively proving that javelins can kill people and that brothers do sometime kill one another. That's not history; it's pure delusion.

He's gotta write about sumpin' for 580 pages . . . He ain't just copying-and-pasting the Boston phone book . . .

Anybody with a little bit of education can write for pages saying virtually nothing. In politics we call these filibuster. Anybody who is a little bit smart can ramble semi-coherently for hours on end on a particular subject. It doesn't mean than there is anything of actual value written in those 580 pages. I could probably find a 600 pages book on why the Earth is flat and 1000 page books on how the Illuminati control the world from the shadows. Cranks are often extremely prolific writers.

[epronovost]

I've never heard it told like that. You have a way with words, 4 sure. Glad 2 hear that u think Moses existed.

I may have taken a *few* liberties with the story for creative purposes. Don't tell the atheists. It's Hollywood!

The Bible for the Homies narrated by Samuel L Jackson. 

I'd watch that shit.

[Dave Armstrong]

Anybody with a little bit of education can write for pages saying virtually nothing. In politics we call these filibuster. Anybody who is a little bit smart can ramble semi-coherently for hours on end on a particular subject. It doesn't mean than there is anything of actual value written in those 580 pages. I could probably find a 600 pages book on why the Earth is flat and 1000 page books on how the Illuminati control the world from the shadows. Cranks are often extremely prolific writers.

Why do you think Oxford would publish two books by a "crank" and the equivalent of a flat-earther? Just for kicks? Less and less rational discussion here all the time . . .

[airportkid]

... Anybody who is a little bit smart can ramble semi-coherently for hours on end on a particular subject. It doesn't mean than there is anything of actual value written in those 580 pages. I could probably find a 600 pages book on why the Earth is flat and 1000 page books on how the Illuminati control the world from the shadows. Cranks are often extremely prolific writers ...

There are several posters in these threads who would do well to see that as a mirror 

[epronovost]

Anybody with a little bit of education can write for pages saying virtually nothing. In politics we call these filibuster. Anybody who is a little bit smart can ramble semi-coherently for hours on end on a particular subject. It doesn't mean than there is anything of actual value written in those 580 pages. I could probably find a 600 pages book on why the Earth is flat and 1000 page books on how the Illuminati control the world from the shadows. Cranks are often extremely prolific writers.

Why do you think Oxford would publish two books by a "crank" and the equivalent of a flat-earther? Just for kicks? Less and less rational discussion here all the time . . .

Because they sometimes do. The Oxford university, like all university presses, often publish utter garbage. It doesn't take as much as you think to publish in university press or peer review journals. All it takes is a relevant university degree, a good pen, a semi acceptable methodology (and even then) and a basic grasp of what you are talking about. That's why once in a while fraudulent papers and books get published once in a while. To be published is not very hard, to be quoted and used by other researcher is actually the true sign of success in academia. University press also publish cranks willingly as to not appear to stifle academic discussions or appear to be silencing unpopular viewpoints. This is especially true in political science, history and sociology. Though, it must be said, since the end of the Yugoslav War, there has been a tightening of standards in humanities. Despite all these caveat, this is not the case for this specific book, but I thought you might like to know more about academic publishing. 

I would also like to note that if you are talking about Israel In Egypt by James Hoffermeier, it's not 580 pages long, it's 280 if you exclude the preface and the notes. It's also not published as a history or archeology book, but as a religious study one. It was not peer reviewed by historians or archeologists before being published and it contains very little archeology or history. The core of Hoffermeier works in this book is mostly philological and it's very good on that point. It does show an Egyptian cultural influence in the narrative of the Exodus and close links between Egypt and Canaan at the time. I would also like to note that a solid quarter of the book is Hoffermeier ranting about "minimalist historians" and the historical revolution of the 80's and onward which tried to breath some much needed scientific skepticism into the field which was for so long choked in narratives some of which particularly nasty (if you are American I would here say "Lost Cause of the South" and you should get shudders). If you wonder, yes, Hoffermeier and is gang largely lost and have been relegated to being in the margin of the history and archeological community. He still publishes to this day, but has tone down a bit his defense of the Exodus as historical though yet he still subscribes to it. In other word, Hoffermeier can be described as an "institutional crank" in other words a professor who is largely wrong, but is still a professor and still hangs around the debate even though he doesn't have the credibility he once had.

[mordant]

Why do you think Oxford would publish two books by a "crank" and the equivalent of a flat-earther? Just for kicks? Less and less rational discussion here all the time . . .

I'm guessing ... it sells?

Yeah OUP has a scholarly image to maintain, but the set of topics they will publish on has to do with not looking completely ridiculous + making money. I don't deny that Hoffmeier is a scholar, but that OUP published him doesn't mean he's beyond examination, either. Or that he's a good scholar, or that he draws supportable conclusions.

The man starts his book admitting that there's zero archaeological evidence ... despite that this evidence is long sought after it is nevertheless "elusive" ... but that he thinks he can make a case to the reader via "maximalism" ... as in maximum credulity, lowering the bar so far that he doesn't have to evidence his claims, merely demonstrate some level of plausibility that it COULD have happened.

Sort of sounds like someone else I know.

[Dave Armstrong]

Why do you think Oxford would publish two books by a "crank" and the equivalent of a flat-earther? Just for kicks? Less and less rational discussion here all the time . . .

Because they sometimes do. The Oxford university, like all university presses, often publish utter garbage. It doesn't take as much as you think to publish in university press or peer review journals. All it takes is a relevant university degree, a good pen, a semi acceptable methodology (and even then) and a basic grasp of what you are talking about. That's why once in a while fraudulent papers and books get published once in a while. To be published is not very hard, to be quoted and used by other researcher is actually the true sign of success in academia. University press also publish cranks willingly as to not appear to stifle academic discussions or appear to be silencing unpopular viewpoints. This is especially true in political science, history and sociology. Though, it must be said, since the end of the Yugoslav War, there has been a tightening of standards in humanities. Despite all these caveat, this is not the case for this specific book, but I thought you might like to know more about academic publishing. 

I would also like to note that if you are talking about Israel In Egypt by James Hoffermeier, it's not 580 pages long, it's 280 if you exclude the preface and the notes. It's also not published as a history or archeology book, but as a religious study one. It was not peer reviewed by historians or archeologists before being published and it contains very little archeology or history. The core of Hoffermeier works in this book is mostly philological and it's very good on that point. It does show an Egyptian cultural influence in the narrative of the Exodus and close links between Egypt and Canaan at the time. I would also like to note that a solid quarter of the book is Hoffermeier ranting about "minimalist historians" and the historical revolution of the 80's and onward which tried to breath some much needed scientific skepticism into the field which was for so long choked in narratives some of which particularly nasty (if you are American I would here say "Lost Cause of the South" and you should get shudders). If you wonder, yes, Hoffermeier and is gang largely lost and have been relegated to being in the margin of the history and archeological community. He still publishes to this day, but has tone down a bit his defense of the Exodus as historical though yet he still subscribes to it. In other word, Hoffermeier can be described as an "institutional crank" in other words a professor who is largely wrong, but is still a professor and still hangs around the debate even though he doesn't have the credibility he once had.

580 was the total pages for both his books.

[Minimalist]

Courtesy Wiki

James K. Hoffmeier (born February 13, 1951) is an American Old Testament scholar, an archaeologist and an egyptologist.[1] He was Professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Well that fucking figures.

[rocinantexyz]

Moses got water from rocks in the same way Peter Parker got magic powers from a spider; they are both fictional characters imo.

[Cavebear]

I hate to say this, but rocks do contain water. Rocky asteroids contain water too. That is because rocks are not absolute solids. There are pores and cracks and water seeps in. That is true for terrestrial and non-terrestrial rock.

[Mathilda]

I hate to say this, but rocks do contain water.  Rocky asteroids contain water too.  That is because rocks are not absolute solids.  There are pores and cracks and water seeps in.  That is true for terrestrial and non-terrestrial rock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer

Many desert areas have limestone hills or mountains within them or close to them that can be exploited as groundwater resources. Part of the Atlas Mountains in North Africa, the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges between Syria and Lebanon, the Jebel Akhdar in Oman, parts of the Sierra Nevada and neighboring ranges in the United States' Southwest, have shallow aquifers that are exploited for their water.

[Cavebear]

I hate to say this, but rocks do contain water.  Rocky asteroids contain water too.  That is because rocks are not absolute solids.  There are pores and cracks and water seeps in.  That is true for terrestrial and non-terrestrial rock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer

Many desert areas have limestone hills or mountains within them or close to them that can be exploited as groundwater resources. Part of the Atlas Mountains in North Africa, the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges between Syria and Lebanon, the Jebel Akhdar in Oman, parts of the Sierra Nevada and neighboring ranges in the United States' Southwest, have shallow aquifers that are exploited for their water.

Actually, water in rocks is more basic than that. Crush any standard old earthly rock, and there is some water in it.

[OakTree500]

@Dave Armstrong

It's also possible, and most likely, that the story is nothing more than heroic fiction. There's no evidence that the Exodus ever took place.

In fact, there is significant evidence, and in my book I detail a lot of it. As I have noted, Oxford University Press thought it was serious enough to be willing to publish two books about it, from archaeologist James Hoffmeier (580 pages altogether). That's not "no evidence." It's at the very least a scholarly case -- whether one agrees with it or not -- put forth by a qualified archaeologist.

I might be wrong but if we start at the begining of that story, Egypt didn't have "jews" as slaves:

[from wiki]

It has been claimed that the Hebrews/Israelites were a federation of Habiru tribes of the hill-country around the Jordan River. The Bronze Age term "Habiru" was less specific than the Biblical term "Hebrew", because the Habiru included Levantine people who were members of various religions and ethnicities. Mesopotamian, Hittite, Canaanite, and Egyptian sources largely describe the Habiru as bandits.[74] Certainly, there were some Habiru slaves in ancient Egypt, and Ziony Zevit argues that the Bible's depiction of Israelite servitude accords with what it is known about slavery in ancient Egypt.[75]

According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Most Israelites were actually of Canaanite stock; their ancestors did not participate in an Exodus from Egypt; Israelites did not build the pyramids"

So the whole "hebrew" things seems to be a mistranslation if anything. And the short answer is: even IF we grant moses was real, the things he is said to have done CANNOT be done and haven't been done before OR since this alleged story.

I'm willing to grant certain people may have been "real" as in historically, but you have to really take a step back and think - Does a real person trying to save some slaves make him good? Yes of course. Does having magic powers to do all the random shit he's said to have done exist in any form AT all? no. No it doesnt.

[brewerb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer

Actually, water in rocks is more basic than that.  Crush any standard old earthly rock, and there is some water in it.

How many rocks do you think it would take to quench the thirst of all following moses and their animals as in the story (in tons would suffice)?

Curiosity killed the cat.

[Cavebear]

Actually, water in rocks is more basic than that.  Crush any standard old earthly rock, and there is some water in it.

How many rocks do you think it would take to quench the thirst of all following moses and their animals as in the story (in tons would suffice)?

Curiosity killed the cat.

I know that earthly rocks contain some water in them. I know that even rocky meteorites and asteroids contain water. But I can't seem to find a site that discusses it directly.

Regarding Moses and his animals, it probably doesn't matter, as none of them could actually chew rocks.

[Aliza]

Actually, water in rocks is more basic than that.  Crush any standard old earthly rock, and there is some water in it.

How many rocks do you think it would take to quench the thirst of all following moses and their animals as in the story (in tons would suffice)?

Curiosity killed the cat.

Enough to fill the Jordan river

[Mathilda]

Actually, water in rocks is more basic than that.  Crush any standard old earthly rock, and there is some water in it.

How many rocks do you think it would take to quench the thirst of all following moses and their animals as in the story (in tons would suffice)?

Depends on the rock.

[brewerb]

How many rocks do you think it would take to quench the thirst of all following moses and their animals as in the story (in tons would suffice)?

Curiosity killed the cat.

Enough to fill the Jordan river

Is that during the rainy season?