The Instigator
TheFogHorn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The Ancient Hebrews Worshipped an Imaginery Volcano God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,124 times Debate No: 27182
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (6)

 

TheFogHorn

Pro

The ancient Hebrews, due to ignorance of natural phenomena, worshipped volcanic activity, possibly originating in Mesopotamia. The Exodus from Egypt was facilitated by the volcanic fallout of the Santorini volcanic eruption, which occured north of Egypt in tne Mediterranean Sea. The ten plagues can all be attributed to the after effects of a massive eruption possibly leading to further smaller eruptions along rift zones. Mount Sinai. The ancient Hebrews moved on to more pleasant land, leaving their 'living god' behind, but keeping him in spirit and some of the volcanic terminology intact.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I suppose since this is Pro's theory, he/she/it ought to have the burden of proof. Since this round wasn't specifically designated for acceptance, I will make a few opening comments.

While I am sure that it is possible to construe the ancient Hebrews as worshipping volcanic activity, there will have to be enough evidence in favor of the preposition that it is by far more likely than not to be true. Additionally, if any of this evidence is to be taken from the Tanakh or the Pentateuch, we must view the writings as a whole. For example, if these random two verses which I just made up can be found:

'The LORD is truly mighty; he quakes the earth and sends flames upon the enemies of Israel'

'The LORD is the shepherd of his people, Israel'

It would be a grave error and anathema to say 'We can clearly see from the first verse that he's a volcano, and the second verse is just them anthropomorphizing the volcano.', seeing as there's no evidence for preferring that over the converse ('We can clearly see from the second verse that he's a shepherd, and the first verse is just volcanizing the shepherd'). For this reason, I expect my opponent to provide solid reasoning that shows beyond reasonable doubt that the ancient Hebrews worshipped a volcano, not merely some speculation on volcanic characteristics attributed to YHWH.

Since at this current time, I am unsure what arguments my opponent intends to raise, I will leave it at this for now. To my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
TheFogHorn

Pro

I am pleased you admit that there is a real possibility that the ancient Hebrews worshipped volcanic activity. An open mind is crucial if a debate is to be benefitial.

It would most certainly be a grave error if one descriptor was chosen over all others without reason. I can see what you are implying and I think it shows you have given this theory some intelligent thought. I would now like to give you a glimpse of the reasoning behind choosing volcanism over, for example, shepherding.

Why do I feel Yahweh was a volcano god and not a shepherd god? One of the main reasons is that a volcano god could also be said to be a shepherd (as could all gods who guide, instruct, care for, protect, etc) in the same way a volcano god could also be described as a father (guiding, instructing, caring for, protecting, etc). However, a shepherd god could not be described as being a volcano. The one at the hub is the defining one. Which one inter-relates with all the others? The use of the word 'shepherd' is to denote a characteristic of Yahweh and not his overall title.

Of the thousands of nature gods of history, shepherd gods do not figure in great numbers whereas volcano gods were numerous. In fact, I can only find one...the Greek god Pan.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(god)

Pan was said to have sheep features...'He has the hindquarters, legs, and horns of a goat'. Despite a match being made with Yahweh and Pan due to the word 'shepherd', there is nothing that suggests Yahweh looked like a goat. In fact, Yahweh was said to look like a fire on the top of a mountain, had rivers of fire coming from before him, shot out brimstone and had smoke coming out of his notrils. If we were to go on looks alone we would have to assume Yahweh and Pan were different types of gods because they certainly did not look like each other.

Exodus 19
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.
16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Yahweh certainly did not sound like a shepherd when Moses 'met' him on Mount Sinai. However, Yahweh had shepherded the Hebrews to him due to...

Psalm 77:20 You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

Psalm 78:14 He guided them with the cloud by day and with light from the fire all night.

Those verses are refering to the pillar of smoke by day and pillar of smoke by night the Hebrews walked towards after leaving Egypt. The pillar appeared to be shepherding them, but that was because something noticeable in the distance will look as though it is moving when the followers are meandering around deserts and hills trying to get to it. It causes an optical illusion.

Genesis 49:24
But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)

Have you ever known a shepherd be described as a stone? Yahweh was also often described by authors as 'My Rock'.

1 Kings 22:17
And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.

Jeremiah 31:10
Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

Ezekiel 34:12
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

AS sheep without a shepherd/AS a shepherd doth his flock. 'AS'. These verses, and others, say the word shepherd is a metaphor. I'm sure there could have been no confusion. After all, the Hebrews were very familiar with
shepherds; they knew one when they saw one.

On the contrary, the Hebrews did not know what a volcano was and that is proven in the fact the Bible does not contain the word 'volcano' or any word for volcano. The only volcanic terms are those used to describe Yahweh. Now, if the Hebrews DID know what volcanoes were and DID use the word (or its equivalent) in ways not related to Yahweh then this theory does not hold much ground.

It was volcanism that awed the Hebrews at Mount Sinai and not a shepherd.

I have stated my argument briefly in my opening post. Now can you please argue those stated points.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted from my two made up verses and my 'analysis' of them. The shepherd was merely an example.

For starters, I will post some (actual) descriptions of YHWH that are not volcanic in any form to emphasize my point, in no particular order. I don't have to show that YHWH was more probably a specific other thing, merely that he was not a volcano.

Non-volcanic Descriptions:

1 Kings 19:11-13

'(11) And he said to him: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord: and behold the Lord passeth, and a great and strong wind before the Lord over throwing the mountains, and breaking the rocks in pieces: the Lord is not in the wind, and after the wind an earthquake: the Lord is not in the earthquake. (12) And after the earthquake a fire: the Lord is not in the fire, and after the fire a whistling of a gentle air. (13)And when Elias heard it, he covered his face with his mantle, and coming forth stood in the entering in of the cave, and behold a voice unto him, saying: What dost thou here, Elias? And he answered:'

Volcanos are anything but gentle.

Psalms 90:2

'(2) Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.'

Exodus 25:8

'And they shall make me a sanctuary, and I will dwell in the midst of them:'

Volcanos do not dwell among people.

Other things that I feel ought to be noted:

Worship of Volcanic Activity

Is incredibly unlikely. If I saw a huge blast of lava coming right for me, I might think it was the work of God, but not that it itself was God. This is especially important considering verses like Deuteronomy 6:4, which would not be the case if every blast of volcanic activity was God.

Worship of a Volcano Itself

I feel more evidence is needed that the volcano itself was actually considered a deity. If I lived on a fault line and was constantly bombarded with earthquakes and simultaneously writing some book about God, I might describe him as a mighty God whose footsteps shake the earth or something, just because I am familiar with earthquakes as powerful events.

In addition, even attributing volcanic activity to YHWH wouldn't by necessity make him a volcano. After all, the creation of the earth was attributed to him in Genesis, but volcanos can't create life. Attributing other, non-volcanic acts to a 'volcano God' would cause him to move out of the realm of a 'volcano God', even if he retained volcanistic characteristics.

Then you've got what my opponent wrote in Round 1: 'The ancient Hebrews moved on to more pleasant land, leaving their 'living god' behind'. That right there makes me doubt that the volcano itself was authentically worshipped. If they thought the volcano was really God, they probably wouldn't have left it, and thus leaving it implies that they didn't actually think it was God.

Random Rebuttal:

Pro writes 'On the contrary, the Hebrews did not know what a volcano was and that is proven in the fact the Bible does not contain the word 'volcano' or any word for volcano.'

That proves nothing except that the Bible does not contain a word for volcano.

Conclusion:

I have seen little evidence that YHWH was a volcano. While it is possible that such is so, I have not seen what I think is sufficient evidence to say that it is more probable than not.

Additionally, since plenty of non-volcanic behavior was attributed to YHWH, I find the theory as put forth by my opponent to be improbable. Not impossible, but improbable.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
TheFogHorn

Pro

Please go through your post point by point along with my post so you can match them up as there is not enough space to post both.

1 Kings 19:11-13
If you want to try to debunk this theory then that text was a bad choice. God is on the top of a mountain (only volcano gods are commonly known to reside or stand on the top of mountains), the mountains seem to crumble (which is what happens sometimes during eruptions), there is wind and an earthquake (both common during eruptions) and there is a fire. There is only one thing in that text that might not fit a volcano, the gentle whistling air. However, you I presume are not a geologist or volcanologist and therefore have little idea of what volcanoes do. Did you know that they can make horn sounds, otherwise called 'trumpet blasts', when they erupt due to the pressure and the rising magma in the magma tube leading up to the crater? It's important to learn about volcanoes before dismissing this theory. One man once said he'd dismissed this theory because lightning was mentioned. Little did he know that eruptions can cause huge lightning displays. Besides, to dismiss the idea just because of one part when all the others fit volcano gods perfectly is not logical.

Let's take a look at some other verses in 1 Kings 19.

8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.

What kind of god could be said to be a god of mountains? How could a mountain be described as a 'mount of god'? A study of gods of history will tell you very quickly that mountain gods were volcano gods. The term 'volcano god' was not used. The ancients did not know what volcanoes were. They believed a god dwelt at the summit of mountains and worked his magic orchestrating the volcanic show of fire, rivers of fire, smoke, lightning and brimstone.

Also, why is it that god should appear on a mountain top? Why is it that his 'mountain of fire' is mentioned so often? Why is he called 'My Rock', 'the stone of Israel', 'the Most High', etc.?

Psalms 90:2
The author believed his god was THE god. He believed he created the whole world. You have to realise that they believed he was an all powerful god residing in his mountain of fire and not a lump of rock. They imagined there was a man inside the volcano who maybe came and went, much the same as the Mayans believed their volcano gods could be enticed down upon their manmade pyramids, built to emulate volcanoes.

Exodus 25:8
Gods also do not talk as they do not exist. Volcano god worshippers did not just believe the volcanic eruptions were the work of their god but also nearby weird events such as flaming gas leaks and steam vents (angels of the lord), plus earthquakes were 'his outstretched hand'. Lava vents, open lava tubes or lava rivers near to the volcano were viewed as 'his presense' and his glory (brightness) could be harnessed using a well sited sanctuary...tabernacle tent. The ark in some way incorporated lava and that explains why Moses would leave the tent with a flushed face, just as he did when descending Mount Sinai. He would also hide his face with a veil when it was flushed.

Worship of Volcanic Activity
The activity....fire and brimstone, lightning, smoke, thunder, rain, hail (volcanic hail...google it), loud noise, trumpet blasts, earthquakes, flaming gas leaks, etc. were all considered to be him in action. Whether or not the Hebrews considered the actual lava flowing down to be god or just god in action or 'god's glory is in question. However, the parts were all considered divine, which explains why only Moses could enter the Holy of Holies, and Aran on occassion. Deut 6:4 is, to me, meaningless in this debate.

Worship of a Volcano Itself
I find this quite staggering as this statement suggests you do not believe in the existence, past of present, of volcano god worship. The Hebrews, it is believed, originated from Mesopotamia, which lies adjacent to a mountain range that contains one of the largest volcanoes in the world...Mount Ararat...where Noah's Ark is said to have landed after the great flood, this flood being mentioned in many other religious texts. So, volcanoes are integral to the Yahweh story from the very beginning. It's just that the faithful today are unable to peel the layers off their eyes and see the obvious. This volcano deification will have been carried on afterwards in other lands and the volcanic lingo will also have been retained to describe Yahweh. For example, Christians still talk about god's fiery wrath despite being millenia away from volcano worship. Whenever anything volcanic happened, such as the ten plagues, or the theophany at Mt Sinai, the Hebrews believed it was their god making his presence felt once again.

Genesis, it is rumoured, was written reterospectively after Exodus to fit everything together, but also throwing in more ancient stories such as the great flood. Volcanoes most certainly can create life and land. They are known as creators by other volcano religions. In fact, Hawaii is made up entirely of volcanic material, once spewed out of a volcano. That is land creation. What other nature god could be said to create land? Volcanoes are also said to be destroyers and life givers due to their soil enrichment. Land around volcanoes is usually very fertile due to the minerals and that explains why humans have always congregated around them despite the threats, although some civilisations have been forced to leave due to life becoming unliveable near the volcanoes, for example the Mayans had to migrate away from their volcanoes. You have to also remember that the Hebrews did not worship what they thought was a puny little volcano god. They believed their god was the most amazing god of the entire world, so them believing their god was the creator of the world is not surprising. Don't Hindus also believe their gods created the whole world? Did Yahweh and the Hindu gods create the entire world? No, neither of them did but the faithful thought they did.

YOU SAID:'If they thought the volcano was really God, they probably wouldn't have left it, and thus leaving it implies that they didn't actually think it was God.'

There are two main reasons why a volcano cult would give up on their physical deity. Firstly the volcano and surrounding volcanoes, rifts, etc, could become so active that life becomes unbearable or impossible, forcing a reluctant escape for life. Secondly, the volcano could cease to erupt and the congregation could lose heart, which is what I suspect happened with the Hebrews. Humans being human will get bored of staring at a dead god and will start to get itchy feet and start thinking about other things such as greener grass. Imaginery gods can be amended and upgraded by priests who want to keep their jobs, and that is precisely what happened to Yahweh...he become omnipresent but the volcanic terminology remained, meaning in time the actual physical deity was forgotten and the connection to volcanoes became something the faithful were oblivious too, which is evident to this day.

The lack of the word volcano in the entire Bible, which covers thousands of years of history covering a geologically volatile area of rift zones, volcanoes, etc. in Saudi, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria, etc. where two continents (Africa and Asia) are ripping apart.....is a red flag for the Hebrews witnessing volcanic activity but not knowing what it was. They quite clearly did witness volcanic activity because the OT is full of references to it, including the giveaway 'brimstone', which was not only said to be god's wrath but is sulfur, which comes from volcanoes. Volcanoes are still worshipped today with Hindus still trying to appease them by throwing chickens into them, much like the blood letting ritualistic slauhtering of lambs at the foot of the 'mountain of fire', otherwise known as Mount Sinai.

For our God is a consuming fire.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I'm not doing too well, am I? Yeah, I'm not.

Pro writes 'God is on the top of a mountain (only volcano gods are commonly known to reside or stand on the top of mountains)'

The Greek gods lived on Mount Olympus. That's a mountain. They weren't all volcano gods [1].

Pro writes 'There is only one thing in that text that might not fit a volcano, the gentle whistling air.'

That's the entire point, though, isn't it? You've got a description that is very volcanic, there's mighty wind, earthquakes, and flames, yet God isn't in any of them. Instead, he's in a gentle whispering wind.

You'd expect a volcanic God to be in the volcanic activity now, wouldn't you? But he's not.

Pro writes 'Did you know that they can make horn sounds, otherwise called 'trumpet blasts', when they erupt due to the pressure and the rising magma in the magma tube leading up to the crater?'

While we're on the topic of things that I didn't know, I didn't know that a 'trumpet blast' sounds like a whistling of gentle air.

Pro writes 'Besides, to dismiss the idea just because of one part when all the others fit volcano gods perfectly is not logical.'

I've seen no evidence in favor of a volcano God except volcanoesque verses, which as I said in Round 2 do not necessarily make YHWH a volcano. If there is a verse that's irreconcilable with this volcano theory, then it stands to reason that YHWH wasn't a volcano God.

Pro writes 'What kind of god could be said to be a god of mountains? How could a mountain be described as a 'mount of god'?'

It didn't say that he was a god of mountains. How could a mountain be described as a mount of god? Why, in the very same way that an altar might be described as 'the altar of God' (Psalms). No one takes this to the conclusion that YHWH was was an altar.

Pro writes 'Also, why is it that god should appear on a mountain top? Why is it that his 'mountain of fire' is mentioned so often? Why is he called 'My Rock', 'the stone of Israel', 'the Most High', etc.?'

It's a good, understandable metaphor. A rock is solid. A stone is solid. You can trust a rock to not just, like, fall apart.

Pro writes 'They imagined there was a man inside the volcano who maybe came and went, much the same as the Mayans believed their volcano gods could be enticed down upon their manmade pyramids, built to emulate volcanoes.'

Well, of course they must have. Except...

'Is it then to be thought that God should indeed dwell upon earth? for if heaven, and the heavens of heavens cannot contain thee, how much less this house which I have built?' - 1 Kings 8:27

'who mounteth above the heaven of heavens, to the east. Behold he will give to his voice the voice of power:' - Psalms 67:34

The word used [2], 'שָׁמַיִם', meaning 'heavens', can mean either the abode of God or (literally) the sky. This is also why he is 'The Most High'. The first verse in particular doesn't really sound like a volcano dweller, if nothing can contain him.

Pro writes 'The ark in some way incorporated lava'

That's pretty hilarious. What, do you think they just waltzed out there, scooped up some lava, and chucked it in the Ark?

Regardless, you have not responded as to how a volcano could dwell among anyone.

Worship of Volcanic Activity

Pro writes 'However, the parts were all considered divine, which explains why only Moses could enter the Holy of Holies, and Aran on occassion.'

Because the volcano was definitely in the Holy of Holies.

Pro writes 'Deut 6:4 is, to me, meaningless in this debate.'

If every blast of volcanic activity was god, there would be multiple gods.

Worship of a Volcano Itself

Pro writes 'I find this quite staggering as this statement suggests you do not believe in the existence, past of present, of volcano god worship.'

Not really. I refer you to my original argument. I merely don't think you've shown that YHWH was a volcano, just because volcanic terminology was employed.

I also find the idea of a volcano causing a great flood somewhat amusing. I really should have brought that to bear as an argument for me.

Pro writes 'So, volcanoes are integral to the Yahweh story from the very beginning.'

I don't recall Mount Ararat being viewed as anything more than a mountain.

Pro writes 'Volcanoes most certainly can create life'

False.

Pro writes 'They are known as creators by other volcano religions.'

Really. While I hardly am an expert on volcano mythology, out of the only two deities I could find quickly, Vulcan and Pele, neither of them were seen as creators of the world.

Pro writes 'Don't Hindus also believe their gods created the whole world?'

I don't think their god was a volcano, though. And that's the issue.


Pro writes 'Imaginery gods can be amended and upgraded by priests who want to keep their jobs, and that is precisely what happened to Yahweh...he become omnipresent'

I don't think he was ever seen as being the volcano and always has been omnipresent, as I pointed out with 1 Kings.

Pro writes 'is a red flag for the Hebrews witnessing volcanic activity but not knowing what it was.'

How so? If I call something a volcano, and someone else calls it a mountain that spews fire and smoke, are you going to say that the second person is ignorant of what volcanic activity is? When I say 'volcano', I don't think of much more than a lava-filled mountain, personally.

In Conclusion:

It is more likely than not that YHWH was not a volcano god, especially having considered the first book of Kings.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheJackel 4 years ago
TheJackel
Firstly Kings contradicts itself and states that Yahweh is both in the fire ect and not.. However, where kings states Yahweh is not, it states yahweh is in the mountain itself. It helps to actually read Kings.. Also, I may as well help the Pro team here:

Article 1:
Yahweh: The worshiping of a Volcano / fire GOD of War.
http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com...

And I also wrote a follow up article on Mountain GOD worship here:

Article 2:
Mountain GOD Worship: Yahweh, God of the Mountains:
http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com...
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
"What else, other than a volcano, could have all those attributes.....lightning, fire, wind, mountain, smoke, brimstone shot out as balls or darts or brimstone 'hailed' down, loud noises, rivers of fire, rocks thrown out.....??????"

You're presupposing that there was a volcano (and exaggerating the evidence). It's called confirmation bias, as I said. The rest of your comments are an interesting, if disturbing, study in insanity. Throwing tantrums when you lose isn't the way to get people on your side.
Posted by TheFogHorn 4 years ago
TheFogHorn
This man thinks in a way everyone will think in the not too distant future, when many people will be wallowing in embarassment at having been so utterly foolish.

http://www.youtube.com...
Posted by TheFogHorn 4 years ago
TheFogHorn
You stick to dishonestly worshipping your virgin and leave the honest thinking to others.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
My, isn't it just terrible to see someone rail this way against a negative vote?
Posted by TheFogHorn 4 years ago
TheFogHorn
One of the main arguments against my theory given by Con was the claim that 'altar of god' disproved the notion a mountain of god could actually be god.

Psalm 26:6 I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O LORD:

http://dictionary.reference.com... an elevated place or structure, as a mound or platform, at which religious rites are performed or on which sacrifices are offered to gods, ancestors, etc.

Word origins....altar O.E., from L. altare (pl. altaria), probably originally meaning "burnt offerings" (cf. L. adolere "to worship, to offer sacrifice, to honor by burning sacrifices to"), but infl. by L. altus "high."

A high up place to make burnt offerings. In other words, a volcano.

The walking around an altar originally comes from walking around a volcano, which was also seen as an altar. That is why volcanoes are sometimes given the name 'Altar'.

That was the origin of altar. I'm not saying that the Hebrew's altars were the top of a volcano but the origins of altar are from throwing people and animals into volcanoes.

What do you think the candles on a church altar represent? The fire from volcanoes.
Posted by TheFogHorn 4 years ago
TheFogHorn
Why, if the Hebrews did not worship volcanoes, are all these volcanic terms found in Psalms? I've only gone through half of it so double it for just one book of the Bible! Why are they refering to god when using volcanic terms? Did god just look exactly like a volcano and act exactly like a volcano? You tell me.

As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God. The hill of God is as the hill of Bashan; an high hill as the hill of Bashan. Why leap ye, ye high hills? this is the hill which God desireth to dwell in; yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever. The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. whom thou hast wounded. thou art my rock and my fortress. O God, is very high, who hast done great things. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. why doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture? mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt. Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: thou driedst up mighty rivers. his dwelling place in Zion. thou art more glorious and excellent than the mountains of prey. who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry? let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High. I will remember the works of the Lord. thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.
Posted by TheFogHorn 4 years ago
TheFogHorn
The voice of the Lord shaketh the wilderness; the Lord shaketh the wilderness of Kadesh. be thou my strong rock, For thou art my rock and my fortress. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap (tsunami), into smoke shall they consume away. rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure. For thine arrows stick fast in me, God my rock, O send out thy light: let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, Thine arrows, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. the earth melted. behold the works of the Lord, what desolations he hath made in the earth. For the Lord most high is terrible. God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet. God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. in the mountain of his holiness. Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined. a fire shall devour before him, pay thy vows unto the most High, Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, lead me to the rock that is higher than I. Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works!
Posted by TheFogHorn 4 years ago
TheFogHorn
my king upon my holy hill of Zion, he heard me out of his holy hill, I worship toward thy holy temple, O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure, So shall the congregation of the people compass thee about: (the people shall circle the volcano) for their sakes therefore return thou on high, the Lord, which dwelleth in Zion (not omnipresent then), my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain? The Lord is in his holy temple, Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest, who shall dwell in thy holy hill? The Lord is my rock and my high tower, he heard my voice out of his temple, Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth, There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. At the brightness that was before him his thick clouds passed, hail stones and coals of fire. The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire. Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them. Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils. who is a rock save our God? and blessed be my rock; Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. when thou shalt make ready thine arrows upon thy strings against the face of them. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? so will I compass thine altar, O Lord. O Lord my rock. when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle. The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord divideth the flames of fire.
Posted by TheFogHorn 4 years ago
TheFogHorn
Mouthwash said: In addition, Pro failed her burden of proof because simply isolating certain elements (lightning, fire, wind, and a mountain) does not prove the existence of a volcano. None of those are *unique* characteristics of a volcano. END

What else, other than a volcano, could have all those attributes.....lightning, fire, wind, mountain, smoke, brimstone shot out as balls or darts or brimstone 'hailed' down, loud noises, rivers of fire, rocks thrown out.....??????

You tell me. If it isn't a volcano then what the hell is it the Hebrews were going on and on about??????
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
TheFogHornAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won based upon the arguments made, although I feel that he could have argued much more strongly. He pointed out passages describing God that seem to contradict Pro's interpretation of God as a fiery, mountainous God (which would imply a volcano) such as a the wind blowing gently. Pro's assertion that volcanoes were part of the biblical story from the very beginning were entirely ridiculous, which Con pointed out. In addition, Pro failed her burden of proof because simply isolating certain elements (lightning, fire, wind, and a mountain) does not prove the existence of a volcano. None of those are *unique* characteristics of a volcano, and it appeared that Pro fell victim to confirmation bias and was just grasping to make certain inconsistencies fit in with the theory. It would seem that she is not a geologist or volcanologist either- I wasn't aware that there were ANY sort of volcanoes in the area the Exodus took place in. Conduct is deducted because of the arrogant comments.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
TheFogHornAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted Pro's arguments at every turn. He rightly points out that there is no way to take some Bible verses over others when discussing the nature of God. Just because one verse mentions fire does not make one a volcano. Pro never recovered from this and was on the defensive the rest of the debate and failed to fulfill the BOP.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
TheFogHornAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro argued better, she simply didn't uphold her Burden of Proof. One of Con's most persuasive arguments was his "altar of God" point, which effectively rebutted most of Pro's "volcano" verses. Pro also conceded that Con's "gentle whistling air" verse description sounded nothing like a volcano. While Pro's verses were chosen well and argued well, Con's rebuttals denied Pro the victory.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
TheFogHornAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a steep burden of proof. As there are so many different descriptions of God, it was difficult to justify focusing on those descriptions that could be considered to also define volcanic activity. In spite of carrying out a more than decent debate, I do not think he successfully did this. Con, on the other hand, presented a much more convincing case for the Volcano-God being an unlikely candidate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
TheFogHornAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
TheFogHornAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: My RFD was deleted, and I don't want to write it out again, so I'm not voting. This was a pretty clear Pro win.