These are interesting articles... but they have nothing to do with the presence of sulfur in Egypt.
So the erosive forces that eliminated any evidence of igneous rock layers (or swept them out to the Mediterranean) eroded everything but the sulfur? Unlikely....
These are interesting articles... but they have nothing to do with the presence of sulfur in Egypt.
"Exodus 16:14-24 indicates that MANNA was inevitably a MUSHROOM.
It was a small round thing in the morning dew, it bred larva, and would melt to mush if not dried. KING JAMES VERSION.
All mushroom pickers know that fly’s eggs cause larvae/worms in mushrooms. The one food most notorious for being full of worms.
Daniel 5:3-5 with Exodus 16:32 and Hebrews 9:4
indicates that the mushroom was a DRUG. After sacking the temple in Jerusalem and stealing the Ark-of-the-Covenant, the King of Babylon and his table drank from the golden cup containing the holy “MANNA” they had visions within the hour….. Psilocybin takes 30-40 minutes to induce visions.
Hebrews 9:4 makes it clear that MANNA was the most holy thing to Israelites, kept in A POT OF GOLD in the ARK OF THE COVENANT, in the MOST HOLY OF HOLYS. So sacred is the Manna that only the High Priest has access to it and only on one day of the year (Yom Kippur), which comes 3 days before the harvest moon (Hallows Eve).
Psalm 78:24-25 calls MANNA FOOD OF ANGELS, just as MAYAN/INCA PRIESTS from Meso-America called it TEONANACATL FOOD OF THE GODS.
MANNA is an Egyptian word, not Hebrew or Aramaic, meaning;
The BREAD OF GOD. This is what Moses called it in Exodus 16:15.
“Bread Of God” means “FOOD OF GOD”, which is the same meaning of TEONANACATL (Mayan), and AMBROSIA (Greek), and SOMA (Hindu) a word for mushroom tea, all these words mean “Spiritual Food”.
Coca and Tobacco Leaves found in Pharaohs tombs suggest it was ancestors of Mayan/Inca Priests who brought MUSHROOMS to Egypt."
You can find many more references around the internet. Those are just a couple I googled.
First of all, getting back to the original premise of this thread, Dr. Shannon theorized that Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel. He came up with the theory after drinking some of it.
Moses did not live in Southern Israel (nor the area that is now Southern Israel). He was born in Egypt and then settled in Midian, east of the Dead Sea, in what is now Saudi Arabia and Southern Jordan. Moses never entered the Promised Land of Canaan which includes Southern Israel, instead living out his days east of the Jordan River.
It's all circular logic. Create a theory AFTER partaking of a psychodelic substance and state that Moses must have had that substance too because that type of substance can be derived from plants in Southern Israel, a place where Moses did not live.
Secondly, the Bible does not refer to manna as the Flesh of God as you say it was. That was bunk, as I said before.
Well, I was going by memory. So you could see where I might confuse flesh of god with bread from god. I don't think it makes that much of a difference in the point I was trying to make.
My points come from historical and Biblical study and common sense. Some of your latest points appear to be basically cut and pasted from here MANNA Magic Mushrooms http://people.tribe.net/aman-mana/bl...3-e8153a2e6210
BTW, the word manna (Strong's definition #4478) used in Exodus 16 originally written in Hebrew means "what is it?" because the Israelites, as it says in Exodus 16, did not know what it was.
The point is that there won't be a historical source from several thousand years ago 'credible' enough to convince someone who can't take some of it on faith.
I just find it interesting that folks start salivating at the opportunity to believe in some scientist's theory about Moses that obviously is just a random unsubstantiated guess.
In my opinion, the scriptures hold more credibility than some guy making random guesses about historical events behind the guise of scientific research. But people are awfully quick to support an unfounded theory and dismiss scripture when it helps to support their idea that God does not exist or that miracles didn't actually occur.
5,000 years from now people will likely look at our views of the world and universe and likely laugh at our current lack of understanding of it all.
My unscientific theory is that when all is said and done people will realize that the scriptures weren't that far off, and we'll probably gain a greater understanding as to the symbolism a lot of it represents as our true knowledge of the world around us grows.
No kidding? That's why my later points were all in quotes and I actually mentioned in that post that it came from a quick google search. I really don't care enough to dispute you though. Shrooms or no, it doesnt effect me in the slightest.
Piffery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Nile flows upstream.
Volcanic activity flowing into the Nile from mid and east Africa could easily deposit sulfur into the Nile. The remnants that did not flow into the Mediterranean could easily be collected on the bank of the Nile.
You've expressed something I've been trying to figure out the right way to say for a few days.
I suppose I had a notion of agnostics as people whose sense of reason and logic simply did not lead them to the conclusion of a personal God, whether that sense was based upon evidence or personal ontological philosophy or whatever. That seems to be a very different animal from the one who latches onto wild speculation and tries to pass it off as solid evidence. That is more like the person who just does not want to believe, for whatever reason, and grasps onto whatever he can find to buttress that belief. It is the same family of intellectual dishonesty one might find in a creation scientist -- one comes to a conclusion first, and then cherry-picks evidence to back it up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)