Take another quiz >

10 Plagues of Egypt

Can you name the 10 Plagues of Egypt mentioned in the Bible?
Last updated: September 06, 2018
Rate:
3:00
Enter answer here:
0
 / 10 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %.
This beats or equals % of test takers
The average score is
Your high score is
Your best time is remaining
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
#
Plague
1
Blood
2
Frogs
3
Lice
4
Flies
5
Pestilence
#
Plague
6
Boils
7
Hail
8
Locusts
9
Darkness
10
Death of the Firstborn
+1
level 66
Jul 31, 2013
easy peasy- finished them all with 2:15 left.
+1
level 35
Mar 4, 2017
guess what it is not death of Firstborn its death of first son
+3
level 74
Aug 7, 2013
could use a lot of extra type-ins for some of these
+2
level 39
Jan 11, 2016
Especially for the last one.....
+3
level 58
Jan 14, 2017
Such as Sores for Boils, also I may have gotten a good score because of the Prince of Egypt
+1
level 44
May 8, 2017
Not my fault you aren't smart enough to get these right without needing type-ins.
+2
level 74
Jun 6, 2018
who's talking to you, moron?
+1
level 74
Jun 6, 2018
like for pestilence. So many things could go there.
+5
level 71
Oct 24, 2013
Had a bit of a temper, didn't he?
+3
level 50
May 27, 2014
He was showing the Israelites that He is God. The only God. All the plagues were actually aimed toward a different Egyptian god, showing that He is the only God, and the false gods of the Egyptians were just that-false!
+2
level 20
Sep 19, 2018
If you do some research, each of the 10 plagues were based on different Egyptian deities. ie: the god of crops, water, etc. The reason God did these was to prove that He was God over all the Egyptian gods
+1
level 54
Oct 4, 2018
If he's meant to be omnipotent couldn't he have just used his omnipotence to make whoever he was trying to prove himself to know he existed? Surely he wouldn't need to do all that stuff. He could just remove all memory of the Egyptian gods from everyone's memories, thereby getting rid of all knowledge of them.
+1
level 4
Mar 18, 2014
Good quiz. Haven't studied these since I was in middle school, possibly earlier. Reminds me of the film Prince of Egypt, a film which I loved despite its inaccuracy of Christian mythology. I went to private school for the first seven grades, by the way. I am no longer a Christian (I am an agnostic deist), but I still find this interesting. As I do the beliefs and stories of many other religions. A truly fascinating topic.
+1
level 55
Jul 9, 2014
In what way was it inaccurate? BTW I always teach my children to use the word "belief" instead of mythology or myth if it's a religion that's actively being practiced. Just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I should call it a myth. I'm not Hindu, but I refer to "Hindu beliefs" not "Hindu myths."
+1
level 74
Jan 11, 2016
myth is equally accurate.
+3
level 74
Jan 11, 2016
Belief is a better word. By using it you are acknowledging that the other person believes what they believe, regardless of your own feelings regarding their beliefs. Calling their beliefs myths tells them you think their beliefs are false. IMO that has an undertone of, "I'm smarter than you because I don't fall for those lies," and seems arrogant and disrespectful to me. I'm a Christian but I still enjoy your comments and I learn a lot from you and the discussions which follow many of your comments. I don't think you are bad or stupid because you are an atheist, and I certainly don't make fun of you or anyone else because of it. Those of us with religious beliefs deserve the same respect.
+1
level 74
Jan 11, 2016
You're confusing stating what is factually true with disrespect. This is a dangerous thing. For example, there are people who believe that Evolution is a lie and the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know with near absolute certainty that this belief is wrong. Yes, some people do sincerely believe it. But that doesn't mean we have to avoid saying that they are wrong. Even if it hurts their feelings or gets them to accuse you of being arrogant.

We know with a similar degree of certainty that the Genesis and Exodus myths are just that- myths. It's not disrespecting anyone to point this out. There are devout practicing Christians who acknowledge this, too. It's kind of silly to try and deny it, or worse. Just consider the implications of what you are saying.
+1
level 70
Oct 2, 2016
Actually the Genesis account has been proven to be entirely consistent with science. It's the incorrect interpretation of the creative "days" each being 24-hour periods that has been scientifically debunked. Genesis isn't the only place in the Bible where "days" are referred to as periods of time, much longer than a literal 24 hours, in many cases, years or periods of time of indeterminate length. Each creative day could have been centuries or millennia in length. But then again, people and groups have espoused absurd and corrupt interpretations of the Bible for centuries, which has, unfortunately, led many rational and logical people to dismiss the Bible. In effect, leading them to throw out the baby with the bath water.
+4
level 71
Jan 11, 2018
Genesis isn't even consistent with itself, never mind science
+1
level 71
Jan 11, 2018
For example: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creation_Week
+3
level 74
Jun 6, 2018
Don, even if you assumed that the days in Genesis were billions of years... it's still not even close to being accurate. Or consistent. Yes, you can pretend like the Bible is all allegory and should not be taken literally but the basic message is still important or something... okay whatever that's fine... but you can't claim that there is anything in the Bible, and Genesis in particular, that is consistent with science. I can't list all the ways it's not here in the space provided so I encourage you to try looking it up on a site that promotes science or skepticism and not on a Bible apologist site and just see if really makes sense. Or... for another useful exercise, try to find the sites for Muslims or Hindus that make the same claims about their creation myths, and see that they use the same arguments and tortured logic that the Christian sites do. Then ask yourself why you find their arguments so much less compelling than the ones you believe in.
+2
level 60
Jun 6, 2018
I suspected that kal would be tangling with the Christians in the comments of this quiz. I was not disappointed.
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
Yes, combine someone who enjoys making factual if colorful observations with a bunch of oversensitive and vindictive people who can't let anyone cast doubt on something they believe and get away with it, and you end up with a lot of tangling.
+2
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
It's not what you say, Kal, it's how you say it. You tell us, "I'm only saying the truth and it's not my problem if you can't handle that." You think you are the only one who knows the truth? We all know you have contempt for all religions. It's like two kids choosing a lollipop. One says, "I like orange best." The other says, "I like red ones better. I choose red because it has been scientifically proven that red lollipops have more flavor and are preferred by more intelligent people, so that means you are stupid for choosing orange." First kid, "You're mean to call me stupid." Second kid, "You are being vindictive and overly sensitive." Even if red lollipops could be scientifically proven to taste better why should it matter to the second child if his friend wanted a different lollipop?
+2
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
Here is another of my oversensitive and vindictive replies. Are you saying that science only deals in fact, not theory, that no scientific fact has ever been proven wrong, and a room full of scientists will agree 100 percent on everything? Of course not, and even far out theories are occasionally proven correct. For me, science and religion are the same - both are a search for truth, one spiritual, one physical. They must exist together for me to live a balanced life, even though I know neither is perfect which is why the search continues. Organized religions are flawed and there are people who try to corrupt them for their own power. Faith can be weaponized just as science can, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of either, only seek to perfect the imperfect. Following the teachings of one who said to love my neighbor as myself is the best path I've found for me, and I'm happy to say I'm a follower of Christ. You call him a myth, I call him Truth. Can we just agree to disagree?
+2
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
I know I'm commenting too much, but I don't seem to be able to stop myself today. :) Kal, regarding the Old Testament, there's a lot of stuff in there that I totally don't understand. Some people believe every word, some don't believe any of it, some think it's all allegory, and some think there's some basis for some of it but lots of changes have been made to it through the ages. I wasn't there, so I don't worry about the details. Again, I just try to take the truths for living from what I read and leave the rest to the scholars to argue about. It's like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof when his friends were arguing. Tevye said to one, "You are right." The other made a good argument and he said, "You are right." A fourth man said, "They can't both be right," and Tevye replied, "You are also right." You say you deal in facts. Okay, saying, "I think you're wrong," is factual. Saying, "You are wrong," is arguable. That's all I'm saying.
+2
level 54
Sep 8, 2018
I think the argument was about whether Genesis and Exodus are myths. And they are. Even many Christians know this. Some previously believed theories in science are proven wrong (for example Newton's Laws of Motion were disproved by relativity, although they were close). However, there is still a fundamental difference between science and religion, which is that religion is subjective and different people follow different religions depending on how and where they were brought up. Established fact in science is objective, which means that virtually all scientists believe them regardless of where or who they are. You can follow some of Jesus' teachings of you like, but that doesn't make him any different to anyone else who said the same thing. And, the Old Testament isn't true. Most of the New Testament also isn't true, although Jesus is (probably) at least based on a real person. I don't know Fiddler on the Roof but that can't be true with the normal definition of "right".
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
ander: if I'm in a room with 6 people, 5 of whom think that the Genesis creation myth is literally true, yes I'm the only one who knows the truth in that context. Some things are up for debate or matters of opinion. Some things are not. I'm not going to pretend like reality does not exist because it hurts someone's feelings.

but I never once in my life ever said that I was the only one who knows the truth. I said above that people get mad at me for saying true things. Point out something I said that wasn't true.
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
You also have a very poor understanding of what science is. It sounds like something that you would have gotten from Answers in Genesis or similar organizations whose purpose is to get people to doubt and distrust science, even though it has done more to advance our understanding of the world in a couple hundred years than religion had done in the previous ten thousand.

Science is a way of evaluating information. The scientific method and peer review system has been proven, over and over and over again, to be a vastly superior method for obtaining knowledge than philosophy, meditation, prayer, or any of the various other methods we've tried before. Science is always disproving hypotheses. That's what science does. This is one of the great strengths of science, though people who don't understand it will try to paint this as a weakness. Religious people are the ones who will claim to have all the answers and that they can never be proven wrong. A scientist would never.
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
When a scientific hypothesis is made, it is repeatedly tested. It's important that it be falsifiable. It's important that it have predictive power (for instance, the theory of gravity gives us the ability to predict planetary orbits. Using the theory, we calculate where planets will be and how fast they orbit other objects. We observe and calculate and can confirm our theory). Every time a hypothesis is confirmed OR disproven, scientific knowledge and understanding advances. Disproving something is not a setback in science, it is another step forward. It is one more thing we can cross off. And through peer review and the replication of data we can mostly eliminate things like cognitive bias. This is vastly superior to methods for obtaining knowledge that rely on personal experience.
A scientific theory is NOT "just a theory." Science is not facts and theories in the sense that you mean. A scientific theory explains some aspect of the natural world and is supported by facts.
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
Facts and theories, in the scientific world, are not the same thing as facts and opinions. If something has been accepted as a scientific theory this means that it has been repeatedly validated and confirmed and it's the best available model we have for explaining something. That's not to say that the theory won't be refined or modified. They frequently are. And once in a while a theory is even overturned... but that would take a lot of work.
Science is not about consensus. Science is about following the evidence. It's not important if 100 scientists agree on everything (though... getting 100 scientists to agree on the speed of light would be a lot simpler than getting 100 religious people to agree on the nature of god or where you go when you die), what's important is proof.
Science and religion are absolutely not the same. At all. If you think that they are you fundamentally misunderstand one or the other. Based on what you wrote above I think it's science.
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
"god is love"
"there is a god"
"Christianity has made the world a better place"
"Jesus is Lord"

I can't disprove these statements. Though I can cast serious doubt on the last two.

"The Earth is less than 6000 years old."
"The Genesis creation story is factually accurate."
"All humans descended from Adam and Eve."
"Moses led 600,000 slaves out of Egypt and around the Sinai for 40 years."

These statements are false. They are not a matter of opinion or serious debate. They are false. Full stop.
+2
level 68
Sep 8, 2018
ander217 - I appreciate the gentleness in your comments, here and generally on the site, and that's something kal often lacks. However, I must side with him regarding the contents of this debate. The thing about science is that comes up with methods to check what is factual and what not; these methods or the results can be wrong at times, but they are far more reliable than claiming a truth from the outset and then only accepting what conforms with it. I would use a different example than you: imagine two kids, one has a lolipop, the other has an apple. If the first kid claimed that his lolipop is healthier than the apple, that would be wrong. We can check the ingredients and their effect on the human body. We can conduct studies on how prone to illness/obese/well-nourished/etc. people who eat more lollipops, and who eat more apples are. And this is science. It could be wrong. There is an extremely tiny little chances that after all, lollipops are more healthy than apples.
+2
level 68
Sep 8, 2018
(continued) But there is no reason to believe that, unless you have a bias, unless you want to believe it no matter what the facts are. Religion is at its most potentially dangerous when it tries to replace scientifically proven facts with faith. Once you are on that path where you don’t accept as fact which is most plausible/best proven, but which suits you best, you make yourself unaccountable to the real world. If it is a game of “I choose what I accept as fact” then why shouldn’t you also believe that lollipops are healthier than apples, or worse things? I’m not saying this applies to you, or the majority of Christians nowadays (I won’t start talking about the history of religions and ideologies, but you know what can happen). Anyone is free to take that chance on their own, and as long as there are no negative effects, it’s no one’s business. But the public mustn’t prioritize beliefs over established facts, not in a secular society. That would be far too dangerous.
+1
level 68
Sep 8, 2018
Now I’ll also talk about the dangers of science. You are right to say it can be weaponized. There is a realm of facts, which belongs to science. As I mentioned earlier, once religions or ideologies meddle with the realm of facts and induce their biases, things get shaky. However, there is another realm, not contradicting science, but beyond science. For lack of a better word, I’ll call it the realm of truth (truth being subjective as used by me). It includes, for example, aesthetical, but also ethical questions. If you like red better than orange, it is your personal truth and has nothing to do with science (facts). You shouldn’t believe that lollipops are healthier than apples because it’s not up to belief, but you can, for example, believe or refuse to believe in love.
+1
level 68
Sep 8, 2018
Or you can argue for or against legalized euthanasia. Religion can guide you in such matters if you want (I actually do like the fact that monotheistic religions are strongly opposed to transhumanistic tendencies). It’s dangerous to say that your opinion in these matters is scientifically correct, or that you only possess the truth. But that’s not what kal was saying. Kal was saying – in an unnecessary harsh way – that there are things which are not up for such a debate. There are things which, with our best methods and in all likelihood, we cannot accept as fact. And those things are not up to opinion or subjective choice.
+1
level 68
Sep 8, 2018
So even though we shouldn’t bully those who chose to refuse these facts (or make up their own “facts”), we shouldn’t change words to comply with their stance. End of argument. I’ll just mention something in anticipation of people who might call this anti-religious propaganda or so, even though it is not really relevant: I was raised as a Catholic, am still a member of the church, and don’t consider myself to be an atheist. And now I realized that while I wrote this, kalbahamut has already answered.
+2
level 54
Sep 9, 2018
I agree mostly with these comments but I should say this: just because science cannot alone answer a question (such as questions of morality, etc.) it is not usually even then a good idea to rely on religion to answer it. The teachings of Jesus that people tend to point to for things like this ( "Love thy neighbour", "do not judge", etc.) aren't right because Jesus said them. They are basic standards of morality anyway. Some things in the Bible are often ignored because they don't live up to current moral standards. Morality shouldn't come from the Bible directly. Also, a correction to my previous post: Newton's Laws of Motion were right, but other laws of Newtonian Mechanics were proven wrong but close at low speeds.
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
This is a good discussion and I wish we were all sitting at a table together with three hours to talk. Kal, you're right that I don't know a lot about science - my degree was in social science and my main life experience has been raising a family on a farm - a darn good family, too. But what I'm trying to say is that my life has been much better because I also have a faith in a higher power. When hard times come as they do for everyone, it is much easier for me to get through them with a strong spiritual belief system. That has been proven to me over and over again. Maybe it's not the same for you, but it's important to me. I can accept scientific facts. They don't necessarily negate my spiritual beliefs. I don't think the world is 4000 years old. (I don't think anyone truly knows and scientists aren't in agreement.) Those details don't matter to me. Fact: the earth is old. Fact: there was a time the earth didn't exist, and now it does. Disputed: how it came to exist. Me: I don't care.
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
Camus, you use the example of the lollipop and the apple to make your point. My problem with science is there's always a "but" or "what if" or "unless" to the facts. Yes, apples are proven healthier than lollipops, but what if the person is allergic to apples? What if the apples were sprayed with a bad pesticide? I once read a book, "Your God is Too Small" which really changed my thinking. We have been taught that God is like our dad who punishes us when we are bad and loves us when we are good but the concept of God is so much more than that. I remember confusing God with Santa Claus when I was young, thinking God was an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud checking off who is naughty and who is nice. Some of us never get beyond that, and that's okay for them. Some of us who have a deep spiritual side are never satisfied with how much we learn and we keep searching. All I'm asking is that we show respect for one another and not belittle others who have a different belief.
+1
level 68
Sep 9, 2018
TWM03: Good call and I agree. Maybe subjective was not the right word. As opposed to cleanly right vs. wrong, moral questions can be answered with stronger vs. weaker arguments. But if religion can be helpful in anything, than rather in the moral realm than in the scientific one.
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
Kal, I think I've come up with a better illustration. You said that I confused your stating what is factually true with disrespect, and that is a dangerous thing and you shouldn't have to avoid saying it just because it hurts someone's feelings. What if there is a woman whose face has been disfigured in a car accident. Every day her husband looks at her and tells her she is beautiful, because he loves her and in his eyes she is still the most beautiful woman in the world. If you saw this woman on the street and overheard her husband tell her she is beautiful would you feel compelled, in the name of truth, to tell the woman her husband has been lying to her and she is hideously ugly?
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
TWM03, I agree with you that morality doesn't come from the Bible, or any other religious text. Those books list laws and/or sins, which are not the same thing as morality. I think it's immoral for a person to cheat on their spouse but it's not illegal in the US - a woman can no longer be stoned or forced to wear a big red A if she's caught cheating. Morals are the mores of the society, which can change over time. Laws can be based on morals, however. For example, in parts of the Old Testament it's an accepted thing to have multiple wives or beat children who disobey. Those go against today's mores in our society and are now against the law. I am talking about spiritual truth here, and others are talking about scientific truth. I'm saying I think both are needed for a balanced life, at least for myself. (BTW, Kal, I've never heard of Answers in Genesis, and it doesn't sound like anything I'd be interested in. I only belong to our local Agape Circle which helps people in need.)
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
I debated whether to share this, but here goes: I was once very sick, numb, in terrible pain, having migraines every other day, and was starting to lose my hearing and eyesight, and I began to feel I was dying. I'd been from doctor to doctor doing tons of tests, but nothing showed up. All told me it was all in my head, or I was drug-seeking, or whatever. I had accepted the fact I would die and I was cleaning closets and giving away my things. I was sitting at the computer typing an email when a voice came from above which said my name, then said, "I will be with you through what's to come." I said, "Huh???" It repeated. My next thought was, "Oh, crap, what's to come?" I was concerned, but strangely comforted. Several more things happened to me over the next few weeks, including hearing a Native American chant in my head while driving through a canyon north of Albuquerque. I was later told by a Navajo it was a song of healing. Then a weird series of events occurred which I call
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
...miraculous, and finally I had a diagnosis of Chiari I Malformation. The doctor agreed I was dying unless I had brain and neck surgery. The morning of the surgery I was completely relaxed and not worried about anything because I already knew whether I survived or not, the Lord was with me. I was told the surgery would likely take about four hours. When they got in there to remove part of my skull, they discovered something that hadn't showed up on the MRI -not only was the space too tight, but the bottom of my skull had a piece which cupped up into my brain. As we age, our brains sag with the rest of us, and my brain was sagging against that shelf, cutting off all the cranial nerves which explained my myriad of symptoms in the lungs, stomach, eyes, muscles, etc. My brain was literally starting to die. They removed the piece and everything plumped up pink and normal again. The surgeon told me that he finished in under two hours and he'd never seen a patient more relaxed before surgery
+1
level 68
Sep 9, 2018
ander217 - I anticipated that the lollipop vs. apple example would backfire, but I thought someone would mention a lollipop without sugar but that functions as a nutritious pill. If I had written a scientific paper or so, of course I would have mentioned allergies, auto-immune diseases and so forth. But it was supposed to be just a simple, two-dimensional example. You say there is always a "what if". But it is the very nature of science to ask, "what if?", and to tackle those doubts with the best possible methods, to prove and falsify and cast doubt on all thinkable aspects. With science, certainty grows and grows until it is extremely close to 100%. Belief, on the other hand, skips that process and ignores the inconvenient "What ifs". You just say, "I believe that", and that's it. It is dangerous to contradict to exchange something that is near 100% proven with something you decide on your own whim.
+1
level 68
Sep 9, 2018
Just a clarification. All the time I wrote “nearly 100%”. The reason is as following. I can go back to René Descartes and doubt the existence of the whole outside world. Everything, from people to objects to my own body with its sensors and perceptions could be a wild fever dream, or a madman’s delusions, or put there by Satan as a hoax. Or if you have seen The Matrix, the outside world could be simulation manufactured by machines while I truly lie trapped somewhere in a tub. The only thing that I can be really absolutely 100% sure on is that I am a thinking thing (“I think, therefore I am”). Everything else has this tiny, tiny, tiny shadow of a doubt. But we can’t help but accept that there is this outside world. This is the only necessary Leap of Faith, the only one we have no better option to.
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
...which in his opinion, led to the quick repair with no complications at all. He was surprised it went as well as it did. I credit the voices I heard with giving me that ability to be completely calm. Some might say that my medical issues were causing me to hear voices. That's possible, but too many things had to happen exactly the way they did for me to not to call it miraculous. Yes, I still have medical issues, but the surgery saved my life and has given me over fifteen years of life that I wouldn't have had otherwise. I will always believe that without that spiritual connection with healing forces, not only would I not have had the surgery, I would not have done any more medical tests. I had accepted my fate and didn't want to spend any more money on useless scientific tests . All those doctors were right, though. It WAS all in my head, it was just in a place that didn't show up on their tests. You'll never convince me that miracles or spiritual connections can't happen.
+1
level 68
Sep 9, 2018
Your example with the doctors shows that humans make mistakes. But you wouldn't therefore refuse to rely on brain surgery and pray for your health instead. The voice I can't disprove of course because I wasn't there. Strangely though, those voices always come to individual persons or very small groups, and they never leave enough evidence to be tracked, comprehended, and proven. I have heard from one or two other people who experienced something similar, and they were also in a time of turmoil and unrest. I'm not trying to belittle you and it's your personal experience. All I'm saying is that from my point of distance, it looks as if these things can be well explained in a more mundane (scientific) way. I would like to believe in such things myself, in fact I would be relieved if some of these were true.
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
Had I trusted only in science I wouldn't be here typing this comment. I think healing is a true gift given to some people, but they use science along with their innate gift. In my long history with medical people, I can tell in the way I respond, who has the gift and who only has the knowledge. That is why I keep saying we need both science and spirituality in our lives. My story was much abbreviated and I left out many more experiences - believe it or not. :) As you said, how does one prove or disprove my experience scientifically? You can't. I know it was real and it made all the difference in my life. That's enough for me.
+1
level 68
Sep 9, 2018
Caution: Digression on my part! The presumed existence of ghosts and other supernatural things raises another question to me. I have heard a few stories of people who say that something (be it God, or an angel) interfered with their life. My question is: why does God act here, but not there? Why does God, say, talk to you, ander, and calms you down and saves your life, while he doesn't help out other people who go through similar, or even harsher suffering? The usual answer I get is: God walks in mysterious ways. It is according to his plan. But then God is completely different and alien to me, not understandable in any way. I have no starting point about God then, and no basis for belief. I look around and compare people. Those who are wiser, are calmer, consistent, and account for their deeds. They don't show you different faces of themselves and try to manipulate you even for your sake. If there is God then he must be more like those people than those inconstant manipulators.
+1
level 68
Sep 9, 2018
"Had I trusted only in science I wouldn't be here typing this comment." - Yes, but it is no proof. There are also placebo pills. And the good (and also limiting) thing about science is that you don't have to believe it - it's either wrong or right. It may well be that your belief was crucial in your healing. But anyhow, without the operation you wouldn't be typing this comment either. Which I am glad you are able to do.
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
I don't know the answer, Camus. Maybe some of us are more open to spiritual connections? Even that doesn't answer your question. I read a sermon by the controversial Harry Emerson Fosdick on the nature of God. He likened God to the ocean. We can stand at the edge and touch it, but it is far too vast to see it all. Some of us experience the ocean as warm and calm, some of us see it as cold and stormy, some in a hurricane see it as frightening. It depends where we are in our own lives. Those of us who are far away don't see the ocean at all, but we still feel the affects of it. I know that if I had been born into a Muslim family or a Jewish family or any other religion, I would have that spiritual connection. If I hadn't been born into any religion at all, I think I still would have found it. There is a force or energy that I connect to. I found and maintain my own connection through the teachings of Jesus. That is separate from my secular life, yet still affects how I live that life.
+2
level 54
Sep 9, 2018
@ander, this is a very interesting story and a good example of what makes people believe in religion or other supernatural phenomena. What you have described, however, doesn't require any supernatural explanation, or any miracles in the sense that is usually meant (without any cause/explanation). "Healing" isn't an ability given to people in any supernatural way, although it is possible that you might intuitively guess who is going to be more competent. It is arguably important to have some sort of aim or meaning in life, but it doesn't have to come from religion. Some people, for example, are motivated by the thought that they can educate others. Your experience was definitely real in the sense that you experienced it, but that doesn't mean it came from anything outside (although it will of course have been affected by virtually everything happening to you at the time). The physical symptoms will quite possibly not have been observable when you first experienced it, but that doesn't
+2
level 54
Sep 9, 2018
make it outside of science. And, although I feel we might have moved off this topic, none of this changes the fact that Genesis and Exodus are myths. It is possible for the Church to be worthwhile sometimes even though it is based on myths.
+2
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
Wow, there's a lot here and I don't have time to read it all right now. I'm only responding to the first half of ander's first comment.

I fully understand and appreciate your belief, ander, that your faith has given you strength to get through difficult times. I know exactly what that feels like. When I was a teenager I dealt with loneliness, isolation, and thoughts of suicide. I also felt, at the time, like I had a strong personal relationship with God. I used to think that this was one of the only things keeping me from killing myself. And, yes, it was also comforting to think that lost friends and loved ones had "gone to a better place," and to think, when looking at all the many horrors and evils of the world that "god has a plan" and I just didn't understand. I know what that's like. When my friend Gray hanged himself our junior year and I made a bargain with God, asking him to not condemn my friend's soul to Hell, to take mine in its place, I truly meant this.
+2
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
But I couldn't go on ignoring facts my whole life. I had to, eventually, accept that I was wrong, when I learned enough about history and the world to understand why. I had to let go of my beliefs because Pascal was wrong: we don't choose to believe. We are compelled by what we think is true. Some of us are in denial but somewhere we still believe what we think is true.

At first this was quite scary and depressing for me: to accept that I was almost totally wrong about everything that I believed in most dearly, to try and forge some sense of identity and morality out of the ashes of the person I was (because both had been so bound up in my faith as to seem inseparable), and to try and make sense of the world without the crutch of religion.
Over time, though, I found that things made more sense this way. A lot more sense. If you care about finding out what is true, letting go of beliefs you hold to without good reason makes this process all much simpler.
+1
level 74
Sep 9, 2018
To get back to the quiz and the original comment I posted above: stories like the Exodus myth in the Bible were helpful for me to realize that the Bible is not true, nor could it be. I remember when I was about 18 or 19 years old recommending the film The Prince of Egypt to a friend, and after she saw it she said she enjoyed the movie but asked me why God had to do such horrifying things just to make his point. I justified and rationalized it at the time the way that most Christians do... but I think this planted a little seed in my brain that eventually sprouted into wisdom.

oh, and, I've found that without religion I can still get through difficult times. I've still got family. I've got friends. I've got logic. I've got personal willpower. And when all of those things fail there's always ice cream and internet porn. People are resilient and adaptive and can get through all sorts of things you wouldn't expect them to be able to.
+1
level 76
Sep 9, 2018
Well that was a good use of 30 minutes spent reading through all these deeply personal comments. I hope we all learned something today.
+1
level 20
Sep 9, 2018
@Jacktheguy - I learned that the Jetpunk community is hopeless.
+1
level 74
Sep 10, 2018
If this troll is being truthful for once and has really lost hope in us and is going to go away, then this has been the most productive comment thread on the site ever.
+1
level 20
Sep 10, 2018
Wow. Somehow I just knew The Great Kal, and only him, could look at my puny, insignificant little comment and throw hate at me for it. Thus is the way of Jetpunk I suppose.....
+1
level 74
Sep 11, 2018
Kal, I'm so sorry you lost your friend. I don't know what you went through but it must have been terrible for you. I came back this morning thinking I should just delete all my personal comments. Instead I'm saying thank you to everyone in the discussion. There's a lot here, and I truly appreciate each of you who commented. (You, too, slugarmy.) Even though no one's position has changed, I better understand them and I'll no longer feel like it's a personal attack when you go after religion. Now, about those UFOs I've been seeing... :)
+1
level 56
Mar 30, 2015
i found the prince of egypt to be fairly accurate, compared to others. i heard a talk by a rabbi and he estimated that it was about 80% accurate. except the whole pharao/moses brother thing. but with the plagues and stuff...
+1
level 74
Jan 11, 2016
my Muslim colleague who watched the film was most bothered by the part where Moses allowed women to walk in front of him.
+2
level 55
Jul 9, 2014
I learned it as plague on the cattle. Got it after trying livestock, so I'm grateful that's in there. But I think a lot of people call it "cattle". Thanks.
+1
level ∞
Aug 26, 2015
Cattle will work now
+1
level 56
Mar 30, 2015
flies? i am jewish and have heard about the 10 plagues since i'm about 4, so 25 years, and never have i heard that it was anything but wild animals...
+1
level 57
Mar 25, 2016
It has various translations.
+1
level 59
Apr 21, 2015
Making seder helps, glad I actually paid attention :P
+1
level 24
Oct 9, 2015
Wasn't it death of the eldest son, not the eldest child?
+2
level 39
Jul 5, 2017
Yes, it was the death of the eldest son. But that was probably because female children were held in such low esteem that killing them would have meant nothing to the Egyptians.
+2
level 28
Jan 11, 2016
You should see the spring migration of locusts in Egypt. It is so scary, they just cover everything. They look like a huge black cloud and they keep hitting everything as they are flying. I witnessed that once or twice. But they were just migrating nothing to worry about.
+3
level 77
Jan 11, 2016
So let it be written....so let it be done...to kill the first born Pharaoh son...I'm Creeping Death!
+1
level 56
Jan 11, 2016
What a tune! This shows the need for a like button.
+6
level 67
Jan 11, 2016
I don't understand. I kept trying every spelling of Justin Bieber I could come up with and none of them worked.
+2
level 76
Jan 11, 2016
Probably because he didn't exist back then.
+6
level 56
Jan 16, 2016
You must be fun at parties
+1
level 31
Aug 28, 2018
No, I think he'd hatched by then. Let me confirm this with the rest of the lizard-people council and get back to you in the form of a subliminal advertisement on The Rachel Maddow Show.
+1
level 70
Oct 2, 2016
LOL!!!
+3
level 74
Jun 6, 2018
Justin Bieber gained notoriety in 2008 and was obviously God's punishment for us allowing Michael Bay to make a Transformers movie. It had nothing to do with ancient Egypt.
+3
level 31
Aug 28, 2018
Actually, his EP dropped in late 2009, after Revenge of the Fallen came out, which was partially set in ancient Egypt (since it's all ancient). So it's really booooooooooooooooooth wooooooooooo!!! I hate that I know this now, thanks for making me look it up jerk :p
+1
level 44
Jan 11, 2016
How about accepting crickets or grasshoppers for locusts?
+2
level 35
Jan 12, 2016
I remember learning these. I must've not paid attention
+3
level 41
Jan 13, 2016
Can you not accept Locust for locusts? its just an 's' for goodness sakes
+3
level 58
Jan 13, 2017
And one locust makes a plague????!
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
If it's a big enough locust. :)
+2
level 33
Sep 11, 2016
Very strict quiz...should be able to use angel of death for the last one...
+3
level 70
Oct 2, 2016
Incessant vuvuzelas was on stand-by at #11 if needed. :-)
+1
level 35
May 8, 2017
I finished with 9 minutes left and I am -12 years old and worship the flying spaghetti monster.
+1
level 16
Jun 2, 2017
Yes.
+1
level 71
Sep 4, 2018
And lo, the FSM did send upon the kitchen a rain of spaghetti sauce and, further, a hail of linguine, whilst all the time tormenting Phil betwixt his ears with incessant repetitions of I'm the Makkeda Daddy
+1
level 25
Oct 28, 2017
Thank you, Teen Missions and jumping through tyers every morning! :D
+1
level 59
Jan 26, 2018
I am currently reading through Exodus as part of my quest to read the Bible chronologically in a year. Otherwise I would not have remembered, say, gnats and flies. Not all of the plagues are as memorable as the death of the first born sons, the locusts and boils, or turning the Nile to blood. "You shall say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, “Let My people go, that they may serve Me in the wilderness. But behold, you have not listened until now.” Thus says the Lord, “By this you shall know that I am the Lord: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned to blood. The fish that are in the Nile will die, and the Nile will become foul, and the Egyptians will find difficulty in drinking water from the Nile.”’”
+3
level 44
Feb 16, 2018
At least the first 5 'plagues' would have had purely natural causes. A red river will have been caused by an algal bloom, dinoflagellates most likely leading to depleted oxygen levels which would have been a major factor in the mass fish die off ( see oceanic dead zones and/ or eutrophication). Its not a huge leap to believe that anything fatal to fish would have negatively impacted the health of all river borne animals and frogs being able to escape would have left the river en-masse as it became more and more toxic. Without aquatic predators numbers of waterborne biting insects would have skyrocketed alongside the number of flies attracted by the rotting corpses of fish and frogs, and increase in the concentrations of such insects would invariably lead ( in those times anyway) to an increase of diseases that such insects are vectors for. I find it fascinating that such natural occurences have made their way into legend when they can be so easily explained nowadays. Because science
+2
level 74
Jun 6, 2018
There is no evidence at all that Hebrews were ever in Egypt, or that the pharaohs ever released all of their slaves, or that as many people as described in Exodus spent 40 years wandering around the Sinai or Negev. The Genesis story is pure myth. Some parts of the Bible are based on real history; this story is not.
+1
level 74
Sep 8, 2018
I meant the Exodus story* but Genesis is, also, obviously, myth.
+1
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
Genesis was real. My cousin went to college with a guy who was there.
+1
level 74
Sep 14, 2018
Adam?
+1
level 54
Sep 14, 2018
God surely. Adam was only there for some of it.
+1
level 74
Nov 6, 2018
Oh. Cool. I saw his (Adam's) turban in Istanbul. Apparently the Ottomans had it. Amazing, right? Or should I say "incredible."
+2
level 57
Sep 8, 2018
And people still say god is good?
+1
level 71
Sep 14, 2018
if you read the bible, you will very quickly find that:

1. It's hilarious
2. God is obviously the bad guy
+1
level 39
Sep 8, 2018
I can't believe that ligma wasn't on here. "For each one shall be diseased with ligma."
+2
level 54
Sep 9, 2018
Old Testament god makes some pretty heavy handed points.

Boils or the killing of first born sons could easily be replaced with something akin to making all meat taste like sauceless Arby's or having everyone sound like Piers Morgan.

Pharoah would have packed the Israelites' bags himself and upgraded them to business class after 30 minutes of that.
+1
level 54
Oct 4, 2018
There used to be a long (and old) chain of comments up near the top of this quiz. Not sure why it's been deleted. Is this a new policy, a late enforcement of an old policy, or did the original commenter delete their comment? Anyway the debate was effectively about firstly whether God hardened the Pharoah's heart of whether he did it himself, and secondly whether it matters. If anyone involved want to continue this (it wasn't the most interesting discussion I've ever had but I did spend quite a while writing comments that are now deleted) my last comment was that although for some books of the Bible it is true that the original author must have meant something by whatever they wrote and through language analysis we can in theory work out what this was, Exodus didn't have one single author and so it is impossible to define what the "original" meaning was.
+1
level 54
Oct 4, 2018
Having looked at some of the other religion quizzes I'm now fairly convinced that the censor just happened to be assigned the religion quizzes to go through this week. Loads of comments have been deleted as far as I can tell for no reason. And of course when the first comment on a chain is deleted the entire rest of the chain is too.
+1
level 20
Oct 5, 2018
Yeah, I was noticing the same things too the other day. It makes no sense though what they're trying to censor. Actually, I have no idea what they were trying to do, deleting so many comments. Some comment threads that were completely harmless were deleted it seems, but yet there are other comment threads, containing numerous insults, questionable language usage, and no relation to the quiz whatsoever at all that are still there, left untouched. There's no pattern as to what was deleted, unless I'm missing something...
+1
level 74
Nov 6, 2018
It's the new policy of JetPunk to purge users who have not published any quizzes and who haven't logged in to the site for a year. If such a user inspired a string of follow-up comments, all of those follow-up comments will be lost along with it.
aside: the story is ridiculous anyway, but the way the contemporary English version of it reads it's ridiculous, nonsensical, and abominable. It paints god as the most evil and sadistic of tyrants. But this is consistent with virtually the entire Old Testament, so...