2

We are told that Moses turned all the water in Egypt into blood

Exodus 7:19 (NKJV)

19 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Take your rod and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their streams, over their rivers, over their ponds, and over all their pools of water, that they may become blood. And there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in buckets of wood and pitchers of stone.’ ”

But the magicians did likewise.

Exodus 7:22 (NKJV)

22 Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

Where did the water come from for them to perform the same miracle as Moses?

  • Please clarify your question. Your question appears to ask where the magicians get water that wasn't blood in order to turn into blood. Exodus 7:24 explains where the Egyptians were getting water to drink by digging shallow wells next to the Nile. What are you asking? – Perry Webb Feb 16 '18 at 19:56
  • @PerryWebb it just says that they dug there, but not necessarily that they found water there, as many of the commentaries note in order to harmonize that verse with "And there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in buckets of wood and pitchers of stone", which sounds like every source of water everywhere was blood. (Although I personally don't like that interpretation/harmonization.) – רבות מחשבות Feb 21 '18 at 3:49
2

Really, the question revolves around the word כל. If we believe this term has always an absolute acceptation (meaning) this could trigger the paradox 'collen ndhlovu' enhances.

But, Are we obliged to apply an absolute acceptation (meaning) to the term כל, in this context? Not necessarily.

A parallel example will help us to understand. In Exo 9:25 this term is used in reference to the devastating effect of the hail (inside the divine 7th plague). We read, in fact, in Exo 9:25 the following: ויך הברד בכל־ארץ מצרים את כל־אשׁר בשׂדה מאדם ועד־בהמה ואת כל־עשׂב השׂדה הכה הברד ואת־כל־עץ השׂדה שׁבר, "All over Egypt the hail struck down everything [כל] in the fields, man and beast, and the hail beat down everything [כל] growing in the fields and shattered all [כל] the trees in the fields." (New Jerusalem Bible).

It seems that the hail destroyed everything, with a meaning of כל of absolute acceptation... outwardly...

If we reach now Exo 10:5, we find that existed (after the divine hail) something the hail did not destroyed, and this concept is repeated three times in this verse: a יתר (a 'rest', or 'leavings'), הפלטה (a 'remnant', or 'scraps'), and הנשׁארת ('what remains'), 'from the hail'.

In a similar way, the passage cited by 'Perry Webb', that is, Exo 7:24, tells us that not all (in absolute acceptation) the water of Egypt was turned to blood. So, also in this case the term כל wasn't used with an absolute acceptation mood.

(Sorry, but the Keelan's cited 'wayyiqtol forms' got nothing to do with the argument debated)

The term כל has two acceptations, an absolute one, and a relative one (like in Exo 9:25).

If we understand this difference, the paradox vanishes...

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.