Is Passover a good story with bits of truth or is it an accurate historical account.?

Question

I am trying to tell my six year old the story of Passover and she keeps baffling me with questions (good for her). Why did the Israelites run towards the Red Sea instead of away from it. Why was Pharo spared in the killing of the first born sons. "Didn't he have a mom and dad"?

Answer 1

Ok. First of all, you should know that all of these questions, and more, become moot when you learn the whole story from the original sources, as I fortunate to have done. If there's a Chabad near you (you can find out by clicking on the link below), they may have classes that teach this. To answer your two questions, though, and please e-mail me at [e-mail] if you have any more, the reason why they ran towards the Red Sea is because G-d told them to, for the simple reason of giving retribution to the Egyptians who persecuted them worse then the Nazi's would (and I don't use that comparison lightly). The point, as the verses clearly state (available on request) is to "show my Outstretched Arm" so that the Jews "will know that I am their Lord."

Second of all, the reason why Pharaoh (or Paroh, in Hebrew) was spared, is so that he could survive and tell the rest of the world of G-d's glory.

If you have any more questions, please post them. I often search the word "Passover" around this time, and I'm sure others do to. Have a Happy, Kosher Passover.

Answer 2

No, a similar way you would be unable to confirm the recent testomony isn't a correct historic account of the life of Jesus. nonetheless, from writings of historians around the time, a number of the writing covers the reality that Jesus grew to become into no customary guy and from letters exchanged between Pliny and Trajan X, ninety six we come across thrilling exchanges with regards to Jesus' dying and resurrection. yet you're maximum appropriate in asserting there is not any way o be one hundred% specific the two way.

Answer 3

Passover:

Moses, attempted to end human sacrifices by inaugurating the ransom as a substitute. He established a systematic schedule which enabled his people to escape the worst results of their rash and foolish vow. Lands, properties, and children could be redeemed according to the established fees, which were payable to the priests. Those groups which ceased to sacrifice their first-born soon possessed great advantage over less advanced neighbors who continued these atrocious acts. Many such backward tribes were not only greatly weakened by this loss of sons, but even the succession of leadership was often broken.

An outgrowth of the passing child sacrifice was the custom of smearing blood on the house door-posts for the protection of the first-born. This was often done in connection with one of the sacred feasts of the year, and this ceremony once obtained over most of the world from Mexico to Egypt.

Even after most groups had ceased the ritual killing of children, it was the custom to put an infant away by itself, of in the wilderness or in a little boat on the water. If the child survived, it was thought that the Gods had intervened to preserve him, as in the traditions of Sargon, Moses, Cyrus, and Romulus. Then came the practice of dedicating the first-born sons as sacred or sacrificial, allowing them to grow up and then exiling them in lieu of death; this was the origin of colonization. The Romans adhered to this custom in their scheme of colonization.

Think; assimilate, and pass on your deductions as you see fit.
I hope this helps. I enjoyed the question!

Peace.......