I don't believe the majority Simcha Jacobovichi and his research. Even though he seems to know a lot about the Exodus and historical events, he is not credible. He isn't even a scientist or historian, but rather a writer who has researched and piecing together a story. He changed the time that historians have used for years because it better suited his theory. He somewhat manipulated facts and made large leaps so that evidence supported his claims. Also he found artifacts too quickly and in the first location that they looked. The way he phrased his sentences shows that that they are theories. By saying “what if”, “Possibly”, or “Could have” he took evidence further then it may have been meant to reach. Jacobovichi minimized God’s role in His own story. By trying to scientifically explain everything, he takes out the need for faith and belittles Gods power.
1. Simcha believes that the plagues took place around 1500 BC. He claims that the plagues took place…show more content… Jacobovichi believes that God caused the plagues by using a volcanic explosion that caused the other events to happen. This is known as the Santorini eruption. The Nile didn't turn into blood but turned blood red because of a high concentration of iron. This started a chain reaction that caused many of the other plagues. The frogs jumped out, and the locust, life, and flies happened at the same time. The darkness was caused by a cloud of ash and the first born were killed because of carbon dioxide. The source that I found says the same thing about the hail, but it says the red color of the Nile was due to algae, and the final plague was caused by a fungus. I don't agree with Jacobovichi or the source, because the bible says that the Nile turned into blood not red and also says that each plague left then the next would take place. While it is possible that God manipulated nature, he doesn't need to. Why would the one who created the world by simply speaking need to use one event to set off many
