I want to begin with a quotation by Stephen Colbert: "We're not talking about truth, we're talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist" - Stephen Colbert on the origin of the word "truthiness."
Moses brought 10 plagues upon Egypt to change Pharoah's mind about letting Jehovah's people go.
The 5th plague is to destroy only the Egyptian livestock:
6 And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died.
A few days later the 7th plague is described:
21 But those who ignored the word of the Lord left their slaves and livestock in the field. 22 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward the sky so that hail will fall all over Egypt—on men and animals and on everything growing in the fields of Egypt.”
The Fifth plague either killed ALL THE LIVESTOCK or it didn't!
What gives?
Further . . .
Pharaoh’s horses (already dead from the plague) get drowned in the sea along with his armies.
How does that work?
Further exaggerations are seen in the claimed population growth of the Hebrews, descendants of Abraham (from Ur of the Chaldeans), who entered the land with a total population of 70 persons. After only four generations over a span of 215 (or 350 or 430) years, they left with a population of 600,000 men over 20 years of age, "all that were able to go forth to war in Israel," in addition to 22,000 Levite males, women, children, and the elderly. Can someone do the math?
Here is how the NWT plays with the meaning to make it come out okay:
6) Accordingly Jehovah did this thing on the next day, and all sorts of livestock* of Egypt began to die; but not one of the livestock of the sons of Israel died. 7 Then Phar′aoh sent, and, look! not so much as one of Israel’s livestock had died. Nevertheless, Phar′aoh’s heart continued to be unresponsive, and he did not send the people away.
*Or, "And all the livestock"
Interestingly from the regular reading of wts bible(standard copy) one would assume that all sorts of animals began to die but not necessarily that all have died. Which one could reason that v21 is speaking of the remaining livestock which were not killed by the 5th plague. Yet, all other translations that I looked at simply state that "all the livestock died" . . . hmm interesting!
Or, as the comedian said: “Maybe the Jews sold them their livestock for a good price.”
When I lived in Los Angeles I'd often go to the courthouse and watch court cases unfold. (Some of them, high-profile.)
It was fascinating to sit in the audience in the courtroom and watch good, bad, and indifferent lawyers ply their skills.
One thing I soon noticed.
There are cases which appear only before the Judge and no jury at all is involved.
The lawyers who plead these cases did something completely different from the lawyers that spoke before jurors.
It took me a while to figure out what the big difference was.
But, I did. Once I saw it---it opened up a new way of thinking about such matters as persuasion and the framing of an issue.
Basically, the difference is this.
A Judge is well-informed about the law. The Judge has no vested interest in the outcome. The Judge is only interested in facts.
A Jury is not informed about the law. A jury sees what it wants to see and hears what it wants to hear. A jury is emotional and not necessarily logical. In short, the jury wants a story. They want a beginning, middle and end. They want to be persuaded by the skill of the lawyer.
What is wrong with this picture, I often wondered.
A jury is susceptible to influences both emotional and rhetorical.
A Judge is not.
I've seen Judges time after time cut lawyers off and demand they stick to the law and the facts. Flourishes are time wasters.
How does the above relate to the "explanation" about inconsistency in the Old Testament?
This is how I see it.
The Bible either contains facts or it doesn't. The way it reads is more often a presentation of flourishes for dramatic effect with little thought given to FACT, LOGIC or harmony.
Commentators with great skill, like lawyers, can come in and dazzle the jury by creating plausible scenarios.
The Jury---if emotionally invested in the outcome--wants to believe the Lawyer for the defense. They want just enough shadow of doubt to acquit the Bibe of perjury.
A Judge would convict where a jury would acquit.
It is our role to be the judge and not the jury. Stick to facts as presented. Let the chips fall.