Yes, you quoted several but you didn't quote all did you?
You're insisting where you shouldn't. I don't need to quote the entire bible if I have several quotations that absolutely prove my point.
Or put another way "Why should I quote the entire bible when I can pick and choose quotations which support while I'm saying while deliberately ignoring or dismissing those that do not". Right?
When you quote a source based to support your argument, you better be in a position to both acknowledge and address contradictory information as well as supporting. It's the cornerstone of building a convincing argument. When you quote some things, and dismiss others, that tells me you're not looking at the work as a whole but rather simply picking and choosing things in a deceptive way akin to spin-doctoring.
"But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses."But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."What you fail to understand, is that your black and white interpretation of the first passage is undermined, not disproved, by the existence of the second. You quoted a passage saying that the lord said he would harden pharaoh's heart. And yet, in the second passage, the pharaoh hardened his own heart, just as the lord had said. So what did the lord say exactly? That he would harden his heart? Or that pharaoh would harden his own heart?
He cannot have said both.
So if we have one passage where the Lord says he is going to harden his heart, then we have multiple passages, each of which saying either the lord did it or that pharaoh did it, then which interpretation is correct?
Fact is, I could say "I'm going to piss this guy off" and then say a bunch of bull**** and make a guy mad, that doesn't give me supernatural powers it simply suggests that I know what will set him off, or set anyone off. So God hardening his heart could fit into this same type of idea.
In any case, there are two types of conflicting passages, and one prediction by the lord. The only logical conclusion then is that pharaoh himself harden his heart in all circumstances.
IOW, if your statement is that these interpretations are "heretic" or something, well, you won't see me shed any tears over that factoid
I don't give a **** about religious beliefs. We're discussing source material.
I have said this over and over, the story is told from the point of view of the GTVA, which according to my theory, it's analogous with the Egyptians' point of view. Now, drop all preconceptions you might have on how Yahweh is this "Loving God" that came as flesh to forgive our sins and what not in the New Testament, try to think as an Egyptian in those times. You see your Pharaoh and you love the guy. You kinda understand where Moses is coming from, he wants to drop out of this "Alliance" with the Egyptians and carve his own path for his own people, but then you see astonishing things, like a competition between the magicians of your beloved Pharaoh and this unknown Yahweh that this Moses brought up, and while it starts fine with sticks and serpents and what not, it suddenly goes absolutely bat**** insane material with plagues, diseases, disasters, rivers covered in blood, all kind of misery thrown out to you, and then out of the blue your first born son is killed.
. . .
Do you get it now?
Nope.
Because personally I still believe that the comparison between say the GTVA and the Egyptians is largely assumed rather than proven and further that ample evidence contradicts this hypothesis. You liken the supernova to the red sea incident for example, yet in Capella the group most identifiable with the israelites is the GTVA. But a core part of your hypothesis is that Bosch is moses and the NTF are the israelites.
People relate Khonsu II to the Egyptian pharaoh for example, but Khonsu the Egyptian god of the moon is also identified with a union called Mut-Amun, which is believed to be the origin of the Alpha-Omega paradigm which represents Jesus. Khonsu is also the replacement of another moon God, Iah, or sometimes Yah, who some suggest is the origin of Yahweh. So the "egyptian ruler" that moses is battling against in your version is loosely associated Jesus, essentially an evolutionary step above Yahweh or the shivans.
Khonsu is also known for the myth of Bekeht which has the god going to another land, driving a demon out of a princess and convincing it to go home (
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/mythbekhten.htm ). Though it should be noted that some stories claim Ramsees was the pharaoh of Egypt during the Exodus, and this story mentions Ramsees building a temple to Khonsu.
Another less relevant but curious footnote is that Khonsu is often recognized with Ptolemy IV, and Ptolemy is a king who apparently built what is considered the largest man-powered ships in history ( the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres ) which could be likened to the colossus.
THOUGH, also it's interesting to me at least that the mission in which Bosch is taken is called Return to Babel. Babel is apparently equated to Babylon, an empire which was no great friend of the Israelites and also, interestingly Babel itself was said to be constructed by Nimrod. And Nimrod is the king who killed the first-born sons in egypt in an attempt to kill moses. You know, in the mission Return to Babel why does it not instead draw allusions to Mount Sinai? If Bosch is moses and is forging a lasting covenant with Yahweh/the shivans then why does the mission mention Babel?
Is it a allusion to the outcome? Or is it revealing something of the true nature of Bosch.
If Bosch is indeed nimrod, trying to reach the gods/heaven and the shivans struck him down or rejected him, then the killing of the GTVA's first born sons in the war would make more sense in painting the GTVA as the israelities not again the NTF. Hell, the missions even liken the Iceni to chariots do they not? At the time that comparison is no doubt to Boudacia, but maybe it's a comparison to egyptian chariots as well.
You've also said that the GTVA limped home defeated like a child to its mother.
However, the final monologue is delivered by Petrarch, and another famous Petrarch (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch ) is often credited for starting the renaissance. The Lost Generation could certainly be equated to a dark age, and returning home a renaissance.
Petrarch is also one of the first humanists apparently, and is rumoured to have climbed a mountain before coming to the realization that what's important is actually inside the individual. This would fit into Freespace 2 if one likened the Shivans not to an enemy, but to nature. In the antagonistic struggle of man vs self, man vs man and man vs nature the shivans would be nature.
As nature they would be a force which destroyed the ancients, which makes sense if one considers the portal is called Knossos and the Knossos was the seat of Minoan power, a civilization destroyed by natural events. One could also equate the Capellan supernova to an act of nature, similar perhaps to the red sea but driven by nature itself not by a jealous god. Or perhaps compare it to mount vesuvius or another natural calamity.
Shivans as nature would also explain their otherworldly, undentifiable background and seemingly relentless and powerful force of will. etcetera
Point is, whether these points have merit is debatable however the intent is more to demonstrate the fact that, many things need to be considered when trying to form a comprehensive theme or picture of how freespace 2's story is written. Perhaps truly the story is a jumble of different and contradictory ideas with references to mythology but no underlying and comprehensive idea that spans all subject matter.