Is there any question that they thought there were other gods? From what I remember of the Exodus story, Moses’s god was better than the Egyptian god(s). They all turned their staffs (staves?) into snakes, but Moses’s snake was able to eat the other ones.
Some folks insist that (as in the animated film Prince Of Egypt) the egyptain priests used sleight of hand and stage magic, while Moses performed actual miracles.
There are other issues. For example, there are cases where God says “I am going to punish the Israelites for their transgressions and get you new followers, get ready for the smite Moses” and then Moses talks him down. If God already knows that He is going to get talked down by Moses, is it all just performative for Moses’ benefit? Perhaps, and that’s often how I’ve seen it interpreted, but that’s definitely not what the text says.
I mean, sure, but that’s extra-biblical. In the text, they all do the same thing.
God also often helped the Israelites in battle, but he was powerless against chariots.
Well, at least those with iron wheels.
There are other magicians and witches in the Bible as well. Yes, I’ve seen that interpretation. I also heard (from a Chabbad Rabbi) an interpretation where when God created the universe He created certain laws, like the laws of physics, but also laws that govern the supernatural and that diviners and magicians can tap into those laws to create magical effects.
The iron grants them 50% spell resistance and advantage on all saving throws against divine casters, they hard counter Joshua.
(Moses could beat them, he has Greater Spell Penetration, but of course he did not enter the promised land).
Maybe God is a woodland elf or something – aren’t they allergic to iron?
Later Christian theology held that God and only God was the source of supernatural effects. So while the ancient people who wrote the original myth had no problem with the idea that the Egyptian gods existed and could do things, later Christians retconned that away.
The “God is unknowable” idea has come up. so I’ll point out the problem with that: if something is unknowable, then we can’t know anything about them and talking about what they are like is meaningless. While it’s an argument that can counter many arguments agaisnt God’s existence, it’s self-defeating since it also eliminates most of the reasons people want to believe in a god in the first place. You can’t meaningfully claim that an unknowable god is “good”, or cares about humanity, or wants humanity to do something, or that we should follow or respect them; you’ve just claimed that we don’t and can’t understand or know them.
The “unknowable God” is frankly mostly a rhetorical device bought out for arguments agaisnt unbelievers, then promptly abandoned afterwards; even the believers themselves seldom treat it seriously.
I have not heard that scholars question that old-school Hebrews “thought there were other gods”, which itself seems like a very modern turn of phrase and way of looking at it. It was not like current Orthodox Judaism.
Hey, if you merely want to turn staves into snakes or what not, any old wizardry or galder will do, no need to mess with any gods.
I’m also omniscient – I knew where I parked my car for example. There’s millions of things I don’t know, but so it goes.
Also, on the omnibenevolence thing, sure it’s relative, but someone that wants to make the claim that God is omnibelevolent should relish the opportunity to explain how so. How to justify a lot of the bloodthirsty collective-punishment and treating women/children as property…not the mention the inconsistencies.
I’m fully aware of why it isn’t consistent. For one thing, I suspect the editors were working with material from different traditions, and felt they had to satisfy those from each in the final product. Not to mention they didn’t have the benefit of millennia of literary criticism.
There is only a problem if you consider the Bible to be divinely inspired. That’s when it should be consistent.
However, the Iliad is reasonably internally consistent, and it has kept people’s interest at least as long.
The concept came up well after the time I’m interested in. I suspect if the priests from the Exile period proposed omnibenevolence they’d have been laughed out of the Temple.
Whoa. OK, that argument convinced me to believe that the Greek gods exist.
Their temples are way cooler than any shul I’ve ever seen.
The Prince of Insufficient Light?
To prove the existence of God isn’t something that mere humans can do. If we could do that, then we’d likely be Gods ourselves. And we’re not.
I believe in God, but I also know that my religion isn’t logical, and can’t be proven.
The closest I can come is to point the skeptic to a Joe Bonamassa concert. Listening to him will bring religion to the Godless. 
I can only wish that all religious people were similarly self-aware.
Boring family anecdote: my sister came to be born again through the influence of what she decided was an undeniable act of God (a voice in her head). Fine, she has faith. Only she spends a lot of time and energy trying to accumulate further evidence that her faith is justified. She can’t see that she is, in effect, denying her own faith with these efforts, not to mention that nothing she has ever shared with me was anything like evidence. Her idea of a killer argument is intelligent design, so 'nuff said. It makes our relationship a little difficult, but fortunately it is at a distance.
I never had a moment like that. It’s just something I gradually came to. Some people have dramatic testimonies. But I don’t.
I hope your sister doesn’t worry too much about proving anything, and spends more time living her faith, which hopefully will drive her to want to help other people more.
Fine tuning problem. Also quantum mechanics. This universe shows every sign of being slapped together on deadline, probably after an all-nighter. Possibly by an A- student (after grade inflation): at least we have stars and the errant carbon chains don’t screw up the experiment too much.