The staff ate it later

> Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts. For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.

- Exodus 7:1-12 (NIV)

Many moons ago I had a girlfriend who worked on an nationally broadcast afternoon show where they often had guest chefs demonstrating dishes, so I would come home from my thankless PhD work to eat Michelin-starred food from a lunchbox. Overall not so bad.

Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here, but it's a as good an opportunity as ever to say that large parts of the "Old Testament" draw most of its inspiration from the code of Hammurabi ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"), the Epic of Gilgamesh (which gave us, notably, the story of the deluge, and the dark role of the serpent) and Ancient Egypt, to which it owes, among many others, the concept of eternal life and the idea that man was made in God's image.

To be "in God's image" was one of the titles of Pharaoh.

And about the staff: early depictions of Jesus often have him holding a magic wand [0], as he was considered by followers and ennemies alike to be a magician. The "Three Wise Men" or "Three Kings" (?!) that show up at his birth are just "magi" (magicians) in the original text [1].

[0] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi

If truth is defined as beliefs which lead one to make decisions that cause you/your society to thrive, this is a good thing (that the Old Testament has similarities to other major works). Implies a kind of evolutionary algorithm for truth. Likely implies these stories are more true because they’re more tried and tested. Societies who believed them became strong.

If truth is about repeated experimentation or journalistic records (a very new concept in history of writing - less than 500 years), then perhaps this is of concern.

I accept both definitions, but when they’re in conflict, the former tends to be more end-to-end, while the latter tends to overfit to the moment. Mostly because data is scarce and life is a very complex distributed system. On the other hand, the former changes slowly while the latter perhaps keeps up with the pace of change.

Except the point of life is probably to thrive more than to collect a list of facts. So when in conflict, I lean towards the former. Personal choice tho. I expect most of HN leans the other way.