Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible Unearthed - Exodus
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 76 of 151 (40995)
05-22-2003 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by nuklhed67
05-21-2003 8:50 PM


This is my first post here, please forgive me if I am unfamiliar with the etiquette on this board. I am replying to a post not addressed to me so if that is improper please let me know, thanks!
Hi, I’m honoured that you choose your first post to be a reply to something I posted. As far as I know everyone is free to post a reply to anything on the boards unless it is a thread specifically set up for a debate between two or more people. Anyway, I welcome your reply and hope we can tackle these ‘issues’ together and come to some kind of conclusion that is mutually beneficial.
Your post #66 was quite long and covered a great deal of material, so I'll probably have more replies to it later (if that's "kosher").
Yes I tend to do that sometimes when the mood takes me and I have the time to type it up. But I thought W_Fortenberry’s reply merited a proper response rather than one of those long list of ‘contradictions’ from some atheist websites, I do not work that way and I do not understand why some atheists do not research these apparent ‘contradictions’ before using them on their sites. Many apparent ‘contradictions’ can be cleared up fairly easily, but in my opinion, there are some contradictions that have found there way into the Bible. There are a few threads dedicated to this here, so I really would like to concentrate on the topic.
The one thing I wanted to address in this post is the discussion of the Israelites in Egypt and the subsequent Exodus. You laid out a position that the Israelites could not have grown in number in the 430 years they were there to over 2.5 million.
Yes, and I also provided documented evidence to support my claim, one of which was from a scholar who was working with official census documents from last century, and also that the figure of 600 000 men of fighting age need not be literal.
I have wondered about this myself before, and finally some years ago I put together a spreadsheet to test simple population growth models to determine what would have to happen to grow from 70 to over 2 million in the alloted time.
Ok, that’s fair enough, it is good to question everything.
Now, this is obviously simplified for the sake of argument, but if the Israelites produced 3.3 children per family, that survived to become parents themselves, and had an average lifespan of 60 years, they would exceed 2.8 million in population in 420 years. Of course this model is very simple and does not account for disease and other events that would come in at certain times and affect population growth. But, IMO, 3.3 children per family is actually quite do-able, especially taking into account that the family sizes recorded in the bible tend to be well above that. If you bumped this number to 3.35 children per family, they would exceed 3.9 million in 420 years. 3.36 = 4.2 million, 3.37 = 4.5 million. It seems to me that the 2 million population figure requires little faith.
(If you would like a copy of this excel spreadsheet, send me an email)
Yes this is indeed a very simplified model, as your figures at the end show, your calculation is way off. What I would ask myself when researching this is ‘do we have any comparable examples to refer to?
To the best of my knowledge I haven’t seen any other ancient text that claims this extraordinary growth rate. I would also need to look at population dynamics, what affects population growth, do we have external evidence to support this claim, things like that.
I would also have to ask myself that if Jacob’s clan could grow at this magnificent rate the surely it would apply to everybody else too! Your figure of 3.3 children per family is perfectly reasonable in your opinion, so surely it is perfectly reasonable for every single family in the world to reproduce at this rate? Think what would happen if just 50 man and 50 women married and reproduced at this rate, the world would be overflowing with people.
I haven’t seen your formula for population growth, but I am willing to bet it is based on some sort of exponential growth, which doesn’t take many factors into consideration, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt until I see how you worked it out.
I really don’t need to see a spreadsheet, you could just post the formula here and I can type it into excel myself, unless you think it is easier to understand if I had the sheet to view?
The Exodus account makes quite clear that the Israelites were reproducing at a rate that alarmed their Egyptian rulers, causing them to undertake measures to reduce their population.
Well I am not sure I agree with you there, it does say that they had become much too numerous for the Egyptians, but doesn’t mention how many Egyptians there were. I have read estimates that there were possibly around 2 million Egyptians in the entire Egyptian Empire at that time, which would mean that in the small part of Egypt that the Israelites were said to have been held, then there doesn’t necessarily need to be an awful lot of Israelites. I do not have a reference at hand for the estimate of how many Egyptians there were, I am typing this purely from memory, but I can get you a reference if you require it.
You mentioned the two Hebrew midwives that were instructed to kill the newborn males. Your post is the first time I've ever heard of someone claiming that the text claims there was only these two midwives in the entire nation of Israel. Perhaps it does, but I don't see it. They are certainly the focus of the story, but do you really think the text supports that they are the only two?
Fair comment, but I think that logic determines that there were only two midwives because if there were more then they would have to be told as well or not all the boys would be killed. This whole story though smacks of fiction, why would Pharaoh entrust this task to the midwives? Why wouldn’t he simply send his soldiers to kill all the boys? The discussion at the end when the midwives say that the mothers are strong and don’t always need midwives, makes Pharaoh out to be a moron. So essentially, I think there are only two midwives because the story only mentions two midwives, it says nothing at all about any other midwives, it never says that these two then pass on the command to other midwives, and if there were more midwives then they would have to have been told.
I am surprised that this is the first time you have read this argument; I have read it in many books. Do you think the text supports there being more than two midwives?
You quoted your source saying "The reader can figure that two and a half million people marching in an old-fashioned column of fours would extend for some 350 miles!"
Yes this is taken from John Bright’s History of Israel, which was standard issue at universities for a long time as an introduction to the topic. I do not know why he arrived at columns of four, maybe it is supported somewhere, but I haven’t seen it.
But how many abreast would you say is realistic? Remember they are fleeing from a large army in chariots.
That would take some imagination, especially since Exodus never says they marched out in such a formation. I live in a metroplex that has over 4 million people in it. I can imagine it would be quite a scene for all of us to get up and walk to the next state, but it is certainly not impossible, and we certainly would be more like a mob rather than an army in formation.
Well I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying that it is unsupported by the archaeological and anthropological data. Remember that John Bright did not include any livestock, carts, or goods, one account f the Exodus says that the Israelites took some goodies from the Egyptians as they left, this would take up more space.
Finally (for now), the Israelites wandering in a wilderness for 40 years, all 2+ million of them, certainly would take a great deal of resources. Water alone would be a serious challenge. I can see why any anti-supernaturalist would never believe such a thing. But to those who believe what the text says, we find that God provided food and water for the entire journey. This is part of what makes the story so compelling, that God is there taking care of them. And I find it interesting that right from Genesis 1:1, we are expected to believe in God. Without Him, the rest of the bible is a complete waste of time.
Yes I agree pretty much with everything you say here. However, I think we have our wires crossed. My own research, and that of the people I have quoted, is purely from an historical viewpoint, one that does not include miracles as an explanation for anything. Any apparent miracles would have to be explained in terms of natural phenomenon for this type of investigation.
I realise that this post is a bit sketchy, I am actually at work and only had a few minutes, so hopefully we can discuss this in greater detail when I have more time to give you a better reply.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nuklhed67, posted 05-21-2003 8:50 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by nuklhed67, posted 05-22-2003 5:19 PM Brian has replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 151 (41049)
05-22-2003 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Brian
05-22-2003 8:57 AM


Hi Brian! I hope all is well.
I really don’t need to see a spreadsheet, you could just post the formula here and I can type it into excel myself, unless you think it is easier to understand if I had the sheet to view?
Here's the formulas. The upper-leftmost cell is A1. You can change the number in cell A1 and the spreadsheet will update automatically to reflect the new growth rate.
3.37	children per family
	average lifespan of 60 years
year	parents	offspring	      total pop.
0	24	=B4*$A$1/2      =B4+C4
=A4+20	=C4	=B5*$A$1/2	=D4+C5
=A5+20	=C5	=B6*$A$1/2	=D5+C6-B4
=A6+20	=C6	=B7*$A$1/2	=D6+C7-B5
=A7+20	=C7	=B8*$A$1/2	=D7+C8-B6
=A8+20	=C8	=B9*$A$1/2	=D8+C9-B7
=A9+20	=C9	=B10*$A$1/2	=D9+C10-B8
=A10+20	=C10	=B11*$A$1/2	=D10+C11-B9
=A11+20	=C11	=B12*$A$1/2	=D11+C12-B10
=A12+20	=C12	=B13*$A$1/2	=D12+C13-B11
=A13+20	=C13	=B14*$A$1/2	=D13+C14-B12
=A14+20	=C14	=B15*$A$1/2	=D14+C15-B13
=A15+20	=C15	=B16*$A$1/2	=D15+C16-B14
=A16+20	=C16	=B17*$A$1/2	=D16+C17-B15
=A17+20	=C17	=B18*$A$1/2	=D17+C18-B16
=A18+20	=C18	=B19*$A$1/2	=D18+C19-B17
=A19+20	=C19	=B20*$A$1/2	=D19+C20-B18
=A20+20	=C20	=B21*$A$1/2	=D20+C21-B19
=A21+20	=C21	=B22*$A$1/2	=D21+C22-B20
=A22+20	=C22	=B23*$A$1/2	=D22+C23-B21
=A23+20	=C23	=B24*$A$1/2	=D23+C24-B22
=A24+20	=C24	=B25*$A$1/2	=D24+C25-B23
=A25+20	=C25	=B26*$A$1/2	=D25+C26-B24
=A26+20	=C26	=B27*$A$1/2	=D26+C27-B25
=A27+20	=C27	=B28*$A$1/2	=D27+C28-B26
=A28+20	=C28	=B29*$A$1/2	=D28+C29-B27
=A29+20	=C29	=B30*$A$1/2	=D29+C30-B28
=A30+20	=C30	=B31*$A$1/2	=D30+C31-B29
=A31+20	=C31	=B32*$A$1/2	=D31+C32-B30
This model is in 20 year increments, and assumes that each generation produces offspring while between 20-40 years old, then dies at age 60. Note that beginning in the 3rd row into the calculations, it begins to subtract the parents from 3 rows up (60 year olds) from the population.
This is obviously oversimplified, but my purpose was to determine what kind of reproduction rate would be required, and if that number was out of the realm of possibility. My conclusion is that 3.3 children per family unit would be well within the realm of possibility.
The highest recent birthrate according to Birth rate per 1,000 population - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System is 52.31 births per 1000 population (Niger, 1999). If that birthrate is applied to a similar model (starting with 24 parents), they would exceed 17 million in population in 420 years.
IMO we can safely assume that the Israelites had no reason to engage in any measures to prevent pregnancy, and in fact they probably encouraged large families.
Your figure of 3.3 children per family is perfectly reasonable in your opinion, so surely it is perfectly reasonable for every single family in the world to reproduce at this rate?
Of course not, birth rates are greatly affected by cultural and ecological factors, so I would never claim that this birthrate should be applied globally. My point is that a growth rate of this magnitude should not be ruled out as a possibility, and in fact could be considered a reasonable assumption if cultural and ecological factors allowed.
Do you think the text supports there being more than two midwives?
I don't think it excludes the possibility. I don't believe it is trying to convey the story as a full account of the situation. It could be that there were other midwives that obeyed Pharoah's orders, and the story's purpose was to honor the two who did not. There is a great number of possible explanations.
I have read estimates that there were possibly around 2 million Egyptians in the entire Egyptian Empire at that time, which would mean that in the small part of Egypt that the Israelites were said to have been held, then there doesn’t necessarily need to be an awful lot of Israelites. I do not have a reference at hand for the estimate of how many Egyptians there were, I am typing this purely from memory, but I can get you a reference if you require it.
I tried to find some data on this with a quick "Google", I don't see anything that claims to be authoritative. I would be interested in knowing what the generally accepted population number is. One site I found gave a possible population of 7 million, but did not specify if that included the Israelites.
But how many abreast would you say is realistic? Remember they are fleeing from a large army in chariots.
LOL... I can't get the scene from the 10 Commandments movie out of my mind! They look like a vast mob streaming across the landscape. Who knows, I just tend to think of it as less organized, not marching in formation. I'm sure at some point they had to bottleneck at the Red Sea, but the text doesn't say how wide the opening in the Red Sea was. It does say (if I read it correctly) that the sea was parted, the wind blew on the sea floor all night, the Israelites crossed, and the next morning the sea was closed back up, drowning the Egyptians. It seems to me that it was parted wide enough for all to cross in 24 hours or less, so that could be quite wide.
Also, the story says that the Egyptians were held off by a pillar of cloud and fire while the Israelites crossed. The chariots of Pharoah were neutralized by God.
My own research, and that of the people I have quoted, is purely from an historical viewpoint, one that does not include miracles as an explanation for anything. Any apparent miracles would have to be explained in terms of natural phenomenon for this type of investigation.
I don't understand the purpose of such an investigation given those terms. The whole bible presupposes that God is able to act supernaturally. If you could explain the supernatural in natural terms, it would no longer qualify as supernatural!
However, I do think that trying to verify the natural events of the bible is a very worthy investigation. That is the path I choose to take. Over time, I believe that more and more archealogical evidence will be brought to light to support the bible, and there are ample explanations for every alleged contradiction I have seen.
I wish I had more time to spend on this, I will be in and out of this discussion board as time allows. I have a job and family responsibilites that keep me from immersing myself here... but it is a worthwhile topic of discussion! Thanks for the time and energy you spend here!
Have a super day!
(edited to try to line up the spreadsheet columns)
[This message has been edited by nuklhed67, 05-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Brian, posted 05-22-2003 8:57 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Brian, posted 05-23-2003 11:17 AM nuklhed67 has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 78 of 151 (41096)
05-23-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by nuklhed67
05-22-2003 5:19 PM


Scary Formula!
Hi, what a scary formula! I was expecting something much smaller, but many thanks for posting it.
I had an inkling that your model would be something like this, I have seen many similar models on various website, and frankly, don’t take this the wrong way, it is totally unreasonable and impractical. I know you said it is a very simplified model, but it is also an unrealistic model.
To work out the population growth you cannot just count the births in one generation, you really need to count the deaths as well to work out a population growth figure. The reason for this is that you are using a false figure to arrive at the amount of people in the next generation, then you are wiping out an entire generation at one time, I know you need this for your model to work but your model has to be based on realistic premises.
This model assumes that there are no deaths at all for two generations and then suddenly you have an entire generation disappearing, this is giving a totally artificial figure for working out population growth, real life doesn’t work like this. It is fine to say that the Israelites had 3.3 children per family but you do have to have some people dying, so, in reality, there are not the numbers of families having 3.3 children that your model assumes.
To work out the growth of a population is relatively simple, you have a base population figure, in our case this is 70, you then find out how many births there were in a year and subtract the amount of deaths there were that same year to get a new population figure, and then the population growth can be worked out from there.
By having no one dying for so many long periods of time has messed up your calculations, you are counting people who, in a realistic model, simply wouldn’t be alive. I know you said it is an oversimplified model but you yourself can surely see massive problems here, for example, you have zero infant mortality, you have optimal reproduction periods for all females (not all females will reproduce for 20 years, this isn’t even a average, it is an optimum), and entire generations do not disappear overnight on a regular basis.
Let me post what the original article says. It can be found in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1944 & 1945 on page 167.
He gives figures from Annuaire Statistique.
Census Annual Rate of Increase per 1000
1907-1917 12.27
1917-1927 10.95
1927-1937 11.69
Average 11.69 per 1000
This means that the population each year was 1.01169 times that of the previous year, and this went on at compound interest. At the same rate of increase the original seventy Israelites would have become 10,363 at the end of 430 years. (Note #2 ‘I am indebted to Mr. J. L. Craig, of the Ministry of Finance, for this calculation.’)
This is a far more realistic formula for working out population growth and can be typed into the Excel Formula Bar as follows: =70*(1.01169)^430
This will give you an answer of 10,636, exactly the same as the original article says.
You can bump the 1.01169 around to get various figures.
I need to thank you for taking the time to type out your Excel sheet; I was typing it into my computer when my girlfriend asked what I was doing and, as she is an accountant, she told me that there is a far easier way of doing it. Anyway, I have her to thank for the Excel Formula because it would have taken me ages to work it out.
This is obviously oversimplified, but my purpose was to determine what kind of reproduction rate would be required, and if that number was out of the realm of possibility. My conclusion is that 3.3 children per family unit would be well within the realm of possibility.
I know you oversimplified the model, that’s no problem as we are just beginning to research the population growth, but you cannot work out a population growth by just using a birth rate, you have to subtract the people that die, it is totally unreasonable to assume that no one dies for a few generations at regular intervals. I have no problem with 3.3 children per couple, I actually think this is rather low, but the infant mortality rate would be fairly high, as would death from disease, illness, and old age.
Populations didn’t start growing at a great rate until the emergence of large urban centres, the industrial revolution and the advancements made in medicine, so the population growth would be far lower 4000 years ago than it is today.
The highest recent birthrate according to
Birth rate per 1,000 population - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System is 52.31 births per 1000 population (Niger, 1999). If that birthrate is applied to a similar model (starting with 24 parents), they would exceed 17 million in population in 420 years.
Again you are applying a ‘best case scenario’ from a different area of the world, you have no reason to think that the Israelites had 52.31 births per 1000, and the Bible certainly doesn’t support this. Don’t you think that the fact that this figure (17 million) is far too high casts a shadow of doubt on the accuracy of your formula?
Also, to fit your formula this 52.31 would need to be consistent for 430 years! You really do need to get a population growth percentage or any formula we come up with will be inaccurate.
It is interesting that Niger has the highest birth rate that year but only rank 35th in the population growth charts, this has got to mean that there are many factors that have to be considered when calculating the growth rate of a population.
Population growth rate - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System
Of course not, birth rates are greatly affected by cultural and ecological factors, so I would never claim that this birthrate should be applied globally. My point is that a growth rate of this magnitude should not be ruled out as a possibility, and in fact could be considered a reasonable assumption if cultural and ecological factors allowed.
I should have explained this better so I will try again.
What I meant is that if this population growth applies to Jacob with no problem then surely it is possible that many more people in that region should have been multiplying at the same rate. What would happen if even one family from each village in Palestine and Egypt multiplied at this rate, would the planet be big enough to hold everyone? Why is there only 6 billion people alive now if this is an acceptable growth rate?
There has to be a better way of calculating this statistic.
As you say, cultural and ecological factors have a bearing on population growths, so there would be some areas of the planet that have better conditions for population growth than the Israelites had, the planet simply couldn’t sustain that amount of people. It is unreasonable to just apply your model to Jacob and to no one else. The world is not big enough to accommodate the population figure that this model suggests.
LOL... I can't get the scene from the 10 Commandments movie out of my mind! They look like a vast mob streaming across the landscape. Who knows, I just tend to think of it as less organized, not marching in formation. I'm sure at some point they had to bottleneck at the Red Sea, but the text doesn't say how wide the opening in the Red Sea was. It does say (if I read it correctly) that the sea was parted, the wind blew on the sea floor all night, the Israelites crossed, and the next morning the sea was closed back up, drowning the Egyptians. It seems to me that it was parted wide enough for all to cross in 24 hours or less, so that could be quite wide
LOL neither can I! I am continually astounded at how some people can be so gullible as to take this account literally. Anyway, funny movies are not what we are discussing.
A few problems here, firstly people need to stop referring to the sea of the crossing as the Red Sea. This was abandoned a long time ago as it is based on a mistranslation of Yam Suph, which mean Sea of Reeds, the Red Sea has no reeds and is really too far south to have been the sea that was crossed anyway.
The size of the column of people is a very pertinent question as we have to be realistic about how far and how quickly this amount of people can move. We are talking about an average walking speed of 2.5 miles an hour, so we need to have some idea how long it would take to walk between any two points. I don’t know why John Bright used a column of four, maybe he had a good reason to, but if we don’t accept a column of four what do you suggest is a reasonable amount for a column? For example, say the Sea of Reeds was a mile wide, then it would take someone walking at 2.5 miles an hour 24 minutes to walk across. But we have 2.5 million people to cross in 12 hours, and they cannot all cross at the same time, so what would be a reasonable number of people in each row, in your opinion?
I don't understand the purpose of such an investigation given those terms. The whole bible presupposes that God is able to act supernaturally. If you could explain the supernatural in natural terms, it would no longer qualify as supernatural!
However, I do think that trying to verify the natural events of the bible is a very worthy investigation. That is the path I choose to take. Over time, I believe that more and more archealogical evidence will be brought to light to support the bible, and there are ample explanations for every alleged contradiction I have seen.
The purpose of this type of investigation is to give Israel a place in history. The bible is not the only source for reconstructing the origins of ancient Israel, it is only one source and historians recognise that it is not very reliable, so in order to give Israel a place in the history of the real world, they need more reliable evidence from such sources as archaeology and anthropology.
You say that over time more and more archaeological evidence will be brought to light but over the last 30 years or so the vast majority of archaeological finds have actually undermined the Bible, don’t believe everything you read on Bible Inerrantist websites.
Also, explanations for contradictions do not prove the validity of the Bible as a reliable historical source.
I have to go now as well, I am at work and wish I had more time to spend on this, but things are busy here.
Thank you very much again for taking the time to post the Excel document, I really appreciate the effort you put in and if it wasn’t for my girlfriend I would have typed it all into my Excel too!
Hope to speak to you soon, take care for now.
Brian.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nuklhed67, posted 05-22-2003 5:19 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nuklhed67, posted 05-23-2003 4:35 PM Brian has replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 151 (41136)
05-23-2003 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Brian
05-23-2003 11:17 AM


Re: Scary Formula!
Hello again!
To work out the population growth you cannot just count the births in one generation, you really need to count the deaths as well to work out a population growth figure. The reason for this is that you are using a false figure to arrive at the amount of people in the next generation, then you are wiping out an entire generation at one time, I know you need this for your model to work but your model has to be based on realistic premises.
This model assumes that there are no deaths at all for two generations and then suddenly you have an entire generation disappearing, this is giving a totally artificial figure for working out population growth, real life doesn’t work like this. It is fine to say that the Israelites had 3.3 children per family but you do have to have some people dying, so, in reality, there are not the numbers of families having 3.3 children that your model assumes.
By having no one dying for so many long periods of time has messed up your calculations, you are counting people who, in a realistic model, simply wouldn’t be alive.
I apologize, I should have spent a little more time explaining my model. If you look closely at how the "offspring" (column c) are calculated, you'll see that ONLY THE OFFSPRING from the previous generation (one row up) become parents in the next row (generation). The total population is never used in determining new offspring. So, you could kill off the grandparents any time and they don't affect the birthrate. The grandparents ARE added to the total population, but the first three rows in the model are irrelevant to its purpose which is finding the population after 400+ years.
you have zero infant mortality, you have optimal reproduction periods for all females (not all females will reproduce for 20 years, this isn’t even a average, it is an optimum), and entire generations do not disappear overnight on a regular basis.
Here's another clarification I need to make. The 3.3 children per family is the number of children who would not only survive infancy but then become parents in the next generation.
So, in a more comprehensive model, we would need to actually determine the birthrate, subtract for infant mortality, and subtract some offspring who would never become parents to determine the new set of parents for each generation. I rebuilt my spreadsheet with this new format and determined that they would need a birthrate of 4.2 children per family, given a 14% infant mortality rate (the highest per our on-line source), and a 10% non-parent rate. You were right, the original population in my first model (24 parents) had never died, so I adjusted that in my new model (of course this only changes the bottom line by 24 people). With the above parameters, they would have 2,326,756 people after 420 years.
(I'd be happy to post the new spreadsheet formulas or email the sheet to you upon your request)
Census Annual Rate of Increase per 1000
1907-1917 12.27
1917-1927 10.95
1927-1937 11.69
Average 11.69 per 1000
This means that the population each year was 1.01169 times that of the previous year, and this went on at compound interest. At the same rate of increase the original seventy Israelites would have become 10,363 at the end of 430 years. (Note #2 ‘I am indebted to Mr. J. L. Craig, of the Ministry of Finance, for this calculation.’)
This is a far more realistic formula for working out population growth and can be typed into the Excel Formula Bar as follows: =70*(1.01169)^430
This will give you an answer of 10,636, exactly the same as the original article says.
You can bump the 1.01169 around to get various figures.
I played with this formula and found that a rate of 24.5 per 1000 would be required.
70*1.0245^430 = 2,318,686
In perspective, this would rank 49th on the population growth rate chart at Population growth rate - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System
I need to thank you for taking the time to type out your Excel sheet; I was typing it into my computer when my girlfriend asked what I was doing and, as she is an accountant, she told me that there is a far easier way of doing it. Anyway, I have her to thank for the Excel Formula because it would have taken me ages to work it out.
She probably cut and pasted, then copied the formulas into the desired range. I have to confess I did'nt spend a lot of time typing it either, I pasted into my post. I did spend time working out the original formulas and developing the model, but that was years ago. Today I updated it as noted above.
Again you are applying a ‘best case scenario’ from a different area of the world, you have no reason to think that the Israelites had 52.31 births per 1000, and the Bible certainly doesn’t support this. Don’t you think that the fact that this figure (17 million) is far too high casts a shadow of doubt on the accuracy of your formula?
Niger's growth rate was 2.95%, birthrate was 52.31 per thousand:
70*1.0295^430 = 18,811,739
My 17 million estimate turned out to be low.
The births/thousand/year figure in my new model (as noted above) averages out to 47.4, which would rank 6th on our aforementioned website. So, yes, a high birthrate sustained over a long period. But certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Remember that the Hebrew population growth is what bothered the Egyptians in the story, so if we are to believe the story we should expect to see something like this. I was happy to discover that the growthrate is well within a possible range.
I'm not particularly dogmatic about the 2+million population. But I do think that their numbers had to be more than the 10,000 or so that is proposed by the author you quote from. The book of Numbers lays out the number of males in each tribe (which I have not looked at yet in detail) and there seems to be quite a large number. Perhaps this weekend I'll get a chance to study it further.
What I meant is that if this population growth applies to Jacob with no problem then surely it is possible that many more people in that region should have been multiplying at the same rate.
Not necessarily. For one thing the story indicates that God thwarted the Egyptians in there attempts to quell Hebrew population growth, and that the growth rate was alarming. Part of the thrust of this story is that the Hebrews were reproducing faster than expected in that era.
A few problems here, firstly people need to stop referring to the sea of the crossing as the Red Sea. This was abandoned a long time ago as it is based on a mistranslation of Yam Suph, which mean Sea of Reeds, the Red Sea has no reeds and is really too far south to have been the sea that was crossed anyway.
True enough. But we can ascertain that this body of water was large enough to be an obstacle, and also large enough that the Egyptian army was swallowed up by it.
The size of the column of people is a very pertinent question as we have to be realistic about how far and how quickly this amount of people can move. We are talking about an average walking speed of 2.5 miles an hour, so we need to have some idea how long it would take to walk between any two points.....
The problem is that calculating the logistics of this crossing requires information we don't have, like the distance they had to travel and the width of the miraculous opening. If they were 4 abreast and 350 miles long, we can reshape this formation as 40 abreast and 35 miles long, or 400 abreast and 3.5 miles long. 400 people is not an unimaginable column width in an open field, this would be 2,000 feet wide (at 5 feet per person), less than a half mile wide. Again, these are all total speculation, we can't tell from the text.
You say that over time more and more archaeological evidence will be brought to light but over the last 30 years or so the vast majority of archaeological finds have actually undermined the Bible, don’t believe everything you read on Bible Inerrantist websites.
I agree, I don't believe everything I read, I like to put it to the test.
Do you have a source/list for the archaeological finds that undermine the bible?
Also, explanations for contradictions do not prove the validity of the Bible as a reliable historical source.
Yes, true. But reasonable explanations can be an adequate defense against criticism of the bible. My objective is to determine if this Word of God is what it claims to be. If it is true, then the claims it makes that affect my life must be paid attention to. Those claims are significant, and I believe they do require my full attention! So far, every criticism I have seen against the bible has had a reasonable explanation, and my faith in Jesus Christ has only been strengthened through this process.
On the other hand, I don't think I could convince a skeptic with these explanations. I believe that's God's business. He's powerful enought to reveal Himself to each individual in an undeniable way, rendering discussion of biblical innerrancy as a moot point.
We have a holiday this weekend and I'll be travelling with family so I won't be able to participate on the board until next week. Until then, have a great one!
(edited to correct a mathematical error)
[This message has been edited by nuklhed67, 05-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Brian, posted 05-23-2003 11:17 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Brian, posted 05-23-2003 4:52 PM nuklhed67 has not replied
 Message 83 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 4:09 PM nuklhed67 has replied
 Message 100 by Brian, posted 06-03-2003 5:39 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 80 of 151 (41138)
05-23-2003 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nuklhed67
05-23-2003 4:35 PM


Re: Scary Formula!
Hiya,
Just have a minute, I'll reply midweek, have a very nice weekend I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday.
Cheers!!
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nuklhed67, posted 05-23-2003 4:35 PM nuklhed67 has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 151 (41179)
05-23-2003 11:02 PM


Great posts here on page six, N67 and Brian. I'm looking forward to the resumption of your interesting dialogue. To interject a thought, some of the laws of the Jews were about keeping them healthy and prolific. Gentile cultures were far more careless and promiscuous in comparison. This, imo, is one reason they have survived these 19 centuries intact as an indentifiable people, though scattered worldwide.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nuklhed67, posted 05-27-2003 3:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 151 (41230)
05-24-2003 2:10 PM


I think that one strong indicator that the stories of the patriarchs are mythology is that they picture entire ethnic groups as being descended from single ancestral couples. Each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel is descended from one couple each, as are the Levites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and so forth.
Usually only the male member of each couple is mentioned in any detail, but that's another story.
But when one looks at ethnicities that have emerged in well-documented times, they emerge from full-scale populations, and they usually emerge very gradually. Two good examples can be found in the land of the Bible itself over the last century:
The modern-Israeli ethnicity emerged from generation after generation of Jewish settlers.
The Palestinian Arab ethnicity emerged from the Arabs that were living there, including those who fled the area when the State of Israel became independent.

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 83 of 151 (41234)
05-24-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nuklhed67
05-23-2003 4:35 PM


Re: Scary Formula!
So, yes, a high birthrate sustained over a long period. But certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
I think you might be making a bad assumption by comparing todays higher pop growth rates of today with growth rates of millenia ago.
Even in the underdeveloped world I think moder sceince has probably affected todays growth rates.
You need to find other civilizations or groups who managed such a growth rate at the time, under the conditions of the time.
Otherwise it seems not all that credible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nuklhed67, posted 05-23-2003 4:35 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nuklhed67, posted 05-27-2003 2:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 151 (41481)
05-27-2003 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by NosyNed
05-24-2003 4:09 PM


Re: Scary Formula!
Hello Ned!
I think you might be making a bad assumption by comparing todays higher pop growth rates of today with growth rates of millenia ago.
I think it is illogical to apply a worldwide growth rate to any single group in any period. Would you agree that human history is full of examples of exponential growth within some groups during certain periods? The overall human growth rate is obviously a combination of some groups growing rapidly, some maintaining, and some declining.
You need to find other civilizations or groups who managed such a growth rate at the time, under the conditions of the time.
I agree with you here, I've been looking for some population numbers for ancient cultures and haven't found much data. Got any suggestions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 4:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 151 (41482)
05-27-2003 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
05-23-2003 11:02 PM


Hi Buzz,
Great posts here on page six, N67 and Brian. I'm looking forward to the resumption of your interesting dialogue.
Thanks! I'm still studying the book of Numbers for more detail of this Jewish population figure at the time of the Exodus.
To interject a thought, some of the laws of the Jews were about keeping them healthy and prolific. Gentile cultures were far more careless and promiscuous in comparison. This, imo, is one reason they have survived these 19 centuries intact as an indentifiable people, though scattered worldwide.
A good point, I agree with your premise. Jewish culture promotes health and reproduction.
It's not unreasonable to think that healthier habits and less promiscuity would have several positive influences on population growth. A decreased infant mortality rate, increased fertility, longer lifespans, a combination of these factors would drastically improve growth rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 05-23-2003 11:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Paul, posted 05-29-2003 2:22 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Paul
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 151 (41715)
05-29-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by nuklhed67
05-27-2003 3:14 PM


Greetings Nukl,
I'm still studying the book of Numbers for more detail of this Jewish population figure at the time of the Exodus.
The book of Numbers gives fairly good confirmation of the Hebrew population at the times of the Exodus(Ex.12:37, 600,000 men), 1 year later at Sinai(Num.1:46,2:32, 603,550 men) and approx. 38 years later at Moab(Num.26:51 601,730 men).
First of all, I see no reason whatsoever to view these totals as anything but "literal" totals. 600,000 means 600,000.
We can conclude 5 facts about Israel from Ex.1:7. They had been "fruitful", "increased abundantly", "multiplied", "waxed exceedingly mighty", and "the land was filled with them". This is no less than a clear indication of a very large population of Israelites at that time, and of course was a fulfillment of prophecy to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Ex.12:37. This would be 600,000 men of war without recognizing the prieslty tribe of Levi. Besides these there were wives, children, older men and women and a multitude of mixed peoples, mostly of whom were the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From them, the Israelites inherited a great store of servants(Gen.14:14-15, 26:14-19,25,32; 32:16). These could have easily outnumbered the Hebrews, for they far outnumbered them when the 66 descendents(Joseph and his sons were already there) of Jacob went into Egypt. Abraham alone had 318 trained soldiers and these, as well as those of Isaac and Jacob, continued to multiply through the years as did the Israelites themselves. There is no doubt that Jacob had a large tribe by the time we read Gen.45:11., his servants were many when he left Haran. We must also not forget that he was the heir of Isaac(also a great store of servants Gen.26:14), and Abraham(318 trained soldiers plus servants Gen.14:14), and all their riches. All of these had been multiplying for 215 years before Jacob went into Egypt, so the 66 souls of Gen.46:26 were all Jacobs. The many servants who had wives, children, and parents, could have easliy numbered into the thousands by this time. These no doubt made up most of the mixed multitude that continued to multiply in Egypt and come out with Israel in the Exodus (Ex.12:38, Num.11:4)
When combining the above data with the length of the dispensation of Promise(430 years), I see no reason to think that the population of Israel and its household(servants and descendants), at the time of the Exodus, couldn't have be in the range of 3-5 million.
We are shown clearly in Num.1:46,2:32 that, one year after the Exodus, Israel had a net gain of 3,550(603,550) men in this numbering. Since we are not given the exact number of Hebrew wives it's difficult to estimate a possible birth rate for this period as well , however, I think it would also be very safe to say that this number(3,550) could also be used as a good model for actual births from the Hebrew women during this one year timeframe, perhaps much more. As well, this number(3,550) does not include births from the mixed multitude.
However, if we stick with the 3,550 BPY and start to work backwards decreasing gradually as we go, within a 215 year time frame it becomes quite obvious that the "66 out of the loins of Jacob"( and remember, thats just the men((sons and their sons)), it is believed that there could have easily been 300-500 Hebrew children at various ages come into Egypt with them) could have without question produced the vast numbers of Israelites that we are told of in Ex.1:7, 12:37, Num.1:46,2:32.
Interestingly, we see a net loss of 1,820(601,730) in the numbering at Moab approx. 38 years later(Num.26:51). This no doubt would have been as a result of the 10 plagues the Israelites suffered, through rebellion.
All in all, after seeing the population model you provided, as well as others, and looking at the scriptures textually and realistically , I see it completely possible for the population of the Exodus to be 3-5 million.
Lack of corroborative and archaeological evidence has of course caused much debate over the reality of this event occuring, and discrepancies, variations, and seeming contradictions within the timeline also make it difficult for some to believe it as a historical event. As it has been pointed out, it would seem that a massive event such as this would leave much evidence behind, but, without being there and knowing what the exact ecological and hygenic giudelines and parameters they had to follow as a group, makes it difficult to place any evidentiary expectations on them from a modern viewpoint.
My guess is that, being on the move, they were highly efficient, left nothing to waste, made use of everything, and cleaned up after themselves extremely well. Thus, that doesn't leave much for us to look at thousands of years later. It was mentioned in a post as to the lack of fire pit evidence as a negative. I believe that fire pits, except for rare and very specific reasons, would have been banned. The dangers of fire in such a compacted environment such as this large camp would have been very high, not to mention the smoke inhalation factor from thousands of fires would have been extremely unhealthy and obnoxious as well. Scripturally, the pillar of fire provided the heat and light that was needed for the Israelites, food and water was being miraculously provided, therefore no fires neccessary.
Respectfully, Paul
[This message has been edited by Paul, 05-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nuklhed67, posted 05-27-2003 3:14 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nuklhed67, posted 05-29-2003 8:19 PM Paul has replied
 Message 88 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 05-30-2003 12:51 AM Paul has not replied
 Message 90 by nuklhed67, posted 05-30-2003 4:51 PM Paul has not replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 151 (41739)
05-29-2003 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Paul
05-29-2003 2:22 PM


Hi Paul, thanks for your post! After reading many of your posts I am envious of your easy-to-read and matter-of-fact style.
From them, the Israelites inherited a great store of servants(Gen.14:14-15, 26:14-19,25,32; 32:16). These could have easily outnumbered the Hebrews, for they far outnumbered them when the 66 descendents(Joseph and his sons were already there) of Jacob went into Egypt.
I'm curious about these people, do you think they would remain loyal to Israel as servants while the Hebrews were slaves themselves? I suppose that is possible, but I would be more inclined to think that most were either absorbed into the tribes (through intermarriage), or absorbed into Egypt. Of course I don't mean all of them, because there were obviously some non-Hebrews in the Exodus.
Lack of corroborative and archaeological evidence has of course caused much debate over the reality of this event occuring, and discrepancies, variations, and seeming contradictions within the timeline also make it difficult for some to believe it as a historical event. As it has been pointed out, it would seem that a massive event such as this would leave much evidence behind, but, without being there and knowing what the exact ecological and hygenic giudelines and parameters they had to follow as a group, makes it difficult to place any evidentiary expectations on them from a modern viewpoint.
Good point. I would surmise that of the millions and millions of people that have lived on this planet, our archeological data only scratches the surface, giving us clues of a very small percentage of what has happened. I am more surprised at artifacts that have survived than I am about those that are undiscovered (and perhaps lost forever).
The book of Numbers gives fairly good confirmation of the Hebrew population at the times of the Exodus(Ex.12:37, 600,000 men), 1 year later at Sinai(Num.1:46,2:32, 603,550 men) and approx. 38 years later at Moab(Num.26:51 601,730 men).
What is your take on the 22,273 firstborn count? I have read various opinions about this number and why it is small in comparison to the overall population, but I have'nt decided which one makes more sense to me.
Have a great one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Paul, posted 05-29-2003 2:22 PM Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Paul, posted 06-02-2003 3:55 PM nuklhed67 has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 88 of 151 (41761)
05-30-2003 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Paul
05-29-2003 2:22 PM


quote:
Paul wrote:
Lack of corroborative and archaeological evidence has of course caused much debate over the reality of this event occuring, and discrepancies, variations, and seeming contradictions within the timeline also make it difficult for some to believe it as a historical event.
What distinguishes "seeming contradictions" on the one hand from circumstantial evidence for redaction and fabrication on the other? For example ...
quote:
The event is suppose to take place in Egypt, yet Egyptian sources know it not. On the morrow of the Exodus Israel numbered approximately 2.5 million (extrapolated from Num. 1:46); yet the entire population of Egypt at that time was only 3 to 4.5 million! The effct on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society.
[and later ...]
... we can now genuinely speak of unanimity of the evidence. Whoever supplied the geographic information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overloards: his toponyms reflect the renewed interest in the eastern frontier evidence for this period by fort building and canalization. He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramessses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1075 to 725 B.C., ...
-- Egypt, Cannan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Paul, posted 05-29-2003 2:22 PM Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nuklhed67, posted 05-30-2003 4:46 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 151 (41804)
05-30-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ConsequentAtheist
05-30-2003 12:51 AM


Hi CA,
ConsequentAtheist quoted his source saying:
The effct on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society.
This struck my funny-bone a little bit today! I'd have to study your source before I could respond with anything of value, but something that came to my mind right away is the old addage "History is written by the victors" (my paraphrase). The fact that ancient Egyptian writings would omit this event is really no surprise is it?
This morning I heard a talking head discussing the Middle East peace process and he pointed out that Palestinian schools teach from textbooks that don't even have Israel on the map. If we were digging up artifacts a few thousand years from now and all we found were Palestinian records, how much could we learn about Israel?
Whoever supplied the geographic information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overloards: his toponyms reflect the renewed interest in the eastern frontier evidence for this period by fort building and canalization. He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramessses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1075 to 725 B.C., ...
I'm a neophyte on Egyptian history, so I can't offer a legitimate argument/rebuttal on this. But one question I have relates to what happened in the early stages of copying biblical manuscripts. Did they use current (for that time) names for these places in order to better convey the story to their readers? The earliest manuscripts we have are the Septuagint, translated in circa 300-100 BCE. Perhaps the translators used more current names.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 05-30-2003 12:51 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 05-31-2003 12:41 AM nuklhed67 has replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 151 (41807)
05-30-2003 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Paul
05-29-2003 2:22 PM


Paul wrote:
Lack of corroborative and archaeological evidence has of course caused much debate over the reality of this event occuring, and discrepancies, variations, and seeming contradictions within the timeline also make it difficult for some to believe it as a historical event. As it has been pointed out, it would seem that a massive event such as this would leave much evidence behind, but, without being there and knowing what the exact ecological and hygenic giudelines and parameters they had to follow as a group, makes it difficult to place any evidentiary expectations on them from a modern viewpoint.
I found a very indepth discussion of this at:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html
Here's an excerpt:
We know from literary sources of 'invisible nomads' which demonstrate the above situation. Finkelstein [LOF:27-30] documents several examples of peoples who are mentioned in historical/literary documents from ancient times YET who left NO trace (archaeologically) of their existence in the field(!):
1.Edom and Seir in the Late Bronze Age [referred to in numerous Egyptian documents]
2.Arabs in Neo-Assyrian times [referred to in numerous royal records of Tiglath-Pileser II, Sargon II, Esarhaddon, etc.]
3.The early Nabataeans [referred to by Diodorus of Sicily and Hieronymous of Cardia]
4.The Sinai Saracens of the Byzantine period [referred to by Ammonius, Egeria, Nilus, Procopius, et.al.]
5.Bedouin of the Medieval period [referred to in Bedouin historical sources]
6.Even Bedouin tribes in the first part of the 20th century [known from modern sources]
It is important to recognize that these people are 'invisible' in the archeological record! They were obviously 'really there', but we have found no trace of them in the dirt. Much of the areas under discussion in this piece fall into these land and cultural categories (e.g. Arad, Edom, parts of Transjordan, Kadesh Barnea, etc.)!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Paul, posted 05-29-2003 2:22 PM Paul has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024