Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 142 (211294)
05-25-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
05-25-2005 8:26 AM


This is a reply to Faith from the other Exodus thread.
Yes I saw your qualifier and if it's even POSSIBLE to get multipled millions in a few years your qualifier is just useless.
======
The qualifier is the most important part of the issue. The time and place are extremely important to the popualtion growth. Even look at modern day growth rates. They are not uniform.
======
You have the wrong standards whatever they are.
======
LOL, how do you know they are wrong when you have no idea what they are?
You spelled them out. They are based on modern statistics. There are none from the time in question except the Bible itself. Contradicting the only record from the time in question makes your methods, shall we say, unscientific?
You claim that they are wrong and you have then you have the nerve to go an and say that you don’t even know what they are?
YOu spelled it out. A bunch of suppositions based on current statistics extrapolated to a time you know nothing about.
You assume things about the time period.
Sorry, but you assume that I (or anyone else) know nothing about the period in question. Just because you have no idea about the time period and how population growth is determined, don’t assume that no one does!
You gave statistics based on current conditions in that part of the world and current population figures.
Obviously you are wrong.
===
Obviously I am, for no other reason than you say so. If you ever find out why I am wrong then don’t forget to post it.
Many times already.
The Bible contradicts you
The Bible contradicts itself! As you no doubt will have seen by now, the Bible may not even be claiming this population growth.
It certainly does. I quoted Exodus 1 to the effect that they MULTIPLIED ENORMOUSLY even under affliction and that eventually Pharoah was worried because they were outstripping even the Egyptian population. The figure of 2-3 million 430 years later in a healthy population isn't even particularly excessive especially given such a description.
and whether you like it or not it IS evidence,
======
Stories written many years after the events it portrays are only evidence of stories written long after the event.
In that case then suppositions about the time written 3500 years afterward are CERTAINLY not evidence!
You have already been told a great many times that you cannot use a book as evidence ot support that book! It is circular reasoning.
You do not know what circular reasoning is. Few here seem to as many on your side commit this particular fallacy quite frequently. Referring to a single report is simply referring to a single report. When you have nothing else THAT's the evidence. Your statistics from 3500 years later are a pathetic joke as evidence.
and the ONLY evidence from the time.
====
Sorry, but the Bible is not a primary source, and it certainly isn’t from the time of the Exodus. Unless you have some evidence to support yet another empty claim, then your point is redundant.
I have many sources that attribute it to Moses who was there. LOTS better evidence than the fantasies of someone 3500 years in the future. Fact remains, the BIBLE REPORTS ON THE EXODUS. You have nothing remotely close to it for evidence, just wild imagination.
So your statistics are just the vaporings of a man at a remove of 3000 years guessing out of the wrong part of his anatomy.
You have no idea what I am basing my conclusions on.
You gave your methods. You referred to statistics from the 20th century. You imposed current climate and agricultural conditions on a time 3500 years ago.
Again, don’t assume that everyone is as ignorant about the subject as you are. I am not working at a remove of 3000 years, I am working with primary, contemporary sources.
My my my. Funny you didn't use them in that case.
I didn't bother to be accurate.
======
Of course you didn’t. But you seem unaware that it isn’t a case of doing a simple mathematical calculation,
Why do you think I called it klutzy? I simply calculated possible births per generation and didn't even add the generations together just to find out how many generations it would take to get 3 million starting with 70. I got 14 million births in the 14th generation. LOTS of room to subtract for deaths, lower birth rates, etc.
it is far more complex than picking a number out of the air that fits in with what you want to be real. For example, you just happened to pick ‘5’ out of the air because it fits the conclusion, you have no idea if a family of 5 is feasible or not do you?
I know from the genealogies of the Hebrews that it's not a bad guess.
I didn't care.
That much was obvious.
I knew your figures were underestimated by prejudice.
I am perfectly happy to admit that I am extremely prejudiced towards the evidence, it is the only way to be.
Evidence? Laugh, choke.
It doesn't seem a huge number of children.
======
In comparison to what? What was the average house size in ancient Egypt? What as the average settlement size? What was the average lifespan? You looked at none of these and expect anyone to accept your figures?
I'm judging from the Hebrew genealogies, that list only males. Five is not a huge number.
I assume the people were quite healthy despite their circumstances.
=========
Why would you assume this? Based on what?
Exodus 1.
You are challenging the ONLY KNOWN RECORD from over 3000 years in the future. That takes CHUTZPAH.
=========
Sorry, but nothing you have is 3000 years old, which is too late for the exodus anyway.
Sorry 3500. Ballpark numbers ought to qualify considering that nothing YOU have is even a couple of hundred years old. And you rely on the same kind of anachronistic thinking to date the Biblical record that you use to number the Exodus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 05-25-2005 8:26 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Brian, posted 05-26-2005 8:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 142 (211313)
05-25-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
05-25-2005 7:46 AM


Before considering modern population trends separately for developing and industrialized countries, it is useful to present an overview of older trends. It is generally agreed that only 5,000,000-10,000,000 humans (i.e., one onethousandth of the present world population) were supportable before the agricultural revolution of about 10,000 years ago.
Since the Exodus occurred ca 3500 years ago we're fine with agriculture.
By the beginning of the Christian era, 8,000 years later, the' human population approximated 300,000,000, and there was apparently little increase in the ensuing millennium up to the year AD 1000. Subsequent population growth was slow and fitful, especially given the plague epidemics and other catastrophes of the Middle Ages.
Is this based on Roman censuses or what?
By 1750, conventionally the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, world population may have been as high as 800,000,000. This. means that in the 750 years from 1000 to 1750, the annual population growth rate averaged only about one-tenth of 1 percent. The reasons for such slow growth are well known. In the absence of what is now considered basic knowledge of sanitation and health (the role of bacteria in disease, for example, was unknown until the 19th century), mortality rates were very high, especially for infants and children. Only about half of newborn babies survived to the age of five years. Fertility was also very high, as it had to be to sustain the existence of any population under such conditions of mortality.
Most of this seems reasonable for the period in question.
Modest population growth might occur for a time in these circumstances, but recurring famines, epidemics, and wars kept long-term growth close to zero. From 1750 onward population growth accelerated. In some measure this was a consequence of rising standards of living, coupled with improved transport and communication, which mitigated the effects of localized crop failures that previously would have resulted in catastrophic mortality. Occasional famines did occur, however, and it was not until the 19th century that a sustained decline in mortality took place, stimulated by the improving economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the growing understanding of the need for sanitation and public health measures.
Likewise this seems reasonable for the period in question.
The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc, Chicago, 1999.
Page 673.
Causes: For thousands of years, birth rates were high. However, the population increased slowly and sometimes declined because death rates also were high.
Now see, what went on "for thousands of years" up to the Industrial Revolution or even the Middle Ages they don't know. A Bible believer may reasonably suppose a great population explosion from Adam and Eve on up to the Flood, and quite high after the Flood too. Japhath had seven sons, Shem had five, Ham had four; daughters are not listed. Within a few generations they were tribes and soon nations (Genesis 10).
Then, during the 1700’s and 1800’s, advances in agriculture, communication, and transportation improved living conditions in parts of the world and reduced the occurrence of many diseases. As a result, the death rate began to drop, and the population grew rapidly.
page 674
In the industrial countries of Europe and North America, many people flocked to the cities and took jobs in factories. In cities and in many rural areas, it was difficult to support a large family. People began to see reasons for having smaller families. As a result, birth rates in these countries began to fall. In the agricultural countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, declines in death rates plunged quickly without corresponding declines in birth rates. As a result, the population of low-income nations and the world increased rapidly.
Population growth rates are obviously worked out by deducting the number of deaths from the number of surviving births, and then the rate is calculated.
Uh huh, but most of what you've quoted here is completely irrelevant. It says nothing about the actual conditions in Egypt at the time in question. It's all projections. The most irresponsible thing is to make extrapolations to events THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO CHECK. But this kind of thinking is taken for the height of legitimate science here. RIDICULOUS.
The population growth rate for early 20th century Egypt (1907-37) was about 1.169% (A. Lucas ‘The Number of Israelites at the Exodus’ PEQ 1944-45, pp164-68). is a frequently referenced source in this debate). When this is applied to the Exodus group, we have a figure of just over 10,000. A figure that I think is still far too high given the background to the event.
This is LUDICROUS!! Population rates from the TWENTIETH CENTURY applied to the FIFTEENTH CENTURY B.C. With a straight face yet!!!!
Regarding the second issue, does the Bible even claim that there was this many, I believe that the Bible itself undermines this number.
In the Book of Numbers 3:42-43 we are told:
42 So Moses counted all the firstborn of the Israelites, as the LORD commanded him. 43 The total number of firstborn males a month old or more, listed by name, was 22,273.
How does this figure fit in with the overall picture?
Well, George Buchnan Gray (A critical and exegetical commentary on Numbers, Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1903) writes:
The unreality of the numbers is independently proved by comparing them with one another. Thus: the number of male firstborn is 22 273, allowing the number of female firstborn to be equal, the total number of firstborn is 44 546, and, therefore, the total number of Israelites being between 2,000,000 and 2,500,00, the average number of children to a family is about 50! Again, if, as is probable, the firstborn of the mother is intended (cp3:12), then, since the number of firstborn and of mothers must have been identical, there were 44,456 mothers: but the number of women being approximately the same as of men, the women over 20 numbered something over 600,000, and therefore only about 1 in 14 or 15 women over twenty were mothers! (page:13)
I think it is quite clear that the numbers involved in the Exodus account simply cannot be the 2-3 million presented by a very small minority of Bible believers, we need to reinterpret the information given.
Small minority? Even THAT statistic is a joke!!!
HAS to be that the Israelites couldn't add, right? Couldn't be that YOU and the honoroable Mr Gray got something wrong about who exactly was counted, could it? Naa, your understanding of what they meant 3500 years ago not to mention your ability to do simple arithmetic is of COURSE WAY superior to theirs.
Fact is it isn't quite as you think:
Commentary on Numbers 42 by Matthew Henry, 17th century English minister.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Here is the exchange made of the Levites for the first-born. 1. The first-born were numbered from a month old, v. 42, 43. Those certainly were not reckoned who, though first-born, had become heads of families themselves, but those only that were under age; and the learned bishop Patrick is decidedly of opinion that none were numbered but those only that were born since their coming out of Egypt, when the first-born were sanctified, Ex. 13:2.
Get it? ONLY those not yet heads of families are counted as first born, meaning it's a small proportion of the total of first borns that were counted. That also means there were many more mothers than Gray counted too. Also, not that the number difference is great, but the tribe of the Levites was not counted in the total number because this whole passage is about the Levites being an exchange for the first born of the other tribes. Also the sanctification of the firstborn in Exodus 13:2 may very likely mean that none born before that event were counted, and since that event was very recent that suggests a MUCH larger number of first-born in the overall population.
If you debunkers would JUST give a smidgen of the benefit of the doubt to the original report, you wouldn't be so prone to making such outrageous uncharitable and unscientific and irrational guesses about stuff you know nothing about.
So, two issues.
1. Is the 2-3 million a realistic number?
2. Does the Bible really claim this enormous population growth?
Yes and yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 05-25-2005 7:46 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brian, posted 05-26-2005 9:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 142 (211364)
05-26-2005 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
05-25-2005 7:46 AM


I think it is quite clear that the numbers involved in the Exodus account simply cannot be the 2-3 million presented by a very small minority of Bible believers, we need to reinterpret the information given.
Gallup poll says we're no small minority:
Last December Moyers received an environmental award from Harvard University. About three paragraphs into the speech, after attacking the Bush administration, Moyers said: "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.' Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate if a recent Gallup poll is accurate
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 05-25-2005 7:46 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 05-26-2005 9:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 142 (211369)
05-26-2005 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
05-25-2005 8:51 AM


It doesn't matter to me either way except that it changes how we do the calculations. But we can do it both ways, assuming either wives for 70 men, or some women among the 70. Apparently there are very few women in any case. Again, not important.
NKJV says descendants, AV says "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob..." SOULS, not males.
Yep, descendants who are all male. You can read the texts for yourself and tell me where there is room for daughters, because Genesis 46 only lists ‘the sons of’.
Mine says "his sons and his daughters."
Gen 46:15: These [be] the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padanaram, with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and his daughters [were] thirty and three.
Moses claims that they were all males as well:
Deuteronomy 10:22
Don't think so. Mine says "persons" --
Deu 10:22 Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 05:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 05-25-2005 8:51 AM Brian has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 142 (211371)
05-26-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
05-26-2005 2:15 AM


But, even if we include Dinah (though it does say excluding Dinah 46:15) and Serah (texts just says she was their sister 46:17) isn't this an unusually high ratio of male children to female children?
yes, it is.
*shrugs* it's a weird book sometimes.
This is because it's about reality. These things happen and the Bible is factual. That's why it reports what seem to be oddities, because individual realities are not generalized statistics, they are part of the data from which the statistics are computed. You guys seem to expect statistical averages in every one of the cases that contribute to the average.
The great American preacher and theologian -- and even scientist (naturalist in those days)-- Jonathan Edwards, was the only son in a family that included either eleven or twelve daughters, I forget, and he and his wife had nothing but daughters, twelve of them. It happens.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 06:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 05-26-2005 2:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 05-26-2005 6:52 AM Faith 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