EvC Forum: Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 13 of 142 (211362)
05-26-2005 2:13 AM

Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
05-25-2005 8:51 AM

women

Do you find any room for females in the 70?

hate to be a pain and all, but.

wives don't count.

quote:
Genesis 46:26-27

All the persons belonging to Jacob who came to Egypt -- his own issue, aside from the wives of Jacob's sons -- all these persons numbered 66. And Joseph's sons who were born to him in Egypt were two in number. Thus the total of Jacob's household who came to egypt was 70 persons.

it doesn't say the women didn't come. the wives just weren't regarded as important, as they weren't descendants of jacob.

here's one of your problems:

18. Er,
19. Onan,

quote:
Genesis 46:12

-- but Er and Onan had died in the land of Canaan;

they didn't come. the 33 contains jacob, and dinah. granted. you can get to 33 your way, so it's debatable. except that there is proof that some women are counted:

34. Gad
35. Zephon
36. Haggi
37. Shuni,
38. Ezbon
39. Eri
40. Arodi
41. Areli.
42. Asher
43. Imnah,
44. Ishvah,
45. Ishvi
46. Beriah
47. Heber
48. Malkiel.

18 These were the children born to Jacob by Zilpah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Leahsixteen in all.

count 'em again. you have FIFTEEN. not sixteen. so you forgot someone. and that someone is serah, who was a woman. that puts your total at 71.

and just to be extra sure that +1 variance is not jacob himself, they gave us an intermediate count: 66 who came to egypt from jacob's household. the three of the four who were not counted in that were joseph and his two sons. the fourth has to be jacob, so jacob is counted.

so the 70 has to count dinah and serah, who were women, and NOT er and onan, who were dead.

i wouldn't have noticed this, of course, had i not just made a very similar list.

אָרַח

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

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 14 of 142 (211363)
05-26-2005 2:15 AM

Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
05-25-2005 9:24 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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 6 by Brian, posted 05-25-2005 9:24 AM		Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by Faith, posted 05-26-2005 5:12 AM		arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 142 (211388)
05-26-2005 6:52 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
05-26-2005 5:12 AM

This is because it's about reality.

i don't see a connection to my comment, really. i wasn't arguing that it did or did not happen. just that the bible records some weird stuff.

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.

well, it's HIGHLY improbable for a man to have twelve sons, who each have only sons, and end up with 2 girls in an extended family of 72. i think what's more likely is that the girls were not regarded as important, except for a few key exceptions, and just didn't have any stories told about them.

for instance, dinah is remembered because she plays a role in the story. but serah? i don't know.

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.

did his 11 or 12 sisters have only daughters too? if so, maybe he's statistically balancing jacob's family...

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by Faith, posted 05-26-2005 5:12 AM		Faith has not replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 44 of 142 (322371)
06-16-2006 4:04 PM

Reply to: Message 43 by Brian
06-16-2006 3:38 PM

Re: Large numbers in the Book of Numbers

You know there is no linguistic similiartiy between the names?

...i'm not sure. people keep changing the spelling of "hapiru." if there's no "h" on the begining, and that "p" sound is really a "b" sound, and depending on the first vowel, it looks like it might be a cognate for 'ibrit.

what's the original spelling?

You do not that there other references to an 'Israel' in ANE texts that are not attributed to our Israel?

sure there are. just not from that time (that i know of?). we're reasonably certain that israel was a real kingdom at some point.

Edited by arachnophilia, : misspelled "spelling." classic.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 43 by Brian, posted 06-16-2006 3:38 PM		Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 45 by Brian, posted 06-16-2006 4:33 PM		arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1366 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 46 of 142 (322389)
06-16-2006 4:56 PM

Reply to: Message 45 by Brian
06-16-2006 4:33 PM

Re: Large numbers in the Book of Numbers

i'm not sure. people keep changing the spelling of "hapiru."

They haven't changed it at all since 1939

well, i've seen a few different variations in this thread. which one is more accurate to the ~~original~~ source?

and that "p" sound is really a "b" sound

Well this isn't a possibility as far as I am aware, have a link or something to support?

no no, i'm not suggesting it is. but those are the things that would have to be true before we can establish that they are related words -- if those aren't the case, then it's not.

in other words, if it's "-b-r-" the case is alot better than if it's "-p-r-." and people keep refer to them as "habiru" which sounds like it might be a cognate. i take it this is an inaccurate rendering?

what's the original spelling?

How is anyone supposed to know that?

i mean, in the source?