Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.

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. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 05:14 AM

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

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

---

אָרַח

Actually, I didn’t spell them out at all, and they are not based on modern statistics. Ancient populations are based mainly on size and frequency of settlements, and for this there is an abundance of contemporary data.The modern day statistic was to illustrate how ludicrous the Bible figures are. It is an established fact that modern day population growth is far higher than ancient ones, therefore, this modern day figure must be much higher than the growth 3500 years ago, and it thus demonstrates that the Hebrew growth would be much smaller than the 10, 000 plus of the 20th century. These modern day figures also show that the Sinai area struggles to cope with a population of less than 30 000, showing once again that the 2-3 million in that area for 40 years is also absurd. Again, you are completely and utterly incorrect.What do you think researchers base their figures on? Do you think that demographers simply pick numbers out of the air or are they basing them on some extant data?The population of ancient Egypt is based on the size and frequency of settlements, topography, and contemporary texts are also considered.I hope you aren't claiming that there are no extant Egyptian texts for the time period either. Let me know if you are I didn’t outlay my methods!How can you talk about scientific when you never offer any evidence except what is written in the Bible. A source that is fraught with contradictory and unhistorical information. A source that is not contemporary to the exodus tale. Indeed, they were given as a *COMPARISON*. The author of the article offered these figures because the population growth during the 20th century is far higher than that of 3500 years ago. WE know it is far higher because of the evidence that exists from ancient times/ it is not that difficult to estimate the population of certain areas. Lucas presented the figures because it shows that the Bible figures need to be reinterpreted. If his present day figures cannot arrive at 2-3 million, and only arrive at just over 10 000, then common sense dictates that the Hebrew group wouldn’t even have reached the 10 000 because the population growth was much smaller than it is today.Ancient population growth is not based on current conditions, it is based on conditions that can be ascertained from extant contemporary sources.Egypt 3500 years ago was an area heavily involved in wars. Disease killed many before they were old enough to reproduce. People died of relatively simple illnesses and what we would call minor infections. No, you do not seem to realise that you do not present anything other than that which is in the Bible. You ignore great reams of problems and dismiss others as if they don’t exist. You post absolutely nothing from external sources to support anything that you say! So, you thinking that you have said something worthwhile and you actually saying something worthwhile are two completely different things. Okay, let’s try a little examination of your knowledge of near eastern history, and see if you can escape this world of circular reasoning that you seem to be stuck in.You say that the Bible claims that they multiplied enormously even under affliction.Let’s examine this.You pick whichever date you want for the Exodus and then supply external evidence to support a single group of this magnitude living in Egypt.Also, provide evidence from whichever Pharaoh you wish to assign as the pharaoh of the Exodus and provide external data to support that claim that the Pharaoh was worried about a group multiplying enormously, and undertook this ‘oppression’ that the Bible claims.Then, provide external data to support the sudden overnight disappearance of almost half the population of Egypt.Now, if you cannot provide a single shred of evidence from outside the Bible to support any of these claims then your claims then what are you going to do? Are you going to keep offering the Bible as evidence? You do know that if the Bible is all the evidence that you are going to supply then that is circular reasoning? Fine, lets try another examination.Please provide evidence from any ‘healthy’ population that supports this? Which population can you show has had a population growth of 2.47% over a sustained period of 430 years? You can use any time period you wish as well. But these population figures are not suppositions! They are based on contemporary evidence. They are based on the size and frequency of settlements, we even know what the weather conditions were! Okay, I’ll give you my definition and an example, and then you tell me why it is incorrect.Circular reasoning is based essentially on the assumption that a proposition is true, and to support that proposition being true, you use that same proposition.In this discussion you have assumed that the Bible is a perfectly accurate document, thus, the population growth under discussion is true for no other reason than it is included in this perfect document.If the population figures can be shown to be incorrect, then the Bible cannot be perfectly accurate, something that is beyond
comprehension to you.Your mind set negates you from being able to participate in a rational and objective examination of the available evidence because you are not interested in anything other than that which is contained in the Bible. Show me where I have ever made a circular argument! They were given by the author to demonstrate how silly the bible figures actually are. And yes, they are evidence. They are evidence because they provide an example with which to compare data from 3500 years ago with!Look at the archaeological evidence from many ancient near eastern sites. Take Jericho as an example, how do archaeologists know that Jericho had a far higher population in the 16th century BCE than it did during the 12th century BCE? Attributing it to someone may be fine and dandy, but can you provide any worthwhile evidence to support this attribution? Can you even provide a single shred of evidence to support there being a Moses, Geez, we don’t even have his full name! Well, if there is lots, what about posting some of it. I still have no direct evidence of Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt. If there is ‘lots’ of evidence why are you keeping it to yourself?Fact remains, the BIBLE REPORTS ON THE EXODUS. You have nothing remotely close to it for evidence, just wild imagination. The climate and conditions are known though these are easily determined. Researchers don’t just make things up you know. They are easily posted if you wish to see them. I like to use my time here productively, and this means posting details to members who are actually interested in learning something and interested in DISCUSSING the evidence. You have displayed neither of these conditions on any other thread you have been on. I have more important things to do than post detailed accounts of every single thing I post to someone who basically isn’t thatinterested.
This is why I am happy to post detailed references to Ray, and a few others, because they are genuinely interested in the subject. I know for a fact that I could post a great amount of referenced materials to support this argument, but you would simply turn round and say that the Bible says different and that’s that!Why do you think I let you away with ignoring half of the problems that are put to you? I just isn't worth it. I learned the hard way not to spend too much time on fundies who are incapable of understanding even the basics of archaeology and history. Maybe you should think things through a bit more then before posting. LOL, but it isn’t even as simple as that for goodness sake.When do you subtract the deaths? How many deaths do you subtract? How many died before they were old enough to have children, how many were infertile, how many were killed before they had children?It isn’t even klutzy. It is childish.You don’t even seem to realise what it is you are doing. You have a starting figure and you have a total, all you do is use numbers to arrive at a calculation that fits that growth rate. You haven’t even considered a single external factor. All this does is inform others that you have not really thought about what you are claiming. It is a bad guess!!Which particular genealogies are we talking about? Then I will show you how bad a guess it is. Yes, evidence. I am not living inside a fairytale book. Are you saying that five is not a huge number of males or not a huge number of children? You are hilarious.You claim to know what circular reasoning is and yet you live inside it everyday of your life.Exodus 1 proves that the Israelites were healthy, and I ask how you know they were healthy and you say Exodus 1!Don’t you actually understand how pointless 99% of your arguments are? Here we go again, more ignorance.You don’t even know what my sources are!How can you say that nothing I have is even a couple of hundred years old when I have consistently over the last couple of years here posted countless references to contemporary 2nd millennium BCE evidence.Do you honestly think that there are no settlement remains left in Egypt from the time we are talking about. Do you think that there are no texts in existence that were written at the time that the Israelites were supposed to be in Egypt? Are there no inscriptions at Karnak and Thebes, are there no tombs with accounts written on walls, are there no extant contemporary texts from societies that had dealings with Egypt? Will you please try to start thinking about things a bit more?There are literally tens of thousands of near eastern texts available to historians to help reconstruct the past. The Bible is a mere baby in terms of age when compared to these texts.Brian.

Think the Flood was said to be about 2400 BCE, which doesn't really matter anyway as the Flood has been utterly falsfied.The rest of your post is circular.You are simply stating that the biblical claim that the Israelites grew from 70 to 2-3 million is true because the Bible says it is!You cannot continually keep using the Bible to support the Bible, there has to come a time when you apply the text to the same scrutiny and objectivity that is applied to other texts.Brian.

Hi Mangy, Yes the logistics wil certainly be discussed. They ahve been discussed before here and the same quality of rebuttal has been produced.2-3 million Israelites would form a column that stretched over 350 miles, all the way over Sinai and back again. Also, nomads only travel a maximum of 6 miles a day, it would have taken them weeks to move between any two points.But, we'll discuss them when we arrive at this topic. We havent even got any of the direct evidence for Israelites in Egypt yet! People have been knighted for less!!Brian.

Are we?If we are fine with agriculture in Goshen 3500 years ago why has the ultra consrvative christian scholar Nahum Sarna said that: More serious is the objection that the "land of Goshen", identified by most scholars with Wadi Tumilat, west of Ismalia, where the Israelites were concentrated, could not possibly have supported a population of the size implied. ABout thirty-eight miles (sixty Kilometers) long and less than three mile (four kilometers) wide, it was not suited for agriculture on a large scale in ancient times. Surely he must be mistaken?Of course, you can post evidence that the Wadi could support this large group?If you wish to discuss the condition of the Wadi Tumilat from the second intermediate period onwards, then let me know. Why don't they know?They aren't just guessing you know.Graves are a great indication of population rates and also of the specifics of the make up of populations. They can also tell us the average life expectancy of people at the time.Tel el-Da'ba (Avaris) was excavated by Beitin and he discovered that the average age of a person who died at tel' el 'Da'ba was only 18. Scholars have a huge amount of data to work with, it isnt guesswork. But does this claim fit with what is know about the world 4400 years ago? No, it isn't. There was no flood, humans and animals were not wiped out 4400 years ago (apart for the ark inhabitants). The Egyptians must have blinked and missed the flood because they have a civilisation going back 7000+ years!There is nothing wrong with believeing the Bible, but you do have to be realistic about it. Are you on some sort of medication?No one "applied" them to 15th century BCE. What happened was they were *compared* with what we know from the 15th century BCE, try and keep up. Not at all.The whole world knows that a large percentage of Americans are extremely thick and lazy. You may ahve a few in America, but outside of the USA there are very few who take it literally. Not at all. It could be that we have mistranslated it. As you know there are no extant original biblical texts, the oldest are only 2200 years old, we do not know for certain what any of the originals said.Also, exaggeration was the order of the day for centuries in ancient times, so it is no real suprise that Bible exaggerates on many occassions. Well, we are just reading what is on the page and as it doesn't make any sense then you have to try and reinterpet it it to fit a possible reality. But we don't know if it is a case of simple arithmetic, they were not intent on recording accurate history. Oh that old tired chestnut. You would have thought Gray would be aware of that wouldnt you?Factis he was, and so is everyone else.What I will do is what Gray did and ask the proposer to support what they claim from the biblical texts, because " the text does not say so". Where does the Bible support this? Under age? Under what age? Again, biblical support for this claim?I look forward to you supporting this hypothesis with evidence from the Bible, good luck because no one has been able to thus far.Brian.

So, we have a third of all the ballots that supported Bush (that in itself says a lot about their mental health).Well, I got a billion Roman Catholics on my side (to begin with), so that makes your figure quite insignificant.Brian.

There have been many theories on what the approximate population of Israel was in Num. 1-3, and 26.Based on the first Census, the population of men of war (aged 20 and up) is 603,550. This constitues about 1/4 of the total population thus giving us an impression that there were 2.5 million Israelites wandering in the desert. The population of Egypt at this time (c.1250 bc)was an estimated 3-4 million. A population of 2.5 million Israelites is clearly an exaggeration of enormous proportions, when considering the locality and environment described in the texts. Israel could have taken all of Canaan and perhaps the known world with such an army.The population of tribes mentioned in Numbers 1:Reuben 46,500
Simeon 59,300
Gad 45,650
Judah 74,600
Issachar 54,400
Zebulun 57,400
Ephraim 40,500
Manasseh 32,200
Benjamin 35,400
Dan 62,700
Asher 41,500
Naphtali 53,400
Total: 603,550The problem with the populations given, is that the hebrew word "1000" which is called "eleph" also meant "many" or it meant military rank, clans or families as well as the literal number 1000. For example, the tribe of Reuben was "46 eleph 500" this could mean 46 clans, or 46 troops etc.Also, The hebrew word "aleph" was a commander of 1000's, and in the original hebrew which had no vowels, both the word "aleph" and "eleph" would have looked like: 'lph, the same.Copyists obviously used the literal numerical meaning of "eleph" when they wrote the book of numbers whether intentionally or unintentionally.Thus,I believe that instead of "46 eleph 500" in the tribe of Reuben the real meaning was "46 aleph 500" thus, it meant 46 commanders called "thousands" and the number of 500 men were called hundreds, and were the rounded sum of the whole army of the tribe, making the total tribal army of men 20-60 years old, either 500 or 546 men.My view of the approximate population of Israel's army 2 years after the exodus is given below:According to Num. 1-3Reuben 46 aleph 500
Simeon 59 aleph 300
Gad 45 aleph 650
Judah 74 aleph 600
Issachar 54 aleph 400
Zebulun 57 aleph 400
Ephraim 40 aleph 500
Manasseh 32 aleph 200
Benjamin 35 aleph 400
Dan 62 aleph 700
Asher 41 aleph 500
Naphtali 53 aleph 400
Total: 598 aleph 5550If we add the tribe of Levi, which according to Numbers 26, comprised of three main groups: 7500, 8600, and 6200 men aged 1 month and up, we get "22 aleph 1300" instead of 22,300 men. If 1/4 of an entire population are men of war 20 to 60 years, then half of the 1300 will be 650 men with 22 aleph(commanders).If we add the tribe of Levi to the grand total of the previous 12 tribes we get:598 aleph 5550
+ 22 aleph 650
-------------------------
620 aleph 6200I believe that these numbers are not a coincidence. If we add the "aleph" who are commanders of 1000's with the "hundreds" or standard troops, we get a total army of Israel that is 6,820 men strong. But if we include them already in the rounded sum of the "hundreds" of troops we get an army of 6,200 men.Since the army was about one fourth the size of the entire congregation, I believe Israel consisted of a population that was between 25,000 to 30,000 people divided into 13 tribes.The initial exodus may have included several thousand more people, if we are to rely on Exodus 12:37 wich states: "And a mixed multitude also went up with them, and flocks and herds--a very large number of cattle."Whatever the case, it seems that who ever first exaggerated the story exaggerated the population 100 times what it really was.25,000 is much more likely than 2.5 million.

That is much more reasonable. However, there still isn't any evidence of even that number of peope wandering the sinia for 30 years.

Yes, I agree. But it's not like we have excavated the entire Negev and deserts of Sinai.But even the best possible candidates for Kadesh Barnea yielded no Middle Bronze age or Late Bronze age occupation according to archaeologists. Egyptian mining camps in southern Sinai were some of the only confirmed inhabited areas of that time period of the Late Bronze age c.1300-1200 bc.But still, I suspect it will be hard to find evidence of Nomadic herdsmen in the desert 3,200 years ago.Since the book of Numbers and probably all of the 5 books of the old testament were written around 800-500 bc and based on older texts and oral accounts, it is obvious that the Exodus probably did not happen exactly how the OT described it--there was probably a natural tendancy to embelish the facts and make the stories more interesting for the reader.

quote:

---

If we are fine with agriculture in Goshen 3500 years ago why has the ultra consrvative christian scholar Nahum Sarna said that:

​

More serious is the objection that the "land of Goshen", identified by most scholars with Wadi Tumilat, west of Ismalia, where the Israelites were concentrated, could not possibly have supported a population of the size implied. ABout thirty-eight miles (sixty Kilometers) long and less than three mile (four kilometers) wide, it was not suited for agriculture on a large scale in ancient times.
  —Brian

---

Oy vey! When did Rabbi Sarna convert?

As a follow up, by my computations of the tribes mentioned in Numbers 1,It seems that the total tribes numbered bewteen 5,000 and 25,000. This is based off my idea that eleph and aleph were both mistranslated as the literal numerical meaning of "1000" when in reality it meant commander, soldier, or armed man.I believe the idea that there were 5,000 people could be argued if, instead of in the tribe of Reuben "46 aleph 500" instead of 5 hundreds, it was really 5 tens, or 50 instead of 500.
Thus, Reuben should have been "46 aleph 50." If we add the 46 to the 50 we get the total army population for the tribe of reuben then multiply it.Reuben 46 aleph 50
Simeon 59 aleph 30
Gad 45 aleph 65
Judah 74 aleph 60
Issachar 54 aleph 40
Zebulun 57 aleph 40
Ephraim 40 aleph 50
Manasseh 32 aleph 20
Benjamin 35 aleph 40
Dan 62 aleph 70
Asher 41 aleph 50
Naphtali 53 aleph 40
Total: 598 aleph 555
=1153 total army X 4 = total population of 4,612 people.Unfortuneatly I find problems with shrinking the number down to this level. I find the 25,000 to be the best candidate.

The problem of trying to find out how many Israelites there were after the exodus is never going to be explained with satisfaction if we consider that most of the numbers given in the old and new testaments and are figurative and often exaggerated.Therefore, in Ex. 12:37 when it says, "about 600,000 men on foot, besides women and children" when refering to the exodus, it is probably 6,000.

how do i know that depth in moses age of the land brdge is like depth now adays (depth of land bridge under water) about 100 m
is it corals (age of it) ?
or wat
thanx