|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The Bible Unearthed - Exodus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
Brian Johnston,
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! 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"). 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. 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. 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) 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. 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? 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!" 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. 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. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
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.)!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
Hi Rashbam,
you asked:
Where does this figure of 420 years come from? The figure in the MT of Exod 12:40 is 430 years. But there are some problems with inner asynchronism here. You may be referring to one of my posts that describes my population model. My simplified model is in 20 year increments, and for the sake of argument I stopped at 420 years instead of 440.
Therefore, from the day Jacob and his "70 souls" descended into Egypt until the day of the exodus could have been at most 133 + 137 + 80 = 350 years. This assumes that Kohath was born as Jacob's entourage was leaving Canaan, and that Moses was born in the year his father Amram died. There are some possible explanations for this, including one based on translation of the Hebrew word 'ben." A good presentation of this argument can be found at:The Skeptic Files - SkepticFiles Setting Here's an excerpt:
The Hebrew word ben translated as son in Exodus 6 can also be translated as offspring or descendant. So, in Exodus 6, we can take "son of" to mean either that Kohath was Levi's immediate son or that he was a direct descendant of Levi. Likewise, Amram could have been a direct descendant of Kohath rather than his immediate son, and Aaron could have been a direct descendant of Amram. I hope this answers your questions. Have a great day!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
Hi Rash,
I had a hairy weekend, sorry about the delay in replying.
Sorry, but the context makes it perfectly clear that Moses is Amram's son, Amram Kohath's and Kohath Levi's. You've got to be pretty obtuse (or flat out dishonest) to read Genesis 46 and not conclude that Kohath was Levi's son (Gen 46:11). I'm definitely not the dishonest type (of course if I were dishonest I would still say I'm not, you'll have to judge for yourself). I might be obtuse, of course if I am I would not realize it. Actually my wife thinks I'm pretty acute  I agree with the first part of the statement, Genesis 46:11 looks to be pretty obvious. The rest of the lineage I'm not so sure about whether the context calls for a strict "son" meaning or not. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I'm relying on the work of others here.
Ani choshev she'ata lo yodea likro ivrit, chaver. Nachon?? Looks like you know some Hebrew, maybe you could elaborate your position that "ben" should be used strictly as "son" in this case? It's all Greek to me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
You are easily amused. True enough! I laugh a lot, sometimes at the dumbest things. I hope you don't think I meant to insult you, the reason it amused me was the timing of just hearing on the radio that morning an example of censorship in "historical" writings, and it just happened to be anti-Israel.
What is surprising is the naive belief that a Dynasty can be decimated without leaving a trace. I don't believe that. But, IMO, it's not out of the question that the writings of an ancient culture would deliberately leave out an embarrassing event.
Tell me, when was this Exodus of yours, and what was the state of Egypt a decade later? First of all, it's not my exodus. I could give you my own personal allegorical exodus story, but I don't think that's what you're looking for. Secondly, I don't know when the exodus happened. There is quite a range of proposed dates, each having their own carefully laid out arguments. I'd have to study it further before I could offer a cogent argument. You're implication that Egypt would be drastically affected is a good argument, and obviously any proposed exodus date should take that into consideration.
Have you ever read a study of an archaeological site? Do you honestly think that nothing else would be found? I read some about the Tel-Rehov site at http://www.rehov.org. Fascinating stuff. I'm not sure what you are asking about what would be found, I think what you are implying is that there should be more than just Eqyptian writings, like pottery shards, tools, weapons, buildings, etc. to indicate a Hebrew presence in Egypt. But how would we differentiate between Egyptian artifacts and Hebrew artifacts if the Hebrew culture had been there for hundreds of years? Could'nt some of the artifacts that have been found been made by Hebrews? In your opinion what would qualify as proof of a Hebrew presence? I've posted this link before, but you may not have seen it. At http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html the author makes a strong rebuttal against Redford's opinion that the archeological record totally discredits the exodus and conquest stories. Yes, he is a Christian, but I think you are honest enough to judge an argument by its merits rather than its author.
And are you honestly suggesting that YHWH, Moses and his merry men (1) wiped out a culture so completely as to leave no trace of the disaster, only to (2) have it re-emerge a short time later? I suggested this?
if we can agree that the redactors of the Tanach modified, harmonized, and fabricated Jewish Canon, I'll accept that as a point of consensus. That's not what I proposed. I said that the translators of the Septuagint may have used current (for them) geographical names. You took that to mean that the redactors played loose and fast with the text, making it say whatever they wanted. I certainly don't think that's the case, we have no point of consensus there.
Parenthetically, do your comments mean that you prefer the LXX to the Massoretic Text? I'm not equipped to have a preference between the two, or to argue the merits of either one. My only point was that the Septuagint is the oldest manuscript we have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
Hi Brian,
Family's great, thanks for asking! I hope all is well with you. I've only had a quick look at your reply, it will take me some time to digest. In your usual fashion you have provided an abundance of data I used to participate in a Yahoo forum, but the quick sound-bite style of debate offered little substance and mostly emotional banter. Still it was interesting and quite addicting. Then I stumbled into this forum and was astonished by the more intense level of debate here. I've spent quite a bit of time reading posts, and somewhat less time typing up my own feeble arguments. The problem is that I'm not getting my work done. I'm surprised that my employer hasn't walked into my office with a pair of wire cutters and terminated my internet access! I'm going to have to totally shut myself off from accessing this forum while at work or I may not have a job to go to. That means I'll have to squeeze some time in at home (in between family and church time) for this forum. The result will be a serious dropoff in my participation here, but hey, I'll still have a paycheck! That said, I could not resist responding to:
We cannot count on God as an explanation for anything whilst doing an historical investigation; God is outside the realms of historical enquiry. What you need to realise is that once you mention divine intervention as an explanation for anything, then you automatically classify your source as a myth. We agree on this in a certain way; that if you take God out of the bible, it will never make sense. This statement by you more than any other demonstrates the futility of this debate. My belief is that unless God reaches you on a personal level you cannot be talked into truly believing in Him. I also believe that every person will at some point realize that God is real, and therefore have an opportunity to decide what to do about Him. But, since the debate rages on, I doubt I can stay away from it for very long. I may become a less frequent contributor but I'll still be keeping my finger on the pulse. God Bless!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
Hi Brian, Hi Paul,
Looks like I got the pot stirred up a bit between you two! I hate to be the cause of such bickering. I previously indicated a futility in this discussion, after reading both of your posts I have to admit I was wrong. I really do wish I could spend more time on this forum, I feel it is a worthwhile endeavor! Brian wrote:
1. Which Bible version’s account will we use? 2. Which time frame will we use, 430 years, 400 years, or 4 generations? There’s also the problem of which Bible account to use, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint actually say that the enslavement in Egypt was 215 years, (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times, JSOT, Sheffield, 1990, p 35) so which account should we take as being the accurate one? As well as the problem of which version to use we also have the internal inconsistencies to deal with. Let’s say that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, is this consistent with the other information in the text? Yes, Rashbam has posted his analysis of this as well. Paul has also posted some good analysis of the "numbers in Numbers." I have to say at this point that I don’t have the answer for this problem. I will do some research and see what possible explanations there are for this. So, for the sake of argument, let’s go with a 215 year sojourn. I looked at my population model to determine what birthrate would be required and came up with 6.5 children per family for a 215 year sojourn, instead of 4.2 for a 430 year sojourn. Again, a high birthrate, but well within the realm of possibility for a culture that appears to promote large families. Consider the number of sons in the genealogies, add an equal number of daughters who are not mentioned in genealogies, and you do see large enough families.
3. Do you have any contemporary examples of similar population growths? I’m not aware of ANY trustworthy demographic figures from that time period, and I would be suspicious of any sources that claimed to be anything more than S.W.A.G. (sophisticated-wild-ass-guesses).
4. Is it possible to sustain a very high population growth (for that time) for a total of 430 years and if so, how do you know? Ah yes, the term possible is so appropriate here Even from your perspective, you would have to admit the possibility. OTOH, I have to admit it as improbable, given the consensus of the sources you quote. In fact, I delight in the improbability of it, because the fact that the Hebrews were apparently bucking the trend is a key ingredient in the story! If you look at many historical events, you will find them littered with improbable and unexpected things happening; the fall of Rome, Waterloo, Hitler, Persian Gulf War, etc. Also, the sources you quote are discussing world population as a whole, and I’m quite sure they would agree that subsets of the world population undergo surges and declines in population growth. So within the overall growth rates you would certainly find cultures that went through population booms. I found a good article about population dynamics in a mathematical sense at:http://www.sosmath.com/...ication/population/population.html Concerning exponential growth, it provides a formula that addresses the factor of the environmental carrying capacity of a population. In summary, a population can grow exponentially until it begins to bump into environmental limitations, at which point the growth will slow or stop. So on a graph, we would see the population curve upwards and then slowly flatten off near the top. The question this brings up is whether the carrying capacity of the eastern Nile Delta (Land of Goshen) could accommodate the exponential growth rate that would be required in my Hebrew population models. What we do know from history is that Egypt was a bit of a safety net for the region. We see people from other cultures migrating there during famines. It is reasonable to assume that, properly managed, it would have a higher carrying capacity than the surrounding region. We know that agriculture was well developed, and that they also had flocks and herds, so these weren’t hunter/gatherers. And of course the supply of fresh water was abundant. From what I can find, Egypt’s population was around 7 million at the time of the Roman empire and, correct me if I’m wrong, the population centers would be concentrated near the fertile areas of the Nile Delta. It is a reasonable assumption that the carrying capacity of the Delta should easily support the numbers proposed.
5. How were they all fed and watered for 40 years in the desert (remember no divine intervention)? If you took an X-Ray of this story, you will find God is the very skeleton of it. Take Him out and the whole thing collapses in a heap. The maintenance of the population in the desert is a miracle, therefore I would not offer a naturalistic explanation. I’m comfortable with it having a supernatural cause
If there's anything I have missed, just let me know, As usual, you haven’t missed a thing my friend! ------------------A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Proverbs 15:1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
Hi Ned,
Well, if miricles are allowed then there is not discussion at all. Most of this board is discussion "scientific" creationism. Actually, this thread has been mostly about the Exodus and whether or not it could have happened. Within that context, there are many things which could be discussed without having to resort to supernatural explanations. Most of the discussion has been about the practical issues surrounding the Exodus, there are just some aspects of it that really do require a supernatural explanation, like how they were sustained in the wilderness. I have no illusions about the fact that in a normal situation they probably could not have survived in the wilderness.
There are at least a couple of reasons why I'm not interested once miracles are introduced 1) You're in your church and out of the schools. I agree in this regard, I don't think biblical criticism belongs in the classroom of a public school. This forum is ideal for such discussion though.
2) It would be like having a 18th century dual with someone equipped with a machine gun. All discussions would end with "it was a miracle" it doesn't matter how much evidence you have or how good you logic is. The no miracle side would always be wrong,every single time. I'm not sure what else you would expect in a discussion about the bible. In fact, take God out of the bible and you have removed the main character. Why do that to any literary work? And Ned, I would never mow you down with a machine gun (except maybe in X-Box land).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nuklhed67 Inactive Member |
Hi Orion,
I think that, before we get into a consideration of miracles, we should take a step back and ask a rather fundamental question: does the book of Exodus reflect historical reality? To date, the evidence (or lack of) suggests either that the story is fictional or that it took place on a much more modest scale. Fair enough. What type of evidence would you expect to see? ------------------A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Proverbs 15:1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
