430 Year Stay in Egypt

Because the Exodus 6 genealogy lists only four generations from Levi to Aaron and Moses, this presents several problems for inerrantists. First, Exodus 12:40 states that the Israelites sojourned in Egypt 430 years. Since Levi was one of Jacob's sons who accompanied him into Egypt (Gen. 46:11) and since Levi's sons Gershon, Kohath, and Merari had already been born at this time and also were in the group that went with Jacob into Egypt (Gen. 46:11). Exodus 6:18 The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, and the length of Kohath's life was one hundred thirty-three years. 6:20 Amram married Jochebed his father's sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the length of Amram's life was one hundred thirty-seven years. Notice that Kohath lived to be 133 (v:18) and that his son Amram (the father of Aaron and Moses) lived to be 137. If we assume that Kohath was just an infant in his mother's arms when the Jacobites went into Egypt and if we assume that in the final year of his life, he sired Amram, and then if we assume that Amram sired Moses the last year of his life, this genealogy would allow for an Egyptian bondage of only 350 years. This number is arrived at by adding 133 (the maximum period of time that Kohath could have spent in Egypt) to 137 (the length of his son Amram's life) to 80, the age of Moses at the time of the exodus(Ex. 7:7). To circumvent this problem, inerrantists will argue that the genealogy of Exodus 6 is not complete, that the writer skipped some generations. Thus, Moses and Aaron weren't necessarily the sons of Amram but could have been his grandsons or even his great-grandsons. They argue this despite the fact that Exodus 6:20 clearly says, "Amram married Jochebed his father's sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses." The father-son relationship of Amram and Aaron and Moses was also claimed in Numbers 26:59, "The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore to Amram: Aaron, Moses, and their sister Miriam."

HI RoR,Could I suggest that you either start a new thread about 'Bible errors' or 'Bible contradictions' rather that starting a new thread for every single 'error' you find in the Bible?We could discuss each error you find rather than having many different threads.Cheers.AdminBrian.

Hi,There is another problem with this length of stay, not all Bibles say it was 430 years.The Samaritam pentateuch, amongst others, claim that the stay was 215 years.I think people need to realise that bible chronology is artificial.Brian.

To Revenge:There is a lot of background information you need to have in order to understand and resolve the 430 year issue. I would suggest two sources:Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, Chicago, IL regarding the differences in the Septuagint and Massoretic text and the relevant verses.I would also recommend this site because I think it is even better than Wycliffe:Page not found - Apologetics PressI hope these 2 sources help you. I offered them because I thought they were the most well researched and well written.Sincerely,Ken

Dear Revenge:I wanted to be more specific/precise. The Wycliffe Bible Encylopedia says the Septuagint has a different number of years stated then the Massoretic text for a key passage in regards to the 430 years issue you are dealing with. I believe the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia discusses this in their Chronology of the Old Testament section of thier encyclopedia. The Apologetics Press link may also mention the Septuagint/Masssoretic difference and hopefully they do.I hope this is of help to you.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

As far as I am aware "inerrantists" claim that the bible is only inerrant in the "original autographs" anyway.
As this number is corrupted it would not be a problem for "inerrantists (I don't think) :-)

I fail to see the value in asserting that a body of text entirely unavailable to us is inerrant. Nor am I aware of any compelling argument for a single set of "original autographs", as opposed to a plurality of equally valid efforts to commit oral tradition to writing.

Well I suppose you'll have to ask an inerrantist about these things. Are there any who post here?

The four names in the genealogy in Ex. 6:16-20 is incomplete, which is often the case with biblical genealogies. The four names given are simply symbolic of the ‘four generations’ (400 years) spoken of in Gen. 15:16. Moreover, the word begot or bore in the bible can simply refer to a descendent. Abraham was 100 years old when he had his first child, thus the 4 generations represent 4 x 100 years.There are 10 names listed from Ephraim (also a son of Jacob) to Joshua (the young assistant of Moses, who led the Israelites into Canaan), (1Chronicles 7:22-27). Thus, we have 4 names and 10 names. The real question before us is not why the contradiction of 4 and 10 names, but for what purpose is the genealogy laid out this way? Genealogies are meant to tell a story and are often numerically abbreviated for theological reasons. (Sorry, they were not written to satisfy inerrancy critics!) The 10 names from Adam to Noah and the next 10 names from Noah to Abraham are an obvious example of selective genealogies. (The genealogy of Luke is also selective, and is based upon multiples of 7 x 2).Obviously, the 10 names from Ephraim to Joshua are closer to the actual number, (if not exact). So, the important question is ‘why 4 and 10 names.’The answer is that a generation in the bible (for theological purposes) is rounded as 100 years or as 40 years. Hence, the 4 names represent 4 generations of 100 years, and the 10 names are 10 generations of 40 years. Note that the bible divides Moses life into three sets of 40-year periods. Also, we are told that 480 years elapsed from the exodus till when Solomon began building the temple, (1Kings 6:1). ‘480’ are 12 generations of 40 years. (The 12 suggest the 12 tribes of Israel, i.e., all Israel.)The point is that there is a consistent use of genealogies for theological purpose rather than wooden chronological purposes. It is unwise to force our modern chronological methodology upon another civilization and at another era of time. "What is God saying in the numeric of the chronology?" is what we should be asking; not, Does this genealogical table agree with modern methodology?I have spent about 25,000 hours studying bible prophecy numbers, and I have come to realize that every so-called ‘error’ in the bible is actually a hidden door to new vista’s of understanding---God hides it from the wise and prudent, but reveals it unto babes!Feel free to follow some of the links below to a few of the web sites. I especially suggest the 360-calendar site. Well, I must go. I can hear scoffing already! Once speck of faith is more powerful than a mountain of doubt. Don’t scoff too loud, you might blow out your candle![This message has been edited by shekel, 03-13-2004]

---

Bible Prophecy Numbers: 1260 days, 1290 days, 1335 days, 1260 yearsBible Code PictogramsBible Prophecy Calendar: 360 day/year

Hello shekel,And welcome to the forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by shekel

​

I have spent about 25,000 hours studying bible prophecy numbers . . .

---

Excellent! I have been waiting for someone with your expertise to answer a question.With all your many hours of study, you should have no problem in telling me:When did the exodus occur?Namaste'Amlodhi

Sorry to delay getting back to you. I guess I was asking for a frisky response by the way I ended my previous post!So what's your (real) question? Are you trying to say that the exodus could not have occurred until at least 1290 BC because of the date of Rameses?
Surely you know the answer to that one already!
I believe the exodus was in 1446 BC, based upon a literal understanding of 1Kings 6:1, "480th year after the exodus." The mention of Rameses was simply an editorial update.

---

Bible Prophecy Numbers: 1260 days, 1290 days, 1335 days, 1260 yearsBible Code PictogramsBible Prophecy Calendar: 360 day/year

Hi shekel,

quote:

---

Originally posted by shekel

​

I guess I was asking for a frisky response by the way I ended my previous post!

---

Thank you for putting it that way. I post on some other boards also and it seems that recently I have encountered a number of people who have never read or understood I Kings 20:11.

quote:

---

shekel

​

Are you trying to say that the exodus could not have occurred until at least 1290 BC because of the date of Rameses? Surely you know the answer to that one already!

---

I know what I think the answer is, but I don't think its anachronistic. Hans Goedicke, following some of Donald Redford's analyses, has suggested an interesting explanation.Incidentally, welcome to the forum. Hope you hang around for awhile.Namaste'Amlodhi