Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.

quote:

---

brian
MULTIPLIED AND GREW EXCEEDINGLY MIGHTY, AND THE LAND WAS FILLED WITH THEM.

​

Yes, we are all familiar with the Exodus myths. So, if the land was filled with them then why is no one posting any direct evidence of them in the other thread?

---

The use of the term myth has lost all credibility. Why would you call a stat which is devoid of any motive as 'myth'? There is nothing remarkable in a tribal community of 70 becoming 3 million in 4 centuries, nor is there any reason to falsify these numbers. The 3 million is still a small figure for a nation. What you have overlooked here is we have credible narratives throughout, describing a background, and what is the world's first bona fide cencus on record, with genda and age breakdowns, names of tribal heads and many other figures. This makes it very credible and the very antithesis of a myth.You have also selectively disregarded the listing of ancient egypt's diets and cultures - given for the first time - and is authentic and contemporaous; two cities mentioned as built by the hebrews, actual names of pharoahs and their families and preists; and that egypt's wealth was measured by her slaves: is that all myth too?

quote:

---

JW

​

New Kingdom Egypt, over 3,000 years ago, had an estimated population of between 3 and 4 million. Canaan at this time may have fluctuated around 100,000 to perhaps 300,000 during the early iron age.

---

More relevent is we have an egyptian 3200 year manuscript which boasts of a war with Israel and defeating her. It is, aside from verifying actual historicity, an indication that these two nations reached some parity.The canaanites were vanquished when Israel was in Egypt. Weakened by a regional famine, the original non-hebrew canaanites were destroyed by invading tribes who assumed themselves as canaanites. Joshua confronted a people different from the canaanites who lived side by side with the Israelites previously - thus they phrase, 'WE WERE AS GRASSHOPPERS IN THEIR EYES' - meaning this was a different race from the original canaanites. This made the returning israelies the only surviving canaanites, and evidences the exaggerated guilt-factored hatred of the Pretend canaanites upon seeing the israelites return.

quote:

---

nimrod
your stated belief tht the world was created around 5750BCE with the archaeological record.

---

I never stated any belief the world was created 5750 BCE. This is a pervasive misconception upon the OT. It only applies to speech endowed humans.

quote:

---

Your dates would place the flood at around 2100 BCE and the Babel event around 2000 or even later.

​

You seem to hold to a Conquest date of around 1500 BCE.

​

So, in 500 years , all of world history and pre-history happened in time for the exodus?

---

I don't understand the Q

quote:

---

JW
Well, is there any archaeological evidence that Amenhotep II brought back 89,600 prisoners from Canaan to Egypt around 1420 BC? Certainly a number so large would have some hard evidence.

---

How do you mean - 70 souls went down to egypt - some 3M went out with Moses: what's the 89,000 about?

quote:

---

Yes I am aware of the Merneptah stele.
As far as I know, the Canaanites were a culture who've always been intermingled with foreign peoples, Amorites, Hurrites, Hittites, who often settled in the land, not to mention their vassalage to Egypt for roughly four hundred years.

---

The stele is overiding and hard proof of a text's veracity - notwithstanding the myth chants so boldly displayed by obvious mythical comprehension stadards.

quote:

---

The reference to 'WE WERE AS GRASSHOPPERS IN THEIR EYES' is a allegorical comparison of size and strength. Infact, this is refering to a S. Canaanite tribe named Anaq, which likely corresponds to the "ly-Anaq" (people of Anaq) mentioned in the 19th century BC Egyptian Execration texts. The Bible account has them ruled by three leaders, Ahiman, Sheshi, and Tolmai. The Execration texts list three leaders of "ly Anaq", Akirum, Erum, and Abi-Yaminu. The names are certainly Canaanite, as Akirum is an early version of the name Hiram.

---

Yes, the anachim were giants - very unlike the original canaanites Israel lived with before Egypt. These canaanites confronted by Joshua spoke no hebrew: an anomoly, placing Hebrew in a mysterious origin category. Not a single Hebrew scroll (or any alphabetical books) was ever found in canaan or phoenecia - even for a 1000 years after israel emerged. My thesis is that canaanite and phoenecia were not the prototypes for hebrew as given in all those google sites: I think its the other way around.

quote:

---

What this shows is that a Canaanite tribe called Anaq, was known to exist from as early as 1800 BC and as late as the invading Hebrews claim to have conquered them. This infact is a reverse of your statement that the Canaanites were effectively replaced by invaders. Certainly not all were.

---

Og was from the anachim tribe, and a foreigner in canaan - he lived with Abraham, and is said to be the only survivor of the flood: he clung to the boat and survived. The canaanites Israel knew and lived with were close - they even inter-married. Contrastingly, the exaggerated hate of the new canaanites evoke a guilt factor, as with seeing the witness of a murder return. The original Canaanites knew and respected Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not have denied Israel a return to their own motherland. There is a clear mirror image of this episode in today's history with the Pretend Pals, where israel's entire history is deemed a zionist myth, displayed with the Pretend canaanite exaggerated angst of 'come, curse me israel' (Numbers). Israel existing is an affront to many it seems.

quote:

---

modulous
Indeed, myths do make reference to all of these things. See the mythology set out in Homer for more details. You seem to be sensitive about the word 'myth' because its informal usage has come to mean 'false or made-up story'. The term myth is still used to mean something quite different in academia, where it retains its 'credibility'.

---

So what your saying is, yes - the Israelites did dwell with ancient egypt in the date described - but certain factors are exaggerated or mythical? If so, this issue cannot be adequately dealt with unless a coherent reason is given how the Israelites were able to record the names of generations stemming 2000 years of the past of the egypt dating? Bear in mind that all the names, places, dod's and dob's of the genrations of Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Esau - are athentic and a scientifically validated record: names per spacetime is the single most tool used by archeologists to confirm discoveries. How is it possible to perpertrate such a feat? And why not a single contemporanous record of disputation from egypt or any of the surrounding nations?My understanding of a verification is that if the surrounding details are authentic and vindicated - the overall report is credible. Secondly, unlike other candy-coated scriptures, the OT does not shy away from displaying every negative and failing of the israelite: it seems these would be the first on the chopping block?There is another issue here. The world at large has an indisputable motive to negate the OT - this is because both christianity and islam have spread a false and self-serving account the last 2000 years in their chruches and mosque sermons, while making their core doctrines as dependent on those reports. Just as muslim youth are subjected to false historical teachings - the same syndrome applies to christians also. There is subsequently a powerful agenda to negate the OT and israel's history. If a million stats in a report is credible - a single grey area will be picked up - and the king kongs will beat their chests!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

chiro
Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

---

Yes! But without any option. Care to submit any other alternatives? To put it better, the OT introduced the premise of Creationism - and everyone had a go - but could not topple humpty dumpty. And what would science have proved - even allowing it every success you want to? At best, science could move the enigma further back - then come bang on against it again.Science is vested against creationism for very logical reasons: grants, fear, ridicule. Ultimately, Creationism is the most scentific premise there can be - there is no alternative to it. No one has mentioned any - they just bash the OT as a proof.

quote:

---

if a documenter wrote about three volcano eruptions that can be verified archaeologically and one that cannot, we might be tempted to accept that a fourth one he describes also occurred despite a lack of archaeological evidence to confirm it. However, if he said that the volcano's eruptions were so severe the dead awoke and roamed the land, terrifying the living and drinking their blood...we might not assume that report is credible.

---

This is a fair arguement. What you are saying, the inclusion of miracles in the exodus story signifies a proportion of myth, while the historicity factors are most probably true and correct. I stay away from reported miracles, and go by what's provable: I find the provables in the OT are all credible, while I see the provables in most other theological documents as not credible, relyling solely on miracles (belief); this is not the case with the OT. It is a significant factor, and says the OT is unique in this regard.

quote:

---

modulous:

​

No, Exodus is a myth. Exodus is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

---

'Ancient' does not mean myth, though: in this case it has the back-up of the world's first (with negligible disputing) record of alphabetical books, chunks of ancient vindicated historical reportings not available elsewhere, the oldest, scientifically based calendar, and judiciary and moralistic laws which govern all bona fide worldly institutions today. This seems to make the myth or ancient factor very weak, and unlike the myth of hellenism and divine emperors. Thus I asked if you referred to 'miracles'.To make your premise more credible, it requires explaining what ancient document is NOT a myth, all things being relative, and how is this exercise performed: is it limited to bits of commerce reciepts and tombstones, head-bashing dieties battling for supremecy, or names of pharoahs on granite pyramids, devoid of any historical output?I am trying to understand your point here. Aside from miracles and such FX, the other aspect which would come under myth is the introduction of Creationism and the Creator premise, and Monotheism - which is a reasoning based premise: it would be unsubstantiated to conclude this is myth. We have no clue, even in today's cutting edge of science, of anything's origins, with all debates being polarised against Creationism, thus far inconclusively. I find there is a huge rejection of theology in general terms, and mostly I concur with this, but I nonetheless also see a difference in kind than degree with the OT - it is not exclusively based on 'belief' but it also gives a foundational premise of its statements - as with its Creator premise being expounded by the creation chapter in Genesis. Whether one accepts or rejects, this is not a mythical account of the universe origins: there is great science, maths and historicity here.

[quote] Amorite king Og a survivor of the flood is later Hebrew lore, not incorporated in the OT. [quote] You are correct here. This particular entry is not historically based and can be seen as lore/legend, and serves only a further indicative background. Strangely though, it is an old writing (Medrash), and aligned with the date Sarah died. If the report has substance, its absence in the OT would be due to its lack of critical application.

quote:

---

the 'myth' may be more mythic than it seems. Since scholars generally identify the 'book' that came through the Josiah/Hilkiah bottleneck as Deuteronomy, where did the rest of the Torah spring from?

---

That's an even greater debacle than that other scholarly classic, king david is a myth. Things have graduated since that one was toppled. The Josiah debacle rested on a single verse that a book of Israel's history was found - that's about all it took to shout Eureka! No one cared that there was no name given of that book (Dueteronomy was selected because it also contains a summary of the first four books); no one asked if Israel always had a vast library of books in the temple; nor if there was any previous evidence all five books existed. Then they concluded that Ezra the Scribe put it all together in 586 BCE, with perfect recall of all the millions of stats spread in the OT's passages. Wow.But the Tel Dan discovery pointed the finger to this great folly: king david wrote the psalms over 3000 years ago - which contains numerous mentions of Moses, and aligns with the entire narratives of the five books!One must hope these scholars don't make conclusions in science the same way.

quote:

---

The seventy souls in the Exodus story is a rough figure, and the 600,000 is likely symbolic

---

This appears an almost unanimous mindset, and I usually do not like to get into whatever is aligned with FX miracles. However, the issue here is not without questions:1. The 600K men noted, are backed by what is the world's first recording of a scientific cencus, with sub-counts of gender, ages and names of the 13 tribal heads. What would be the motive for such an exhaustive description, involving so much detailed and pristine calcs, to sustain a greater population? The cencus is later repeated 39 years later in the desert, and the figures are not in contradiction with the first.2. The 3M total is based on an estimation derived from the ratio of men:women, aged and children. It also includes a multitude of non-israelites who also joined the exodus.3. I understand that egypt's population then was estimated as 3-4M, which renders its slave population greater. But this is not an anomoly, considering Egypt was dedicated for centures in acquiring nations as slaves, was continually involved in mega projects which required great slave populations, and that the texts makes pointed reference the Hebrew population had become alarmingly huge and intollerable, even incurring fear in Egypt.The authentic descriptions of the cencus, including the placement of key figures to their host tribes (Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Dathan, Korach, etc) does not come across as a fake - despite the issue of populations - it in fact appears a very credible reporting.Many also question equally such a vast humanity crossing the sea and sustaining themselves in the deserts 40 years. Even the name of the first person to enter the sea is known, and that 12 pathways opened the sea, and the date it occured! What is forgotten or not factored in, is that there was no possibility of the Israelites being freed from Egypt under any circumstances: slaves were never given any compromises, as with Rome, because this was the main asset of a nation, and a domino effect was avoided at all costs. Thus, if it is accepted that Israel, whatever the real population, was embedded in Egypt, how was her freedom obtained?Here only two options can apply. It never happened - or that a miracle of sorts occured. If the latter, then the exodus and the populations debate become muted.

Amenhotep II's Military Campaigns.Egypt: Amenhotep II, 7th Pharaoh of Egypt's 18th DynastyAs a king, Amenhotep II's athletic abilities may have served him very well, for within a short period after gaining the throne, his metal would be tested. Various sources disagree on how many military expeditions he made into Syria, and in what year of his reign these occurred. These military actions are recorded on stele erected at Amada, Memphis and Karnak. Yet it is clear that there had been a revolt in the Syrian region, and possibly even in the ports on the Mediterranean sea. His father was well recognized as a military leader, sometimes referred to as the "Napoleon of ancient Egypt". Therefore it is perhaps not surprising that when a region in Syria known as Tikhsi heard of his father's death, they decided to test the new pharaoh (apparently not an uncommon practice).Some references refer to his first expedition taking place as early as his 2nd year of rule, though others provide that it was during his 7th. Still other references indicate that he made both of these campaigns. Regardless, he fought his was across the Orontes river and claims to have subdued all before him. One city, Niy, apparently had learnt their lesson under his father, and welcomed Amenhotep II. But at Tikhsi (Takhsy, as mentioned in the Theban tomb of Amenemheb - TT85), he captured seven prices, returning with them in the autumn. They were hung face down on the prow of his ship on the return journey, and six of them were subsequently hung on the enclosure wall of the Theban temple. The other was taken south into Nubia where his was likewise hung on the walls of Napata, "in order to cause to be seen the victorious might of His Majesty for ever and ever".According to the Stele recording these events, this first campaign netted booty consisting of 6,800 deben of gold and 500,000 deben of copper (about 1,643 and 120,833 pounds respectively), as well as 550 mariannu captives, 210 horses and 300 chariots.All sources agree that he once again campaigned in Syria during his ninth year of rule, but only in Palestine as for as the Sea of Galilee.Yet these stele, erected after year nine of Amenhotep II's rule, that provide us with this information do not bear hostile references to either Mitanni or Nahrin, the general regions of the campaigns. This is probably intentional, because apparently the king had finally made peace with these former foes. In fact, an addition at the end of the Memphis stele records that the chiefs of Nahrin, Hatti and Sangar (Babylon) arrived before the king bearing gifts and requesting offering gifts (hetepu) in exchange, as well as asking for the breath of life. Though good relations with Babylon existed during the reign of Tuthmosis III, this was the first mention of a Mitanni peace, and it is very possible that a treaty existed allowing Egypt to keep Palestine and part of the Mediterranean coast in exchange for Mitannian control of northern Syria. Underscoring this new alliance, with Nahrin, Amenhotep II had inscribed on a column between the fourth and fifth pylons at Karnak, "The chiefs (weru) of Mitanni (My-tn) come to him, their deliveries upon their backs, to request offering gifts from his majesty in quest of the breath of life". The location for this column in the Tuthmosid wadjyt, or columned hall, was significant, because the hall was venerated as the place where his father received a divine oracle proclaiming his future kingship. It is also associated with the Tuthmosid line going back to Tuthmosis I, who was the first king to campaign in Syria. Furthermore, we also learn that Amenhotep II at least asked for the hand of the Mitannian king, Artatama I, in marriage. By the end of Amenhotep II's reign, the Mitanni who had been so recently a vile enemy of Egypt, were being portrayed as a close friend.After these initial campaigns, the remainder of Amenhotep II's long reign was characterized by peace in the Two Lands, including Nubia where his father settled matters during his reign. This allowed him to somewhat aggressively pursue a building program that left his mark at nearly all the major sites where his father had worked. Some of these projects may have even been initiated during his co-regency with his father, for at Amada in Lower Nubia dedicated to Amun and Ra-Horakhty celebrated both equally, and at Karnak, he participated in his father's elimination of any vestiges of his hated stepmother, Hatshepsut. There was also a bark chapel built celebrating his co-regency at Tod.

Re: 2000-1900 Asiatics among Egyptian population.Do you mean India, which brought 'color' (paint), used in painting the Pyramid drawings?

quote:

---

nimrod
First of all, the Judges period clearly covers the 400+ years (actually 600+) years that would be between the Exodus and Monarchy.There were no stories of Egyptian opression and for good reason;the Egyptians werent the Israelites (main) problem during that period but the Canaanites were.

---

There were hardly any canaanites post-Joshua; hardly any canaanite discoveries or canaanite writings exist post-Joshua. Six of the eight kingdoms were destroyed in the war, while the two canaanite kingdoms enjoined with the Israelites, living together till the Kings period (David negotiated for the Jerusalem hilltop with the Jebusites). The battles which prevailed for 150 years after this period related to other groups, namely the battles incurred with Deborah, and the last one being the Philistines, which marked the sovereign period of kings and the whole territory marked for Israel.

quote:

---

2nd, the Patriarchal period could only fit into the time-period from 2000BCE to 1650 BCE. Detail after detail ONLY fits that period and and that period alone. If I had more time, I would cover this important period. )

---

Moses was not a patriachal figure, which ended with Jacob.

quote:

---

(though my posts would be drowned out by substance-free disruptors, even some who have the audacity to carry a screen name after an important patriarch

---

Shall I change my birth name? Was Nimrod your patriachal father or birth name: I usually do not like getting personal, but you do?

quote:

---

Actually there were many Canaanites and Philistines up until the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks conquered them. Wealthy cities like Sidon, Tyre, Zarephath, Kanah, Hammon, and Gebal.

---

I'm not sure what 'many' means, but there were only possible remnants here; two of the eight canaanite kingdoms remained, and the texts show these two were living with the Israelites. The remnants would be in a state of disipitation: we have no writings or historical identities here of canaanites, not from Babylon or any of the surrounding areas; there were no 'arabs' at this time, but there were kurds and then coptics. The ancient Egyptians too were not around when Greece conquered Persia. This was a time of a breakdown of the region, first with the fall of Babylon (the entire Mesopotamia block), which was under attack from Persia, and then Europe. After 1000 BCE, the only philistines remaining were iron-smiths, and this was not a force anymore. The name Palestinians surfaced again when Rome invaded Judea in 70 CE and Jews became Palestinians till 1965. 80% of the Jews were now dispersed in Arabia and Europe, when christianity emerged as a force, and a church was erected where now stands the Al Aqsa mosque, destroyed again when Islam emerged. I know of no canaanite books or a history of his peoples, by themselves or from any other source - aside from the Hebrew writings.

quote:

---

The Philistines at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod, were living there as late as the 600's BC until Nebuchadrezar's conquest.
By 1200 BC, Israel was settling in the central hills of Canaan, south of Beth-shean and Megiddo, but north of Gezer and Jerusalem, as teh Mernepta Stele indicates.

​

By 1000 BC, this territory had expanded greatly under king David.

---

Which says Egypt's stele reported a falsehood: Israel was not destroyed at this time. This is in keeping with Egypt's history of erasing any negative factors, and embellishing it with a false glory. Egypt was over-taken in 500 BCE by the newly emerging arab force, which infiltrated the copts under the guise of protection from the invading Greeks.