Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8963 total)
47 online now:
anglagard, caffeine, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,987 Year: 2,735/23,288 Month: 926/1,809 Week: 45/313 Day: 1/44 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the Egyptians come from ?
dreaded s flynn
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 112 (11384)
06-12-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peter
06-12-2002 8:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
According the the Hebrew version of the Bible, there
is STILL only 367 years between the Flood and a
Pharoah in Egypt.

So my original question remains (assuming none is going
to dispute a genealogy from Hebrew sources).


OK you got me! I will dispute it!
Examining these texts can be complicated so I will try to keep it simple.
The hebrew text is the most corrupt for the following reasons.
1. The cuurent text was compiled or standardised by jews in ther middle ages.
2. This text disagrees most with the dead sea scrolls
3. We know the actual geneology section is corrupt because it differs from that used to complie Lukes gospel.
4.Justin Martyr in the second century accuses the jews of corrupting their version (although why they would do it to the geneologies is a mystery )
5. Josephus (for the most part) disagrees with the masoretic text here

6. Justin martyr disagrees with the timelien of the massoretic text.
7. Africanus and eusebius do as well
8. Living trees predate the flood in the massoretic version (assuming the flood was global)

In other words NO early source agrees with this timeline! (apart perhaps from josephus who for the most part disagres with it).

One must ask , how can we possibly go with this version?
It is tempting only because it is written in hebrew. But it is illogical to therefore assume it is the truest.

.Sean

[This message has been edited by dreaded s flynn, 06-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 06-12-2002 8:32 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 06-12-2002 10:47 AM dreaded s flynn has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2338 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 112 (11389)
06-12-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by dreaded s flynn
06-12-2002 8:59 AM


Sorry ... got the wrong end of the stick there for some
reason Not enough coffee obviously !!

So that gives somewhere between 1000 and 1200 years from
the Flood to Egyptian Pharoahs.

That would tend to increase the possibility, I have to admit.

Although, that would still give only a few hundred years to
develop a high culture, wouldn't it ? Which is better than a few
dozen years admittedly

Reasoning::

Starting with 4 couples in a single location, it would likely take
more than 1 or 2 generations for sufficient population to accrue
to force dispersal.

Even if the couples dispersed immediately then you have single
couples in different locations to do the re-populating.

How many generations would it take to gain sufficient population
to support the Egyptian empire(s) which we know, from other
sources, existed ? Anyone ?

The question, unfortunately remains, which version do we believe.
If the claims that the Jews changed their geneologies is correct ... how does that help us decide whether anyone else did or didn't modify
their texts ?

If there is that much disagreement between versions of the
Bible ... how can we hold it as inerrant ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by dreaded s flynn, posted 06-12-2002 8:59 AM dreaded s flynn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John, posted 06-12-2002 5:59 PM Peter has not yet responded
 Message 20 by dreaded s flynn, posted 06-12-2002 10:56 PM Peter has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 112 (11422)
06-12-2002 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peter
06-12-2002 10:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:

How many generations would it take to gain sufficient population
to support the Egyptian empire(s) which we know, from other
sources, existed ? Anyone ?

http://library.thinkquest.org/11771/english/hi/math/calcs/growdeca.html

I get starting with 4 couples at a rate of 1.7 (this is the current rate of population growth.) percent annually (appr):

1) 43 in 100 years
2) 233 in 200
3) 1257 in 300
4) 6783 in 400
5) 36607 in 500

The estimated population of Eqypt during the Old Kingdom (2660-2180 BC) is 1-2 million -> http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people

We also need enough people to account for all of the other nations mentioned in the Old Testament. I just don't see it happening....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 06-12-2002 10:47 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-12-2002 11:36 PM John has responded

  
dreaded s flynn
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 112 (11438)
06-12-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peter
06-12-2002 10:47 AM


The question, unfortunately remains, which version do we believe.
If the claims that the Jews changed their geneologies is correct ... how does that help us decide whether anyone else did or didn't modify
their texts ?

If there is that much disagreement between versions of the
Bible ... how can we hold it as inerrant ?[/B][/QUOTE]

the vast majority of the texts agree all the time. Jeremiah seesm to have a long and a short version, as does a part of samuel.
Why the geneologies are different is a real mystery (to me anyway).
One point I didn't mention (although I did say it gets complicated) is that the massoretic text seem to have peculiar markings in the text at this point, which some have suggested may indicate that they at least knew of the variation.
Either way the story of mans predicament and Gods solution is clear in any version.

Later................sea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 06-12-2002 10:47 AM Peter has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 112 (11440)
06-12-2002 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by John
06-12-2002 5:59 PM


6 kids each and generations of 25 years gives about 19 million people. I'm (the wife actually) about to have my fourth child in 5 years and we use contraceptives (4 will do us I think)! Back in those days people didn't travel the world and sit in uni cafes drinking machiatos. They had families.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John, posted 06-12-2002 5:59 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 06-13-2002 1:09 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 112 (11450)
06-13-2002 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
06-12-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
6 kids each and generations of 25 years gives about 19 million people. I'm (the wife actually) about to have my fourth child in 5 years and we use contraceptives (4 will do us I think)! Back in those days people didn't travel the world and sit in uni cafes drinking machiatos. They had families.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-12-2002]


They also had enormous infant mortality rates(including early childhood death due to disease), and very short lifespans-- important because you don't have six kids if you die at 25.

The math on that you ask? Lets say you get pregnant at 14. That leaves 11 years of reproduction. Formula didn't exist at the time so women breast fed. This greatly reduces the chances of the mother getting pregnant before that child is weaned. So you lose 3 to 4 years per child. 11/3 is 4 kids.

The numbers are further reduced by the fact that birth is dangerous and women die. Dead == no more babies.

Food supply is also a factor. Nutrition slows development. Late onset of puberty reduces your childbearing years. Food supply also effects the numbers of children who reach puberty at all. Not to mention that it provides an upper limit on the rate of multiplication. You can feed only a limited number of people. And farming technique expands at a limited rate as well.

Which is why you never see population explosions on the scale you describe.

In short, back in those days life was very different. What you can manage now with the help of modern technology-- medicine, farming-- does not apply six thousand years ago.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-12-2002 11:36 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 1:34 AM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 112 (11453)
06-13-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
06-13-2002 1:09 AM


Assuming 25 year generations doesn't mean they all died at 25!! But it is quite likely they had had 6 kids by 25 - these were not bohemian uni students! I don't know enough about reproduction but there is a breast feeding pill to stop pregnancies during this period so there must be a chance of it happening. And many families may have been bigger than 6. I'm sure someone here could find out the sort of families that we used to get in the 3rd world pre-pill. My sister's father in law came from a British family of 13 kids in the 20th century!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 06-13-2002 1:09 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 06-13-2002 7:04 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 25 by John, posted 06-13-2002 11:08 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2338 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 112 (11462)
06-13-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
06-13-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Assuming 25 year generations doesn't mean they all died at 25!! But it is quite likely they had had 6 kids by 25 - these were not bohemian uni students!

According to the ages in Genesis, though no-one had any children
until they were about 30.

Even if the males went on producing offspring into their hundreds
(some seem to have kids at 300, 400, even 500), the females
cannot. That's even mentioned in the Bible where Sarah (is it?)
says ooh I'm too old to have any more children.

quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

I don't know enough about reproduction but there is a breast feeding pill to stop pregnancies during this period so there must be a chance of it happening.

I don't know either ... so best say nothing until I've looked it
up.

quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

And many families may have been bigger than 6. I'm sure someone here could find out the sort of families that we used to get in the 3rd world pre-pill. My sister's father in law came from a British family of 13 kids in the 20th century!

OK, large families have existed ... Victorian families were often
large ... but they had plenty of food available, and even though
large, many more of the children died, as did the mothers.

In less developed countries, families are smaller, because large
families cannot be supported by available food resources.

Another problem with population growth after the flood is that
farming had to be re-established, and herds for meat, milk, etc.

Genesis mentions particular offspring, then says so and so was
240 (or whatever) and had sons and daughters. So we don't
really have any firm basis for population calculations.

Except that no-one appears to have children before 30.

But it's not just a matter of sheer numbers in any case.

By 1000-1200 (LXX chronology) after the flood there was a
DEVELOPED culture in Egypt, complete with Pharoah, court,
army, trade, etc.

To support that would require up to 2 million people, but how
could it have developed in such a short space of time ?

Modern western society traces much of its roots (laws, legal
systems, systems of government) back 2000 or more years.

How long would be required to develop a culture as sophisticated
as Egypt during the time of the Pharoahs ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 1:34 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 9:19 PM Peter has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 112 (11470)
06-13-2002 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
06-13-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Assuming 25 year generations doesn't mean they all died at 25!!

Right. I didn't mean to equate the generations and the lifespan, but merely to point out that death at a young age is a very real factor.

quote:

But it is quite likely they had had 6 kids by 25 - these were not bohemian uni students!

Quite likely? Based on what? I gave you my reasons for thinking it isn't likely. Now its your turn.

For the record, it isn't likely because of :

1) Biological constraints such as the length of a woman's reproductive lifespan and the demands of childrearing UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES that would have existed 6000-8000 years ago.
2) Biological constraints such as death prior to reaching reproductive age. This is a major factor, and it has to be taken into account. Every pregnancy removes nine months to a year from a reproductive lifespan even if the child dies at birth. If it dies three years later of dysentry, you've lost even more time.
3) Food supply. Food supply effects the age of sexual maturity, the survival of the mother and child during and after pregnancy, the maximum number of people that can live on the land. Supply must keep up with demand or the population dies of starvation.

quote:

I don't know enough about reproduction but there is a breast feeding pill to stop pregnancies during this period so there must be a chance of it happening.

What applies to a modern well fed mommie does not apply to a woman living 6000 years ago. Nutrition is a major factor. Feeding a child is a huge strain on a breast-feeding woman, even today with vitamins and supplements etc.

quote:
And many families may have been bigger than 6. I'm sure someone here could find out the sort of families that we used to get in the 3rd world pre-pill. My sister's father in law came from a British family of 13 kids in the 20th century!

But you don't see families of this size in cultures which can be reasonably compared to the cultures we are discussing.

Try to remember that the twentieth century(!) wasn't very long ago. And that by this time you've already had civilizations around for thousands of years, and with them a great deal of foundation to build upon.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 1:34 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 9:18 PM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 112 (11529)
06-13-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
06-13-2002 11:08 AM


^ I am thinking of nomadic cultures. We need to stop speculating and get some hard data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 06-13-2002 11:08 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John, posted 06-13-2002 10:01 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 33 by John, posted 06-15-2002 1:21 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 112 (11530)
06-13-2002 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peter
06-13-2002 7:04 AM


Peter - the enormous longevities and late child bearing stopped pretty quickly after the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 06-13-2002 7:04 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 06-13-2002 10:00 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19418
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 28 of 112 (11535)
06-13-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tranquility Base
06-13-2002 9:19 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

Peter - the enormous longevities and late child bearing stopped pretty quickly after the flood.

Everything we know about human longevity says such long lifespans aren't even remotely possible. In the absence of evidence to the contrary the Biblical account would seem to be no more than religious myth. It would be great to find that there's some factual foundation or evidence for this. Is there any?

I'm not a Christian and I'm never going to be, but I *would* like to have an accurate understanding of human history, so all I need is some non-faith-based reasons for thinking you might be right.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 9:19 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 11:40 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 112 (11536)
06-13-2002 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
06-13-2002 9:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I am thinking of nomadic cultures. We need to stop speculating and get some hard data.

I agree. I have been trying to do just that, and have had very little luck. I thought this type of info would be easier to find on the web. Ahhh.... well.....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 9:18 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 112 (11547)
06-13-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
06-13-2002 10:00 PM


Percy, I've got a plot of age vs year of birth that shows a neat curve with a 1000 year asymptote on the left and an approximate 70 year asympotote on the right. Most of the drop of course occurs over about 20 generations between Adam and Abraham. It's nice, it's fun, it's suggestive but doesn't prove aything.

For us we have no problem with long human lifespans - if we had near perfect genomes it would have taken time for degredation to build up. People today can live to 130. We're only talking a single order of magnitude. I think this is one of the most over-rated Bible bloopers. By the 23rd century with personal genomics we could be back up near Biblical ages - who knows?

PS - no one got over 1000 years because "the 'day' you eat of the fruit you shall surely die". Hmmm . . . and in Rev Satan is let out of the pit at the end of the millenium to see that man now has lived for 1000 years. The curse of Genesis is broken. It all comes together . . .

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 06-13-2002 10:00 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 06-14-2002 8:01 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2338 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 31 of 112 (11569)
06-14-2002 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
06-13-2002 11:40 PM


I've read research results (and I will try to dig them
out) that suggest that maximum human lifespans, in tha
absence of external factros would still not exceed (I think)
about 140 years.

I'll dig it out so that you can see it for yourself.

Not sure of the assumptions upon which it was based, but
it was a physiologiocal study.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 11:40 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John, posted 06-15-2002 12:10 AM Peter has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020