Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
All I have seen you say is that the numbers have more than one interpretation, but not what you think a plausible and consistent interpretation would be.
|
i don't know why you interpret my responses that way. i have addressed multiple alternatives for many aspects of this issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
From your response to Doug Shaver, I understand you disagree with interpreting the Hebrew word 'elef' as 'a thousand'. Although spin already went through the numbers of the first census in Numbers 1, I will repeat it, but this time without any assumptions as to the meaning of 'elef'. Each tribe is represented by a single Latin initial:
However Numbers 1:46 gives the final number as 603 elef 550. The two can only be reconciled if 5 elef equals 5000.
|
i have already stated that it is possible that their numbers did reach those proportions by that time. we don't know for sure how many they started with or all of the factors regarding propagation during that time. i have also stated that it is possible that the word meant "thousand" and i addressed those specifics. of course, the most elementary explanation is that your left column represents "group" and the right column represents individuals. whenever the number of individuals reaches a certain point (maybe a thousand), the reckoning then switches that group of people to the left column thus accounting for the difference between 598 and 603.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
The land was settled sparsely in the LB. Thus a few thousands could have infiltrated without conquest.
|
that wasn't the point or the intention of the hebrews.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Yet you insist that a conquest actually occurred.
|
i don't really think that's an accurate portrayal. i have discussed the pros and cons of the what we know and what we don't know.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Maybe if a huge number of people entered they would have needed to get rid of the previous occupants. Maybe. (But there is no evidence they actually did, not at that time, not people coming from Egypt via Sinai, etc.)
|
that's a really broad statement. could you provide some specifics of how there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
What I am saying is, whatever number you choose, you have to stick to it.
|
herein lies the main reason why this thread has gone on much longer than it should have.
there is no reason to "choose a number". the whole point i have been trying to make all along is that we don't know much about this situation. in fact, we may never know fully what happened. that does not mean that the account is false. it is presumptuous to "choose a number" or state that "x dig at y place conclusively shows z".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
It has to be consistent both with the biblical account and with the physical evidence for you to be able to say that the biblical events of exodus and conquest took place. Otherwise you are just playing games of evasion.
|
that is demonstrably false logic. pointing out alternatives is not evasion.
you are doing the same as some other people; trying to pidgeon-hole people into one interpretation unnecessarily. there are multiple, plausible alternatives that illustrate how the biblical account might have happened. we lack enough information to conclusively say that it didn't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
You are quoting out of context and failing to understand, great. This was in response to your " they did find their way out." in response to Farrell Till's rhetorical question - how could so many people not exit the desert by mere chance in such a long period. Millions of people camped in one place, any herder chasing wandering sheep would have found the way to more fertile land much sooner without bothering to wait for permission from neither Moses nor YHWH.
|
the reason why they were camped is because God apparently wouldn't let that generation into canaan for previous trespasses. they were able to spy and reconnoiter which shows that they had some idea of where they were. this is a good example of the types of elementary misunderstandings that occur with the bible. why do skeptics not discredit till for being unable to garner such a basic element of a relatively straightforward story?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Impossible? Try living that way, trekking 2 miles each way for a pit stop.
|
this didn't answer the question. is it impossible or merely difficult?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Now you could use a very different geometry, but then you'd have a lot of exposed circumference which would invite attackers to your flank.
|
IIRC, they were camped facing inward towards the tabernacle in a show of faith that God would protect them. why would they be worried about attackers? therefore, the criticism about the geometry isn't valid. no matter what geometry they used for the shape of the camp, there is going to be a somewhat equal amount of the camp that is exposed. the question then becomes why wouldn't they have used something convenient for daily purposes?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Also your camp would stretch for unimaginable length. You really aren't imagining the realities of such huge numbers.
|
unimaginable? i think you are overstating the issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
I see you are having a problem of remembering the context of each quote you are replying to. This was wrt Farrel Till's calculation of the number of sacrifices that would have had to be made for purification after childbirth. Numbers 26:65 says explicitly that other than Joshua and Caleb none of the 600K+ Israelites had been included in the first census. The oldest among them would have been born in the last 20 years of slavery (and escaped being drowned by the Egyptians), the rest were born in the first 20 years post exodus. That was the basis for the calculation of the number of sacrifices (for the purpose of purification after childbirth alone, let alone other reasons).
|
i addressed that specifically. your repetition of the issue doesn't change that. that's why i asked the question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
So you can see there was a logistical problem performing all those sacrifices for purification after childbirth in a timely manner?
|
i don't recall any sort of time limit mentioned in the passage. perhaps you could refresh my memory if i am mistaken. and i did address the sacrifice issues that till advanced.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
It was suggested that the method for dealing with waste as commanded by YHWH was suboptimal and would have resulted in widespread disease.
|
what do we know of the designated area other than what it was designated for? you are basing a conclusion off of an unsupported speculation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Your response was that the Israelites were disobedient anyway.
|
they were known to be that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Can't you see where this leads you? Either they obeyed God and as a result suffered outbreak after outbreak of disease,
|
we don't know that that would have happened to the extent that you are implying
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
or they could have saved themselves by disobeying God and following a different method. If the method indeed worked it means by necessity they came up with a better method than the one dictated by God.
|
no, just different. you don't know that it was better. which is more hygenic, to have people trek
outside the camp to a designated area that they know is best used for one purpose and one purpose alone, or to have people going unabated anywhere in the camp?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
At any rate, God's method of waste disposal was a dangerous one and safer methods exist.
|
you haven't done anything to show that conclusion is meritorious
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anat
Then there's the question of the wells. You don't understand the problem of access. A well is a small place, only a few can use it at one time. You have a huge human population, a huge animal population in a hot dry climate. If each person needs several litres a day for all uses you'd need wells that produce tens of millions of litres a day or ten thousands of tons of water per day. You can't get that kind of flow in the desert. (And no, I don't take seriously your idea of bringing a hundred million tons of water from Egypt.)
|
i have already addressed this multiple times
06-21-2006, 08:37 PM
