JustinFoldsFive

Helo, I saw your argument on The History Channel a few weeks back during Da Vinci Code week. Just thought I would let you know.

bfniii

"600" is not the issue. "thousand" is.

Helo

Yes, I know

I wish there was a way for me to put it up here. It made much more sense when they presented it

bfniii

the contradiction is not the issue. the archaeology of the site isn't concluded. that is what i was referring to.



hardly. my statement was in reference to unwarranted conclusions, not the people who make them. i didn't say that they were wrong because they made the conclusion. i have shown how and why the conclusions in question are unwarranted.



this certainly doesn't apply to me because i have not been making unwarranted assumptions. i have been stating that there are multiple interpretations of most of these issues. my statement can't possibly apply to me.



i definitely agree. what i have seen at this website leads me to believe that certain people here find information that suits their non-christian worldview and tout it like it is final and there will never be anything to controvert it. they are unable to grasp that many of these issues have multiple, reasonable interpretations and are far from decided. furthermore, these people tend to get their feathers ruffled when this is brought to their attention. i haven't figured out why it's so threatening.

FatherMithras

I've seen about five or so of the TV presentations on it. They're made using shoddy scholarship for the purpose of entertainment. Look at the actual evidence, and like bfniii's posts with no content show, there's simply no case.

Helo

Ok, then what about it is shoddy scholarship?

Gullwind

Every post. I've seen a lot of "might have" and "could have beens," but I must have somehow missed where you pointed out specific evidence in favor of the Exodus. I doubt I'm the only one, either. Any chance you'd be willing to point it out again?

In general, or just the Exodus? Let's see. Archeological evidence showing a gradual rise to power of Israel, not a conquest. Logistical impossibilities of supproting that many people in the desert. Granted, you have expressed doubt that the numbers are accurate, but that's just the point. The numbers expressed IN THE BIBLE could not be supported.

Sorry, but simply repeating that you disagree does not constitute a rebuttal.

Sure there is. There's probably a lot that can be interpreted to support it. You've mentioned the Hyskos, for example. As I understand it, that can be interpreted to support the Exodus, but only by ignoring much of what the bible says.

I freely admit that the exodus MIGHT be based on a real event, but one that bears little resemblance to the biblical account. That doesn't help the inerrantist a whole lot.

Doug Shaver

And you seem to be evading my question. I have asked you twice to suggest what the author of Exodus might have meant by "six hundred thousand" other than "600,000."

Doug Shaver

That does not answer my question.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Helo,

The original post in the thread did make a point that may be seen as quite reasonable: that the number of people taking part in the Exodus, if it was an historical event would have been a few thousand as opposed to the millions claimed in the Bible.

What really counts is that the story when told had to be consistent and believable, at least when first made up. Exaggerations beyond belief are a natural part of storytelling and come later.

I think believing 600 chariots would be sent out against thousands of men is a little far-fetched. While two warriors per chariot gives us 1200 men, it is absurd that a general would send only 1200 men against several thousand. You would have to assume that the Hebrews would be armed with knives, and hammers, if not swords. The story has already established that the Hebrews were use to hard labor and were extremely strong. If you sent out 1200 men against even 2,000 and had an enormous edge in killing, let's say 5:1, you would still lose 400 men or 1/3 of your force. One could expect an equal number of serious wounds. That means 2/3's of the Pharaoh's chariot force would have been decimated, in the best case, in this single battle. Rather, when you went into battle, even when better armed and trained than your opponent, it was important to have a numerical advantage. The Pharoah would not have sent 600 chariots against more than one thousand men and probably against far less.

At the same time, we should note that the Hebrews had only two midwives who were ordered to kill the male children. It is doubtful that the midwives could have handled more than three or four births a week. Births often take several days and it would have been hard to predict when exactly a woman was about to give birth. This gives us a figure of 150-200 births a year. Since the average life expectancy was probably about 30 years for slaves, we can assume the average woman would be pregnant for perhaps 6 of those 30 years, (the ones who gave birth to 10 or more would be balanced by the women who were sterile or died in childbirth) or we can say that one out of five females gave birth each year. Thus we get a figure of just under 1000 for the number of females. Any higher number would have required far more midwives.

However, we should also consider another limit on the number. The number of male children killed would have had to have been extemely low in order for the Pharaoh's plan to work. Obviously, the Hebrews would have quickly caught on that their male children were dying and their female ones were not, if the number was large. The only way to keep it a secret would have been if the number of male births were so scattered that the few deaths would not have seemed terribly unusual. If out of 150 births a year, 75 male children die, it is hard to believe that the Hebrews would not have caught on to the midwive's actions within the first few months. We may asssume instead that no more than 20 or 30 male births took place a year. It would not have been uncommon for 10 or 15 of these male births to end in early death, so a run of several years where all the male children perished would not have been detectable. This brings the probable number of births down to 40-60 a year. It brings the female population down to 200-300 at the time of Moses' birth. This matches up well with the 70 people whom Joseph had brought into Egypt in the previous generation before they became slaves. Assuming that the Hebrew population grew slightly, (500 men and 500 women) we may assume that Moses led about one thousand men and women into the desert.

We may further assume, given the difficulty of life in the desert, that they all quickly perished except for the ones who found their way back to Egypt. Embarassed by the fiasco, the slaves might have invented stories about how successful their comrades had been in conquering Israel. This explains both the stories and the lack of archaeological evidence. The plague stuff is embellishment.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay