spin

Same old evasive tactics. The only multiple interpretations regarding the numbers regards evasive people who cannot bring themselves to deal with what the text says.

Same old evasive tactics. Thousand means thousand. Hundred means hundred. When you get hundreds added up to get thousands, we have a bfniii suffering from a terminal case of doublethink to avoid the logical consequences. You do not provide evidence that you understand issues. You simply avoid them.

You were asked to deal with the signioficance of the census figures in Numbers. Are you going to continue to be simply evasive? I guess you have no choice. You are not willing to be scholarly about the issue.

Numbers 1:20-46

46500
59300
45650
74600
54400
57400
40500
32200
35400
62700
41500
53400
--------
603550

The structure of the individual sentences reflect Hebrew reporting of numbers:

Stop the blind evasive tactics and do the math. There is no issue about "thousand" here. The fifties and hundreds add up to thousands. These are conceived of by the authors as real numbers not whatever evasive mystification you and your sources are trying to conjure up to avoid the simple meaning.

Of course you do. You can't even read a simple set of numbers without ducking and weaving.

Strength of character is not one of your strong points there, bfniii. It is ironic that you project your problem onto others, rather than dealing with it.

All you have to do is sit down and read the text for what it says, rather than for what you need it to say. Is that so hard? I guess when you have all the baggage attached to the significance of the text, it is.

The scientific approach to things involves trying to get it right though you may make mistakes in the effort. Any issue is as good as the evidence that supports it. You need to be able to change your understandings according to the evidence. If you can't, then you have to basis for your understanding that relates to knowledge. So far in all the interactions I've seen of yours, your main weapon of understanding is evasion. That's sad.


spin

xaxxat

Oh, I think 1,200 elite charioteers could handle several thousand bricklayers quite easily. Not to mention the damage the support troops accompanying those chariots could do...

Helo

Your understanding of military history is.....lacking at best

spin

No, no, no. His understanding of military history isn't the problem... it's his knowledge of Egyptian building practices. Those charioteers could cause havoc. Egyptians always used skilled local construction workers.


spin

xaxxat

Feel free to show me where it's lacking...

xaxxat

Lay some pipe, kill some runaway Jews, and have time to get back home to drink some beers and catch the ball game on the telly...

FatherMithras

As has already been addressed to the point of being silly, the fact that there is not one iota of evidence in support of any of the assertions it makes about Jews ever even being in Egypt, there ever having been plagues, or their ever being an exodus, in areas where there should be a ton of it. The fact that we have archaelogical evidence of the Jews having always been where they supposedly escaped to is enough to show the lack of validity for it, and the idea they were possibly taken from their in conquest and later came back once again has no support.

As was shown much earlier, your apparent scenario was wiped out by people far more versed than either of us. The scenario you suggested isn't even supported by any account other than your own fancy and the ramblings of people on a TV series that's discredited by modern archaelogy. Please don't go around making assertions like this when you've been soundly debunked earlier, it's frusterating to the people who had to read the argument earlier and reminds one of creationist ploys (say it enough and it becomes true!)

Helo

If the battle between the Hebrews and Egyptians took place in the Reed Sea (Which was marshland) then chariots would have been at a significant disadvantage.

Chariot wheels and horses would have become stuck or slowed down greatly in the mud. Charioteer didnt have much (if any) armor because it hindered mobility and weighed down the chariot. Once the chariots got stuck or were unable to maneuver properly, you've got a small force of basically archers versus a moderately well armed force of angry slaves and the slaves will easily win. The charioteer's advantage is his chariot, take it away and you've got a poorly armed and armored group of skirmishers who probably arent well trained in fighting as footsoldiers hand to hand.

You havent adressed why the History Channel program is shoddy scholarship.

PhilosopherJay

Hi,


http://miniatures.de/img/ancients-1/...n-chariots.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tb.../chariot20.jpg

Actually, I just got a look at an Egyptian chariot. It looks like only one fighter rode in the chariot. I assume the chariot was just to bring the warrior to the battlefield. He would then park his chariot, preferably in a spot not reserved for the handicapped, and walk onto the battlefield.



Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

FatherMithras

No evidence of this actually occuring. Thus, more imagination without substantiation.

I summed it up. "There is no historical, archaelogical support". That's all I need. How many times does the complete lack of evidence need to be addressed?