bfniii

rebutted here:

this is clearly a slippery slope. available evidence is constantly changing.

furthermore, ancient history often suffers from a lack of information or inaccurate information.



not necessarily. there are multiple aspects of an event such as the exodus that can be analyzed apart from archaeology.



"huge mountain of evidence" might be an overstatement.



then why all the analysis regarding the literal numbers of hebrews in egypt?



it's not a "loophole". it is a real possibility.



it is as literal as any other reading. being different doesn't mean that it's not literal.



not at all. knowing a naturalistic explanation in no way guarantees that it would have happened or that it would have happened in that way.



no, they do not. all they do is illustrate what occurred in other instances. the real question is what reasons exist to doubt that the population increased during the captivity.



but may have in this case. this article is really going astray here. palmer seems to be referring back to the previous section of large population figures. humphrey does not support that case.



humphreys has less of an accountability to those issues because he advocates a smaller population. i guess this escaped palmer.



then why bother with this article?



it is not necessary to be a "hebrew scholar" to analyze the various interpretations of an ancient hebrew word or to study the works of hebrew scholars.



this is a completely biased, unscholarly and dishonest conclusion. humphreys goes to the trouble of analyzing the word used in the original language and palmer simply brushes that off and then concludes that such analysis is suspicious. in my opinion, this statement absolutely undermines any credibility the article might have had. it should be noted that it would seem appropriate to render the word to mean "troop" when referring to troops, as in numbers 1:46.



no, it is trying to square the biblical account with what we know outside of the bible.



but a very reasonable speculation. one that happens to work quite well



palmer has done nothing to show that the tale is legendary. therefore, it is quite clear that his conclusions are highly suspect.



which wasn't his intent, or course. he stated that another, later person took a different meaning of the word.



here palmer is moving the goalposts. he is trying to pin humphreys down to a different interpretation of the word than the one he has chosen. if humphreys proposes to interpret the word as "troop", then the numbers of people are not known specifically. if that is the case, the numbers of people at the time of the census could have been 600,000 which might have included people who weren't 20 who then became 20 and received military training as well as the "others" with the israelities who might have joined their military.



the census passages in exodus 30 and 38 state that the tributes were taken from all people who were over the age of 20, not just military-age males as palmer seems to be implying. nothing in numbers contradicts this. it merely refers to the census, not the tribute. if that were indeed everyone, then the total number of the israelites would be 600 hundred thousand plus an unknown number of people under the age of 20. the unknown number could be as low as 100,000 or as high as several hundred thousand. in either case, the total number of people is much, much less than 3 million.



i can't understand why palmer is assuming that the scibes he refers to would be writing in a language other than hebrew. therefore, they didn't change the word in question, they wrote 'eleph. the question is in the translation to a language other than hebrew.



as of now, there are no known errors in the bible. there are instances that are suspected scribal errors, but that's an indictment, not a conviction. it is believed that the original texts in the original language were written inerrantly. translations to other languages are often difficult because there are instances where a direct correspondence can't be drawn. that is why there are multiple english translations that range from strictly word for word (which can be awkward) to liberal (preserving the spirit of the text).



occasionally, new information comes along that sheds light on some of these issues. it would thus seem presumptuous to state that God isn't, or is incapable of, protecting the inerrancy of the bible.

it is disappointing that someone who writes for the ilk of the skeptical review would portray the bible as having many more of these alleged discrepancies than it actually does. it has been well documented that the bible has a miniscule amount of inconsequential differences between extant copies, including the dead sea scrolls, which is a miracle in itself. the bible's reliability is unprecedented when compared to other documents from antiquity, and even later, that have been copied by human hands. it would seem that his comment about God not providentially watching over the bible is spurious.



this is certainly a possibility, although it seems to carry the least explanatory weight for us in our current culture. it seems that certain numbers, such as 40, were sometimes used as a literary device by the ancient hebrews much like we might say "i've told you a million times".



...to us, as i just said. with the awareness of that practice in that culture, we can see how it might be a possibility. to us, such exaggeration is unacceptable. to them, it was not uncommon and not unacceptable.



people are free to reject christianity on pretty much any grounds they desire. however, it should be clear from this response that there are multiple, reasonable explanations for our current lack of clarity regarding these issues. if someone were to genuinely study the issues, that would be apparent. concordantly, the bible is not the only source of contact with christianity. it would seem illogical to reject christianity on that ground alone.



by studying as much as we can.



completely incorrect. the answer, of course, is the recognition that it was not uncommon for ancient cultures to do so.



of course it's speculation. the question is whether it is a reasonable speculation or not. we can be as certain of this precedent as we are certain of about most anything from ancient history.



strawman



he is certainly welocome to his opinion, but what he hasn't done is refute the claim of hyperbole. i am not stating that hyperbole is the only correct translation. i am saying that dever has done nothing academic to dispel the possibility.



the flaw in his argument is that there is clear precedent from ancient history that numbers specifically were exaggerated or inflated. that is why the numbers in exodus/numbers may have been exaggerated. the issue has nothing to do with non-numbers claims of the bible.



if i were supporting the hyperbole explanation, i would say that God allowed it because it was common to them. additionally, we even know today that it was common to them. therefore, what is the problem in allowing it?



clouded is a very subjective term. the issue isn't clouded for many people.



for many people, it is unambiguous. the real question is why is it ambiguous to palmer? what would he have preferred?



to them, that was the truth. palmer is suffering from culture confusion.



not surprising considering the advances in archaeology and the amount of archaeological finds.



we have access to lots of information he did not have access to.



whoa. where to begin. first, palmer makes a contradictory statement. he claims that apologists are not authoritative enough to make such assertions but then acknowledges that they are doing so using the best academic methods and information available. second, he claims they use academic gymnastics but does not state how they are allegedly doing so which makes his claim hollow and question-begging. third, he is using smuggled-in authority to make the judgement that apologists are using academic gymnastics yet not acknowledging that he himself is using the same, but opposite, gymnastics in criticizing the text. fourth, it is not indicative that God has avoided protecting the inspiration of the text just because palmer is unable to understand the scope of possibilities regarding the issues addressed in this article. fifth, palmer invokes a "plain inspiration" of the text but doesn't provide a standard for "plain" and inconceivably omits how to tell whether a text is inspired. such a statement is frought with complications and subjectivity. last, palmer makes the ridiculous assertion that a text could be free of cultural influence. how in the world could such a text, one that purports to record the history of an ancient people, do such a thing? palmer, conveniently, omits such an explanation. what palmer also omits is that even though we have a different culture and live in a different time, we are not ignorant of their cultural practices and are able to proffer multiple translations of their documents into our language based on such knowledge.

it's astonishing how many false conclusions he was able to fit into one sentence. that's got to be some kind of record.



if we were completely unaware of the hyperbolic possibility, then palmer might have a point. since he is citing that exact device, it presupposes that he/we are aware of it thus showing that God was not bound by that culture and time.



quite false. they are the product of study of the ancient hebrews and other ancient cultures. there is an aspect of the population growth that palmer never addressed. he was baffled at how the hebrews could have propagated so prodiguously. if there was an omnipotent deity watching over them, He could have easily arranged for a temporary abatement of the customary difficulties regarding procreation thus allowing them to expand their population quite easily.



only if you can prove there is no God. good luck with that.



not typical history. but palmer has done absolutely nothing to show that such an occurrence is completely impossible.



no modern research has shown such a thing. this is a completely elephant-hurling statement and clearly demonstrates the lack of academic equity of the article.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Since this thread is about the supposed Exodus and the ten plagues, do you have any evidence that the plagues occurred other than "the Bible says so"? Regarding the Exodus, if it happened, it was just ordinary secular history.

You mentioned ontology in another thread, very briefly and very conveniently I might add, even though I asked you on a number of occasions to state your argument in greater detail. There is a thread on ontology at the GRD forum at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168064. The thread is titled "The Ontological Proof is the summit of intellectual dishonesty," which I believe if an apt title. I invite you to make a post there, but I predict that you won't. You are well aware that the ontological argument is difficult to defend. The nature of God is a very important topic because even if God has power, there are not sufficient grounds to accept him because of his questionable character. A simple look at the world in which we live is proof enough of that. So is Exodus 4:11. It says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?"

Sven

Please address this (from post #297):

Each tribe is represented by a single Latin initial:

R: 46 elef 500
S: 59 elef 300
G: 45 elef 650
J: 74 elef 600
I: 54 elef 400
Z: 57 elef 400
E: 40 elef 500
M: 32 elef 200
B: 35 elef 400
N: 53 elef 400
A: 41 elef 500
D: 62 elef 700
--------------
= 598 elef 5550

However Numbers 1:46 gives the final number as 603 elef 550. The two can only be reconciled if 5 elef equals 5000.

Applying the same method to the census conducted some 38 years later yields the following:

R: 43 elef 730
S: 22 elef 200
G: 40 elef 500
J: 76 elef 500
I: 64 elef 300
Z: 60 elef 500
M: 52 elef 700
E: 32 elef 500
B: 45 elef 600
D: 64 elef 400
A: 53 elef 400
N: 45 elef 400
-----------------
= 596 elef 5730

The final sum in Numbers 26:51 is given as 601 elef 730. Again, the numbers can be reconciled only if 5 elef equals 5000. So either accept that the author of Numbers 1 and Numbers 26 is describing a crowd of over 600,000 men (and their families) or actually show how you interpret these accounts.

EthnAlln

If you are willing to make enough ad hoc hypotheses, you can resurrect any scientific theory you want, such as the elastic-solid theory of light propagation (which was in vogue in the mid-to-late-nineteenth century, due to the work of Gabriel Lamé). There never will be any "known" errors, in the sense of being recognized by inflexible apologists for the Bible. But the reasonable verdict of history is that there are plenty of errors, such as the creation stories, the implied cosmogony, and much of the history.

It is believed (by inflexible apologists) that the original texts in the original language were inerrant. It is also believed that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax.

The inerrancy of a bunch of texts that have vanished forever is the universal panacea for resolving all contradictions. What can a person who believes this say to the followers of Joseph Smith, whose angel-delivered golden plates were later taken back into heaven (very conveniently, when he thought the first version of his "translation" of it had been lost and might come back to bite him if it ever resurfaced and contradicted his new draft)? Of course, it means that the copies of translations of copies of translations that we do have are suspect and ought to lead people to doubt them. But somehow, they manage to believe that the texts we have are "inerrant enough," sufficiently so in the past to provide a basis for persecuting those who don't interpret them correctly, whenever the theocratic authorities have it in their power to do so. This is just simply silly. It would be funny if it hadn't had so many tragic consequences over the centuries.

Jack the Bodiless

On what authority do you make such an absolute statement?

YOU may not know of any, but you cannot speak for others who DO know of them. At best, this is merely a declaration of your personal ignorance.

gregor

What a gem bfnii is.

Rather than responding substantively to anything posted herein and rather than providing his own explanation of the number of people in the desert, he choses to yammer on about an article from the library.

Johnny Skeptic

If there were errors, surely some of them would not be noticeable by any available means. For instance, if the important claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, never sinned, and his shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind are false, we wouldn't have any way of knowing that.

RED DAVE

From bfniii:
People are taking this person way too seriously. I have a theory: bfniii is actually a standup comic practicing material. This accounts for the ridiculous nature of his posts.

A possible alternative is some form of intellectual/emotional retadiation that is fightening to contemplate or someone off their meds.

RED DAVE

FatherMithras

This is hilarious. You've presented absolutely no evidence for a single claim you've made. you've gone against Entire history of the Hebrews as well as the Egyptians as shown by archaeology. You've presented a possibility that is overwhelmingly improbable and has no support. The burden of proof is on you. We don't have to "prove" it didn't happen, BECAUSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. We've proved it didn't happen as much as is logicaly possible, by pointing out you have NO EVIDENCE. Yet it's us who are folding our hands and refusing to discuss the issue. I understand you have an entirely faith based position that you've taken from people trying to rationalize a scenario that is completely improbable. But since you have no evidence, merely a possible scenario (which would have been collaboraed by evidence in Jewish history, egyptian history, etc. by archaeology and the notation of nearby civilizations!) that has no support and contradicts what we know as fact. According to this nonsense we could make up wild, ridiculous histories like that Augustus never existed, but is a composite entity based on several predecessors who led a forced purge of the facts. Why? Because they'd destroyed all evidence against it! the same holes exist, for example, why no other civs would talk about it and the contradictions in archaeology. You've made no argument and your understanding of history is negligable.

And the French were defeated by the Brittish LONGbowmen. The fact they didn't use crossbows was the strength of their position because they had longer range and were faster to reload.

FatherMithras

BUGS DO NOT HAVE FOUR LEGS and there ain't a firmament in the sky. You lose.