The Number of 'Hebrews' who departed from 'Egypt' in Biblical Exodus was*~600 familie

[vasnas]

The Number of 'Hebrews' who departed from 'Egypt' in Biblical Exodus was*~600 families, not 2 or 3 million people, and after~43 years*spent in Egypt, not 430.*

**For how long were the Biblical Hebrews living in 'Egypt'? How many of them came out of 'Egypt'? It would seem that the Bible gives us a clear answer: ~ 600,000 adult males (Ex12:37), which means 2,5 to 3 million people including the rest of the population, and after 400 to 430 years spent in Egypt (Gen15:13,*Ex12:40). This being contrary to the context of the Bible, that says, that there were ~ 600 families who were living in Egypt for 3-4 generations (Gen15:16), that is, around 43 years.

Full text http://bible-exodus.eu.pn/articles/numbers/en_bible_numbers_brief_2013.html

Please discuss and give me critics...

 

[Darrell C]

The Number of 'Hebrews' who departed from 'Egypt' in Biblical Exodus was*~600 families, not 2 or 3 million people, and after~43 years*spent in Egypt, not 430.*

**For how long were the Biblical Hebrews living in 'Egypt'? How many of them came out of 'Egypt'? It would seem that the Bible gives us a clear answer: ~ 600,000 adult males (Ex12:37), which means 2,5 to 3 million people including the rest of the population, and after 400 to 430 years spent in Egypt (Gen15:13,*Ex12:40). This being contrary to the context of the Bible, that says, that there were ~ 600 families who were living in Egypt for 3-4 generations (Gen15:16), that is, around 43 years.

Full text http://bible-exodus.eu.pn/articles/numbers/en_bible_numbers_brief_2013.html

Please discuss and give me critics...

Hello Vasnas, very interesting, though not sure I can agree with it. I will say that there are some curiosities in regards to numbers in the Bible, but this is of a magnitude greater than what I have encountered before.

For example:

Direct digits 400-430 years, as if hypnotise, though contradict to the rest of the Bible's text, for example, then also says, that in the 4th generation the 'Jews' will return to 'Palestine'. Mother and father of Moses Jochebed and Amram were born in the same year, shortly after resettlement** in 'Egypt', Moses belongs to the 2nd and 3rd generation at the same time, the 2nd by mother, 3rd by father, because his father married his aunt Jochebed, Moses' mother. Thus his children will be the 3rd and 4th generations at the same time, etc. To turn all migrated to the one 1st generation is not necessary, the 'overlaying' of the generations in marriages makes no sense to bring up the generations into certain epochs, and within the context speaks of generations calculited from the forefathers, for example, from Abraham (BofJubilee) "But in the fourth generation they shall return hither; ...". It must be admitted that such accuracy 'to a generation' is rather relative and can only talk about the order of magnitude of 'generations', probably in teh range of 3...4 - 5...6 generations, that is quite enough for our disancientizing task of the notorious period of 430 years to the concordant with the Bible ~ 43 years in the 'Egypt', for example:

If it sought to make the actual time in Egypt 43 years rather than 430, and this is based upon a proposed insertion by interpreters, my question would be do you also see this imposition in the Greek...


Galatians 3:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


...?

If the time given is erroneously interpreted in the Hebrew, do you see that as impacting the Greek. Did the New Testament Writer here, Paul erroneously state the time incorrectly?

I would also like to ask, are you a Baptist?

God bless.

 

[vasnas]

At first you must to investigate the whole of my investigation.. I did not.. but over there are all answers for you..

instead of that I spend my time waste to tell you not to be perfunctory..

 

[JamesL]

Key phrase:
"Necessary unmiricalizing"



.

 

[vasnas]

to return original text (sense) from they've made miracle by distorcing or any changing...

how it is in 1 word?

unmiraclising?

 

[Darrell C]

At first you must to investigate the whole of my investigation.. I did not.. but over there are all answers for you..

instead of that I spend my time waste to tell you not to be perfunctory..

Sorry, but time is limited this morning, so just in reading about half, and a good portion of the latter half of it being in a language I can't understand, I feel I do you no disservice in presenting the question I have.

If you feel it is an invalid question please explain why, but, we see that the Greek text agrees with the Hebrew, and there is no discrepancy. Did Paul "miracalize" the same position taught in the Hebrew? If so, would this not conflict with the dating of the miracalization given in the paper?

And another question fairly easy to answer would be...are you a Baptist?


God bless.

 

[JamesL]

to return original text (sense) from they've made miracle by distorcing or any changing...

how it is in 1 word?

unmiraclising?

It reeks of a common sentiment - if it doesn't make sense according to common human reasoning, then it must have been altered, fabricated, exaggerated, etc, and therefore must be corrected, or altogether rejected.

It's a purely naturalistic world view, an error

If we went back in time, and told the Exodus generation that we stuff 200 people into a metal tube with wings, and it flies halfway around the world, their natural tendency would be to reject it.

Whether it's technological or supernatural, people tend to not believe that which they don't understand. And if you insist on that as your starting position, then it is dishonest from the beginning.

And for me, if the starting premise is dishonest, the conclusion is biased and not worthy of serious consideration.

 

[Aaron]

:laugh:

It couldn't be 43 years unless the entire narrative is false. Some generations of Hebrews had lived in Egypt prior to the time of Moses, and Moses spent 40 years in exile.

So, even if the Exodus were the unmiraculous departure of around 6,000 or so people, 43 years smacks of a George Lucas incredulity, where a galaxy falls to despotism and is redeemed before the son of the one who ushered in the ruin is out of his 20's.

So, the real point of the article is that all of Exodus is false, and only those tidbits which seem to indict Exodus are reliable, because they indict Exodus.

:laugh:

 

[vasnas]

black&black view - all or nothing... you are very simple creatures... not wise :-(

 

[vasnas]

It reeks of a common sentiment - if it doesn't make sense according to common human reasoning, then it must have been altered, fabricated, exaggerated, etc, and therefore must be corrected, or altogether rejected.

It's a purely naturalistic world view, an error

If we went back in time, and told the Exodus generation that we stuff 200 people into a metal tube with wings, and it flies halfway around the world, their natural tendency would be to reject it.

Whether it's technological or supernatural, people tend to not believe that which they don't understand. And if you insist on that as your starting position, then it is dishonest from the beginning.

And for me, if the starting premise is dishonest, the conclusion is biased and not worthy of serious consideration.

I'm working with facts and logic not in beleiveness sphere...

 

[JamesL]

to return original text (sense) from they've made miracle by distorcing or any changing...

how it is in 1 word?

unmiraclising?

I think your one word is ok, but not the sentiment. Sorry for the botched spelling earlier, never have put that suffix on the back end of miracle.

"They made it into a miracle by distorting or changing...."

You say the biblical account is false because 400 years would produce too many people to make a realistic account.

It seems an obviously subtle attempt to discount the whole of scripture.

Why not question the Israelites passing over on dry ground?
Why not question the reality of the plagues?
Why not question the manna?

Because those are too obvious. You showed your hand with your 1 word.



.

 

[Revmitchell]

 

[vasnas]

I think your one word is ok, but not the sentiment. Sorry for the botched spelling earlier, never have put that suffix on the back end of miracle.

"They made it into a miracle by distorting or changing...."

You say the biblical account is false because 400 years would produce too many people to make a realistic account.

It seems an obviously subtle attempt to discount the whole of scripture.

Why not question the Israelites passing over on dry ground?
Why not question the reality of the plagues?
Why not question the manna?

Because those are too obvious. You showed your hand with your 1 word.



.

there are many ... very many why... in my article... I didnt tell how you wrote... not this reason at all main..

I know its hard just read WHOLE TEXT and then lets talk. ok?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Thread Closed. Poster had no business posting here and has been banned.
:BangHead: