Exodus Part One: Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt

The thread is about whether or not there is any direct evidence of Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt, do you have anything to contribute to that question?Brian.

The only evidence being the Hebrew Bible Ray! I am not against reinterpretation at all, in fact, I don't even think that the Bible supports a 2-3 million population of Israelites. I was simply posting the generally accepted number of Israelites that the fundies always tout. Keep in mind that most Christian scholars involved in the debate do not subscribe to this huge figure.So we don't drift too far off-topic, because I know that the popualtion issue will develop, I will open another thread to discuss the population growth, and whether the Bible does support 2-3 million people in the Exodus group.Brian.

Apparently you are unable to understand why your quote is not relevant. FIrslty we are discussing the evidence IN EGYPT so unless your quote is evidence of a significant number of "lost: settlements in Egypt it has no value ot the current discussion..If none of the settlements are in Egypt they are not direct evidence of "lost" settlements in Egypt. Since it apparently does not mention the major Egyptian cities which WOULD have been identified in 1937 we can conclude that it does not include any sites in Egypt proper.If the reason the settlements were unidentified in 1937 does not apply to the current state of our knowledge of Egypt then it is not indirect evidence either. The fact that ALL 19 settlements identified were in Israel or Judah and that they included small villages indicates that the identification is a function of the amount of archaelogicial investigation. Since the degree of investigation of Egypt would be comparable to that of Israel and Judah even at the time - and more evidence would have been gathered since - the data cannot be reasonably extrapolated to apply to Egypt.Therefore the quote is neither direct nor indirect evidence of "lost" settlements in Egypt.As for your final comment, are you are arguing then that there is nothing that could distinguish sites occupied by pre-Exodus Israelites from sites occupied by Canaanites of the same period ?

There does seem to be a bit of a problem with understanding what the OP is suggesting.I am NOT suggesting that there were no Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt during the 2nd millenium BCE, I don't know where that suggestion came from.The question is:Do you have any DIRECT evidence of Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt?I am NOT saying that they weren't there, I am just asking for DIRECT evidence.If there is no direct evidence, then how do we proceed?Brian.

quote:

---

he fact that the Torah does not name the Pharoah, is evidence of early Mosaic authorship. Official New Kingdom language never mentioned Pharoah by his name. Moses perpetrated the custom which explains why the Pharoah is not named.

---

This argument does not hold water. Since I have linked to a genuine New Kingdom document naming three Pharoahs it is obviously false to claim that any such rule would have applied to Moses' writing.

C`mon, Ray, get real. While artifacts may be misinterpreted, they don`t change. Which of your literary masterpieces exists in the original? You are using versions of versions.

With the klutziest possible math, assuming the maximum possible number of marriages and 5 children per couple I come up with fourteen (14) million born in the fourteenth generation. Obviously something needs to be drastically cut back in my figures to fit the reality but it's clear that under certain circumstances 1-2 million from 70 in 430 years is not all that ridiculous an idea. I just started with 70, halved it to create couples, multiplied by 5 (in a way it seems a conservative number of children for the times, but it's probably exaggerated), got 165 offspring in the first generation, halved that for coupling again, multiplied by 5 to get a rounded-back 400 in the second generation, and so on. Didn't add generation to generation, just figured births. Told you it was klutzy but it seems to me it shows the Biblical number is far from beyond the realm of possibility.In 430 years there may have been as many as 20 or more generations if many married in their teens. Obviously my numbers WAY overshoot the necessary number of ONLY 2-3 million. Reduce wherever you like, #generations, #couples, age at marriage, average #offspring etc., it's not hard to get the Biblical report of the population in 430 years.{EDIT: The point is that however ridiculously overestimated my, it shows it's far from impossible to arrive at multipled millions from a mere 70 people in 430 years. So whatever YOUR numbers are, they are grossly UNDERestimated by wrong standards for the time.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:13 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:14 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:28 AM

You probably didn’t read my statement properly, if you had you would notice the qualifier that I had in it. Here it is once again:To propose that 70 people became 2-3 million in 430 years is in itself an absurd suggestion, and utterly impossible for the time and place we are talking about. You cannot assume zero mortality for any period in history, you cannot even assume it for today’s most advanced societies.We are talking about a time when medical care was at a minimum. It is a ridiculous idea, and so is this: Why would you halve the 70 when the Bible says there was 70 males, your scenario only has 35 males.Why on earth are you multiplying by 5?This is not how population figures are worked out. You need to work out an annual percentage increase in population, and there are many factors to take into consideration. Infant mortality, which you casually dismiss, accidental death of others in the population, disease, poor sanitation, lack of natural resources, etc.A. Lucas’ article ‘The Number of Israelites at the Exodus’ (PEQ 1944-45, pp164-68) is a frequently referenced source in this debate.Working with figures from the Annuaire Statistique, 1937-8, which gave an annual rate of increase per 1,000 as follows (p. 167).1907-17 12.271917-27 10.951927-37 11.86Lucas took the average rate (11.69 per thousand) and applied that to the Israelite group and came up with a total of 10,363. A much more realistic figure.70*1.01169^430 = 10,363This rate is far too high for the time period that we are talking about, which according to the biblical dating would be about 19-15th cenuries BCE.Lucas also touches on the likelihood that a group this size could live off the land in an area as small as the Sinai Peninsula. He states the population of the whole of the Administrative Division, or Province, of Sinai, from the Mediterranean Sea on the north to the apex of the peninsula on the south, was only 15,058 in 1927 (Annuaire Statistique 1937-8, p.14) and only 29,951 in 1937 (ibid: 10), and there could not possibly have been water or food sufficient for the number of Israelites given. Klutzy is too kind a word for it, and it is beyond the realm of possibility for the time and place under discussion.I am going to propose another topic for the population, as this one is specifically for direct evidence and I don’t want yet another Exodus topic dragged all over the place. So, hope to see you contribute on the other thread.Thanks for the reply.Brian.

Yes I saw your qualifier and if it's even POSSIBLE to get multipled millions in a few hundred years your qualifier is just useless. You have the wrong standards whatever they are. You assume things about the time period. Obviously you are wrong. The Bible contradicts you and whether you like it or not it IS evidence, and the ONLY evidence from the time. So your statistics are just the vaporings of a man at a remove of 3000 years just fiddling with assumptions about a time period you have NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF. You are even using statistics from the 20th century.I didn't bother to be accurate. I didn't care. I knew your figures were underestimated by prejudice. So it was 70 males. That increases the numbers, great. I picked 5 out of the blue. It doesn't seem a huge number of children. I assume the people were quite healthy despite their circumstances. And yes I know there are other factors. All I calculated was number of births per generation. But the numbers are enormous.{EDIT: Reduce them by whatever amount of mortality and lesser birth rate you like until you get down to 2-3 million and THEN you may have a more realistic picture of the circumstances of the time. You can't start from circumstances you know nothing about, mortality rates and the like, and work backwards to a distant past.You are challenging the ONLY KNOWN RECORD from over 3000 years in the future based on statistics from a wholly different time frame. That takes CHUTZPAH.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:40 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:41 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:42 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:54 AM

So you think the way to do it is to work from the number you believe to be biblically correct and fiddle with the elements of the equation till they give that figure and simply declare that the adjusted values for those elements, i.e. birth rates, mortality, etc..., are therefore correct?TTFN,WK

You said seventy MALES? NKJV says descendants, AV says "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob..." SOULS, not males. MULTIPLIED AND GREW EXCEEDINGLY MIGHTY, AND THE LAND WAS FILLED WITH THEM. MORE AND MIGHTIER THAN WE. THE MORE THEY AFFLICTED THEM THE MORE THEY MULTIPLED AND GREW.You cannot judge such a report by your own paltry assumptions from thousands of years in the future. You know NOTHING of the circumstances of the time. You are extrapolating backwards from standards that do not apply to their time.

I wanted to find out just how many generations and births per generation it would take to come up with 2-3 million. I overdid it and didn't have the patience to adjust the numbers. Found out, however, that the Biblical number is far from the ridiculous number people are assuming.But to answer you, yes, start with the Biblical number. It's the only record there is.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 06:16 AM

This thread is for discussing the DIRECT evidence.Please wait until I open a new thread to discuss the population issues.Thank you for observing this request!!!!!!

Hi Faith,There are two replies over at the new Exodus thread.Brian.

Where is this link ?RM