The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

Greetings Nukl, The book of Numbers gives fairly good confirmation of the Hebrew population at the times of the Exodus(Ex.12:37, 600,000 men), 1 year later at Sinai(Num.1:46,2:32, 603,550 men) and approx. 38 years later at Moab(Num.26:51 601,730 men).First of all, I see no reason whatsoever to view these totals as anything but "literal" totals. 600,000 means 600,000.We can conclude 5 facts about Israel from Ex.1:7. They had been "fruitful", "increased abundantly", "multiplied", "waxed exceedingly mighty", and "the land was filled with them". This is no less than a clear indication of a very large population of Israelites at that time, and of course was a fulfillment of prophecy to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.Ex.12:37. This would be 600,000 men of war without recognizing the prieslty tribe of Levi. Besides these there were wives, children, older men and women and a multitude of mixed peoples, mostly of whom were the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From them, the Israelites inherited a great store of servants(Gen.14:14-15, 26:14-19,25,32; 32:16). These could have easily outnumbered the Hebrews, for they far outnumbered them when the 66 descendents(Joseph and his sons were already there) of Jacob went into Egypt. Abraham alone had 318 trained soldiers and these, as well as those of Isaac and Jacob, continued to multiply through the years as did the Israelites themselves. There is no doubt that Jacob had a large tribe by the time we read Gen.45:11., his servants were many when he left Haran. We must also not forget that he was the heir of Isaac(also a great store of servants Gen.26:14), and Abraham(318 trained soldiers plus servants Gen.14:14), and all their riches. All of these had been multiplying for 215 years before Jacob went into Egypt, so the 66 souls of Gen.46:26 were all Jacobs. The many servants who had wives, children, and parents, could have easliy numbered into the thousands by this time. These no doubt made up most of the mixed multitude that continued to multiply in Egypt and come out with Israel in the Exodus (Ex.12:38, Num.11:4)When combining the above data with the length of the dispensation of Promise(430 years), I see no reason to think that the population of Israel and its household(servants and descendants), at the time of the Exodus, couldn't have be in the range of 3-5 million.We are shown clearly in Num.1:46,2:32 that, one year after the Exodus, Israel had a net gain of 3,550(603,550) men in this numbering. Since we are not given the exact number of Hebrew wives it's difficult to estimate a possible birth rate for this period as well , however, I think it would also be very safe to say that this number(3,550) could also be used as a good model for actual births from the Hebrew women during this one year timeframe, perhaps much more. As well, this number(3,550) does not include births from the mixed multitude.However, if we stick with the 3,550 BPY and start to work backwards decreasing gradually as we go, within a 215 year time frame it becomes quite obvious that the "66 out of the loins of Jacob"( and remember, thats just the men((sons and their sons)), it is believed that there could have easily been 300-500 Hebrew children at various ages come into Egypt with them) could have without question produced the vast numbers of Israelites that we are told of in Ex.1:7, 12:37, Num.1:46,2:32.Interestingly, we see a net loss of 1,820(601,730) in the numbering at Moab approx. 38 years later(Num.26:51). This no doubt would have been as a result of the 10 plagues the Israelites suffered, through rebellion.All in all, after seeing the population model you provided, as well as others, and looking at the scriptures textually and realistically , I see it completely possible for the population of the Exodus to be 3-5 million.Lack of corroborative and archaeological evidence has of course caused much debate over the reality of this event occuring, and discrepancies, variations, and seeming contradictions within the timeline also make it difficult for some to believe it as a historical event. As it has been pointed out, it would seem that a massive event such as this would leave much evidence behind, but, without being there and knowing what the exact ecological and hygenic giudelines and parameters they had to follow as a group, makes it difficult to place any evidentiary expectations on them from a modern viewpoint.My guess is that, being on the move, they were highly efficient, left nothing to waste, made use of everything, and cleaned up after themselves extremely well. Thus, that doesn't leave much for us to look at thousands of years later. It was mentioned in a post as to the lack of fire pit evidence as a negative. I believe that fire pits, except for rare and very specific reasons, would have been banned. The dangers of fire in such a compacted environment such as this large camp would have been very high, not to mention the smoke inhalation factor from thousands of fires would have been extremely unhealthy and obnoxious as well. Scripturally, the pillar of fire provided the heat and light that was needed for the Israelites, food and water was being miraculously provided, therefore no fires neccessary.Respectfully, Paul[This message has been edited by Paul, 05-29-2003]

Hi Nukl, Sorry for the delay in responding, I was away for the entire weekend.I believe the servants of the Hebrews would have had a unique loyalty to them. They would have through the centuries witnessed or been told of Gods power and favor toward the Hebrews and would have of course benefitted greatly from this as well. I would also agree that there would be some absorbtion into the tribes through the years, and also that some would have tried to leave the tribes, especially at the time of the "King who knew not Joseph". It would be hard to know how the Egyptians veiwed the servants of slaves, who of course were non-Hebrews, yet I believe they would have been treated the same from the simple fact of being non-Egyptian would have meant them to be as equal a threat as the Hebrews, especially since there were large numbers of them. I'm not sure if they would have been as seperable from the Hebrews as we might think the Egyptians would have allowed them to be, I personally think not. I think this is why we see the special mention of the "Mixed Multitude", the combination of this unique loyalty of the remaining Hebrew servants, combined with the awesome power of God shown against the Egyptians, caused this seperate group of mixed peoples to come out with them in large numbers.Num.3:14,3:40 Agreed. As we see, the numberings of both the Levites and the remaining 12 tribes was done in the same manner; "all males from a month old and upward shalt thou number". The question is where does "upward" end? The numbering of 22,000 would seem fairly accurate if the Levites were a large if not the largest group of the tribes( approx 1 in 4 males, at any age, a firstborn). The number of 22,273 would seem extermely low however, if it was applied to the entire Hebrew population of firstborn males of the other 12 tribes, in the same manner. At the same time, 22,273 would also seem high if it were simply the number of firstborn males from the time of the exodus to the numbering itself(13 months). We must remember that if 22,273 males were born in this short period of time, there would have been an equal, and perhaps even more, number of females born as well. Is it possible then that the Hebrew wives of the 12 tribes( of whom we have no idea how many there actually were, I would guess 400,000 max.) could have produced approx.50,000 births in this time period(13 months)? I think thats too high, but again, not impossible. There's no reason to think that family sizes and birth rates were any different between the Levites and the other 12 tribes. That the numbering of 22,000 males one month old and up from one tribe, could be so close to the numbering of 22,273 males one month old and up from the other 12 tribes, to me indicates that a proccess other than firstborn for firstborn, age for age, was used in this numbering. Clearly the entire Levite tribe was used for their numbering, as there couldn't have been 22,000(44,000 including females) births from this one tribe in 13 months, and also, clearly the entirety of the 12 tribes was not used for their numbering, else we would have seen approx 100,000 or more firstborn males from the 12 tribe.My personal opinion is that this numbering of 12 tribes was the firstborn males from the age of one month and "upwards" to the age of maturity or 19 years old. This method to me would seem to provide the better explanation for the almost even match in the numberings. Since all males 20 and upward had already been numbered and accounted for, was it neccessary for a portion of them to be re-numbered or even be included in the redemptive grouping? Did God view the 20 and up group differently with repect to the redemptive proccess, since they were already numbered and accounted for and conscecrated to him for war? I'm not sure , possibly. One thing is for sure though, and that is that the 1 month and up to 19 years old age group, was unaccounted for and unnumbered, so I believe that God was not only getting Moses to fulfill the redemptive requirement, but was also making sure Moses had an accurate idea of the number of males that were within each tribe and the entire group as a whole, for the years and purposes that lie ahead.Again, although it would seem to be an extremely high birth rate(approx. 50,000), I don't rule out the possibility that the 12 tribe numbering was from the period of the Exodus until the numbering itself(13 months), however, I tend to go with the one month and upward to maturity or 19, as a better explanation for the amount and closeness of the numberings.Thx for the Link as well Respectfully, Paul.

I had a strong feeling we would see an end to this most excellent discussion, when a statment such as above was inserted into it. Brian you must remember that your discussion is with a creationist, so your expectation in this matter is very inappropriate and unrealistic.You can make reference to and quote the bible throughout this thread, but we can't?I would suggest you change your attitude and expectations in this way or else we will see many more of these great discussions come to an abrupt end as this one did.Respectfully, Paul.

God and his word are inseparable. There can be no discussion on one without respect for and inclusion of the other.Respectfully, Paul.

Brian writes: I've gone back through some of your posts and was reminded of what you call creationists; uneducated, nuts, cukoo's, morons, ex-alcoholics, ex-drug addicts, brain washed etc. etc. I don't "think" your being disrespectful..you are being disrepectful.Your habitual labeling of the bible as myth, fairytale, etc. etc., doesn't make me "think" your trying to undermine the value of the Bible..you are undermining the value of the Bible. In fact, it's a passion for you.Brian there's not one thing you could ever say that could uproot a personal experience such as Nukl and I have had. And most certainly your blatant chauvinism and name calling does not serve your passion, or this forum, well at all.Respectfully, Paul.