The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

Where does this figure of 420 years come from? The figure in the MT of Exod 12:40 is 430 years. But there are some problems with inner asynchronism here. Moses' grandfather, Kohath, was among the group of 70 that emigrated from Canaan to Egypt, according to Gen 46:11. Kohath lived to age 133, according to Exod 6:18. Amram, who was Kohath's son (Exod 6:18) and Moses' father (Exod 6:20), lived to age 137 (Exod 6:20). Moses was eighty years old when he first spoke to Pharaoh (Exod 7:7). He was also eighty years old at the time of the exodus, since the Israelites wandered for forty years (Exod 16:35, Num 32:13) and Moses died just as the Israelites were crossing over the Jordan, at age 120 (Deut 31:2).Therefore, from the day Jacob and his "70 souls" descended into Egypt until the day of the exodus could have been at most 133 + 137 + 80 = 350 years. This assumes that Kohath was born as Jacob's entourage was leaving Canaan, and that Moses was born in the year his father Amram died. A priori it seems likely that Jacob's grandson Kohath was an adult when he entered Egypt, since he was the second son of Levi, who was the third son of Jacob. Yet included in the entourage are also great grandsons of Jacob by some of his youngest sons, such as Heber and Malchiel, who were sons of Beriah, son of Jacob and Leah's fifth son, Asher. In addition, it also seems very likely that Amram was rather young when his son Moses was born. The reason for this is that Yochebed, Amram's wife and Moses' mother, was in fact Amram's aunt (Exod 6:20). If, say, Kohath was 20 years old at the time of the descent into Egypt, and Amram was 60 when he married Yochebed, then the duration of the "enslavement" was 113 + 60 + 80 = 253 years. (Traditional Jewish sources put the duration at 210 years.)(NB: I think it is arrant foolishness to take any of this seriously, but even if one does, there are inescapable problems with inner asynchronisms, as my analysis abundantly reveals.)[This message has been edited by Rashbam, 05-30-2003]

I just thought I'd point out a little diversion the "Noah's Flood Came Down..." topic took, which concerns, amongst other things, the apparent mistranslation resulting in the "Red Sea" being crossed during the exodus.The culminating message can be found at message 61 of that topic. The lead up discussion can be found on the preceeding page(s) there.Moose

Hi Rashbam,you asked: You may be referring to one of my posts that describes my population model. My simplified model is in 20 year increments, and for the sake of argument I stopped at 420 years instead of 440. There are some possible explanations for this, including one based on translation of the Hebrew word 'ben." A good presentation of this argument can be found at:
The Skeptic Files - SkepticFiles SettingHere's an excerpt: I hope this answers your questions.Have a great day!

Sorry, but the context makes it perfectly clear that Moses is Amram's son, Amram Kohath's and Kohath Levi's. You've got to be pretty obtuse (or flat out dishonest) to read Genesis 46 and not conclude that Kohath was Levi's son (Gen 46:11). If you don't think Kohath was Levi's son, for example, then there is no reason to believe Er and Onan were Judah's sons (Gen 46:12). Similarly, in Exod 6, Kohath is identified as a son of Levi and Amram as a son of Kohath.Ani choshev she'ata lo yodea likro ivrit, chaver. Nachon??[This message has been edited by Rashbam, 05-30-2003]

In response to the quote: "The effct on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society."

quote:

---

This struck my funny-bone a little bit today! I'd have to study your source before I could respond with anything of value, but ...
  —nuklhed67

---

You are easily amused. You can learn about Redford here.

quote:

---

... something that came to my mind right away is the old addage "History is written by the victors" (my paraphrase). The fact that ancient Egyptian writings would omit this event is really no surprise is it?
  —nuklhed67

---

Right away? Well, hope springs eternal ... It's an oft proffered and truly inane argument. What is surprising is the naive belief that a Dynasty can be decimated without leaving a trace. Tell me, when was this Exodus of yours, and what was the state of Egypt a decade later?

quote:

---

This morning I heard a talking head discussing the Middle East peace process and he pointed out that Palestinian schools teach from textbooks that don't even have Israel on the map. If we were digging up artifacts a few thousand years from now and all we found were Palestinian records, how much could we learn about Israel?
  —nuklhed67

---

Great argument: if all we found was Palestinian propaganda, then all we'd have found was Palestinian propaganda. Have you ever read a study of an archaeological site? Do you honestly think that nothing else would be found? And are you honestly suggesting that YHWH, Moses and his merry men (1) wiped out a culture so completely as to leave no trace of the disaster, only to (2) have it re-emerge a short time later?

quote:

---

But one question I have relates to what happened in the early stages of copying biblical manuscripts. Did they use current (for that time) names for these places in order to better convey the story to their readers? The earliest manuscripts we have are the Septuagint, translated in circa 300-100 BCE. Perhaps the translators used more current names.
  —nuklhed67

---

You're stretching, but if we can agree that the redactors of the Tanach modified, harmonized, and fabricated Jewish Canon, I'll accept that as a point of consensus.Parenthetically, do your comments mean that you prefer the LXX to the Massoretic Text?

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.

Hi Rash,I had a hairy weekend, sorry about the delay in replying. I'm definitely not the dishonest type (of course if I were dishonest I would still say I'm not, you'll have to judge for yourself). I might be obtuse, of course if I am I would not realize it. Actually my wife thinks I'm pretty acute I agree with the first part of the statement, Genesis 46:11 looks to be pretty obvious. The rest of the lineage I'm not so sure about whether the context calls for a strict "son" meaning or not. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I'm relying on the work of others here. Looks like you know some Hebrew, maybe you could elaborate your position that "ben" should be used strictly as "son" in this case? It's all Greek to me

quote:

---

Looks like you know some Hebrew...

---

Yes. And took the name a famous rabbi as well.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

True enough! I laugh a lot, sometimes at the dumbest things. I hope you don't think I meant to insult you, the reason it amused me was the timing of just hearing on the radio that morning an example of censorship in "historical" writings, and it just happened to be anti-Israel. I don't believe that. But, IMO, it's not out of the question that the writings of an ancient culture would deliberately leave out an embarrassing event. First of all, it's not my exodus. I could give you my own personal allegorical exodus story, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.Secondly, I don't know when the exodus happened. There is quite a range of proposed dates, each having their own carefully laid out arguments. I'd have to study it further before I could offer a cogent argument. You're implication that Egypt would be drastically affected is a good argument, and obviously any proposed exodus date should take that into consideration. I read some about the Tel-Rehov site at http://www.rehov.org. Fascinating stuff.I'm not sure what you are asking about what would be found, I think what you are implying is that there should be more than just Eqyptian writings, like pottery shards, tools, weapons, buildings, etc. to indicate a Hebrew presence in Egypt. But how would we differentiate between Egyptian artifacts and Hebrew artifacts if the Hebrew culture had been there for hundreds of years? Could'nt some of the artifacts that have been found been made by Hebrews? In your opinion what would qualify as proof of a Hebrew presence?I've posted this link before, but you may not have seen it. At http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html the author makes a strong rebuttal against Redford's opinion that the archeological record totally discredits the exodus and conquest stories. Yes, he is a Christian, but I think you are honest enough to judge an argument by its merits rather than its author. I suggested this? That's not what I proposed. I said that the translators of the Septuagint may have used current (for them) geographical names. You took that to mean that the redactors played loose and fast with the text, making it say whatever they wanted. I certainly don't think that's the case, we have no point of consensus there. I'm not equipped to have a preference between the two, or to argue the merits of either one. My only point was that the Septuagint is the oldest manuscript we have.

Hi Nuklhed,So sorry about the delay but I am snowed under with paper work right now. Hope everything is well with you and your family. I see a few people have responded to you and I repeat some of their queries in my post. I have tried to focus on the issue that we started with, namely only the population growth, the historical problems are maybe the topic for another thread. Anyway I read a bit more and typed some kind of response.The problem appears not to be whether the growth rate is achievable but whether is it sustainable over such a long period of time, which was 430 years. I looked through many statistics on the website at photius.com, Photius Coutsoukis; Photius; Photios; Fotis Koutsoukis; and none actually support this scenario as being at all plausible. Sure it supports a growth rate of the 2.45% as being possible, it even supports far higher growth rates, what it doesn’t do is to support the possibility of these being sustained for anywhere near the length of time needed by the Israelites. I remember we looked at Niger and how it had 52.31 births per 1000 in 1999. WHat doesn't make sense is why is it that there are only 9,962,242 people living there (1999)? Surely there should be far more than that as Niger has been inhabited for at least 6000 years! http://www.travel-guide.com/data/ner/ner580.asp.The article I cited gave a population growth rate of 1.169%, the photius website now gives Egypt’s rate as 1.82%, so their growth rate is clearly rising and has changed quite drastically in the last 60 years or so. As you acknowledged earlier, cultural and ecological factors have a direct bearing on population growth, and it is a scientific fact that the world’s population has never grown anywhere near as high a rate as it is doing at this moment. I have a few problems with this. First, why assume that the Israelites would be at the top end of the scale and not actually under the average growth rate? The growth rates of the last 100 years in Egypt (which are documented) show that Egypt is not amongst the top end of the scale so this undermines this argument. Secondly, you haven’t shown that a high growth rate is sustainable for a period of 430 years, this is a very long time and as it was almost 4000-3500 years ago then the populations were subjected to many more hazards than they are today. Thirdly, if the worldwide population growth back then was very tiny, say about a tenth of a percent, then even the highest rate would be quite low in comparison to today’s rates.I had a look through a few books to see what the experts say about the history of world population growths.The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc, Chicago, 1999.Page 673. Causes: For thousands of years, birth rates were high. However, the population increased slowly and sometimes declined because death rates also were high. Then, during the 1700’s and 1800’s, advances in agriculture, communication, and transportation improved living conditions in parts of the world and reduced the occurrence of many diseases. As a result, the death rate began to drop, and the population grew rapidly. page 674 In the industrial countries of Europe and North America, many people flocked to the cities and took jobs in factories. In cities and in many rural areas, it was difficult to support a large family. People began to see reasons for having smaller families. As a result, birth rates in these countries began to fall. In the agricultural countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, declines in death rates plunged quickly without corresponding declines in birth rates. As a result, the population of low-income nations and the world increased rapidly. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable explanation of why we have had a rapid increase in the world population growth in the last 200 years or so. The population before this simply must have been lower or today’s population would be far higher.The New Encyclopaedia Britannica explains better: Volume 25, Macropaedia, 1993. Entry Population Page 1041 Before considering modern population trends separately for developing and industrialized countries, it is useful to present an overview of older trends. It is generally agreed that only 5,000,000-10,000,000 humans (i.e., one onethousandth of the present world population) were supportable before the agricultural revolution of about 10,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Christian era, 8,000 years later, the' human population approximated 300,000,000, and there was apparently little increase in the ensuing millennium up to the year AD 1000. Subsequent population growth was slow and fitful, especially given the plague epidemics and other catastrophes of the Middle Ages. By 1750, conventionally the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, world population may have been as high as 800,000,000. This. means that in the 750 years from 1000 to 1750, the annual population growth rate averaged only about one-tenth of 1 percent. The reasons for such slow growth are well known. In the absence of what is now considered basic knowledge of sanitation and health (the role of bacteria in disease, for example, was unknown until the 19th century), mortality rates were very high, especially for infants and children. Only about half of newborn babies survived to the age of five years. Fertility was also very high, as it had to be to sustain the existence of any population under such conditions of mortality. Modest population growth might occur for a time in these circumstances, but recurring famines, epidemics, and wars kept long-term growth close to zero. From 1750 onward population growth accelerated. In some measure this was a consequence of rising standards of living, coupled with improved transport and communication, which mitigated the effects of localized crop failures that previously would have resulted in catastrophic mortality. Occasional famines did occur, however, and it was not until the 19th century that a sustained decline in mortality took place, stimulated by the improving economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the growing understanding of the need for sanitation and public health measures. I popped into the Social Sciences dept at Uni and someone there recommended this book to me as a good introduction to world population growth.Massimo Livi-Bacci A Concise History of World Population Blackwell, Malden MA 1997.pp 30-32 In many parts of the world before this century, in Europe prior to the late Middle Ages or in China before the present era, one can only estimate population size on the basis of qualitative information - the existence or extension of cities, villages, or other settlements, the extension of cultivated land - or on the basis of calculations of the possible population density in relation to the ecosystem, the level of technology, or social organization. The contributions of paleontologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists are all needed.

​

The data on world demographic growth in tables 1.2 and 1.3 are largely based on conjectures and inferences drawn from non-quantitative information. Table 1.2 presents a synthesis of these trends. The long-term rates of growth are, of course, an abstraction, as they imply a constant variation of demographic forces in each period, while in reality population evolves cyclically. Following Biraben's hypothesis, according to which human population prior to the High Paleolithic era (30,000 -35,000 BC) did not exceed several hundred thousand, growth during the 30,000 years leading up to the Neolithic era averaged less than 0.1 per 1,000 per year, an almost imperceptible level consistent with a doubling time of 8,000-9,000 years. In the 10,000 years prior to the birth of Christ, during which Neolithic civilization spread from the Near East and Upper Egypt, the rate increased to 0.4 per 1,000 (which implies a doubling in less than 2,000 years) and population grew from several million to about 0.25 billion. This rate of increase, in spite of important cycles of growth and decline, was reinforced during the subsequent 17 and a half centuries. The population tripled to about 0.75 billion on the eve of the Industrial Revolution (an overall rate of growth of 0.6 per 1,000). It was, however, the Industrial Revolution which initiated a period of decisive and sustained growth. During the following two centuries population increased about tenfold, at an annual growth rate of 6 per 1,000 (doubling time 118 years). This process of growth was the result of a rapid accumulation of resources, control of the environment, and mortality decline, and has culminated in the second half of the current century. In the four decades since 1950 population has again doubled and the rate of growth has tripled to 18 per 1,000. In spite of signs that growth may be slowing, the present momentum will certainly carry world population to eight billion by about the year 2020 and ten billion some time during the upcoming century. The acceleration of the growth rate and shortening of the doubling time (which was expressed in thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution and is expressed in tens of years at present) give some indication of the speed with which the historical checks to population growth have been relaxed. It looks as if the consensus of opinion is that a sustained growth rate, of the amount needed for the Bible to be accurate, simply wasn’t possible before the advances made by science. Well as I said in a previous post the term for ‘thousand’ (‘elef) doesn’t necessarily need to mean the number ‘thousand’, so maybe we have to set our group number a little lower.There’s also the problem of which Bible account to use, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint actually say that the enslavement in Egypt was 215 years, (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times, JSOT, Sheffield, 1990, p 35) so which account should we take as being the accurate one?As well as the problem of which version to use we also have the internal inconsistencies to deal with. Let’s say that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, is this consistent with the other information in the text?Exodus 12:40Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.There’s obviously an inconsistency between the 430 years in Egypt, and the genealogy in Exodus 6.14-25, which claims only four generations from Levi to Moses. Although the number of generations is consistent with Genesis 15:16 ‘In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.’ There is the added problem of Genesis 15:13 ‘Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years . These two verses support a generation lasting for 100 years; surely this is a nightmare for the population scenario that we are looking at?I simply do not see how the population growth can be justified in four generations. It really doesn’t seem credible at all. Look at the headaches here; we have four generations (Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses, and even with the suspiciously high lifespans given to Levi (137 years), Kohath (Masoretic Text & Samaritan Pentateuch: 133 years; LXX (Septuagint): 130 years), and Amram (MT: 137 years; SP, LXX Alexandricus: 136 years; LXX Vatanicus: 132 years) this genealogy is in no way compatible with a 430-year stay in Egypt.It gets worse, according to Exodus 7.7 Moses was 8o years old when he first confronted Pharaoh, and since this is supposed to have happened during the final year of Israel's stay in Egypt there are 350 (430 - 80) years remaining to be accounted for over three generations. If we assume that Joseph was 39 or 40 when Jacob entered Egypt. Levi must evidently have been over 40 on that occasion, which means that 40 + years of Levi's age of begetting elapsed before the entry into Egypt. The genealogy in Exodus 6 cannot therefore be reconciled with P's chronology unless one is prepared to assume that Levi, Kohath, and Amram fathered their respective children at an average age of 130 years (3 x 130-40 = 350). The discrepancy between years and generations is made even worse if one takes account of the fact that Genesis 46.11 includes Kohath among the children of Israel who originally entered Egypt; this leaves us with only two generations spanning 350 years, which is impossible on any set of calculations. ( Hughes note 20, page 35 ) I am sure that as you research the Book of Numbers you will come across a whole new collection of problems. I read through a few commentaries and Timothy R Ashley’s book has a nice excursus on large numbers in the Book of Numbers.Timothy R Ashley, The Book of Numbers , Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1993 pp 60-61.This is a brief summary of the problems with taking these numbers literally: The numbers in Num. 1:20-46 appear rather straightforward. The totals are clear and there are no significant textual problems. The only problem is that these numbers (just over 600,000 fighting men) seem much too large for a variety of reasons.

​

(1) Such a number of males from twenty years of age and up would give a total populace of about two to two and one-half million. It is hard to believe that such a number could be sustained for forty years in the wilderness without constant, day-to-day, miraculous intervention. The miraculous intervention and provision that do occur seem to be the exception rather than the rule (see, e.g., Num. 11).

​

(2) Such a number would have, indeed, caused Egypt's Pharaoh consternation, for not only would there have been very little room for them in Egypt, but a group of this size could likely have taken over Egypt with or without weapons. (For some comparative figures on ancient Near Eastern armies, see G. Mendenhall, "The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26," Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958) pp 64-65) they would hardly have had to fear Pharaoh's army, which was probably at most about 20,000 men.

​

(3) Current estimates of the population of Canaan at the time of the Exodus are well below three million. Exod. 23:29 and Deut. 7:7, 17, 22 indicate that the Israelites were far fewer in number than the Canaanite population that they were to conquer.

​

(4) It is well known that two midwives are said to have served the entire number of Hebrews (Exod. 1:15), that the entire number could gather around the tent of meeting to hear Moses (Exod. 16:9; 19:17; 33:18; Deut. 1:1; etc.), and that the whole number could march around Jericho seven times in one day (Josh. 6:15) with enough time left in the day to fight a battle. (5) According to Num. 3:40-43 the number of firstborn males among the people was 22,273, out of a population of about 600,000 adult males. This is a ratio of about 27:1. This means that a firstborn male must had had, on average, 26 brothers, not to mention sisters. Unless polygamy was the common practice in this period (and no evidence suggests that it was), this kind of ratio is not likely on a wide scale.(6) Such a massive group would have taken up a great deal of space on the march, especially when one considers their animals and possessions. We cannot count on God as an explanation for anything whilst doing an historical investigation; God is outside the realms of historical enquiry. What you need to realise is that once you mention divine intervention as an explanation for anything, then you automatically classify your source as a myth.This all means that in order for you to accurately calculate a formula that explains the growth of Jacob’s clan from 70 up to 2.5 million in 430 years, you need to state the following:1. Which Bible version’s account will we use?2. Which time frame will we use, 430 years, 400 years, or
4 generations?3. Do you have any contemporary examples of similar population
growths?4. Is it possible to sustain a very high population growth (for
that time) for a total of 430 years and if so, how do you
know?5. How were they all fed and watered for 40 years in the desert
(remember no divine intervention)?These questions are only related to the actual population growth and do not even begin to address the historical improbabilities of the entire origins of the ancient Israelites. But I think there is enough to be going on with.If there's anything I have missed, just let me know, I haven't been able to devote much time to the forum lately, but I am getting on top of things now, so I should be able to respond fairly soon.

quote:

---

You're implication that Egypt would be drastically affected is a good argument, and obviously any proposed exodus date should take that into consideration.

---

I don't think you unerstand the magnitude of the Exodus relative to the population of Egypt. The Exodus, as per the Bible, was of around 2 million people. The population of Egypt circa 3000 bc was 1-2 million. By the time the Romans conquered the land, the population had grown to 7 million. Anywhere you place the Exodus, it isn't going to work-- too much vital labor would walk away and Egypt would fall.Placing the Exodus at somewhere around 1570 bc, we'd have a population of about 4 million in Egypt. That means that between 1/4 and 1/2 of the entire empire would have marched away into the desert. Imagine if similar numbers exited the country in mass. Such a thing would leave a mark.

quote:

---

But how would we differentiate between Egyptian artifacts and Hebrew artifacts if the Hebrew culture had been there for hundreds of years?

---

Cultural peculiarities such as artistic styles are remarkably robust. These things hang around much longer than things which more directly effect survival, such as subsistence methods. It isn't likely that 200 years would erase these markers.It is worth noting, also, that Jewish culture has historically been very stubborn in its opposition to foreign customs. The Romans complained about it when the middle east was under thier control, as did the Greeks before them. The Islamic empires had the same problem.

quote:

---

At http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html the author makes a strong rebuttal against Redford's opinion that the archeological record totally discredits the exodus and conquest stories.

---

The author lists problems which an archeaologist must face. I wouldn't call this a strong rebuttal. Basically, the argument is "These things might have gone wrong." It isn't very convincing. If the author could take some actual sites associated with the Exodus and show that these errors HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN made, that would be much better.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Brian,Family's great, thanks for asking! I hope all is well with you.I've only had a quick look at your reply, it will take me some time to digest. In your usual fashion you have provided an abundance of data I used to participate in a Yahoo forum, but the quick sound-bite style of debate offered little substance and mostly emotional banter. Still it was interesting and quite addicting. Then I stumbled into this forum and was astonished by the more intense level of debate here. I've spent quite a bit of time reading posts, and somewhat less time typing up my own feeble arguments.The problem is that I'm not getting my work done. I'm surprised that my employer hasn't walked into my office with a pair of wire cutters and terminated my internet access! I'm going to have to totally shut myself off from accessing this forum while at work or I may not have a job to go to.That means I'll have to squeeze some time in at home (in between family and church time) for this forum. The result will be a serious dropoff in my participation here, but hey, I'll still have a paycheck!That said, I could not resist responding to: We agree on this in a certain way; that if you take God out of the bible, it will never make sense. This statement by you more than any other demonstrates the futility of this debate. My belief is that unless God reaches you on a personal level you cannot be talked into truly believing in Him. I also believe that every person will at some point realize that God is real, and therefore have an opportunity to decide what to do about Him.But, since the debate rages on, I doubt I can stay away from it for very long. I may become a less frequent contributor but I'll still be keeping my finger on the pulse.God Bless!

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.

Paul responds to Brian Johnston:

quote:

---

quote:

---

We cannot count on God as an explanation for anything whilst doing an historical investigation; God is outside the realms of historical enquiry. What you need to realise is that once you mention divine intervention as an explanation for anything, then you automatically classify your source as a myth.

---

​

You can make reference to and quote the bible throughout this thread, but we can't?

---

Since when did the Bible become god?You do understand the difference between the book and the being described in the book, yes?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi Paul, I fail to see where you get the idea that the discussion is at an end. Nukl has stated quite clearly that he is happy to continue the discussion, he has only said that he needs to cut off from the forum while at work and not that he isn’t prepared to carry on the discussion. This is fine with me, I too have a great deal of work to do at the moment and I realise that the forum here is quite addictive, but has to be prioritised. I’d like nothing more that to be able to sit at a keyboard all day and respond to people’s posts, and I am sure that Nukl and others feel the same, but it isn’t practical. So I have to ignore one of the most basic premises of historical investigation? Historians have problems with miracles, this isn’t to say that they rule out the possibility of a god intervening in history, however, they realise that explanations for historical events need to be verifiable, and God is not verifiable by using historical methodology. So you are basically saying that creationists should not participate in historical research? It’s not me who has the wrong attitude in regard to historical inquiry, if you do not like the criteria for historical research then don’t get involved in it! I am happy to discuss this with a creationist but if they are not prepared to stay within the parameters of historical research then the discussion has to be taken into a different arena.Anyway, you seem to have missed the context of the question that Nukl and I were discussing. If you read through the discussion between Nukl and myself you will see that both of us were speaking about the possibility of this event being accurate from an historical perspective.If you want to open up a thread on the theological perspectives related to the enslavement, Exodus, wanderings, and conquest of Canaan, then I would be happy to participate in it. The thread here is though is concerned with the historical events and the evidence for them; it is not concerned with a factor (God) that has never been proven to exist.Nukl even said that he is interested in verifying biblical events from archaeological and historical data. His post # 77 states. Nukl has stated several times that he likes to research and verify events in the Bible from archaeological data and other historical sources.Let me ask you a question: How do we find evidence of God’s intervention from the archaeological data?Of course there is no way to find this, so what an historical investigation into these events must do, in order for it to remain historical, is to explain these unique events (miracles), in terms of natural phenomenon. Now, whether you like it or not, it is a fact of historical investigation that as soon as anything is explained by declaring that a god had intervened, this explanation is taken as being a myth.You seem to think that when I declare this a myth that I am saying that it is a fantasy that it didn’t happen at all. This really isn’t what I mean by the term ‘myth’ here. In the context of the Exodus event, to say that God intervened and helped the Israelites reproduced at a fantastic rate, and also helped to sustain them in the desert for forty years, is not a valid historical explanation.Now the Israelites maybe did reproduce at this rate and maybe the millions did survive in the desert, but to attribute this to divine intervention and not to natural forces relegates the explanation to the myth category.Let me explain what I mean by myth here. If these wonderful things did happen and we have no natural explanation for how it could have happened, then a myth would be an explanation of an observable fact. For example, we have no idea how a massive group survived in the desert for so long, since we have no idea, we explain how it happened by using a myth as an explanation. So what we have is a true historical event with an explanation of how it happened, that explanation cannot be verified or denied by historical investigation, so it comes into the category of myth.Let me state for the record that I am undecided over whether there was an exodus or not. I am, however, certain that if there was one, that it did not happened as described in the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the Hebrew Bible can be used to supplement archaeological and anthropological data, but to take the Bible’s account at face value in regard to the exodus is simply out of the question. Even on a pretty basic level there is the problem of which version of the Bible to actually take as the accurate one. I have no problem with anyone quoting from the Bible throughout this thread, I have no idea where you got the impression that I have a problem with that. The reason that I quote from the Bible here is because it is ONLY source that we have that claims that the Israelites originated in this way.I think you have totally misunderstood what we are discussing here, Nukl certainly understands the context of the discussion and has no big problems with it.I think maybe you have spat out your dummy because you think that I am being disrespectful or I am trying to undermine the value of the Bible, but if that is the case then you have totally missed the point of our discussion.Tell me why I am being unreasonable to ask for acceptable explanations for alleged historical events? I have no problem with you saying that God did this or that, but in an historical inquiry, you have to show how this is possible, and give supporting evidence for this.Saying that God can do anything and just blindly accepting that these things happened is grossly ignorant and disrespectful to a great number of people. You are insulting the immense contributions and the great deal of hard work of many scholars who have devoted lifetimes to researching these events, to say that they should just have taken the Bible’s accounts as being historically accurate is a joke, and not a very funny one.Are you not interested in finding out the truth about anything, or are you happy to live with the delusion that the Bible is the perfect word of God despite the tons of evidence to the contrary?You need to realise the difference between an historical investigation into the Exodus events and a theological investigation into it. These are two different things and have two different methodologies, two different aims and objectives, you seem to think that you can merge the two without any problem, well sorry but you cannot. Good grief! My attitude and expectations for this investigation is totally in line with the criteria for researching the historical accuracy of the topic. If we were discussing from a theological perspective, then fine I would then be thinking in a manner applicable to theological research. But this discussion is about the historical reliability of the Bible’s account of the Exodus and the events surrounding it, God is not within the sphere of historical investigation so He cannot be considered a factor.As for this discussion coming to an abrupt end, maybe you are talking from your own perspective because no one else has declared that they have finished discussing anything.Do you wish to open a thread on the theological perspectives related to the Exodus and surrounding events? At least there your frantic appeals to God would be valid.Best Wishes.Brian