More on Exodus, not on Tim Zeak, for now

Ibn Khaldun, a Neglected Source of Antichristianity or Attacks on the Bible · Responding to Tim Zeak on Exodus, part I · More on Exodus, not on Tim Zeak, for now · Some Have Claimed Ezra Wrote Moses · Israelites at the Exodus

Does the genealogy in Exodus 6 between Levi and Moses add up to the 430 years Israel was in Egypt according to Exodus 12?

Exodus 12:[40] And the abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

In fact, this seems to have a connection to the actual present feast, Christmas, since there is a genealogy in Matthew too ...

Here is that of Moses:

Exodus 6:[16] And these are the names of the sons of Levi by their kindreds: Gerson, and Caath, and Merari. And the years of the life of Levi were a hundred and thirty seven. [17] The sons of Gerson: Lobni and Semei, by their kindreds. [18] The sons of Caath: Amram, and Isaar, and Hebron, and Oziel. And the years of Caath's life were a hundred and thirty-three. [19] The sons of Merari: Moholi and Musi. These are the kindreds of Levi by their families. [20] And Amram took to wife Jochabed his aunt by the father's side: and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of Amram's life were a hundred and thirty-seven.

137
133
137
________
407

And worse, they are not 407 consecutive years, since they are life years of three consecutive generations, Levi did not die when Caath was born, Caath did not die when Amram was born. Assuming they so had died and that Amram had died when Moses was born and the rest, would have put the Exodus too late, on the other hand ... 407+80 = 487.

So, what is going on?

I see another problem, which is worse:

Exodus 6:[2] And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: I am the Lord, [3] That appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; and my name ADONAI I did not shew them.

ADONAI is a rendering of another name, which comes in a shortened version in the beginning of - Moses' mother: Jochabed.

Meaning

Yah Gives Weight, Yah Is Impressive

Etymology

From (1) יה (yah), the shortened name of the Lord, and (2) the verb כבד (kabed), to be impressive.

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jochebed.html#anc-3

How could someone be named with reference to a name of God that wasn't revealed yet? Manis Friedman might speak of time travel, but ... it is as simple as the name of God being known by other means than revelation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - for instance, by human conjecture based on Adam's knowledge or by God revealing it to Adam:

Genesis 4:[26] But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos; this man began to call upon the name of the Lord.

The Lord here is, like ADONAI, this name of God which He had not revealed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But back to Genesis 6 genealogy ... as father's and son's years overlap, we don't get 430 years.

Here is one solution, claiming genealogies tended to be gapped:

I Dream of Genealogies
23 déc. 2019 | tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nRTs30Wny8

I don't agree. Gaps in Biblical genealogies are there for a purpose. The gaps in Matthew 1 are generations for some reason falling foul of God - descendants of Athaliah, for instance, three generations shorter, and another one, I think.

So, what is the solution?

The stay in Egypt from when Jacob's family moved to Goshen was not 430 years. Here is (English translation from) LXX on Exodus 12: 40 And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, [was] four hundred and thirty years.

The soujourning in a foreign land begins when Abraham receives the promise. This is confirmed by St. Paul:

Galatians 3:[16] To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, And to his seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. [17] Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.

So, no wonder the genealogy of Moses from Levi doesn't add up to 430 years, these years had begun before Abraham even had Isaac.

This also explains why both the Roman martyrology for Christmas Day and George Syncellus have a time scale from birth of Abraham to Exodus as consistent with "a short stay" in Egypt. Abraham's birth + 75 years (when he gets the promise) + 430 years = 505 years (like 2015 to 1510 BC in Roman martyrology).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Stephen's Day
26.XII.2020

Responding to Tim Zeak on Exodus, part I

Ibn Khaldun, a Neglected Source of Antichristianity or Attacks on the Bible · Responding to Tim Zeak on Exodus, part I · More on Exodus, not on Tim Zeak, for now · Some Have Claimed Ezra Wrote Moses · Israelites at the Exodus

One of the youtube atheists I like to follow and refute videos by linked to Recovering from Religion. On that, you find a blog, where one Tim Zeak attacked the historicity of the Exodus.

Ten Reasons Why the Bible’s Story of the Exodus is Not True
And why it really matters.
Tim Zeak, Oct 26 · 14 min read
https://medium.com/excommunications/ten-reasons-why-the-bibles-story-of-the-exodus-is-not-true-4144bc305665

The most urgent of these, if you will excuse the pun, is the toilet problem.

5. Unrealistic hygiene requirements: Deuteronomy 23:12–14 says, “You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement. Since the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.”

For those living near the center of camp, it would probably require a couple of miles each way, given the estimate of the population, animals and bare-bone infrastructure. Below is a refugee camp with tents. To house the 2,500,000 people, they would have needed around 625,000 of them with no restroom facilities inside its perimeter.

Well, is that so ...

I will first of all assume tents were family tents and somewhat crowded : 2.5 m² per person.

Now, let's first assume, the camp was - as it was in fact not - one big square.

2 500 000 * 2.5 m² = 6 250 000 m².

If we assume the camp was one big square, we get a side of the square root of that surface : 2 500 m.

Let's again assume no one was leaving across the middle, so all took the shortest way, this was 1 250 m to go out, and - less enerous - same way back again.

But ... if we read Numbers, we see that the camp was a big cross.

Camp of the Levites in the middle. Judah and two more tribes in the East, Ruben and two more tribes in the South, Ephraim and two more tribes in the West, and Dan with two more tribes in the North. One can imagine squares of three tribes at a go, but it is more correct, I think, to imagine the first named tribes closest to the middle and and the other two in each direction sticking out from these four either serially or in a Y-shape.

This leaves biggest square - if such - sth like ...

Numbers 2:3 On the east Juda shall pitch his tents by the bands of his army: and the prince of his sons shall be Nahasson the son of Aminadab. [4] And the whole sum of the fighting men of his stock, were seventy-four thousand six hundred.

Now, 74 600 fighting men = how many persons overall?

For 2 500 000 persons, the Biblical figure of fighting men was ...

Numbers 2:[32] This is the number of the children of Israel, of their army divided according to the houses of their kindreds and their troops, six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty. [33] And the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel: for so the Lord had commanded Moses. [34] And the children of Israel did according to all things that the Lord had commanded. They camped by their troops, and marched by the families and houses of their fathers.

2 500 000 / 603 550 = 4.142

74 600 * 4.142 = 309 005

309 005 * 2.5 m² = 772 512.5 m²

And the square root of that is : 878.9 m. The walk out, South or North, from the first square East of the Levites was then 439.5 m. I have for a few months been living as homeless in one porch of a school (a professional high school) not used during the first confinement, and the public toilet in use was about 500 meters away. For much of the time, I made it. Not always for peeing, but for the excrements.

Add into this, that the Israelites were not eating lots of croissants and pains au chocolat as like people offered such to me, their digestion was lighter. Add unto this, they could have taken to going out while collecting mannah, which was also around the camp.

A gomor is 2.3 litres. 309 005 * 2.3 l = 710 711.5 l. Or, on each side of the camp, 355 355.75 l. One l = 1 dm³. Let's assume the thickness was 0.5 cm or 0.05 dm. This means a surface of 355 355.75 dm³ / 0.05 dm = 7 107 115 dm². Divide this by the sidelength ... 7 107 115 dm² / 8 789 dm = 808.6 dm or 80 m thickness before you are outside the mannah field.

And, add into this that the camp of Judah need not have been a square, if it was a rectangle, the way out of the camp was arguably shorter still. Let's assume proportions were 1:2, this means 1.4 times as long, and 1.4 times less broad, and the thickness of the mannah fringe is also lessened. 368 meters before you can sit down.

In other words, the requirement is not beyond realisation. I'll be back on more.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Restitute of Carthage
Bishop and Martyr
9.XII.2020

Carthagine sancti Restituti, Episcopi et Martyris, in cujus solemnitate sanctus Augustinus de ipso ad populum sermonem habuit.

Link. A good overview over NT manuscripts, a somewhat less good overview over doctrine

Ken Boa : How Accurate Is the Bible?
https://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

Ken Boa makes a page with textual history on NT writings, perhaps especially Gospels.

However, in the intro, he makes a blunder:

Consider the following statements:

• The Bible says that God helps those who help themselves.
• The books of the New Testament were written centuries after the events they describe.
• “Cleanliness is next to godliness” is in the Bible.
• According to the Bible, the earth is flat.
• The earliest New Testament manuscripts go back only to the fourth or fifth centuries AD.
• The Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe.
• The English Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation (etc.) of the original, and fresh errors were introduced in each stage of the process.

How many of the above statements do you think are true? The answer is none; all of them are false. Yet these false impressions persist in the minds of many, and misinformation like this produces a skeptical attitude toward the Bible.

It is true that the Bible does not say the Earth is flat. However, it is also true it includes a few statements which might lead an unaware reader to conclude it does. 4 corners in at least one location of the Bible means specific locations, not points of the compass, so what about that? Well, the Hebrew word for earth can also mean land. And the main landmasses do show like a Riemann rectangle with some holes in it on the hemisphere opposite the Pacific.

However, it is hard to escape the conclusion the Bible says the Earth stands still or that Sun and Moon have daily movements, that were arrested for a full "day" (12 hours? 24 hours?) when Joshua fought a battle. Or that Heaven (religious sense) is very arguably a place above the stars, so that the space in which stars are cannot be infinite, but must be limited, and therefore also have a centre.

As for "New Testament manuscripts", it is possible that manuscripts of all 27 books (or of wholes Bibles overall) go back to only 4th or 5th centuries, but this is probably due to the codex book form only then getting large enough for that, and Ken Boa talks of what can be expected from papyri : single book manuscripts.

But it is worthwhile he gives a very good overview, I think./HGL

C. S. Lewis - Link to Video

C.S. Lewis shares "Why I'm Not an Atheist"
18.VIII.2009 | Akha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzaLp3aL_f8

Bill Nye on ... Pantheism? Hegelianism?

Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye Incompetent in Debate · somewhere else : Bill Nye on Historic Science · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Bill Nye on Japanese Tradition · somewhere else : Bill Nye on ... Pantheism? Hegelianism? · Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye and Space Rocks

Up to 36:51:

"It's astonishing! So, you and I are made of the same material, as exploded stars. So you and I are at least one of the ways in which the universe knows itself."

If atheism is true, individuals may know the universe, but neither the universe nor anyone speaking more for the universe than individuals (on earth, possibly on other planets) can know it.

On atheistic terms, the universe cannot know anything and on atheistic terms there is no either creator or world soul or universal ruler who can speak on its behalf either. An individual knowing the universe is not the universe knowing itself.

On pantheistic terms, on terms of Hegelianism of a kind C. S. Lewis once believed and then turned his back on, yes, on those terms the universe can know itself, both directly and through individuals.

But - that's not science. It is bad theology, not good natural science. It can hardly even qualify as bad natural science, unless anything blurted out from a scientist's mouth is natural science.

It has nothing to do with how one classifies or mundanely explains phenomena in the universe. It has everything to do with a type of world view which science data as such, with no further processing like philosophy, cannot pronounce itself on.

One of the reasons some have said "if it's a miracle, it isn't science" is, a miracle is possible only on some world views and not others, and science is not supposed to take sides between world views.

Obviously, Bill Nye doesn't share that sentiment, he has no problem championing one world view against another which he thinks scientifically refuted, but also, he doesn't play by it. He blurts out a world view and is still supposed to be a science guy, not required to discuss world views.

Tactic, since his world view is philosophically refuted, for instance by ex-adherent C. S. Lewis, in the book Miracles./HGL

Bill Nye on Historic Science

Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye Incompetent in Debate · somewhere else : Bill Nye on Historic Science · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Bill Nye on Japanese Tradition · somewhere else : Bill Nye on ... Pantheism? Hegelianism? · Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye and Space Rocks

Here he is:

"As soon as you go back in time, as soon as you have any process of reasoning, that requires a miracle - then it's not science."

Like up to 29:34 from a little before in AiG's full length video of the Ark tour he got with Ken Ham.

In answer : the past is studied by record, not by science, primarily. And science can record miracles, or events requiring one, like medical doctors surrounding Lourdes have recorded so and so arriving with such and such a diagnosis and leaving with no longer that diagnosis.

His idea about how to evaluate what happened in the past is very like Khaldoun's and very like Hume's (neither of them being a scientist), but also it mixes up the question what is the primary discipline, namely history, not science, he considers it as being science, not history./HGL

PS Later on, seconds up to 36:25

"You went back to a miracle"

He finds it so evident to everyone once he has said it that he thinks he can invoke it in the rest of the discussion. Yes, we know he thinks science is the proper study of the past and we know he thinks science cannot register miracles. He doesn't seem to know we know and we disagree, on both points.

I think there is such a word or phrase as "being dense" .../HGL