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

Ibn Khaldun, a Neglected Source of Antichristianity or Attacks on the Bible

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

Let's quote a passage which to this day could be a standard of Anti-Biblical Criticism, his Introduction to the Muqaddimah.

This is especially the case with figures, either of sums of money or of soldiers, whenever they occur in stories. They offer a good opportunity for false information and constitute a vehicle for nonsensical statements. They must be controlled and checked with the help of known fundamental facts. For example, al-Mas'udi and many other historians report that Moses counted the army of the Israelites in the desert.33 He had all those able to carry arms, especially those twenty years and older, pass muster. There turned out to be 600,000 or more. In this connection, (al-Mas'udi) forgets to take into consideration whether Egypt and Syria could possibly have held such a number of soldiers. Every realm may have as large a militia as it can hold and support, but no more. This fact is attested by well-known customs and familiar conditions. Moreover, an army of this size cannot march or fight as a unit. The whole available territory would be too small for it. If it were in battle formation, it would extend two, three, or more times beyond the field of vision. How, then, could two such parties fight with each other, or one battle formation gain the upper hand when one flank does not know what the other flank is doing! The situation at the present day testifies to the correctness of this statement. The past resembles the future more than one (drop of) water another. Furthermore, the realm of the Persians was much greater than that of the Israelites. This fact is attested by Nebuchadnezzar's victory over them. He swallowed up their country and gained complete control over it. He also destroyed Jerusalem, their religious and political capital. And he was merely one of the officials of the province of Fars.34 It is said that he was the governor of the western border region. The Persian provinces of the two 'Iraqs,35 Khurasan, Transoxania, and the region of Derbend on the Caspian Sea36 were much larger than the realm of the Israelites. Yet, the Persian army did not attain such a number or even approach it. The greatest concentration of Persian troops, at al­Qadisiyah, amounted to 120,000 men, all of whom had their retainers. This is according to Sayf 37 who said that with their retainers they amounted to over 200,000 persons. According to 'A'ishah and az-Zuhri,38 the troop concentration with which Rustum advanced against Sa'd at al-Qadisiyah amounted to only 60,000 men, all of whom had their retainers. Then, if the Israelites had really amounted to such a number, the extent of the area under their rule would have been larger, for the size of administrative units and provinces under a particular dynasty is in direct proportion to the size of its militia and the groups that support the (dynasty), as will be explained in the section on provinces in the first book.39 Now, it is well known that the territory of the (Israelites) did not comprise an area larger than the Jordan province and Palestine in Syria and the region of Medina and Khaybar in the Hijaz.40 Also, there were only three generations41 between Moses and Israel, according to the best-informed scholars. Moses was the son of Amram, the son of Kohath (Qahat or Qahit), the son of Levi (Lewi or Lawi),42 the son of Jacob who is Israel-Allah. This is Moses' genealogy in the Torah.43 The length of time between Israel and Moses was indicated by al-Mas'udi when he said: "Israel entered Egypt with his children, the tribes, and their children, when they came to Joseph numbering seventy souls. The length of their stay in Egypt until they left with Moses for the desert was two hundred and twenty years. During those years, the kings of the Copts, the Pharaohs, passed them on (as their subjects) one to the other."44 It is improbable that the descendants of one man could branch out into such a number within four generations.45 It has been assumed that this number of soldiers applied to the time of Solomon and his successors. Again, this is improbable. Between Solomon and Israel, there were only eleven generations, that is: Solomon, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed ('Ubidh, or ' Ufidh), the son of Boaz (Ba'az, or Bu'iz), the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab ('Amminddhab, or Ham­minddhab), the son of Ram, the son of Hezron (Had/srun, or Hasran), the son of Perez ( Baras, or Bayras), the son of Judah, the son of Jacob. The descendants of one man in eleven generations would not branch out into such a number, as has been assumed. They might, indeed, reach hundreds or thousands. This often happens. But an increase beyond that to higher figures46 is improbable. Comparison with observable present-day and well-known nearby facts proves the assumption and report to be untrue. According to the definite statement of the Israelite Stories,47 Solomon's army amounted to 12,000 men, and his horses48 numbered 1,400 horses, which were stabled at his palace. This is the correct information. No attention should be paid to nonsensical statements by the common run of informants. In the days of Solomon, the Israelite state saw its greatest flourishing and their realm its widest extension.

From THE MUQADDIMAH
Abd Ar Rahman bin Muhammed ibn Khaldun
Translated by Franz Rosenthal
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/

Specifically:

INTRODUCTION
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/IntroMaterial/Introduction.htm

Now, let us analyse his errors.

I First, it seems he had not read the accounts of the Torah.

For example, al-Mas'udi and many other historians report that Moses counted the army of the Israelites in the desert. He had all those able to carry arms, especially those twenty years and older, pass muster. There turned out to be 600,000 or more.

For some reason, he doesn't go to Numbers, the original source, but to "al-Mas'udi and many other historians" presumably all of them Muslims.

This is reflected in:

It has been assumed that this number of soldiers applied to the time of Solomon and his successors. Again, this is improbable.

On this item, however, he seems to have checked, finally, with the Bible or a source closer to it than the historian who considered the 600 000 as being under King Solomon.

According to the definite statement of the Israelite Stories,47 Solomon's army amounted to 12,000 men, and his horses48 numbered 1,400 horses, which were stabled at his palace. This is the correct information.

Indeed. This is a correct reference to what can be read in Kings or Paralipomenon. I don't feel any need to actually check, it rings true.

II Now, we have a second error:

In this connection, (al-Mas'udi) forgets to take into consideration whether Egypt and Syria could possibly have held such a number of soldiers. Every realm may have as large a militia as it can hold and support, but no more. This fact is attested by well-known customs and familiar conditions.

Let us again confer the correct info on King Solomon's army:

Solomon's army amounted to 12,000 men, and his horses48 numbered 1,400 horses, which were stabled at his palace.

What has changed between Moses and King Solomon?

King Solomon had a professional army, to which the observation applies that so many professional soldiers need so many more civilians economically supporting them. Moses did not have any civilians (except wives and children, very old or invalids, and of course the Levite tribe) supporting his "soldiers", since all men who were able to fight were mustered, and since the economic upkeep was on God's providence, through the gathering of mannah.

Moreover, an army of this size cannot march or fight as a unit. The whole available territory would be too small for it. If it were in battle formation, it would extend two, three, or more times beyond the field of vision.

Very possible it cannot fight as a unit. Do we know for a fact that it ever did fight as a unit? It seems more probable, the twelve units called tribes knew each other by sight as to captains, and the captains knew their men by sight and these them, so that any one not known at all by sight would be presumed an enemy.

Fighting was, before the turn around carbon dated 1200 BC (like fall of Troy and of Hattusha) more of a matter of individual exploits adding up to an overall pressure one way or the other. The opponents would have been in a similar position.

Also, the marching was arranged by the pillar of fire, a miracle by God.

How, then, could two such parties fight with each other, or one battle formation gain the upper hand when one flank does not know what the other flank is doing!

Yeah, chariot fighters like battle of Kadesh must be a myth, right ... everything was always done by infantry plus cavalry, at tactic formations moving in strict coordination, and why, because ....

III Third error:

The situation at the present day testifies to the correctness of this statement. The past resembles the future more than one (drop of) water another.

No, it doesn't. King Solomon may have said no thing is new under the sun, but the arrangements between things do change in some detail, and he was also not taking miracles into account.

Ibn Khaldun simply voiced the irrational prejudice of "uniformitarianism". A degree of uniformitarianism in which modern ideology does not agree. No Agricultural Revolution in Neolithic, no Industrial Revolution in Modern Times, all that is mythological ...

Hence of course his idea that soldiers need to be professional soldiers depending on an administration exploiting a larger number of civilian subjects to nourish and arm the soldiers.

IV Fourth error in connexion with this.

Furthermore, the realm of the Persians was much greater than that of the Israelites. This fact is attested by Nebuchadnezzar's victory over them. He swallowed up their country and gained complete control over it. He also destroyed Jerusalem, their religious and political capital. And he was merely one of the officials of the province of Fars.

Yeah, right, Persians controlling Iraq up to Muslim Conquest is also one of the constants, that Nebuchadnezzar could have been an independent ruler, a sovereign under God or under his gods, doesn't strike him as even possible. Ill informed Ibn Khaldun depending on .... note 34 says: Al-Mas' di, Muruj adh-dhahah, I,117, describes him as governor of the 'Iraq and the Arabs for the Persian King (King of Fars). Cf. also at-Tabari, Annales, I, 646.

Exit Cyrus from history, then .... So Ibn Khaldun was preferring the secondary literature of the school he belonged to over the primary sources of the time, like the Bible, which is a very common mistake among historical critics of the Bible to this day.

The point he was making was of course in relation to the improbability of Moses disposing 600 000 professional soldiers. But the illustration he gave involved a phrase betraying this bias, which can be considered as a Fourth Error. It is related to the third, since, if the third is true, a modern historian and a situation known within their time of observation (during which indeed Iraq provinces depended on Fars prior to Islamic conquest) would be as adequate a key to a much older situation as sources from then, plus better understandable.

V Now, in relation to Moses' mustering 600 000 fighters, here is a Fifth error:

Also, there were only three generations41 between Moses and Israel, according to the best-informed scholars. Moses was the son of Amram, the son of Kohath (Qahat or Qahit), the son of Levi (Lewi or Lawi),42 the son of Jacob who is Israel-Allah. This is Moses' genealogy in the Torah.43 The length of time between Israel and Moses was indicated by al-Mas'udi when he said: "Israel entered Egypt with his children, the tribes, and their children, when they came to Joseph numbering seventy souls. The length of their stay in Egypt until they left with Moses for the desert was two hundred and twenty years. During those years, the kings of the Copts, the Pharaohs, passed them on (as their subjects) one to the other."44 It is improbable that the descendants of one man could branch out into such a number within four generations.45 ... Again, this is improbable. Between Solomon and Israel, there were only eleven generations, that is: Solomon, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed ('Ubidh, or ' Ufidh), the son of Boaz (Ba'az, or Bu'iz), the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab ('Amminddhab, or Ham­minddhab), the son of Ram, the son of Hezron (Had/srun, or Hasran), the son of Perez ( Baras, or Bayras), the son of Judah, the son of Jacob. The descendants of one man in eleven generations would not branch out into such a number, as has been assumed. They might, indeed, reach hundreds or thousands. This often happens. But an increase beyond that to higher figures46 is improbable. Comparison with observable present-day and well-known nearby facts proves the assumption and report to be untrue.

I think he is making demography purely empirical and its empirical material purely from examples close at hand. The demographic expansions of humanity after Flood and of Israelites in Egypt are not beyond the possibility of human childbearing.

The one man had 12 sons (and one daughter). Their wives were usually from families of uncles or aunts. Let's say each man from then on has 7 sons, and ignore the women, and let's do some maths. (In fact, I presume women are equal in number of men, which is true on so rough a level of maths as the one I am here using):

12*7 = 84 (first generation after)
84*7 = 588 (second generation after)
588*7 = 4 116 (third generation after)
4 116*7 = 28 812 (fourth generation after)
28 812*7 = 201 684 (fifth generation after)
201 684*7 = 1 411 788 (sixth generation after)

So, in sixth generation after Jacob, on this model, Jacob's descendants would be many more than 600 000. This means, Ibn Khaldun need only be wrong about the number of generations over the population as a whole which passes between Jacob's going to Egypt and the Exodus, during the 220 years (if he took that as four generations, he is counting 55 years per generation, which is a tad bit long - unless applied to males having trouble financing a marriage, but while my grandfather was born when his father was 50, he was far from the oldest child, he was rather the very youngest).

All that is needed for this to have happened is, Goshen being, like post-Flood world, a place where people could easily find new land to exploit in whatever ways applicable (hunting, fishing, gathering for immediate post-Flood, mostly, and farming and herding for Israelites in Goshen), which would be the case if Joseph when asking for Goshen was planning on a great demographic growth - a bit as if one had given all Yellowstone as reservation to a Sioux tribe, after a few generations they would be really numerous.

These conditions of Goshen were then prolonged by walk through the wilderness and by expulsion of Canaanites.

Also, Moses and David probably had fewer generations back to origin than the medium or median (whichever you prefer) of their contemporaries. Like Ham's wife had fewer generations to Adam than Ham, on the patrilinear lineage from her father back, and the Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage whatever daughter in law it came with arguably had more generations back to Adam than even Noah.

VI A more general sixth error, Ibn Khaldun is presuming rational criticism is superior to acceptance of tradition back to the sources.

This bring us presumably (though not cited here) back to a theological ....

VII ... error number seven, he believes a rational preference for "God's revelation" in Surah 5 trumps acceptance of Christian tradition the Gospels were written within decades of events and obviously record Our Lord better than a spurious (though widely witnessed) revelation to one single man providing no miracles to back it up centuries later.

How are we to be more correct than he on these issues?

i) Read what you assess as first hand as is available. If you can find Bellum Gallicum, don't rely on modern summaries, if you rely on summaries, prefer the scraps and bits they give from Bellum Gallicum, if you are assessing Alesia; dito with Moses over Arabic historians.

ij) Take into account that conditions can change, even drastically. As with change from citizens armed to professional soldiers.

iij) Don't be Uniformitarian! Don't believe Ibn Khaldun on this!

iu) Don't be administrational Uniformitarian (other good example, don't presume just because Roman right was very good in Justinian's time that the time of Persecutions - Nero to Diocletian - was better than Verres in relation to creative tortures). Check up if conditions have changed or at least conceivably could have.

u) Don't be a demographic uniformitarian. A population growth impossible in modern Naples would not have been impossible starting from Mount Chudi in Turkish Armenia or in Goshen, dito for one impossible in Baghdad or Cairo.

uj) Prefer oldest possible tradition over reconstructions considering it as error, whenever it is at all possible on your world view, and prefer one which leaves as few items as possible impossible, so you can learn more from unedited historic sources.

uij) Be a Christian, not a Muslim, prefer Gospels over Sura 5. It is also a good thing for your soul, if you care about that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
St. Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist
21.IX.2019

Starting a Video with Now Deceased Acharya Sanning

Here is her opening statement:

So there is an old saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It is not incumbent on me to disprove extraordinary claims of supernatural beings doing miraculous and magic activities. It is incumbent on the person making those claims to prove their contentions.

It is not incumbent on me to disprove extraordinary claims of natural beings doing very unnatural activities, like writing a novel and then mistaking it for history, or undergoing very unnatural activities, like being new to a message and then believing that message is what one remembered since years earlier, just because one was told it. And that is about the kind of contention Acharya was making about the Gospels, if one boil them down to essentials.

I'm now at 0:25 in this video which is so nostalgic, since refuting Acharya was something I enjoyed back when she was alive.

Are the New Testament gospels history? Where's the proof? | Acharya S | D.M. Murdock
Stellar House | 1.III.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsaRQDxmLqY

And here is a pearl leading up to 0:56:

I'm not claiming that for example the Greek son of god Hercules, whose life resembles that of Jesus Christ in many ways, is actually a real historical figure.

Once upon a time, the Catholic Saint Francis Xaver was asking whether the god of the Japanese, Bodda, was just a figment of imagination or a real historical figure. He concluded for the former, because they said Bodda had lived for 9000 years in many existences, both as god and as beast and as man, and since this is untrue about any man, he was not a historical figure. Most moderns would conclude for the contrary about Siddharta Gautama.

Now, that Catholic Saint, whom as a Catholic Saint some benighted Americans might have considered as "not a historical figure" started a fad.

Acharya was repeating this fad.

A Church Father had said about Hercules "he was not (a) god, but a strong man". I'll take that Church Father's view of Hercules over Acharya's any day of the week.

In claims about Hercules, some I can't accept, like visit to Netherworld bringing up Cerberus or visit to where Atlas was holding the sky on his shoulders.

However, 9000 years of incarnations in many shapes is also a claim I won't accept about the background to Siddharta Gautama.

I will believe one had to do ten great works (note that those I reject are numbers 11 and 12 and he can have added them himself while bragging) and the other imagined having found 4 noble truths and a noble 8 fold path.

I'm divided about what to do about Centaurs, and so was St. Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus about the one showing St. Anthony the way to St. Paul the First Hermit. Or he noted St. Anthony was in two minds about it.

The hydra of Lernaean marshes probably was a diabolical apparition, and I don't think Hercules was a Christian doing a legitimate exorcism.

At 2:05 it is clear that she thinks, identity of motifs is identical non-factuality of story. I don't. It could be identical factuality of both, contrasting factuality of both, plagiarism of true motif by false story (Hercules defeating Thanatos to get Alcestis back to life could be plagiarised from Elijah and Elisha doing real awakenings of dead people, and while they are later than Hercules - arguably during Judges - they are earlier than the Euripidean play Alcestis - also, the story is set in Thessaly, not in Hercules' homequarters), or even a mythological dream motif being answered by a real one (Bacchus turning water to wine - though our earliest source is after Christ! - could be something Christ was responding to in His real miracle at Cana).

2:20 to 3:04:

On the other hand, however, in order to convince themselves that, 2000 years ago, the God of the cosmos came to Earth, through the womb of a young virgin girls of a particular ethnicity, performed miracles like healing the blind, walking on water and raising the dead, transfiguring on a mount, calming a storm, being crucified himself obviously and then resurrecting himself and ascending into heaven, they require ... well, pretty much no proof, no evidence, other than the New Testament, a few books, a few hundred pages, that is all they require.

On the proof question, Lord of the Rings is over a thousand pages, and it doesn't convince me that Frodo Baggins carried a ring to Mount Doom. Collected corpus of Sherlock Holmes is also much larger than the four Gospels and references to their action in the rest of the New Testament, and I would still not claim that Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson lived on Baker Street (other than when writing a now half written fan fiction novel about Susan Pevensie, at the start of The Magician's Nephew, London is identified as a city where Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson lived on Baker Street, so their reality is assumed in the London where Susan faces hearing of the train accident and so on : I excepted the Bastables, thinking Digory Kirke - writer of first six volumes and the one asking Lucy and Eustace questions about the Dawn Treader - could have mistakenly concluded for their existence, and he was none the worse a researcher for that on what he was rexsearching).

Now, the claims are not "extraordinary" in the sense of being utterly improbable.

If there is a God of the cosmos there is one. If he ignores Earth, regularly visits Earth in diverse avatars, or came once, he does one of these things, and we should not have a prior to factual evidence adherence to one of the alternatives about His ways.

Through the womb of a young virgin makes sense insofar as He had created Adam with no previous human, Eve with no previous woman, most of us with both a man and a woman, and now made the man who was Himself with no human actual father. That she should be of a particular ethnicity is more probable than that she should be of no ethnicity at all and She was indeed a daughter of Israel, of the house of David in the tribe of Judah and related to Cohen level Levites.

Some people think, just because the God of the cosmos has a very general overview, He somehow cannot have any particular attachments. About tantamount to claiming Deism, a "God of the cosmos" who ignores Earth.

That He should perform miracles is fairly obviously required if He wanted to identify Himself as the God of the Cosmos. Precisely because the claim "this man is the God of the cosmos" really is a very extraordinary claim about any man, and should not have been believed even about Him without extraordinary evidence.

And obviously, He arranged for the miracles to be believable to this day and up to Doomsday. Hence we are not stranded with a book fallen from heaven or hell or nowhere in particular, as with Tolkien and Doyle, we have some evidence about how the first public took the books. However, unlike the evidence about Tolkien fans and Sherlock cosplay, the evidence about people hearing the Gospel read from the pulpit indicates they believed it to be factual. Hence the importance of the Church.

The idea that Gospels could have been assembled in the time of Constantine, 280 years after the events, or more is like claiming there were Tolkien fans (not counting porcelaine and pianos) well in advance of JRRT publishing The Hobbit. It's about as absurd - taken another way - as claiming that while I recall events years ago, I was only created Last Thursday. And this extremely extraordinary claim about how Gospels came to be believed is something that Acharya wants us to swallow without providing evidence.

3:21 she dreams (dreamt, she knows better now) that standards for proving an authorship from 1:st C can be parallelled on those for proving most from 19th C.

No, we don't have autographs of Gospels (any more, I presume they disappeared during Iconoclast controversy in Constantinople), but neither do we for 1:st C BC author Julius Caesar. Our earliest papyrus fragments for a Gospel are much closer to traditionally purported authorships than that 10th C or 11th C manuscript from which we have Corpus Caesareum.

At 3:30 she ignores that Papias was well before end of 2:nd C.

In other words, they are not quoted verbatim anywhere before that.

In the scraps of the evidence available to us, and she was presuming on titles and authors being insufficient mentions without verbatim quotes.

Next she lies about historical record, mentioning them since Papias was before that.

Then she requires historical record outside the obviously meant as historical record in New Testament for existence of NT characters like St. Paul, and she seems to have mixed up some things about him:

4:11 to 4:14

where he's brought before Caesar, he's ... rampaging with hundreds of troops

Acts 26:32 states that St. Paul did appeal to Caesar, but nothing about his rampaging with hundreds of troops.

From 1:st C. we cannot expect a registrar's account of everyone who was appealing to Caesar and got tried by him. And the rampaging, who says it even happened? It's not a Biblical claim.

Tertullian claims to have had access (not sure whether directly or indirectly) to imperial records in which St. Paul's martyrdom is described.

See page 33 in

Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus
By Glenn E. Snyder
https://books.google.fr/books?id=K9g3_FI3ruEC&dq=acts+of+saint+paul&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Most of the imperial records available then are lost now. Paul or no Paul.

4:42 she makes a blooper or a deceptive equivocation:

there's no information in writings of the day (contemporary writings)

OK, how much coherent narrative do you get about even Caligula in Pliny? And wasn't Naturalis historia published after Caligula died? And isn't it even so a long collection of essays on various topics, where Caligula occasionally gets thrown in because he was a somewhat extravagant character?

As she mentions early Christian martyrs, here is my reconstruction on how martyrologies came to be written:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Feet and Martyrologies
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/feet-and-martyrologies.html

And here is a taste on how dry it is:

11 Julii Quinto Idus Julii. Luna ... xiv. F

Romae sancti Pii Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui martyrio coronatus est in persecutione Marci Aurelii Antonini.

Bergomi sancti Joannis Episcopi, qui, ob tuendam catholicam fidem, ab Arianis occisus est.

Sidae, in Pamphylia, sancti Cindei Presbyteri, qui, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Stratonico Praeside, post multa tormenta, injectus in ignem et nil laesus, demum in oratione reddidit spiritum.

Cordubae, in Hispania, sancti Abundii Presbyteri, qui, in persecutione Arabica, cum in Mahumetis sectam inveheretur, martyrio coronatus est.

Nicopoli, in Armenia, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Januarii et Pelagiae, qui, equuleo, ungulis et testarum fragmentis per dies quatuor cruciati, martyrium impleverunt.

In territorio Senonensi sancti Sidronii Martyris.

Iconii, in Lycaonia, sancti Marciani Martyris, qui, sub Perennio Praeside, per multa tormenta pervenit ad palmam.

Brixiae sanctorum Martyrum Savini et Cypriani.

In territorio Pictaviensi sancti Sabini Confessoris.

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

Martyrologium Romanum : JULIUS
http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/17.htm

5:40 to 5:52

why would the Evangelicals - the Evangelists - leave out these various important parts from one Gospel to the next? You have one story in one Gospel and it's completely omitted in another.

Heard of being lazy or sloppy? Not writing Academic papers?

Marshall Adresses an Important Misunderstanding

C. S. Lewis and lots of others have argued, the fact of objective morality requires that there is a God - more specifically an eternal mind that is eternally moral before the finite minds are intermittently moral.

However, in debates, it so often happens "I don't need a God to tell me what's moral".

Here is the argument as repeated by Wallace Marshall, PhD.:

• If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
• Objective moral values and duties exist.
• Therefore, God exists.

And here is the self same adressing the misunderstanding and related ones:

To head off some common misunderstandings, note that the argument doesn’t claim that God needs to inform us, say in a revelation of some kind, about what’s right and wrong. Nor is it claiming that people need to believe in God in order to behave ethically. Rather, it’s about moral ontology: what morality is, and what seems necessary to ground it. Finally, note that each of the premises finds support among atheists.

The Carrier-Marshall Debate: Marshall’s Ninth Response
by Richard Carrier on July 4, 2019
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15591

Note, we can here adress a misunderstanding from the opposite side too : some Puritans think, we most certainly do need God to reveal what is right and what is wrong, because we are so totally corrupt after Adam's sin in our nature that we have nothing to trust at all in our own moral experience.

This is however against the Bible:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. Romans 1:18, 19

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him? Matthew 7:11 (closely paralleled by Luke 11:13)

In other words, people not justified are inexcusable for evil acts (in Romans 1 primarily idolatry) because they know of themselves what is right, and they are able to give good gifts to their children, even if they are evil, that is not justified. So, while they have a somewhat darkened moral sense, which needs correction from revelation, they do have a moral sense. Objective moral values and duties are accessible even to the non-Christians and even to those who having the faith are not justified.

Hence, this line of apologetics is perfectly licit.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Fontenay les Roses
St. Anthony Maria Zaccaria
5.VII.2019

Puddle Analogy

It so happens, Frank Turek's questioner and Frank Turek himself don't give the puddle analogy in very much detail.

This is what Genetically Modified Skeptic criticises first about a Turek video, in this video: "Atheists can't answer this question!" ...But We Can.

Now, before adressing it, I'll adress the puddle analogy.

I think I already did, but here is Douglas Adam's analogy in his own wording cited after a post about it:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

From : The Truth Will Make You Mad : The Puzzle of Existence and a Puddle of Doubt
https://thetruthwillmakeyoumad.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/the-puzzle-of-existence-and-a-puddle-of-doubt/

Well, holes do fit puddles very neatly.

A universe in which ground is uneven, in which water is heavy trying to get down to a centre of gravity and takes its shape from what hard objects stand between it and that centre of gravity, and in which water comes and goes over the ground is certainly meant to have puddles in it. Because puddles are good and desireable. Up to a point where you find a child having jumped in one needs to get the clothes changed, especially shoes and socks and probably pants, or if a girl stockings.

There is more to be said, if the puddle actually could think, the puddle would be an image of God - and already for that reason be a reason there is a universe.

The thing is, Adams seems to have two arguing points against teleological argument:

• 1) How about arguing equally persuasively that the universe was created for sth Christians do not say it was created for?
• 2) How about showing the egotism behind argument of fine tuning is not getting its way when it comes to guarantee the own survival?

And puddle analogy fits both points well at once.

First, Christians state the universe was created for man and in general for life, and a puddle is neither a man nor even a biological entity at all.

Second, puddles do individually dry up.

So, while the universe was more made for man than for wolves and more for wolves than for puddles, the universe was made for puddles too. Christians need to start saying the universe was made for puddles. Though not in the first place.

And while that puddle would be wrong in thinking it would individually survive, it would have been right to conclude instead (especially while starting to dry up) "I might not always be around, but the universe was made for the likes of me, and if I dry up, another will take my place, sooner or later!"

But as said, the analogy as presented breaks down because puddles do not think. They are not images of God.

It's about the same trick as when Heliocentrism was advertised in the 18th Century heavily with arguments like "Sirius (or any other star) must exist to be the sun of some planet, that planet must have inabitants, and those inhabitants, if trusting their senses, would also conceive of their planet as centre of the world, which it could be as well as Earth or as ill as Earth, but not concomitantly with Earth, therefore arguably neither planet is the centre."

Here we don't have a hypothetical sentient inhabitant of an exoplanet, we have hypothetical sentience of a puddle. And in both cases, the hypothetical parallel by a hypothetically as sentient as we being concluding with hypothetically equal absurdity or congruity to be central in one way or the other, as to place or as to purpose, is used as a very hypothetical reductio in absurdum.

But apart from that, any child who likes jumping into a puddle will tell you the universe ought to have puddles in it! And any parent would answer, the puddle was made for the child, so he could enjoy the puddle, and therefore the universe was made for that child. Which is much closer to very strict truth.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
Sts Peter and Paul's vigil
28.VI.2019

PS : Now I'll read "The Puzzle of Existence and a Puddle of Doubt" before watching the video by GMS.

Shared : Lita's defense

Defending the Resurrection
4.V.2019 by Lita Cosner answering feedback
https://creation.com/defending-resurrection

Shared : Lita's defense · Robert Sungenis Published a Book · Shorty with William P. Lazarus on Geocentrism · The ultimate bonus of Geocentrism

Answering 11 QQ for Christians

somewhere else : Answering 11 QQ for Christians · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : AronRa Tried to Answer 11 QQ for Atheists

QQ courtesy (or discourtesy) of Gage Blackwood under a video where AronRa gives answers to 11 Questions by a Christian, one which I am coming back to.

Q.1) Who was Cain's wife?

A.) His sister, or possibly his niece.

Q.2)In the week of creation, how was there an "evening and a morning" for three days when the sun wasn't made until the fourth day?

A.) God created a visible light without any physical light source and made it cover half of earth at a time and made it rotate around earth, like Sun does now.

Q.3) Why is there no evidence for Noah's flood and history continuing uninterrupted around the world at this time?

A.) I am sorry, what was the question again? Er, wait, "history" as in history of civilisations and at the time of the Flood?

Because you are dating the archaeology (and non-Hebrew histories) incorrectly in relation to the Flood.

Q.4) How could people in the bible live 500 - 1000 years when lifespans only reached 70 in the 20th century?

A.) You are confused over two issues, I'd say.

One is potential biological lifespan and average lifespan. In the 20th C child mortality decreased so much that average lifespan increased notably, but this has no bearing on how long one can live biologically, only how protected one is from certain types of premature death. Also, cases of diabetes type 1 are living longer now, not just child mortality.

But the fact remains, we have not evolved so as to have longer biologically possible lifespans.

The other is - starting from a presumed "evolution" to longer lifespans lately, you conclude there was never a devolution to shorter ones, when the Bible says there was and you have no scientific argument whatsover to counter this.

Q.5) Why were they already speaking and writing Chinese in China and Sanskrit in India long before god "mixed up languages" at the Tower of Babel? Why don't all cultures around the world trace their origins to the exact same spot in a Babylonia?

A.) I think Australians, Babylonians, Polynesians all very clearly trace their culture to Göbekli Tepe. If the tower was a failed rocket project rather than a failed architectonic project, the Chinese developing fire crackers would be another case of tracing one's culture back there.

Q.6) Why is there no evidence at all for the presence of millions of Israelite slaves in Egypt and a miraculous "Exodus." Why didn't neighboring empires even notice such a major blow to the area's superpower and loss of its army?

A.) What exact neighbour should have noticed what?

I think the Hyksos, alias Amalekites, definitely did notice there was no Egyptian army, and took advantage of it.

What more do you ask?

Q.7) Why is the Ark of the Covenant missing? How do you know it even existed?

A.) Most objects and people in history are missing, and the Ark was deliberately hidden.

Q.8) How could Jesus claim descent from the royal line of King David if Joseph was not his biological father?

A.) The Blessed Virgin was also of Davidic as well as Aaronitic descent. One person in Luke noted as adoptive father of Joseph or his father was biological father of the Blessed Virgin or of Her father.

Q.9) Why is there not a single contemporary eyewitness to Jesus' ministry OUTSIDE the bible?

A.) You are familiar with how well preserved contemporary eywitnesses to anything back then are? For the span AD 30 to AD 96, not very much at all, unless it was essentially divorceable from contemporary public affairs and history. The Roman historians writing this span now preserved are called ... Matthew, Mark, Luke and Flavius Josephus. None other.

Q.10) Why do good people and innocent children suffer terribly while evil rotten people often live long healthy lives?

A.) It was answered in "Consolation of Philosophy" written by Boethius while he was waiting for execution on a charge he was innocent of. Good and bad things both happen to both good and bad people in this life.

• a) a good thing happens to a good man - a foretaste of Heaven so he doesn't get discouraged.
• b) a bad thing happens to a good man - some punishment, since he won't be punished in Hell.
• c) a good thing happens to a bad man - some reward, since he won't be rewarded in Heaven.
• d) a bad thing hapens to a bad man - a warning, so he gets a chance to repent before getting to Hell.

Q.11) Why did god himself in the bible commit or order the murder of millions of innocent people - especially children. How can you worship such a genocidal mons

A.) Thanks for interrupting the charge.

God is Lord of life and death. He is also absolute arbiter of justice and absolutely aware of where people go after they die.

The reason human judges are not allowed to kill innocent babies along with guilty parents is, we are not any of these.

As to the times when Israelites carried out God's collective death penalties on some, well, God used them as an executioner.