Dude, it's the first two or three pages of this very thread, just look it up.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As other forumites have stated before me, just the genealogy you use in your post is a physical and biological impossibility.
And I also subscribe to their asessments about Biblical (or any other religious) literalism. The Bible is a compilation of texts written by human beings during a long period of time, in most cases rewritten and modified time and again. And it can and must be studied in a neutral (non-sectarian) and rigorous manner, which means that it must be subjected to textual analysis (which by now is two centuries old), and analyzed according to its historical context and comparing it to the archeological record.
And all these lines of study (textual anaylisis, historical analysis and archaelogical excavations) make abundantly clear that to take the Old Testament at face value, logic and critical thinking must be discarded. And to do that, religious faith is needed. But what's being discussed in this thread is not religious doctrine based on faith, but the historicity of the Biblical narrative. And the only way to adress that is by the methods listed above.
I don't understand the sentence in bold at all. I'm pretty sure the Bible says the Moabites worshipped Chemosh and his ilk.
Right, so it does. But in another part, the Bible says that Moabites descend from Lot who is said to worship YHW. This led Stars_and_Bars to claim (post #91) that the Moabites would naturally worship YHW; that's what I was reacting to. I'm sure that any discrepancies between the bits that you refer to and SaB's inference will be explained away, though, Biblical literalism is surprisingly flexible.
The bible specifies that when Joseph and his family entered Egypt their number was 70. That means Jacob, his wife, his twelve sons, perhaps even his unspecified number of daughters, perhaps their husbands, their wives, their children, perhaps even their children, their wives, and their children. It not my aim to find whether something is probable but to decide whether something isn't implausible. We are talking about a people who certainly would have married their daughters at a younger age, married multiple wives, and would have been actively trying to procreate all the days of their life. Yes life was brutal, but the worst stage of life was infant-hood with high mortality which drastically skews life expectancy to a young age. Most literary sources from the ancient world tend to mention those individuals in their societies that have reached old age at extremes which our modern perceptions find shocking. It is the natural modern impulse to consider these records exaggerated if not outright fabricated. If these records of extremes are discounted then we have to rely on secondary methods for estimating life expectancy but also the extremes of age. This are inevitably fraught with modern bias and are self-serving. I find it reasonable to believe that there have always been people of extreme age its just that in modern times it is merely more common.
The claim is to investigate whether or not a man who had twelve sons by four wives with an unspecified number of daughters could have the number of his family( himself, his spouses, his descendants and their likewise close relations) be 70 at the time of his death.
It was not my assertion that the Moabites worshiped YHWH, If you look back at my post I was quoting Semper Victor(post# 52) who posited a possibility that such a thing was true. My response was to show that within the cultural narrative of the Israelites such a thing should not be considered shocking if it were in fact true. I did NOT claim that it was true but merely provided a reasoned explanation in which it would not contradict the cultural narrative of the Israelites if it were in fact true.
If you are to find it impossible that the genealogy as I have presented in my interpretation of exodus to be impossible you must have in mind some ballpark number about what the population of these tribes are. I will also you remind you that the "Israelites" were not considered to be "numerous" until some point in their stay in Egypt.
It also says the Hebrews are the Children of God and worshipped Him; but periodically they wandered away from him time and again to worship Golden Calves and the Mediteranean Mother goddess cult.
So just because you begin worshipping something doesn't mean that doesn't change over time as generational memories fade.
Not that God changed, or has ever changed, or will ever change.
God could change, but if he did, would do so outside of time, so would have always been that way, so how would you know?
Anyway, the Tribes descended from individuals thing, isn't supported by anyone, even biblical literalists tend to go with it meaning leading tribes of other people, or tribe/nation not actually meaning a large group of people, but a small family. There have even been bibles that translate it into House (as in dynasty), although they were also pretty dodgy in other parts.
So it's not a place to build an argument from. You need solid ground to build on, no shakey pebbles that no can agree if they're even there.
Anyway, the Tribes descended from individuals thing, isn't supported by anyone, even biblical literalists tend to go with it meaning leading tribes of other people, or tribe/nation not actually meaning a large group of people, but a small family. There have even been bibles that translate it into House (as in dynasty), although they were also pretty dodgy in other parts.
So it's not a place to build an argument from. You need solid ground to build on, no shakey pebbles that no can agree if they're even there.
I would find it quite natural to subject the various interpretations of the bible to analysis from other sources. However in my reading of the bible never have I found it possible to conclude that there is a "literal" interpretation. as such there is not one settled position that can be discarded wholesale. There are many interpretations which are inherently flawed that must be revised/discarded. Now if I am to discount certain facets of an interpretation or start from scratch after discarding it entirely I will certainly need a reason to do so. Therefore there must be a class of historical sources, granted I put more credence in Literary sources above prehistorical sources, but certainly there must be a conflict/disagreement. if there is no such conflict then I am not inclined to discount it as a theory.
Now there is much controversy over whether or not the entire, the majority, or just the ruling class of the Israelites could all be descended from one man (Jacob). Likewise the question of whether or not the entire, the majority, or just the ruling class can be descended from a single ruler for the Edomites, Ammonites, or the Moabites is also controversial. I would discard the claim that the entirety of a population say the Israelites must be descended from Abraham for that claim is far too absolute and evidence that a single "Israelite" is not descendant from Abraham would disprove it. It should be noted however that the suffix -ite generally means that the population claims to be descended from the prefixed person, as such to say that an Israelite is not descended from Israel (Jacob) would be counter-intuitive in that sense because it would mean that they are not in fact an Israelite. All of that aside, I would like to evaluate claims at hand.
I would interpret the book of Exodus with the following claims on which I shall give my opinion, but this is what I interpret the claims to be. It is recorded that Israel(Jacob) had twelve sons by his four wives (Genesis 35:22-26) I see no reason to doubt this claim. It is also recorded that when the entirety of Jacob's family (perhaps household) entered to live in Egypt they numbered 70 (Exodus 1:4). It is recorded that when the Israelites left Egypt they left in a group of six hundred thousand men (not including children and women are not counted) with a large number of animals. It says that this was a "mixed multitude" which I interpret to mean that it wasn't only the Israelites that left Egypt. This would fit with the claim bounced around earlier regarding other Semitic peoples migrating into Egypt for purposes of work and the like. The number of course is of some issue, however because 600,000 is only referring to grown men which would mean that the total population of people who left Egypt would probably be twice that or more and that it a concern because the population of Egypt during this time period is estimated to between 2 and 4 million, though it would fit with the claim that the Israelites (and other Semites) grew to a population size that would make the pharaoh feel threatened. It should be noted that modern estimates of population are not without assumption and possess fundamentally assumptions about how much the land could support and how densely cities/houses could be populated.
I do not find it to be a physical impossibility that 70 people could be descended/affiliated to one man by the time of his death, nor is it a physical impossibility that 600,000 (or some unknown fraction of 600,000) men plus their women and children could be descended/affiliated from one man. These do seem to be generally improbable and perhaps "statistically impossible". It is beyond my current ability to answer such a question. I would however, not discount the possibility without sufficient support. In statistics (given a null hypothesis) we never say that the evidence has proven the Null hypothesis, but statisticians do reject hypotheses because given a certain distribution/model they are considered to be highly unlikely. I have never thought the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence nor do I consider that I should reject a claim because i cannot prove it, I would reject it if it is (somehow) proven false. given all of this I can only say what I distinctly think the question to be a what might be evidence of proof or disproof.
following statistical methods, a model for growth (perhaps approximate to exponential growth) would be made to consider what would be necessary for a man with four wives to produce a family (including spouses) that number seventy by the time of his death. It wouldn't have to be necessarily at the time of his death for Jacob is claimed to live in Egypt 17 years, of course he is also recorded to live to be 147 but that is another can of worms which I do not think I can answer. Then from there a person would make a model of how 70 people might become 600,000+ or some fraction of that number is an ill defined period of time. Then given the models that would make that possible which to us seem improbable, some measure of possibility or credence might be given for such a possibility. My method of answering the question is vague because I do not hold too tightly to settled positions and I am willing to reinterpret scripture and other historical documents as new evidence and new opinions present themselves. However, I am strictly against discounting something without proper evidence.
Here is the time for the disclaimer. It is probable that I fight to defend some claims more thoroughly than others, that I give credence to some sources more highly than others, that I disagree with certain temperaments more firmly than others, and that there will be opinions and sources of which I am entirely unaware. I find it almost inevitable that this behavior will happen some of the time as it will happen for everyone, It is my hope that I commit such behaviors sparingly and not egregiously. I do not claim to be infallible nor do I claim to be omniscient.
You just follow the Bible too close. I rather accept that is the recorded myth of the Israel (and is similar to nearby middle east peoples' myths). Most of the Bible story can have acceptable
scientific explanations if we scale down the miracles
I don't think anything could explain or justifies the red sea parting myth however.
There are lots of explainations for that.
But also, Oral history, heavily edited multiple times deliberately, and with lots of confusion from the whole, oral history being imperfect at staying the same over time thing.
It's not the miracles that are the problem with the bible, it's the time line, generations who weren't important being skipped over, and the simplifications with tribes coming from single people in a really short amount of time, when likely that was a 'Everyones descended from someone in the Aeneid' type device to link everyone together under the crown rather than actual history, and that was the time we know it was being messed about with for politics.
The miracles are nothing compared with all the mundane problems with it.
- 1
The first 4 pages of this are really interesting, thanks to everyone who wrote such knowledgeable posts.
Scale it down to a story of a group of people crossing some sea water by foot, then it is possible. There is a very narrow and swallow place at the Straits of Tiran, dotted by some tiny island. In 3000 years before the sea level may be lower than today, so people might cross it at low tidal.
Hmm and as i remember faraos charriots followed them all the way there? Seems like a abudant amount of time to catch up.
WHy not say, what if they crossed right near the north end where it's shallow and kind of peters out instead of finding somewhere really far away?
Or say that the crossing the sea bit was an embellishment tacked on later to make the story more dramatic or to incorporate another story that it's original form has since been forgotten?
Where as those manna from heaven trees that are now a tourist attraction, as they're where their crossing ended up, so wherever that is, maybe they took a boat? and then the oral history said 'Crossed the Red Sea under Miraculous Circumstances' meaning against all luck they found boats, but never mentioned the boats and centuries later someone noticed they had no idea what those miraculous circumstances were so assumed it meant the sea being made crossable.
Or say that the crossing the sea bit was an embellishment tacked on later to make the story more dramatic or to incorporate another story that it's original form has since been forgotten?
Where as those manna from heaven trees that are now a tourist attraction, as they're where their crossing ended up, so wherever that is, maybe they took a boat? and then the oral history said 'Crossed the Red Sea under Miraculous Circumstances' meaning against all luck they found boats, but never mentioned the boats and centuries later someone noticed they had no idea what those miraculous circumstances were so assumed it meant the sea being made crossable.
Actually there is a possibility. Undersea canals between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea have been found. And ~1600 BC almost the entire island of Santorini blew up as the volcano there collapsed into the sea. That triggered one monster of a tsunami which most likely is a large part of the reason for why the Minoans disappeared. That tsunami deposited sediment at ridiculous heights on Crete, so it is known that it was really really large. Egypt lies unobstructed from Santorini so the tsunami will have reached the Mediterreanean coast of Egypt. It is not impossible that it could---at least in part---have influenced part of the Red Sea.
And just before a tsunami hits the sea disappears before coming rushing back at full force drowning everybody so unfortunate to be caught by it.
Also the crossing of the red sea could have been a crossing of some inlet on the mediterrenean coast.
It is all possible. But because it is an oral and recorded story, maybe long before the story was chosen to put into the Bible so the reasonable thing is that there is some even small real story about it.
The southern road: guys at Bible.ca chose it because they have all in the Bible: desert, mountain, safety after sea crossing. The Egyptian still control far land on the North, and their army can go around the sea there to pursuit. But if you crossed at Straight of Tiran, you will be safe from the Egyptian. Believe me boat is quite a rare thing in 1500BC!
the Exodus story is one of the most difficult thing to explain, because it is full of details and unbelievable miracles, and it will need to follow actual history and geography. On the other hand, thanks to the details, it suggest there is some real in it.
The manna is easier to explain. When you are hungry and need to eat some unnamed strange fruits for too many years. Then these fruits will soon be god-send manna.
Last edited:
But that' not a more reasobable a solution. A Volcano and tidal wave at the exact right time, is MORE miraculous than God parting the waters.
Even in the middle ages it was assumed that the parting of the waters was a metaphor that got out of hand as it got passed down through oral tradition, it's weird that all the secular 'scientific' theories today start from that it actually happened when the religious ones didn't.
No there's an actual tree, that when ripe, actually 'throws' it's fruit from the tree onto the ground at the right time of day. And is commonly found the whole way along the supposed route.
There is no easier to explain or need to explain.
It's an ACTUAL thing. I just can't remember what tree it is right now as I haven't read that book in ages, but a quick googling suggests it's a type of Tamarisk.
The big that needs to be explained is why the story says they survived on manna and nothing else, when the story also goes out of its way to mention the livestock and supplies they brought with them, and describes a journey through places that contain lots of food to forage, people to trade with and even oceans with fish in.
But presumably the Manna would have atleast been the only source of sweet and sugar. As it's unlikely they managed to somehow bring bees along with them for honey, so that could be it.
Last edited: