The Number of 'Hebrews' who departed from 'Egypt' in Biblical Exodus was*~600 familie

Hello Vasnas, very interesting, though not sure I can agree with it. I will say that there are some curiosities in regards to numbers in the Bible, but this is of a magnitude greater than what I have encountered before.

For example:

If it sought to make the actual time in Egypt 43 years rather than 430, and this is based upon a proposed insertion by interpreters, my question would be do you also see this imposition in the Greek...


Galatians 3:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


...?

If the time given is erroneously interpreted in the Hebrew, do you see that as impacting the Greek. Did the New Testament Writer here, Paul erroneously state the time incorrectly?

I would also like to ask, are you a Baptist?

God bless.

 

Key phrase:
"Necessary unmiricalizing"



.

 

Sorry, but time is limited this morning, so just in reading about half, and a good portion of the latter half of it being in a language I can't understand, I feel I do you no disservice in presenting the question I have.

If you feel it is an invalid question please explain why, but, we see that the Greek text agrees with the Hebrew, and there is no discrepancy. Did Paul "miracalize" the same position taught in the Hebrew? If so, would this not conflict with the dating of the miracalization given in the paper?

And another question fairly easy to answer would be...are you a Baptist?


God bless.

 

It reeks of a common sentiment - if it doesn't make sense according to common human reasoning, then it must have been altered, fabricated, exaggerated, etc, and therefore must be corrected, or altogether rejected.

It's a purely naturalistic world view, an error

If we went back in time, and told the Exodus generation that we stuff 200 people into a metal tube with wings, and it flies halfway around the world, their natural tendency would be to reject it.

Whether it's technological or supernatural, people tend to not believe that which they don't understand. And if you insist on that as your starting position, then it is dishonest from the beginning.

And for me, if the starting premise is dishonest, the conclusion is biased and not worthy of serious consideration.

 

:laugh:

It couldn't be 43 years unless the entire narrative is false. Some generations of Hebrews had lived in Egypt prior to the time of Moses, and Moses spent 40 years in exile.

So, even if the Exodus were the unmiraculous departure of around 6,000 or so people, 43 years smacks of a George Lucas incredulity, where a galaxy falls to despotism and is redeemed before the son of the one who ushered in the ruin is out of his 20's.

So, the real point of the article is that all of Exodus is false, and only those tidbits which seem to indict Exodus are reliable, because they indict Exodus.

:laugh:

 

I think your one word is ok, but not the sentiment. Sorry for the botched spelling earlier, never have put that suffix on the back end of miracle.

"They made it into a miracle by distorting or changing...."

You say the biblical account is false because 400 years would produce too many people to make a realistic account.

It seems an obviously subtle attempt to discount the whole of scripture.

Why not question the Israelites passing over on dry ground?
Why not question the reality of the plagues?
Why not question the manna?

Because those are too obvious. You showed your hand with your 1 word.



.