Science for juvenissun 01

[Scotishfury09]

You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. Numbers 1:3

These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel's army were counted according to their families. The total number was 603,550. Numbers 1:44-46

Ok, so we see that after the Exodus Aaron and Moses take a census of the wandering Israelites. The number of men older than twenty and able to serve in Israel's army numbered 603,550. Men able to serve in the army, that means not counting women, children and sick/lame/elderly men. 603,550! Plus, that's also not including the entire tribe of Levi. Assume that for every man counted there is at least 2 family members that are not counted. Adding all of that up, the nation of Israel numbered over 1.8 million people before they even settle in the land of Canaan!

The population of Israel today is 6 and a half million. Source

No wonder the Israelites were able to conquer the Canaanites so easily, they had to outnumber them 40:1.

Juvenissun (and the rest of you YECs), how do you explain the numbers here?

 

[juvenissun]

You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. Numbers 1:3

These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel's army were counted according to their families. The total number was 603,550. Numbers 1:44-46

Ok, so we see that after the Exodus Aaron and Moses take a census of the wandering Israelites. The number of men older than twenty and able to serve in Israel's army numbered 603,550. Men able to serve in the army, that means not counting women, children and sick/lame/elderly men. 603,550! Plus, that's also not including the entire tribe of Levi. Assume that for every man counted there is at least 2 family members that are not counted. Adding all of that up, the nation of Israel numbered over 1.8 million people before they even settle in the land of Canaan!

The population of Israel today is 6 and a half million. Source

No wonder the Israelites were able to conquer the Canaanites so easily, they had to outnumber them 40:1.

Juvenissun (and the rest of you YECs), how do you explain the numbers here?

Pardon me for my slowness. But what is the question? What's the problem with the numbers?

 

[theFijian]

The population of Israel today is 6 and a half million. Source

What bout those killed in the Holocaust? Or the diaspora? From Wikipedia I calculated another 5.3 million at least. Don't know if it makes that much of a difference to your point.

 

[Smidlee]

The scriptures does mention the fact that the numbers of Jews was large enough to bring fear to Pharaoh which cause him to act to reduce their numbers.The 600 thousand that could fight doesn't remove the fact that most of these were slaves and not trained solders. Thus Pharaoh could control a large number of salves with a smaller number of solders.

 

[Scotishfury09]

What bout those killed in the Holocaust? Or the diaspora? From Wikipedia I calculated another 5.3 million at least. Don't know if it makes that much of a difference to your point.

Well I think that has to do with the fact that a large majority of practicing Jews don't live in Israel. I don't think it has all that much to do with the nation of Israel itself.

The scriptures does mention the fact that the numbers of Jews was large enough to bring fear to Pharaoh which cause him to act to reduce their numbers.The 600 thousand that could fight doesn't remove the fact that most of these were slaves and not trained solders. Thus Pharaoh could control a large number of salves with a smaller number of solders.

Even though that is a true aspect, my point lies more along the lines of the population after the Exodus in relation to current day Israel. It's almost one third of the population. Not a possibility. If you look at almost any archaeological tell from antiquity you'll see that there is no possible way that any of the cities were able to support this many people residentially or agriculturally.

 

[Smidlee]

If you look at almost any archaeological tell from antiquity you'll see that there is no possible way that any of the cities were able to support this many people residentially or agriculturally.

If we didn't still have the Pyramids around would archaeological believe it was possible? Haven't we found other things built in the past we didn't think it's possible given that time period? Also wasn't Israel in the past ( the land of Canaan) bigger than today's Israel?
So I guess your point is you believe the writer lied yet why would the writer lie about the numbers?

 

[Scotishfury09]

If we didn't still have the Pyramids around would archaeological believe it was possible? Haven't we found other things built in the past we didn't think it's possible given that time period? Also wasn't Israel in the past ( the land of Canaan) bigger than today's Israel?

Not by near enough to account for numbers that size.

So I guess your point is you believe the writer lied yet why would the writer lie about the numbers?

I don't think the writer lied to us. I think the translation is off. The word used for "thousand" is the Hebrew word 'eleph. It can mean a numerical thousand or it can also mean a company of men under one leader, i.e. the head of the household. Take for example Numbers 1:21

The number from the tribe of Reuben was 46,500.

Instead of the number 46,500, it would be: Out of 46 families in the tribe of Reuben, 500 men (capable of fighting) were found.


My point in all of this is that if we don't look outside the Bible at the geography and anthropology we don't see that these numbers are way too big. Don't be foolish and ignorant, use extra biblical and credible sources to understand the Bible more fully.

 

[juvenissun]

You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. Numbers 1:3

These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel's army were counted according to their families. The total number was 603,550. Numbers 1:44-46

Ok, so we see that after the Exodus Aaron and Moses take a census of the wandering Israelites. The number of men older than twenty and able to serve in Israel's army numbered 603,550. Men able to serve in the army, that means not counting women, children and sick/lame/elderly men. 603,550! Plus, that's also not including the entire tribe of Levi. Assume that for every man counted there is at least 2 family members that are not counted. Adding all of that up, the nation of Israel numbered over 1.8 million people before they even settle in the land of Canaan!

The population of Israel today is 6 and a half million. Source

No wonder the Israelites were able to conquer the Canaanites so easily, they had to outnumber them 40:1.

Juvenissun (and the rest of you YECs), how do you explain the numbers here?

I am still lost. Should I answer any question here?
I ask because my name is on the thread. Otherwise, I will not read this one.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I am still lost. Should I answer any question here?
I ask because my name is on the thread. Otherwise, I will not read this one.

As for your name being the in the name of the thread, it was mostly jesting at your series of lectures on the science found in the Bible.

As for the question you should answer, try looking for your name in the OP

 

[juvenissun]

As for your name being the in the name of the thread, it was mostly jesting at your series of lectures on the science found in the Bible.

As for the question you should answer, try looking for your name in the OP

What about post #2 on this thread? I don't see any answer on that from you.

 

[juvenissun]

As for your name being the in the name of the thread, it was mostly jesting at your series of lectures on the science found in the Bible.

As for the question you should answer, try looking for your name in the OP

OK, I see it from responses of others.

I do not know the answer. You are suggesting the Jews at that time were too many to be supported by the available sources of food. I know very little about this aspect. Why would you expect any answer from me?

 

[Scotishfury09]

What about post #2 on this thread? I don't see any answer on that from you.

That is my fault. I must have skipped over it for some reason or another. Probably too many ads

OK, I see it from responses of others.

I do not know the answer. You are suggesting the Jews at that time were too many to be supported by the available sources of food. I know very little about this aspect. Why would you expect any answer from me?

Well, as I already said the whole point of the name was to jest at your threads. I wasn't trying to get into a debate with only you and I apologize if it was seen that way.

Even if you don't know very much about it, you don't find it a little troublesome? At some point you have to take a look at parts of the Bible and say, "there is something wrong here." Most likely it's ignorance on our part. Once you do that you should try and find out why it's wrong. Don't assume that you're going to learn everything God wants us to learn only by reading the Bible.

I think I've made my case already, but if there is anyone who thinks they can rationalize the numbers here as being accurate, I'd love to debate that.

 

[juvenissun]

That is my fault. I must have skipped over it for some reason or another. Probably too many ads



Well, as I already said the whole point of the name was to jest at your threads. I wasn't trying to get into a debate with only you and I apologize if it was seen that way.

Even if you don't know very much about it, you don't find it a little troublesome? At some point you have to take a look at parts of the Bible and say, "there is something wrong here." Most likely it's ignorance on our part. Once you do that you should try and find out why it's wrong. Don't assume that you're going to learn everything God wants us to learn only by reading the Bible.

I think I've made my case already, but if there is anyone who thinks they can rationalize the numbers here as being accurate, I'd love to debate that.

Well said. You did raise an interesting question. I would like to look into this problem when I could. There are so many things I do not know in the Bible. Your analysis can certainly be counted as one of them, only it takes some inspirations and a person like you to raise this question. And I say that you should try to do more. May be some of your later questions would give a hint to one of your earlier questions.

 

[Smidlee]

Take for example Numbers 1:21

The number from the tribe of Reuben was 46,500.

Instead of the number 46,500, it would be: Out of 46 families in the tribe of Reuben, 500 men (capable of fighting) were found.

Interesting yet I took the time and add up the numbers from all the tribes. The total was 603,550 men. I went back and add up by your interpretation (thousand = families ) and came up with 598 families and 5,550 men. Did I missed something here?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Interesting yet I took the time and add up the numbers from all the tribes. The total was 603,550 men. I went back and add up by your interpretation (thousand = families ) and came up with 598 families and 5,550 men. Did I missed something here?

I'm guessing you think that's too many people for only that many families. Families in the ANE culture weren't like families today. Families consisted of a lot more people than what we're accustomed to. Take a look in Genesis at Abraham's family. You'll notice it describes his slaves as his family too. Not that the newly independent Hebrews had very many, if any, slaves, but my point is that what we traditionally see as a family of parents, maybe grandparents and children is not quite the same.

 

[Smidlee]

That's not what I meant. The total in Numbers read "six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty." If your interpretation is correct then why does it not read something like "five hundred and fourscore and eighteen thousand and five thousand and five hundred and fifty." ?

P.S I read years ago in a Scofield bible that there is a problem with the translation of Hebrew numbers. So I agree there are some numbers in the OT that are questionable.

 

[Scotishfury09]

That's not what I meant. The total in Numbers read "six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty." If your interpretation is correct then why does it not read something like "five hundred and fourscore and eighteen thousand and five thousand and five hundred and fifty." ?

P.S I read years ago in a Scofield bible that there is a problem with the translation of Hebrew numbers. So I agree there are some numbers in the OT that are questionable.

That's a good question. I do know that the Hebrews assigned numeric values to all of their characters which means that numbers look exactly like words. I don't know very much about Hebrew in general let alone their numbers. Assyrian seems to grasp Hebrew fairly well (or so it seems to me). He might have an answer.

I'm taking Greek now, but I'll be taking Hebrew next year, maybe I'll find out and report back