Now the time that the sons of Israel had lived in Egypt was 430 years.
Most Christians believe this because their Bibles say this plainly. Most Christians don't even bother to question this number, as with many things in their belief system. But this is actually not mathematically possible.
Moses was 80 years old when he and Aaron spoke to Pharoah (Exodus 7:8), which was significantly less than 1 year before the Israelites left Egypt. Their father Amram died at the age of 137 (Exodus 6:20). His father Kohath died at the age of 133 (Exodus 6:18). And Kohath was one of the 66 persons who came to Egypt with Jacob (Genesis 46:11,26).
So let's stretch this out as far as we possibly can. Let's assume that Kohath was a newborn baby when he came to Egypt, Amram was born the year Kohath died, and that Moses was born the year Amram died. 133 + 137 + 80 = 350. According to the Bible, the Israelites could not have been in Egypt for any longer than 350 years. Even when you stretch out the timeline as much as humanly possible, even to the point of proposing an absolutely ridiculous and blatantly unrealistic scenario, it still falls a whopping 80 years short. Clearly, the Israelites were not in Egypt for 430 years. They were in Egypt for significantly less than 350 years.
So how long were they really in Egypt? Well, Moses received the law 430 years after Abraham received the promise (Galatians 3:16-17). So the timeline begins when Abraham received the promise. Abraham was 75 years old when he received the promise and entered Canaan (Genesis 12:3-5,7). 25 years later, when Abraham was 100, Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5). 60 years later, Jacob was born to Isaac when he was 60 (Genesis 25:26). 130 years later, all of Israel entered Egypt (Genesis 47:9). 25 + 60 + 130 = 215. So, Israel entered Egypt 215 years after Abraham entered Canaan.
And because Moses received the law the same year Israel left Egypt, that means that the time Israel left Egypt marks the end of this timeline. 430 - 215 = 215, meaning that the Israelites were in Egypt for 215 years. That is mathematically possible, and it is significantly less than 350 years, meaning that no insane scenario needs to be proposed in order to say this.
So why does the Bible say they were in Egypt for 430 years, when this is not mathematically possible? Well, because all of our Bibles are translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text, which was copied between the 6th and 10th centuries. But there are other texts that account the same history.
The Greek Septuagint says, "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, four hundred and thirty years."
The Samaritan Pentateuch says, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and fathers of them, who dwelt in Canaan and in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."
Flavius Josephus said in Book II Chapter 15 paragraph 2 of Antiquities of the Jews, "They left Egypt...four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt."
All of these texts, which are all older than the Hebrew Masoretic text, bare witness to this timeline, in fact Flavius Josephus describes it exactly. In fact, technically the Hebrew Masoretic serves as a witness to this timeline, because of the numbers it puts forth in other verses, meaning that it bares witness against itself. So given the fact that many writings, which are all older than the Hebrew Masoretic text, testify to a different timeline than this one single writing, and given the fact that that single writing's timeline isn't even possible in the first place, this timeline is obviously the true one.
But the Israelites were enslaved for even less time than that. The Israelites were only enslaved after Joseph and all that generation died, and a new king arose who did not know Joseph (Exodus 1:6,8). Well Joseph was 30 years old when he entered Pharoah's service (Genesis 41:46). Shortly after that, the infamous 7 years of abundance and 7 years of famine occurred. So in the middle, Joseph was very likely 37 years old. It was 2 years later that Israel entered Egypt, because the famine had already been happening for 2 years (Genesis 45:6). This would make Joseph 39 years old when Isreal entered Egypt, and this begins the 215 years that they were in Egypt.
71 years later, Joseph died at the age of 110 (Genesis 50:22). This means that Egypt was under Joseph's rule for 71 years, and since they were not enslaved until after Joseph and all that generation died, they were not enslaved for this entire time. The Israelites were not enslaved for at least 71 years. Additionally, Moses was 80 when Israel left Egypt, and they were already slaves when he was born. 215 - 80 - 71 = 64, meaning there were 64 years in-between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses. They were not slaves when Joseph died, but they were slaves when Moses was born, and the timeline ends 80 years after Moses was born. So they became enslaved at some point during a 64 year time period.
This gives us a final number of 112 ± 32 years, meaning that the Israelites were enslaved for 112 ± 32 years. And they were in Egypt for 215 years.
But what about the prophecy? Didn't God Himself tell Abraham that his descendants would be enslaved in Egypt for 400 years? No. Here's what He actually said: "Then God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years." (Genesis 15:13). This prophecy is more specific than simply saying "Your descendants will be enslaved in Egypt for 400 years." And this extra piece of nuance is important.
Isaac, Jacob, and the multitudes in Egypt were all Abraham's descendants. Both Canaan and Egypt were lands that were not theirs. And they were oppressed during this time as well (Genesis 21:9, Galatians 4:29). And then of course the Israelites were enslaved.
Now, from Abraham receiving the promise to Moses receiving the law, there was 430 years. Isaac was born 25 years later, and he was weaned on the same day Ishmael scoffed at Isaac. In Talmudic times, it was customary to celebrate a child's weaning anywhere from 18 months to 5 years old. And if Isaac was weaned at 5 years old, then that means he was weaned 30 years after Abraham received the promise; which is exactly 400 years before Israel left Egypt. And this is when the oppression began. This is when the events God spoke about began.
God was right. Abraham's descendants was oppressed and enslaved in a land not theirs for exactly 400 years. Not any more, not any less. This is the real biblical timeline.
Conclusion: Biblically speaking, the Israelites were in Egypt for 215 years, and only enslaved for 112 ± 32 years. But God's prophecy was still true, because Abraham's descendants were enslaved and oppressed in a land not theirs for exactly 400 years. The Hebrew Masoretic text dropped the phrase "and Canaan" from the text, which has caused people to wildly misinterpret what really happened.
Well, there is no such thing as a known god, and "biblically speaking" the OT is a collection of reinterpreted and inaccurate folk tales...That said there will be certain elements of realism and certain elements of miscalculation...Certainly people didn't live to be 133 and it's also fair to suggest that "years" were calculated differently...Given that the word year has later origins and wasn't necessarily representative of solar activity.
You clearly do not understand what "biblically speaking" means. A biblical worldview proposes that the stories in the Bible are not inaccurate folk tales like you say. It is of course a counter-argument to completely ignore all of the numbers and say "yeah well it never happened" as a response, which is precisely why the phrase "biblically speaking" is in the title, so the discussion is strictly within the Christian and biblical worldview. But you completely ignore that so you can talk about a different worldview anyway, which of course completely misses the point of this debate.
Now, the notion that people lived for 133 years is indeed pretty insane. But it's actually way more insane than that, because Genesis 5 records many people living into their 900s, with the oldest being Methuselah at 969 years old, and he only died because of Noah's Flood, not old age. Many people find this so unbelievable that they have to pretend that a genealogy is "metaphorical," and will even go as far as to say that it is "most-likely" metaphorical, for absolutely no reason other than to make the argument sound better.
But the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were originally created in a perfect world, with perfect bodies, in a world with no death. Of course their bodies were highly superior to ours, they were created perfect originally, and even after the fall of sin, they still had the same bodies, capable of passing on the same genetics. So people's bodies were simply better, in just about every metric imaginable. If you were to ask someone, "What is the most optimal human the laws of physics could possibly allow to exist," followed by "What would this person be capable of," they would not know. Who knows what such a perfect human could do.
Well, the Bible gives us the answer. The answer is: live to their 900s, be fertile for hundreds of years, and yes, even commit incest. There existed no history of genetic mutation, so why would there ever be a genetic risk to incest back then? There was none. That only came up later after people's DNA became riddled with so many mistakes that it was banned, and so it has been for thousands of years.
Also, this thing about years being calculated differently is nonsense. The only thing the ancients calculated different about years was time periods, in fact even today different cultures calculate the year differently. But this is simply the number of nonetheless real years since a certain point in time. Not that the length of years are or ever were calculated differently. So when we're talking about the age of someone in years, those were not calculated differently.
And just so we're clear, the original word in biblical Hebrew meant year.
The fact that as a species we continue today to condition our offspring with illogical mythical non-sense in the form of an archaic mythological world view, is what it was and what it has become...And of course toady we still have the big four theo-political empires, that arose out of the Abrahamic pseudo-hypothesis several thousand years ago in the semi-deserts of the Middle East, all vying for world power and mind control over as many acolytes as they can muster...So all have books of tales to tell and some tales are clearly exaggerated and imbued with fantasy, and such inspires some aspects of world views today in the minds of the appropriately conditioned.
So in an ancient Middle Eastern realm it is perhaps accurately recorded that 969 was an achievable age, though like I stated "years" came much later...Even so, by todays standards of logic and knowledge we know that this age cannot relate to 969 solar years...So divide by 13, and and we end up with a 74 year old man (solar) who indeed did reach a ripe old age before he drowned during a localised flooding event...You work it out.
As for the story of Adam and Eve...Well such is an early morality tale...And so, Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, Cain murders Abel and Cain is banished to nod where he starts a family...Explain logically.
Fortunately worldviews that incorporate archaic mythological creation and existence hypotheses have never nullified material progress and the role of the intellectual primate therein, quite the opposite in fact...Religious organisations in their quest for dominance and power have always had to embrace the advancement of knowledge and material development, albeit sometimes reluctantly...And so today we exist in a world where views are dominated by technology and global data systems, events which Abraham, Moses, Jesus nor Methuselah could ever have foreseen...Nonetheless, the minds of infants are still easily corrupted with generationally transferred non-sense.
Completely ignoring the title of the debate once again. All you want to do is pretend that we aren't supposed to be talking about strictly the biblical worldview so you can go on about how the biblical worldview is wrong. In this context, this is like saying "Biblically speaking, the biblical worldview is wrong," which doesn't make any sense because the biblical worldview is what "biblically speaking" is referring to. You are willingly choosing to ignore a very important condition of the debate so you can fit it into what you want it to be, but that won't fly.
According to the biblical worldview, the Israelites were in Egypt and they were enslaved in Egypt. The question is: how long were they in Egypt, and how long were they enslaved in Egypt? The question is not if the Israelites were in Egypt, let alone enslaved in Egypt. So you are utterly missing the point.
Every single thing you say that contradicts the biblical worldview is irrelevant to this conversation, because you're operating under a different worldview and not the biblical worldview, which completely violates the condition of the debate in the title.
World views are individual and/or collective ongoing social and environmental assessments and considerations...An inanimate book doesn't have a world view...A book might be an accurate record or account of fact, though given the likelihood that hand me down tales that originated over 3000 years ago are not accurate and therefore not factual, then what we can actually conclude accurately and factually about tribal movements of the time is probably next to nothing....Such is not a worldview...Such is merely an assumption.
Similarly what was and now is "Egypt" and what were and now are "Israelites" are two distinctly different considerations, often exaggeratedly referred to as once distinctive and separate nations, whereas it is perhaps best to consider early Egypt as a unification of existing regional tribes and Israelites as a nomadic familial grouping held therein....It's perhaps also wise not to compare todays worldviews, Modern Egypt founded in 1922 and Modern Israel founded in 1948. With regional toing and froing that occurred some 3000+ years ago.
So 215 years or 430 years... Who knows?...Biblical information is too sketchy, reinterpreted and reinvented to be able to know.
Though if we divide 430 by 2 we get 215, so mathematically speaking, maybe at some point in the past one subtropical seasonal duration (year) was half as long as a latterly calculated temperate year...So maybe both estimations actually amount to the same.
Again, the credibility of the Bible is completely irrelevant to the topic, because the question is not if the Israelites were in Egypt, it's how long were they in Egypt, specifically according to the Bible. I cannot make this any clearer. So when you go on and on about how the text can't be trusted and it amounts to basically nothing, you only demonstrate that you are continuing to ignore the obvious so you can fit this debate to what you want it to be. That's in bad faith, and I will continue to point it out again and again until you stop.
As for your point about the original 430 years, I have already established that the original text did not say they were in Egypt for 430 years, it said they were in Egypt and Caanan for 430 years.
This entire biblical dispute is a non-issue that was fabricated by a copyist error, which has caused people to ignore an entire pile of evidence in favor of one single verse which did not even originally say exactly what it says now. If that error had not been made, people would simply have commonly established that the Israelites were in Egypt for 215 years, and that would be that. Unfortunately, the smallest of things in the Bible can derail someone's entire view on a very big element of history, because so often do they not look into things any farther.
Good...So we end up with a certain level of agreement, in respect of the movements of nomadic tribes and proto nations within a broad area of what we refer to as the Middle East, around 3000+ years ago...We also seem to agree that the modern bible compiled some 2000 years later is unlikely to be factually accurate...Therefore in respect of the main resolution, it is impossible to deduce the length of time that emerging Israelite tribes spent in any one location...Regards.
Everything you just said is wrong.
No, we do not agree that the Bible is unlikely to be factually accurate. And we do not agree that the length of time the Israelites were in Egypt cannot be determined, even according to the Bible. Only you say those things, but I do not say those things. And you saying that I do is not only a lie, but obvious slander and mischaracterization of me, which is something that only bad-faith debaters do, and it's a big problem in debate that people tend not to address as much because it's a bit less concrete of an accusation and is thus riskier, despite the fact that they always want to.
Once again, whether or not the Bible is true is irrelevant to this debate. The question is this: What does the Bible say? And it is absolutely possible to determine the length of time the Israelites were in Egypt according to the Bible, as demonstrated in the beginning argument. The credibility of the Bible is a separate topic for other debates, not this one.
You state that the credibility of the bible is "irrelevant".
And I would agree...Because the bible by the very nature of it's fabrication cannot be an accurate record of Middle Eastern history and human demographics...And certainly, sketchy mathematics based upon improbable lifespans exemplifies my point perfectly.
Once again twisting my words and lying about me. First of all, I say the credibility of the Bible is irrelevant to this debate. But you put a period at the end, suggesting that was all I said, which is wrong.
And second of all, you say you agree, and then proceed to say something that I do not agree with, therefore you do not agree with me. The reason the credibility of the Bible is irrelevant to this debate is not because it isn't credible (which I do not believe), but because that wasn't the statement in the debate. Whether the Bible is credible or whether it is not, that is irrelevant to this debate, because that isn't the statement.
So when you go on about how the Bible isn't credible, you are once again demonstrating that you are willfully ignoring that, and choosing to form the debate to what you want. But that's incorrect. This is yet again another useless bad-faith argument.
