how many years were the jews in egypt?
according to the bible- a literary answer- some respond 400 years as the covenant with abraham or around 400 for those who believe 430.
both septuagint and exodus 12.40 have the number 430.
knowledge of history means being aware that the books of the bible are known to be inaccurate- not divine and certainly wrong- numerous people have offered varied suggestions in trying to make a time-line and "shockingly" they all offer "different" possibilities- because assuming god knew- he did not tell anyone- and if he did tell, then that book was the one that religious leaders decided "not to be preserved."
the books chosen to be preserved- have been discovered as wrong.
admittedly a child who has not yet heard of history can be told "the bible is true and whoever says a detail is different is a bad naughty heretic"- hopefully they do not stay at the childish stage. assuming that line of logic according to one verse in exodus the other differing verse is a bad naughty heretic.
we do know history- and there are numerous examples, where even if we "start with the assumption" the bible is correct- we can see that is a false assumption.
SADLY, bible scholars will immorally lie and bend and corrupt- and try differing answers, one at a time, until they convince different ask-ers of opposing solutions-
HAPPILY, we can compare their attempts and see that no-one agrees with the other and also simply see from the bible itself that something is wrong. the content of the bible is false and not divine
last night I noticed in the back of a new edition of the bible- it had a timeline- attempting to align the "biblical-history" which is different from history- as distant as fact is from fiction, with the dates of millenia bc.--- and ever since i read my first religious timeline, i have learnt to "take it with a grain of salt" which means not believe that the composer was correct.
so here is the issues for bible scholars to call "apparent contradictions" and reach conflicting conclusions- based on the differing contents of the same bad book-
with inconsistencies and the problem with inconsistency is specifically: "assuming god knows therefore a book with conflicting data is not divine" and also only fools would not edit the book to show the true message.
this editions timeline claimed 430 years in egypt. after all exodus 12.40 says so.
yet exodus itself also gives the lifesapns of kohot and omram. assuming the book of exodus is "correct" kohot entered egypt and lived 133 years [probably less because he entered egypt in genesis 46.11] his son omram pa of moses lived 137 years- if we trust the bible- and with the 80 years of moses at the year of exodus exit we can total 133+137+80=350 and that is only if moses was born in the last year of omram. it is still less than 400.
rabbis teach that they were not in egypt 400 years the number they taught students in religious schools is just as baseless and they say it is "oral-tradition" which over-writes and overpowers the biook itself the contents of the holy book are not "binding" for rabbis. I know a student that for years believed the number which rabbis taught- until he met christians who said 400 and now a new edition published 430- a number certainly false becuase we know from exodus itself the lifespans of kohot and omram do not total 430. something "for those who have faith to grapple with" or open their eyes.
so which is false?
is verse 12.40 "not truly 430"? the publishers insisted 430 is fact.
perhaps the error is in chapter 6 they actually lived much longer and the book erred that kohot entered egypt age 18 married and had his first born omram age 200 and lived 337 years and then omram fathered moses age 150 plus 80= 430- problem solved- then the book is still false.
is verse 12.40 "not truly 430"? the publishers insisted 430 is fact.
perhaps the error is in chapter 6 they actually lived much longer and the book erred that kohot entered egypt age 18 married and had his first born omram age 200 and lived 337 years and then omram fathered moses age 150 plus 80= 430- problem solved- then the book is still false.
another suggestion is 215 years "by the septagint" as one bible college published- which is also a trick because septuagint never said 215 nor any number besides 430, the only difference in this topic: it has the extra words "egypt and canan" with the 430
so there is no source for 215 and we can be certain that "exodus is a book of heresy" not divine
claiming short lives of kohot or perhaps that part is true and the 430 is false, because the truth of words added, for the total 430, and the time in egypt was not preserved.
claiming short lives of kohot or perhaps that part is true and the 430 is false, because the truth of words added, for the total 430, and the time in egypt was not preserved.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf
other attempts try: 1230 bc and 1290 bc for the exodus, or even claim solomon 1000+480=1480 bc for the exodus- all which conflict what we know about egyptian and hittite history-
besides, the number in the book of kings is "not truly" four hundred eighty- the common and oft-quoted phrase "stop being 'overly' literal" in the mouth of the religious leaders trying to defend...
other attempts try: 1230 bc and 1290 bc for the exodus, or even claim solomon 1000+480=1480 bc for the exodus- all which conflict what we know about egyptian and hittite history-
besides, the number in the book of kings is "not truly" four hundred eighty- the common and oft-quoted phrase "stop being 'overly' literal" in the mouth of the religious leaders trying to defend...
anyway the ones i ask believe 430- and the printed new edition- says so, and who cares about an ambiguity in septuagint- that would make the number of years in egypt "unknown"- except certainly less than three hundred fifty as explained by the years of kohot.
what if that was an exaggeration- considering no antibiotics and no sewage treatment and drinking from the river-water-
what if that was an exaggeration- considering no antibiotics and no sewage treatment and drinking from the river-water-
i estimate kohot 23 years of diahrea after entering egypt age ten, until dying and omram perhaps 37 and moses 18 with an estimated exodus after "eighty years- '80' total in egypt" because kohot entered age ten. the number 80 got into exodus for the age of moses but "truly was" the number of the total in egypt.
if the israelites were ever in egypt at all. if exodus is not reliable than that leaves only the version in joshua 24 to claim it- and there too there is no number for the years in egypt. so my conclusion is less than 350 and the book exodus is certainly false-
if the israelites were ever in egypt at all. if exodus is not reliable than that leaves only the version in joshua 24 to claim it- and there too there is no number for the years in egypt. so my conclusion is less than 350 and the book exodus is certainly false-
to summarize even if we begin and start calculating with the assumption the bible is true and read exodus 6- septuagint p. 55 gives even less! one hundred thirty for kohot+136+80 less than 346 in egypt and total unknown.
2 more info from the septuagint- in ruth it has ten generations like in cron.
pars ezron
aran aminadab
nason salman
boos obed
esi dauid
the footnote is for alterante spelings- but only a heretic would include in the same book both versions- i refer to the one of luke with more generations- in the greek, more generations "of amdi etc" more than ruth.
some deleted in kjv
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-Chapter-3/
because luke erred and was not assisted divinely-
and editing was needed- yet they did not remove enough!
another error in verse 36- assuming genesis and chronicles are correct, most match- an almost perfect attempt for a human author- and certainly not divine- because "sala of cainan of arpaxad"- even in kjv [link above] so which is false if genesis is true- because sala was of arpaxad.
similarly which detail in exodus was the false one? the years of kohot or the years in egypt 430 septuagint has a partial solution- either way exodus is heresy. what about matthew...
another problem "not enough generations and the wrong fathers" in matthew- assuming cronicles and kings are true- as christian doctrine requires- poor things. the ruined books are the ones which they believe they are obligated to: must defend-!!
could god not tell them to write the truth?
or at least edit out the errors? of course not! these are not divine books! they are preserved with the errors and conflicting details which do not match unless corrupted in differing ways.
to demonstrate one problem for the scholars to "defend from this merely apparent contradiction" which is in fact a glaringly apparent one-
granted: what is absent is hard to notice, but we are not kids we can open two books at once! compared to the longer list in first chronicles- I challenge you to find king aamzia on the list in matthew-
who was amazia father? and who was his son?
one bible scholar defended "not truly 14" generations in each group- call him a heretic?
or a defender- it would be a sin to say "the verse of fourteen generations" is false or not true- but what if someone adds the letters "ly"- then i can defend verse 17 and say:
the number fourteen "is not truly" 14, and matthew did not mean one was the son of the other...
alternatively, god never told him this one was the father of this one- because it was not a divine book. or those who defend the greek of luke and the greek of matthew saying "all conflicting versions are both true" because the words in the book are "not truly"- is that also considered heresy? or is the book of matthew itself- for denying cronicles- a heresy? you decide.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה