math problem

by peacefulpete 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

peacefulpete

Ex 12:40 Isreal in Egypt 430 yrs
Gen 15:13 400 years of oppression in Egypt
This leaves 30 years of habitation in Egypt in peace.

Gen 41:46,53;45:11 Joseph 39 years old when Israel and sons move to Egypt.

Gen 29:30-35;30:25 Levi is approx.5 years older than Joseph and hence about 44 when they move to Egypt.

Gen 50:22 Joseph dies at 110
Ex 6:16 Levi dies at 137

Yet Ex 1:6 says Joseph and all his brothers and all his generation were dead when the new Pharoah began oppressing Israel!

Someone is worse at math than me.

The final editing and reformulation of the chronology in the OT was done about 165-68BC, to create the impression that 4000 years culminated in 165BC with the rededication of the temple. While skillful these editers slipped up here and there. It is because of these inconistancies that no two calculations for the creation of Adam agree.
invictus

peacefulpete,
thank you for posting this - I remember noticing that discrepancy 400,430 years in Genesis ,and when I asked elder we were studying with ,he just shrugged it of as: oh it is just rounding numbers, we should not be too picky about this things;main thing is to learn to love Jehovah... I swallowed it hook,line and sinker.And after couple of other instances where I was corrected in that way I really beleived that it is problem with me being too critical and that I should focus on the big picture - pleasing Jehovah and not questioning every word from God`s written word.
Well, that is probably the reason I stayed so long with them - I forgot to trust my own instincts. Well no more.
thanks again for posting.
Invictus
peacefulpete

At least 63 years are lost.

The Problem is worsened if we take the Acts 7 version of the tale (based upon a straightforward reading of Ex chapt 1) which says that (vs17-20) the Jews were prospering in Egypt up until near the birth of Moses. Then we have only 80 (40 +40) or so years of oppression in Egypt not 400!

Those of you using the NWT will find that the Ex 12:40 verse has been cleverly altered with commas and added words to conceal this problem. Check it in the Jerusalem Bible or Jewish Publication Society Translation (the 2 I checked) and see the difference. the WT's imaginative solution was to back up the 430 to the calling of Abraham. This means that the time in Egypt was only 215 years (430-215=215) this obviously contradicts Acts 7:6 that says they would be "enslaved in a foreign land 400 years". The solution in the WT'smind is to say the 400 years began when Ishmael teased Isaac rather than as the verses say. How complicated and contradictory it becomes when taking Bible chronology literally. It appears that the 400 year (symbolic 40X10)element may be a more ancient bit while the repeating 215+430+50+430 pattern is the work of editers in Maccabean times.

The use of late copies of the Septuigent for a varient reading to support the idea that the 430 years includes time in Cannon is flawed. The reading is spurious (adding of words and changes in structure)and no doubt the result of readers having caught this contradictiion and sought to cover it just as the NWT has done. Secondly it still contradicts the Acts statement, which likely reflects the understanding of the passage as it then existed in the LXX.
mouthy

I had never noticed that. Any way if the Watchtower said it was so...IT WAS SO!!!! Until I found out it wasnt so.... Good work you two though for catching that...
JCanon

Well....
Just to make sure that you know that the WTS discsuses this and that, in general, what the take on this is and that there is no mathematical issues involved with the 400 vs 430 years. Here is what is commonly said.
430 YEARS: The 430 years is the total time since the Jews first began their "habitation" in Egypt. Taken as an obvious reference to intermittent habitation, the first time they would have been an inhabitant of Egypt was when Abraham (with the Jews in his loins) became a visitor there the very same year he entered into Canaan. Apparently the year he entered Caanan there was a famine that forced him down into Egypt. Thus the total number of years of his being an "alien" in BOTH EGYPT AND/OR CAANAN was the same number of years 430 years.
Of note, the "very day" of the entry is said to be the very day of exit. This is not hard since it was the day of a full moon. The Bible indicates that Abraham hesitated a few days before entering Egypt, thus the full moon might have figured into his decision to enter the city for any number of reasons--maybe it was good luck to enter on the day of the full moon or there was festival? who knows. At any rate that's the story ont he 430 years. Some confuse the years in Egypt and Caanan as being different but not with this understanding. The Jews first entry into Egypt as aliens in terms of the 430 years is a reference to Abraham residing there the same year he entered Caanan.
400 YEARS OF OPRESSION BY "EGYPT": As explained by WTS publications and accepted by many other commentaries, this 30--year reference is to when Abraham's half-Egyptian son Ishmael taunted "oppressed" Isaac, his son by Sarah, forcing Sarah to send Ishmael and his mother away. This was 30 years after Abraham entered the "Promised Land" and visited Egypt. Abraham was 75 when he entered Caanan and Egypt and 30 years later Isaac was 5 years old. Thus the 400 years of "oppression" is a reference including this taunting by Isaac's older Egyptian brother, Ishmael. Of course, the actual hardline slavery of the Jews was probably less than 215 years, the number of years they wer residents in Egypt after another famine forced them into Egypt and the whole family took up dwelling there, including the older patriarch Jacob when Joseph was a high court official in Egypt.
So no chronology problems over these two references.
By the way, an alleged Egyptian statue of Joseph is highlighed in the "New Chronology" of David Rohl if anyone wants to look that up....Sorry, I don't want to lose this page, otherwise, I'd paste in the link.....
JCanon
JCanon

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/joseph.htm
Okay, here is Joseph's statue per Rohl.
As far as the issue of the time of slavery is concerned, if Levi outlived Joseph at 137, entering Egypt at 44 means that everyone had died by 93 years later when a new pharoah came. The Jews were 215 years in Egypt as a family, so there is plenty of time for the events as the Bible relates.
By the way the rule of Ahkenaton has come into focus recently since he became a "heretic" king, converting to monotheism after his father died in his 7th year as co-ruler. This is far to direct not to understand this was the effect of the 10 plagues which if he experienced would have/should have had this effect on somebody in Egypt. He was an outlaw king who after his death much of what he did was destroyed by successors which might explain why more direct references to the Exodus don't exist. Certainly, they would have been referenced only during the reign of theking where this occurred, Ahkenaton and so that explains why there might not be any reference. On the other hand, the circumstantial and contextual side effects of the 10 plauges on Egypt has no better confirmation than Akhenaton's conversion to monotheism (just look up Akhenaton to read all about it!) Further there is some eclipse event support of his reign consistent with Bible chronology which I'll post below that is brand new. With this new focus, though, you can trace probably back to the king who was ruling at the time the Jews first came into Egypt 215 years earlier. (Or I guess I should do it...hmmmm).
Thanks for the post. There is nothing wrong with the math here that I can see.
JC
JCanon

Here's the recent reference regarding the Ugarit eclipse that is optionally dated to 1375BCE a date not thought to match up well with the rule of Ahkenaton which dates his 7th year in 1346BCE. However, the Bible more directly dates the Exodus, believed to be his 7th year to 1386BCE and thus the 1375BCE eclipse reference works quite well, Ahkenaton would have still been ruling at the time.
To show you the strength of this reference, though, David Rohl, who found his best eclipse reference in 1011BCE or sometime thinks he can redate Akhenaton that far down!!! Point being he is already convinced that the fire mentioned in Amarna letters to Ahkenaton might have been the same that charred the astrotext that mentioned the eclipse. There is criticism of this since it is circumstantial, but strong enough for his agressive redating. Biblically, however, Ahkenaton fits perfectly the king who experienced the Exodus, everything is in place, even the rare use of bricks for building and his sudden conversion to monotheism. When the Exodus is dated Biblically and more responsibly to 1386BCE, the eclipse reference suddenly becomes quite interesting. This means that apparently the tablet was in some vulnerable position at the time of the fire, with one suggestion that it was in recent archieves or perhaps till openly eposed. If we use that as a dating reference to the fire mentioned to Ahkenaton then the eclipse would help date the reign of Ahkenaton which SHOULD be consistent with the Biblical dating of his rule 1390-1374BCE. Of course it does.
Below is a discussion of this reference and some astrocharts of the eclipses considered. It is an important reference since it's one we can include in being consistent with or confirming the true original chronology which the Bible reflects! Here's the reference.
===========================
Rohl uses the Ugarit eclipse mentioned in a charred text there to help his dating of the reign of Akhenaton. Of course, a major criticism is that the eclipse may not have been the same year as the fire mentioned in texts to Ahkenaton.

That being the case, though, it is a key part of his chronology and thus it is interesting that an optional dating for that event is 1375BCE!!!

One of the issues is the reference to the term "Rashap" thought to be Mars. Several eclipses were searched for where Mars was present during an ecilpse. But Stephenson and others thought that it more than likely referred to a reddish star that was in close proximity to the Sun at the time of the eclipse which occurred in 1375BCE.

This might have been dismissed chronologically, though, only because of the standard dating of the reign of Ahkenaton from 1350 to 1334. However, I have redated his 7th year to 1386BCE the Biblically arrived date for the Exodus and using the context of Ahkenaton's monotheistic behavior as evidence/effect of the 10 plagues, particularly the plague of darkness which Ahkenaton had a fixation for. In that case, his reign redated from 1390 to 1374 would be within the range of this eclipse of 1375!!!

So, embarrassingly so, now I'm thinking up all the reasons why this text probably was a recent text, lying out somewhere or in the current archieves and thus more likely to have been charred by the fire occurring shortly afterward (i.e. rather than some old text from long before with nonspecific dating).

Interestingly enough, though, other possible dates were much later. Still the strength of the connection has Rohl (I believe) trying to date Ahkenaton as late was the 11th century.

Below is the interesting webpage that lists several astronomical references including the Ugarit eclipse and discusses possible dates along with the astrocharts of the eclipses which some might find interesting. I'm including the pertient reference to the 1375BCE eclipse, which would have occurred during the reign of Ahkenaton and thus there is no conflict between the presumption that the fire that charred the text was the same written about to Ahkenaton...that is, IF you date his rule from 1390-1374BCE.

This is sort of bad news for Rohl though, who, on the strength of this reference has radically re-dated the event to much later. Ironically, using all his arguments, 1375BCE works with the Biblical chronology and allows this reference as the latest potential astronomical text that agrees with Biblical chronology!!! Quite interesting!!! (Go to the webpage to see skycharts of the eclipses)

Here's the reference!

===========================
http://www.nunki.net/isis/jacf3article1.htm

What is clear is that the need to resort to liver divination (Reverse of KTU-1.78) suggests that the phenomenon observed was unique and implied potential disaster in the minds of the scribe-priests. On the basis of Sawyer & Stephenson's translation and approximate dating of the text (i.e. early Nikmed II), a date of the 3rd May 1375 BC was chosen for the Ugarit eclipse. The authors then suggested that the redish +0.85 magnitude star Aldebaran (within a 7 deg proximity to the sun) would have been the candidate for Rashap.

A possible difficulty noted for the assignment of the eclipse in 1375 BC is that tablet KTU-1.78 is blackened by fire: a fact which may in itself have significant chronological implications:

"If, as some suppose, this were the same fire as the one mentioned by Abi-milki of Tyre in a letter to Akhenaten, it would have to be dated c. 1365 BC." [58]
peacefulpete

If you reread my posts you will see that your spinning of numbers has already been exposed as misdirection. Not to mention deceiptful.
heathen

I thought the bible account had ramsees as the pharoah during the moses story.
Interesting link jcanon.
peacefulpete

please don't encourage him, at least not on my threads.

math problem

Share this