Bible maths

PJ: His references to the Jews are wrong.

90 percent are not Hebraic. 90 percent are Turkic Khazars who converted in the 800's.

Moreover, there has never been 25 million Jews on this planet. The Holocaust killed off 6 million and there is now 15 million.

*************
M*W: I was going to respond to IAC's erroneous statistics about the Jews, but instead, I thought I'd run this comment by you. In 1000 BCE, there were no Jews to speak of, only Egyptian Abiru who later became the Hebrews. As I recall from my studies, the patriarch David lived circa 1000 BCE. He was considered to be an Egyptian prince at that time (did he not?), and he was one of the Egyptial forefathers of the Hebrews. Everything the OT states about Abraham, Moses and David, alludes to them being Egyptian and not Hebrew.

Care to discuss, PJ?
 
Medicine Woman said:
PJ: His references to the Jews are wrong.

90 percent are not Hebraic. 90 percent are Turkic Khazars who converted in the 800's.

Moreover, there has never been 25 million Jews on this planet. The Holocaust killed off 6 million and there is now 15 million.

*************
M*W: I was going to respond to IAC's erroneous statistics about the Jews, but instead, I thought I'd run this comment by you. In 1000 BCE, there were no Jews to speak of, only Egyptian Abiru who later became the Hebrews. As I recall from my studies, the patriarch David lived circa 1000 BCE. He was considered to be an Egyptian prince at that time (did he not?), and he was one of the Egyptial forefathers of the Hebrews. Everything the OT states about Abraham, Moses and David, alludes to them being Egyptian and not Hebrew.

Care to discuss, PJ?
Click to expand...

We are pretty sure Moses was an Egyptian noble, that made a couple of throws at the crown, got his butt kicked, and as per the conditions of his surrender, was given safe passage to the border. Exodus is off a couple of hundred years.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
You guys are hilarious.
Click to expand...

Historicity

Main article: the Exodus

The time-span in this book, from the death of Joseph to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, covers about one hundred and forty-five years, on the supposition that one computes the four hundred and thirty years (12:40) from the time of the promises made to Abraham (Gal. 3:17).

There have been several attempts to fix the date of the events in the book to a precise point on the Gregorian Calendar. These attempts generally rest on three considerations

* Who the unnamed pharaoh was
* The dates for non-biblical accounts of large numbers of semitic people leaving Egypt
* The date that archaeology implies Jericho was destroyed

Generally, fixing the identification of the Pharaoh is considered the key, and two dynasties are usually suggested:

* Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE, favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars, although this contradicts several key aspects of the biblical account, and neglects several recent archaeological discoveries in Tel el-Dab'a and Jericho. See Ramesses II#Pharaoh of Exodus.3F.
* Thutmose III or Amenhotep II of the 18th Dynasty, around 1444 BCE, favoured by a large minority of mostly religious scholars, since it precedes the destruction of Jericho, although some doubt surrounds the archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus and Canaanite conquest dating. However it should be noted that Egypt still dominated the Canaan at that period in history [1], making such a date less plausible. The carbon-dating tests at Jericho are also disputed in age.
* Akhenaton of the 18th Dynasty, around 1340 BC. The link to Akhenaton is that, like Moses, this pharaoh was struggling to convert the people to monotheism. The brother of Akhenaton was named Tuth-Moses, and while it is often assumed that this Tuth-Moses died young Professor Cyril Aldred shows that he was the commander of the king's chariot forces. [1] The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius similarly records that Moses was an Egyptian prince and army commander (Antiquities 2:232, 2:241). [2]
* Many others have been suggested, such as Dudimose, the Hyksos expulsion, and others. See Dudimose and The Exodus Decoded.
Click to expand...

and you might want to read up a bit more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
 
Medicine Woman:

M*W: I was going to respond to IAC's erroneous statistics about the Jews, but instead, I thought I'd run this comment by you. In 1000 BCE, there were no Jews to speak of, only Egyptian Abiru who later became the Hebrews. As I recall from my studies, the patriarch David lived circa 1000 BCE. He was considered to be an Egyptian prince at that time (did he not?), and he was one of the Egyptial forefathers of the Hebrews. Everything the OT states about Abraham, Moses and David, alludes to them being Egyptian and not Hebrew.
Click to expand...

I do not recall king David ever being counted as an Egyptian prince. Do your ecall where you read this and what that was based on?

Also, I am looking over some info on king David, and nothing says anything about him being an Egyptian prince.

I think you mean Moses? Moses was raised as an Egyptian prince, yes.

And what about Abraham makes you think he is thought of as Egyptian? They place him in Ur, a Mesopatamian capital, not Egypt at his birth and early life.

Interesting, Strabo counts the Jews as descendent from Egyptians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Moses_in_Strabo

Right beneath the above is also an interesting story by Tacitus.

Of course, none of these writers were even remotely near the history of Moses' time, as suggested by scholars of the Bible. So naturally, it is probably very ad hoc.
 
Prince_James said:
I think you mean Moses? Moses was raised as an Egyptian prince, yes.

And what about Abraham makes you think he is thought of as Egyptian? They place him in Ur, a Mesopatamian capital, not Egypt at his birth and early life.
Click to expand...

Moses was more than just an Egyptian raised prince, he WAS an EGYPTIAN prince! Anything more to the story is a nice fairy tale. He tried to cause shite and revolt, and eventually was given safe passage to the Egyptian border into exhile... well after that... the story might become more biblically accurate.

I have both the works of Tacticus and Josepheus (though I only have the Jewish Wars by him)
 
This just shows me that religion has arrived at the 2 x 2 stages of mathematics while the scientific world is at calculating space travel.

The basic assumption is incorrect, it assumes a consistent doubling of the population...and the immortality of the predecessor. Indeed if one multiplies by 2 by 2, 30 times, you get approx 1.7B. However this is a linear extrapolation and assumes the existence of the first 2. (Obviously a linear extrapolation cannot be correct due to mortality, mortality rates, wars, disease, infertility, natural disasters etc).

I imagine of course he got this by literally typing the number 2 on a calculator and pressing *2 thirty times. If one assumes mortality, the population must be such that as the predecessors die - variable D, the population P is increased such that the total new population P' becomes

P' = 2P + 2D. (to double the previous population, and to replace the dead ones AND double them, to maintain the 2*2 progression)

How does one time one's ovulation period to coincide with this? :)

Moreover, this does not hold true when you pass 1992. He states that approximately 164 years has to pass for the human race to double. It is now 2007 (15 years later) and the human population has arrived near 7B. A whopping triple it's 1992 total. Some jumped-up theist in 1992 realised a convenient calculation at an opportune time and felt a surge of self satisfaction...that's all this amounts to.
 
Last edited:
Prince_James said:
IceAgeCivilizations:

What proof do you have for Tut's Judaism?
Click to expand...

Dang, I read that, was going to respond to that, then got distracted. Tut was a Jew, omg. I hereby promise today never to become Christian ever! As I do not want to turn out like IceAgeCivilizations. I promise to dedicate my life as much as possible to truth, and away from the deceptions Christianity offers.
 
Wow. What an oversimplified view of the human population.

Also, the claim that this math proves we didn't "descend from the brute" doesn't follow. But what else could one expect?

It's sad that he devoted so much brain power and energy into this, and so poorly. I'm sure glad that I don't waste my life away on such make-believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top