Several years ago, Reader’s Digest had an article about the biblical record of the nation of Israel. The author concluded that it was impossible to identify the time of the Exodus because there were no Egyptian records of them having entered or left Egypt. The article called attention to a problem I had run into earlier, and prompted me to study the matter further.
Most historians have accepted Ussher’s Chronology as to the dates of events referred to in the Bible. Unfortunately, Bishop Ussher was not a very good mathematician. He allotted a period of about 230 years to the Judges. Adding up the time periods named for each of the Judges, we find that the period was at least 390 years, a discrepancy of 160 years. In addition, since the Bible never specifies how long Joshua and Samuel led Israel, he assigns each a period of about 20 years. Eli’s administration is ignored completely.
Joshua is described as a young man in both Exodus 33:11 and in Numbers 11:28. It is reasonable to suppose that he was no older than Caleb, who was 80 at the end of the time in the wilderness. He died at the age of 110, making him leader for at least 30 years, and Joshua 24:31 tells us that Israel served the Lord all his days and all the days of the elders that out lived him. It is not unreasonable to suppose that his total impact extended to at least 40 years.
After the death of that entire generation, we find Israel turned away from God and he finally sent them into captivity for eight years. It is a near certainty that the period from Joshua 1 to Judges 3 10 was more than 40 years, but I adopted this as a conservative estimate.
No time frame is established from Samson’s death in Judges 16 until Eli dies in I Samuel 4, although it appears to have been several years. After Eli’s death, Samuel becomes the judge. and continues until Saul is anointed king. Samuel was born during Eli’s priesthood, and served until he was an old man according to I Samuel 8:1. Sixty years would seem to be a conservative estimate of the duration of this entire period.
Adding the 40 years for Joshua’s influence, and the sixty years for Eli and Samuel, both of which are probably low, and the 160 years additional time listed in Judges to the specified times of other events, and we find that the Exodus or flight from Egypt would have occurred during the period between the Middle Kingdom and the New Kingdom of Egyptian history.
Exodus 12:40 tells us that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt, 400 of them as slaves. This places Jacob and his family coming into Egypt during the period between the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom.
The Old kingdom collapsed as a result of prolonged drought, a couple hundred years after the Sahara began to turn to desert. Using our estimates, The flood would have occurred about 300 years before the desertification began, or about 100 years before the Old Kingdom began.
According to Genesis 45, Jacob and his family went to Egypt during a drought. There are few records from the period between the Old and Middle kingdoms, and it is not surprising that the coming of a family group of seventy people is not recorded.
During the Old Kingdom period, public works were built by the Egyptians themselves and were usually of Stone. During the Middle Kingdom period, There was a movement to slave labor, and brick became the most common building material. Toward the end of the period, the quality of the brick was much lower, as straw was replaced with stubble as a strengthening material. This is in line with descriptions in Exodus 5.
At the end of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt was conquered by the Hyksos, a weak people from Canaan, who ruled Egypt for about a hundred years. During this period, Egyptian culture largely went underground, and few records have survived. Again, it is not surprising that Israel’s flight is not recorded. It is known that most of Egypt’s slaves escaped during the period between the Middle and New Kingdoms.
After God brought the plagues on Egypt, the leaders advised Pharaoh that Egypt was destroyed in Exodus 10:7. When Pharaoh released the people, he changed his mind and sent the army to bring them back. Chasing Israel into the middle of the Red Sea, the Egyptian army was destroyed. There were no survivors. It would not have been difficult for even a weak people such as the Hyksos to conquer a destitute and defenseless Egypt.
Adopting these revised dates appears to resolve many historic questions, and I have been unable to find any reason for not accepting them. It does appear that my estimates are a little low, as a slightly longer period fits more precisely with the other historical records. I believe it would justify further research, but definitely appears to support the biblical record.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Getting More Cows is Not The Answer
A wealthy Eastern family bought a large ranch in Wyoming. One of the family members moved to the ranch to manage it. After several years, he told my brother he needed to get more cattle, as he wasn't making it with what he had.
Terry, a career cattleman, was managing a ranch for a large company, which owns several ranches, asked what he meant. Joe,(not his real name)explained that he only had about 500 head and had lost about $25,000 the previous year. If he could up his herd to around 1,000, he'd make some profit.
Terry pointed out that he had lost $50 per cow and asked how much would he have lost if he had 1000 cows. Joe stared at him for minute, as he realized he would have lost more. "If a bigger herd would only have increased my losses," he asked, "How can you make money in this business?" He went on to explain that in their primary business, increasing sales increased profits.
Terry pointed out that in that business, they could cut production costs per unit by increasing production in the same facility. Making more money on the ranch required reducing production costs also. Merely increasing the number of cows would not automatically reduce production costs, because the cost of feed would remain the same for each cow.
In order to make a profit, one must be more efficient in his use of time and money to increase yield for his investment. For example, if 2 pounds of alfalfa hay will produce 1 pound of beef, but 4 pounds of grass hay are required, then alfalfa hay at twice the price is cheaper because it takes less effort to feed and store.
Selling cattle earlier, before they have reached maximum weight may make more profit because you may be able sell them before it is necessary to begin feeding, saving a significant amount. Selling calves in the fall rather than wintering them and selling as finished cattle may make more money for the same reason. Simply increasing volume, will not increase profits if there is not a profit for each unit.
During the last recession finance companie discovered that they could package debt and sell the packages, called derivatives, to investors for around 115% of the package value. Because the jump in interest rates and penalties for late payments made them very attractive, they sold quickly. The Bank could then lend that 115% and repeat the profit. Banks lowered their lending standards in order to increase their number of loans. Eventually, too many people were unable to make their payments, and the derivatives became unprofitable, making them impossible to sell. This ultimately led to the present credit crisis.
One of the current suggestions for resolving the credit is for the federal government to buy the bad derivatives. This will cause new demand for derivatives, putting us back to where we were 6 years ago, with readily available credit.
Unfortunately, This is very much like Joe's idea that getting more cows will automatically make a profit. Unless the program is changed, it is inevitable that we will get the same results. Increasing the demand for derivatives will give a temporary increase in available loans, but will ultimately increase the losses in the long term. Sooner or later we will come to another crisis, with much larger losses.
Following the same path can only lead to the same result. Doing it more vigorously only increases the amount of the results, it does not change what they are. That can only be changed by doing something different.
For information on information on running your own business, go to www.Entrepreneur.DoBetterToday.coma
Terry, a career cattleman, was managing a ranch for a large company, which owns several ranches, asked what he meant. Joe,(not his real name)explained that he only had about 500 head and had lost about $25,000 the previous year. If he could up his herd to around 1,000, he'd make some profit.
Terry pointed out that he had lost $50 per cow and asked how much would he have lost if he had 1000 cows. Joe stared at him for minute, as he realized he would have lost more. "If a bigger herd would only have increased my losses," he asked, "How can you make money in this business?" He went on to explain that in their primary business, increasing sales increased profits.
Terry pointed out that in that business, they could cut production costs per unit by increasing production in the same facility. Making more money on the ranch required reducing production costs also. Merely increasing the number of cows would not automatically reduce production costs, because the cost of feed would remain the same for each cow.
In order to make a profit, one must be more efficient in his use of time and money to increase yield for his investment. For example, if 2 pounds of alfalfa hay will produce 1 pound of beef, but 4 pounds of grass hay are required, then alfalfa hay at twice the price is cheaper because it takes less effort to feed and store.
Selling cattle earlier, before they have reached maximum weight may make more profit because you may be able sell them before it is necessary to begin feeding, saving a significant amount. Selling calves in the fall rather than wintering them and selling as finished cattle may make more money for the same reason. Simply increasing volume, will not increase profits if there is not a profit for each unit.
During the last recession finance companie discovered that they could package debt and sell the packages, called derivatives, to investors for around 115% of the package value. Because the jump in interest rates and penalties for late payments made them very attractive, they sold quickly. The Bank could then lend that 115% and repeat the profit. Banks lowered their lending standards in order to increase their number of loans. Eventually, too many people were unable to make their payments, and the derivatives became unprofitable, making them impossible to sell. This ultimately led to the present credit crisis.
One of the current suggestions for resolving the credit is for the federal government to buy the bad derivatives. This will cause new demand for derivatives, putting us back to where we were 6 years ago, with readily available credit.
Unfortunately, This is very much like Joe's idea that getting more cows will automatically make a profit. Unless the program is changed, it is inevitable that we will get the same results. Increasing the demand for derivatives will give a temporary increase in available loans, but will ultimately increase the losses in the long term. Sooner or later we will come to another crisis, with much larger losses.
Following the same path can only lead to the same result. Doing it more vigorously only increases the amount of the results, it does not change what they are. That can only be changed by doing something different.
For information on information on running your own business, go to www.Entrepreneur.DoBetterToday.coma
Chicken Little is Alive and Well
Remember the story of Chicken Little?
A little chick was walking across the barnyard when something hit him on the head. He jumped to the conclusion that the sky must be falling, and rushed out to warn everyone else. The geese and several other animals are panicked by the fact of the falling sky. Finally, one of the animals convinces the others to look at the sky, then go back and see what really hit Chicken Little. When they found what it was, everyone had a big laugh at the silly little chick.
Two morals were apparent in the story. First, you shouldn’t spread rumors of disaster with no evidence. Secondly, don’t believe rumors without evidence. It seems that we’ve forgotten both of these morals.
We’ve just recently gone through a scare about swine flu. Initially, it was announced that over 1500 cases had been detected in Mexico and several hundred had died. Final totals indicate that probably only about 500 were actually sick, and about 50 may have died of swine flu. Since that time cases have been diagnosed in various other countries.
Swine flu is a serious form of flu, but it is rarely diagnosed as such, unless there is a major outbreak and many die. Most years, it is not identified, although cases probably occur every year. Because it was not tested for earlier, no one knows how many cases we had during the past winter, that were not identified. Nearly all the cases in the United States had already recovered before they were identified. There was no pandemic.
Even when Swine Flu killed a number of people several years ago, the fatalities were all among those with other health problems which had weakened them to the point they were unable to overcome the virus. We are being told that it is necessary to spend billions developing a vaccine in case the virus happens to resurface next winter in a more virulent form.
We had a similar series of events regarding Bird Flu a couple years ago, with the same claims. There were even less people infected and died, yet the same claims were made. Nothing further has come of that looming Pandemic. Millions of dollars were lost by growers over possibly infected tomatoes during the summer of 2008 on a similar panic claim. Simply demanding that all produce be washed before cutting and serving would have eliminated any possible spread of the infection, but that would have not cost nearly as much.
Gardasil is heavily promoted as preventing cervical cancer, and it’s manufacturer, Merck, recommends vaccinating every girl with it by age nine. They are pushing for regulations requiring vaccination for ever girl before they can attend school. In reality the vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It does kill four strains of Human Papiloma Virus. Women who have had HPV are more likely to develop cervical cancer than are those who have not.
Human Papiloma Virus is a sexually transmitted disease, having eighteen known variations. Gardasil works to prevent four of those strains, or less than one in four. Unfortunately, other causes of cervical cancer cause at least as many cases, reducing it’s potential benefits to about one in eight or less.
According to reports filed with the FDA, thirty four girls between the ages of 12 and 21 have died of complications resulting from the vaccinations in the United States. Another 1100 have gone into comas. More girls have died and more have had worse reactions than were affected in the total Bird Flu epidemic that was going to be so bad, yet far less people received shots than were exposed to the Bird Flu. More girls died than died of the infected tomatoes, and more were seriously sickened. Despite this, huge expenses were incurred to prevent these problems, while attempts to require the shots continue.
This is in spite of the fact that Cervical cancer deaths have dropped by over 75% in recent years, and that safe sex practices are more effective at preventing every form of HPV than Gardasil is on the four it works on. In addition, Gardasil has had no studies to determine the probable protection period. It is hoped that the protection will be for up to five years, meaning that girls receiving the shot at nine will need another at 14 and another at 19.
Chicken Little is making a lot of money, and hurting a lot of people with his sky is falling approach to health and safety. We need to check out his claims mor carefully.
For articles relating to general medical problems, go to www.Medical.DoBetterToday.com
A little chick was walking across the barnyard when something hit him on the head. He jumped to the conclusion that the sky must be falling, and rushed out to warn everyone else. The geese and several other animals are panicked by the fact of the falling sky. Finally, one of the animals convinces the others to look at the sky, then go back and see what really hit Chicken Little. When they found what it was, everyone had a big laugh at the silly little chick.
Two morals were apparent in the story. First, you shouldn’t spread rumors of disaster with no evidence. Secondly, don’t believe rumors without evidence. It seems that we’ve forgotten both of these morals.
We’ve just recently gone through a scare about swine flu. Initially, it was announced that over 1500 cases had been detected in Mexico and several hundred had died. Final totals indicate that probably only about 500 were actually sick, and about 50 may have died of swine flu. Since that time cases have been diagnosed in various other countries.
Swine flu is a serious form of flu, but it is rarely diagnosed as such, unless there is a major outbreak and many die. Most years, it is not identified, although cases probably occur every year. Because it was not tested for earlier, no one knows how many cases we had during the past winter, that were not identified. Nearly all the cases in the United States had already recovered before they were identified. There was no pandemic.
Even when Swine Flu killed a number of people several years ago, the fatalities were all among those with other health problems which had weakened them to the point they were unable to overcome the virus. We are being told that it is necessary to spend billions developing a vaccine in case the virus happens to resurface next winter in a more virulent form.
We had a similar series of events regarding Bird Flu a couple years ago, with the same claims. There were even less people infected and died, yet the same claims were made. Nothing further has come of that looming Pandemic. Millions of dollars were lost by growers over possibly infected tomatoes during the summer of 2008 on a similar panic claim. Simply demanding that all produce be washed before cutting and serving would have eliminated any possible spread of the infection, but that would have not cost nearly as much.
Gardasil is heavily promoted as preventing cervical cancer, and it’s manufacturer, Merck, recommends vaccinating every girl with it by age nine. They are pushing for regulations requiring vaccination for ever girl before they can attend school. In reality the vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It does kill four strains of Human Papiloma Virus. Women who have had HPV are more likely to develop cervical cancer than are those who have not.
Human Papiloma Virus is a sexually transmitted disease, having eighteen known variations. Gardasil works to prevent four of those strains, or less than one in four. Unfortunately, other causes of cervical cancer cause at least as many cases, reducing it’s potential benefits to about one in eight or less.
According to reports filed with the FDA, thirty four girls between the ages of 12 and 21 have died of complications resulting from the vaccinations in the United States. Another 1100 have gone into comas. More girls have died and more have had worse reactions than were affected in the total Bird Flu epidemic that was going to be so bad, yet far less people received shots than were exposed to the Bird Flu. More girls died than died of the infected tomatoes, and more were seriously sickened. Despite this, huge expenses were incurred to prevent these problems, while attempts to require the shots continue.
This is in spite of the fact that Cervical cancer deaths have dropped by over 75% in recent years, and that safe sex practices are more effective at preventing every form of HPV than Gardasil is on the four it works on. In addition, Gardasil has had no studies to determine the probable protection period. It is hoped that the protection will be for up to five years, meaning that girls receiving the shot at nine will need another at 14 and another at 19.
Chicken Little is making a lot of money, and hurting a lot of people with his sky is falling approach to health and safety. We need to check out his claims mor carefully.
For articles relating to general medical problems, go to www.Medical.DoBetterToday.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)