• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Media Resources

NickF said:
This chart shows base numbers assuming zero mortality of either women in childbirth, or infant mortality.

Granted scripture shows us information that's relevant, but the vast majority of the women listed in genealogies seems to show that women didn't have 12+ children born to them during their lifespan. Most had between 3 and 6. But still at 6 children per woman on average, a man would need a minimum of 9 wives and this is all assuming zero children died in childbirth or before reaching the age where they are counted.

Even if we believed each woman was capable of producing 27 children in her lifetime, that's a minimum of 2 wives per man.
View attachment 4377
Click to expand...

NickF said:
This chart shows base numbers assuming zero mortality of either women in childbirth, or infant mortality.

Granted scripture shows us information that's relevant, but the vast majority of the women listed in genealogies seems to show that women didn't have 12+ children born to them during their lifespan. Most had between 3 and 6. But still at 6 children per woman on average, a man would need a minimum of 9 wives and this is all assuming zero children died in childbirth or before reaching the age where they are counted.

Even if we believed each woman was capable of producing 27 children in her lifetime, that's a minimum of 2 wives per man.
View attachment 4377
Click to expand...
Very interesting. I hadn't thought about that before. That would seem to indicate that polygyny was common in Israel at the time.

It would also seem to suggest a significant sex imbalance at birth (which would facilitate polygyny). All those extra women had to come from somewhere.
 
Bartato said:
Very interesting. I hadn't thought about that before. That would seem to indicate that polygyny was common in Israel at the time.

It would also seem to suggest a significant sex imbalance at birth (which would facilitate polygyny). All those extra women had to come from somewhere.
Click to expand...
Right, my chart assumes A LOT, but it's a pretty interesting thought experiment.
 
Bartato said:
Very interesting. I hadn't thought about that before. That would seem to indicate that polygyny was common in Israel at the time.

It would also seem to suggest a significant sex imbalance at birth (which would facilitate polygyny). All those extra women had to come from somewhere.
Click to expand...
NickF said:
Right, my chart assumes A LOT, but it's a pretty interesting thought experiment.
Click to expand...
Exodus 1:22 So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”
Exodus 5:20-21 Then, as they came out from Pharaoh, they met Moses and Aaron who stood there to meet them. And they said to them, “Let the Lord look on you and judge, because you have made us abhorrent in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to kill us.”
Due to the very harsh conditions in Egypt the number males of marital age would likely have been significantly less than females during the Exodus. Losses of male lives during the battles to take the Promised Land would also have been more than the females and then there is also the increased number of females due to females being taken alive as slaves and concubines. Just another $0.02.
 
MemeFan said:
Forgetton in analysis are all-female children households. Should be very rare.
Click to expand...
Not forgotten. Statistically the male to female birth ratio is relatively stable at whole population levels.
 
frederick said:
Exodus 1:22 So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”
Exodus 5:20-21 Then, as they came out from Pharaoh, they met Moses and Aaron who stood there to meet them. And they said to them, “Let the Lord look on you and judge, because you have made us abhorrent in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to kill us.”
Due to the very harsh conditions in Egypt the number males of marital age would likely have been significantly less than females during the Exodus. Losses of male lives during the battles to take the Promised Land would also have been more than the females and then there is also the increased number of females due to females being taken alive as slaves and concubines. Just another $0.02.
Click to expand...
Those were my thoughts on the matter too. Also, during times of uncertainty (I think I read this somewhere), female births are elevated.

Just put this to the side to go find a link.

www.science.org

Why women's bodies abort males during tough times

Church records reveal when fewer boys are born, they survive better
www.science.org www.science.org
 
If God wanted the nation of Israel to be very populous, He could have certainly done so. Causing the Israelite women to conceive mostly females could have produced a nation of VERY polygynous families with a dozen women per man.
 
NickF said:
For those of you who haven't looked up the Numbers 1 census. Brings to light a stark mathematical proof.
If each of those Firstborn Males was born to a household, there must be quite a few children born to each household.
Click to expand...
As I recall there was another explanation.
 
NickF said:
Also, during times of uncertainty (I think I read this somewhere), female births are elevated.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The boys are VERY outnumbered in this house!
 
I had read once that pretty and poor men have 52% chance to get daughters. Sons come more easily for rich men.
 
Last edited:
We had a big discussion on here several years ago and I  think @FollowingHim had a well reasoned post indicating the 23,000 firstborns were likely under 1 yo from time of Exodus until Numbers based on several factors. That supports a still very aggressive 6% population growth and allows for Moshe's taking the Cushite woman to be a controversial issue.

The largest family we have recorded at time of crossing the Jordan is Caleb w four or five wives a significant jump over the Egyptian practice of monogamy.

Certainly, there are some issues with the extreme numbers presented that make explaining them away as big a challenge. . I'd say not the best argument to lead with, but interesting thought experiment regarding Israel's rapid expansion and the know patriarchal polygynists....
 
PeteR said:
We had a big discussion on here several years ago and I  think @FollowingHim had a well reasoned post indicating the 23,000 firstborns were likely under 1 yo from time of Exodus until Numbers based on several factors.
Click to expand...
Found the discussion I think you were referring to. My point here was that actual population growth in their population was incredibly low, far lower than would have occurred had each man had 50 children. So there is something seriously wrong in the maths comparing 23,000 firstborns with the total population. I can't say what the problem is @NickF, but I just know it doesn't add up.
 
I'm guessing the 23,000 were firstborns since coming out of Egypt. That were freeborn, not slaves, therefore Yah claimed them... Numbers 1-3 happens one year after exodus if I remember correctly... right before second Pesach.
 
FollowingHim said:
Found the discussion I think you were referring to. My point here was that actual population growth in their population was incredibly low, far lower than would have occurred had each man had 50 children. So there is something seriously wrong in the maths comparing 23,000 firstborns with the total population. I can't say what the problem is @NickF, but I just know it doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
What if this has happened, but only for this generation?

It could then restore population to level slightly larger than before Pharaon started executing male babies. Population limit is more driven by number of females than number of males, so females number is what actually matter. They weren't killed, so population limit would stay same.

After this extra-wives generation things would become as in "regular" population.
 
Remember that Pharoah was executing male babies when Moses was born. At the time of the Exodus, Moses was 80 years old. Would the Egyptians still have been executing male babies? That sort of government edict tends to be a temporary thing. Although killing all males for (say) 10-20 years won't impact the population too heavily as the young women can still marry older men, killing all males for 80 years would destroy the population. And the Egyptians did not intend to destroy their slaves, just cull the herd a bit. So I would have thought this edict would have been finished long before the Exodus - unless it was being generally ignored and only selectively applied to families who were out of favour politically.

But, having said that, if it was still in force, it actually completely explains the fact there were only 23,000 "firstborns".

All the rest were dead.

There were not 23,000 family units, there were hundreds of thousands of family units - but only 23,000 of them managed to hide their firstborns and bring them through to adulthood.

If so, the entire premise of the calculation is incorrect, and we can make no estimation of the number of children that each man had, nor estimate the number of their wives, from the census data in Numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top