# Hebrew Population in Num 21



## KMK (May 29, 2007)

What would be your best guesstimate as to the total population of the Hebrew camp when Moses lifted up the serpent on the pole?

In Num 1 there were 603,550 men 20 and up 'ready for war'. So if you add a couple thousand lame or sick, and another couple thousand that were too old for war you have 608,000. And if each of those men on average had a wife and four children you are up to around 3,000,000 or so. Does this seem reasonable???????


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (May 29, 2007)

In my humble opinion not all of them would have been married with children at that point. But a figure of 2,000,000 is certaily plausible.


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2007)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> In my humble opinion not all of them would have been married with children at that point. But a figure of 2,000,000 is certaily plausible.



Good point. But even if the men were not yet married, there would still have been close to a 50/50 ratio of men to women, they just would not have had children yet. So maybe the average of four children apiece is too high... Although, if you look at some of those geneologies it appears that the Hebrew people were 'quiver-minded'.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 2, 2007)

I think 2,000,000 is the standard figure used for the number of Hebrew people who left Egypt in the Exodus. Think of the Porta Potties!


----------



## matthew11v25 (Jun 2, 2007)

The male population was most likely less since male infants were killed for a time (moses escaping).


----------



## KMK (Jun 2, 2007)

matthew11v25 said:


> The male population was most likely less since male infants were killed for a time (moses escaping).



This is true, but there would have no doubt been some births during that time as well.


----------



## KMK (Jun 2, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I think 2,000,000 is the standard figure used for the number of Hebrew people who left Egypt in the Exodus. Think of the Porta Potties!



I think I am going to go with the 2 million mark as well. 

But what do you mean by 'standard'? Is there a concensus among the church? Or are you using the word 'standard' the way it is used in the words English 'Standard' Version, or New American 'Standard' Bible where the word has virtually no meaning at all?


----------



## bookslover (Jun 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> I think I am going to go with the 2 million mark as well.
> 
> But what do you mean by 'standard'? Is there a concensus among the church? Or are you using the word 'standard' the way it is used in the words English 'Standard' Version, or New American 'Standard' Bible where the word has virtually no meaning at all?



Well, I mean "standard" in the sense that that's the number I always read in all the usual reference works and commentaries. It's become the accepted figure, which I think is reasonable.


----------

