Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Yesturday we were studying the ten plagues in Exodus. One of the things that confused us was this. Exodus 9:6 reads:

6 And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died.

This means, the Egyptians did not have any livestock left. But in verse 20 and 21 we read:

20 Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside. 21 But those who ignored the word of the Lord left their slaves and livestock in the field.

Wait, which livestock? Wasn't the livestock already dead?

And in verse 25 we read that the livestock was indeed killed.

25 Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields—both people and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree.

So we discussed this, and thought well, maybe the ten plagues took place over a longer time so the Egyptians could restore their livestock. However this seems not really possible as Moses did die at 120 years old (Deuteronomy 34:7) where Moses was 80 years old (Exodus 7:7) when he was called by God.

What would be a good explanation for this conflict?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 24 down vote accepted

Answers in Genesis, an Apologetics site dedicated to defending the Bible as inerrant, gives five "reasonable" possibilities: Bear in mind that the real answer is, "we don't know for sure", and we can't answer what did happen. The best we can do is offer plausible explanations of what might have happened. Typically this is done using common rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies. So, from an Apologetic standpoint, their answers do offer plausible resolutions to the apparent conflict.

First, Exodus 9:3 states, “"Behold, the hand of the Lord will be on your cattle in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe pestilence."” Surprisingly, this verse does not mention one of the most important domestic animals at that time—the goat.1 Therefore, it is possible that all of the livestock except goats were killed in the first plague on the livestock (fifth plague overall), and in the second instance it was goats that were affected by the plague of hail.

Second, Exodus 9:19–20 mentions that those who “"feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh"” were told to get their livestock out of the fields. Some scholars mention that these Egyptians may have been warned about the previous plague of pestilence (although it was not recorded), so they still had all of their livestock left. In this scenario, God warned them to put all of their livestock in barns so they wouldn’t be killed by hail.

The third possibility is similar to the previous explanation except that the survival of their livestock hinges on the phrase “servants of Pharaoh.” Perhaps this means they were not actually Egyptians, but other vassal subjects who were warned of the plagues so that their animals could be spared. So in Exodus 9:6, where it says that all the livestock of Egypt died, this view suggests that the animals belonging to these foreign vassals were spared if they obeyed God and not Pharaoh.

Fourth, the Bible does not reveal how much time passed between the fifth plague and the seventh plague. Following the fifth plague, which wiped out the livestock of Egypt, the Egyptians may have taken some of the livestock belonging to Israel. Another possibility is that they bought (or took) livestock from surrounding areas (Libya, Ethiopia, Canaan, etc). The first option would require very little time to complete while the second would probably require at least a few weeks. But since the Bible does not specify how much time passed, either is possible.

The fifth, and perhaps simplest solution, would be to acknowledge the fact that “all” does not always mean exclusively “all.”2 We must use the context to determine its meaning. In the case of Exodus 9:6, it might be best translated that “"all manner of livestock of the Egyptians died."” In other words, the plague included all kinds of animals, as clarified in the third verse: “"on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe pestilence."” This is the approach taken in Coverdale’s translation, and the New English Translation includes a footnote with a similar explanation.

    -
share|improve this answer
    
Nice answer, atleast 4 possible explainations. The fourth is not really possible as for the reason in the question. Combine this with the 600.000 people(excluding females and childeren) from Israel. Which was about the size of the Egyptians means that their livestock was big. It seems impossible to replace this livestock in a few weeks. –  2pietjuh2 Nov 6 '13 at 13:11
    
But that was one of David's points: "the Bible does not specify how much time passed". You assume "a few weeks" but we simply don't know. –  Wikis Nov 6 '13 at 13:37
    
Eh, It's probably not worth arguing. "reasonable" is a subjective term. –  David Stratton Nov 6 '13 at 14:08
    
The last two should be first, assuming AiG is listing the "most reasonable" first. Great answer. –  fredsbend Nov 6 '13 at 17:19
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.