The Sages’ answer is very, very strange.
In the Covenant Between the Parts it says 400 years.
In the passage about the Exodus from Egypt it says 430 years.
According to the rabbinic calculation, it comes out to 210 years.

I never understood why the Holy One wrote things in such a bizarre way.
It would make more sense to write the truth and explain it (I planned 400 [or 430? how is the internal contradiction between them resolved?] but because you were about to sink, etc., I shortened it for you) than to write incorrect data and then explain it with casuistry…

If you write something, you need to make sure that whoever reads it will understand it, even without Rashi’s explanation that “He wrote 400, but that was only the plan and not what happened in practice, because they were about to sink, etc.”.

Abraham, you are presenting things in a distorted and antagonistic way, and then accusing the Torah of presenting them in a distorted way. The one who disqualifies does so with his own flaw…
In the Covenant Between the Parts there is no description of reality, but a prophecy of what was planned to happen. The prophecy was 400 years, and that was exactly what was meant. There is no deception here at all. In practice the calculation comes out to 210, meaning the plan was not carried out. Therefore the Sages understood that the Holy One decided to advance the Exodus. What exactly is the problem here? A perfectly logical inference, and in the writing there is no deception and no correction is needed. “They were about to sink” and the rest of that stuff are your inventions to make fun of it.
As for the 430, that is already a different question that in any case is not connected to this.

Rabbi, so what does the 430 years mean? Honestly I got really confused..

You wrote “about to sink into the bondage” in your first answer. I only quoted you.

Everything you wrote would be fine if the actual Exodus text itself did not say 400 years and only the Covenant Between the Parts did. But I already wrote that in the portion of Bo it says, “Now the habitation of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was thirty years and four hundred years.” That is no longer a prophecy; it is a description of reality.
To explain the description of reality written in the Exodus text itself, in the summary of the Exodus (“who dwelt in Egypt”), as only the plan for the years of bondage and not a description of reality, is a very, very, very forced reading.

B. What actually is your explanation for the difference between 400 and 430?

When I wrote that they were about to sink, I was speaking about the point in time of the Exodus from Egypt, not about the Covenant Between the Parts. That was not the original plan, but rather the consideration for why the date of the Exodus was moved earlier.
The habitation of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt from the time the prophecy of the Covenant Between the Parts was said was 430 years.
Regarding these contradictions, see two sources for example:
1. Here, especially note 6: https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/bo/yosi.html
2. Also see here: https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/bo/laby.html

Rabbi, I looked at the first link: they write, “According to the accepted view, the 400 years mentioned in the Covenant Between the Parts are counted from the birth of Isaac”—that is, from the time Isaac was born until the Exodus, 400 years? (Just to be sure, I’m checking that I understood correctly.)

Indeed, and the 430 is from the Covenant Between the Parts.

Hmm, if I understood what is written in the Torah:
“Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them four hundred years.”
The context of the verse comes pretty easily, and there is no need (in my opinion) to reinterpret it and get too tangled up with Jacob’s servitude to Laban and Isaac and so on, because afterward the text says, and afterward I will bring them out with great wealth, etc.
That is, the text is explicitly speaking about the slavery in Egypt. Not like what they wrote in the links, that Laban the Aramean enslaved Jacob and the rest of Israel, etc. All these interpretations don’t really sit right with me.

What is the difficulty? The children of Israel lived in Egypt for 430 years, from the middle of the Hyksos period until the days of Ramesses II, who boasted in his 400-year stela about renewing the cult of Seth, the god of the Hyksos. This fits all the verses perfectly—and the 210 years that people wrote is arrived at indirectly, from a calculation based on adding up the years lived by Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses, assuming these were direct father-son links. But that is not necessary, because it was customary to list only the heads of the ancestral line even when there were generational gaps between them. And see also Cassuto for straightforward interpretations. These are Shadal’s words:
“And Amram took, etc.: We are forced to say that Scripture omitted some generations between Kohath and Amram, for in Numbers (3:28) the numbered sons of Kohath, every male from a month old and upward, were 8,600, and he had only four sons who established families; therefore each of Kohath’s four sons had 2,150 descendants. Now Amram begot only Aaron, Moses, and Miriam; Moses begot only two sons, and Aaron four, so how could Amram, and likewise Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, each have had 2,150 persons in the second year after they left the land of Egypt?… Therefore we must agree… that Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses were not successive generations one right after another; rather other generations stood between them. According to this, the number of thirty years and four hundred years that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt is to be taken in its plain sense, and according to this the very multiplication of the children of Israel in Egypt is understandable without saying the Torah described it as an outright miracle.”

So here there is a different answer, one that does not fit the words of the Sages, who spoke of 210 years of bondage. Now the difficulty is how the Sages read the verses.

But that is a negligible difficulty regarding the midrashim of the Sages. It is worth noting, however, that this gap of 200 years also comes up in academic dating, because if you count 480 years back from the building of Solomon’s Temple, you get 1445 BCE for the Exodus from Egypt, whereas if the children of Israel built the city of Ramesses for the famous king Ramesses II and left in his days or in the days of his son—as is accepted in scholarship—then it turns out there are only about 250 years or so until the building of the Temple. So indeed it is not clear how long the children of Israel stayed in Egypt. If 210, then they left in 1450, and if they stayed 400 years then they left 200 years later, in the days of Ramesses, in 1250 (all numbers rounded for convenience). One solution is to say there were two Exodus events from Egypt. The first, the sons of Joseph, as royal figures, established cities for themselves in Israel and settled there about 200 years after Israel went down to Egypt, in 1445. And the main Exodus of the rest of the people was in 1250. All of these are of course speculations, far from the plain meaning of the verses. The chronological problem regarding the dating of the Exodus from Egypt is well known. Here are the two main approaches: (I will not address the traditional view, which is located in the middle, in the year 1312 BCE, because of the lack of readily available information about it in the sources of information.)
The late dating: around 1250–1208 BCE
On the one hand, it seems that the Exodus from Egypt took place in the 13th–12th century BCE, in the days of Ramesses II or his son Merneptah—because of the mention of the city of Ramesses that Israel built during their bondage. Ramesses, after all, was the one responsible for building the city of Ramesses (previously Avaris), and from this it follows that if the children of Israel built it, they left only in the days of this king (or his son, since it says “and the king of Egypt died” before Moses comes before the new Pharaoh, which implies that this statement comes after the building of Ramesses). The Exodus could not have happened after the days of Merneptah, because he writes on his stela that he struck Israel: “Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more”—which apparently means they were already sitting in Canaan.
This theory is widespread in scholarship. In the religious world, Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun holds it.
Advantages of the method:
The method is partially supported by evidence of the entry of an external factor into the land of Canaan in the 12th century—Adam Zertal’s findings, both Mount Ebal’s altar and the rise in settlements, in accordance with the theory of peaceful infiltration.
B. The Song at the Sea is built in parallel to Ramesses II’s victory descriptions of the battle of Megiddo, and interacts with them. Also the structure of Israel’s camp parallels Ramesses’ military camp (Joshua Berman).
Approach B—The Exodus from Egypt around 1445–7 BCE:
The building of the Temple in Solomon’s days in the 10th century, “480 after the days of the Exodus from Egypt,” is strongly anchored by cross-checking the date of Shishak king of Egypt’s campaign to the land (dated to around 925/6 BCE). But this occurs only about 250 years after the above dating, which does not fit the number stated above, nor the sequence of descriptions in the book of Judges, nor even the words of Gideon, according to whom already in his days they counted about 300 years since the Exodus from Egypt.
Additional weaknesses in the theory: the archaeological evidence shows that Ammon and Moab did not yet exist in this period—contrary to what the Torah says about Israel’s wanderings near them.
B. The fact that Egypt still ruled Canaan for several hundred years after Israel was supposedly already inside Canaan is hard to digest. C. The children of Israel could not have built Ramesses (unless the Torah used a future name or was written at a much later period than the events).
Advantages of the method: A. Many destruction findings in Canaan fit the 14th century period—Jericho, carbon-14 tests on the burning of the storehouses at Hazor, and more.
B. Already in this period the name “Yairu” = Yair appears within Canaan, implying the Exodus from Egypt had already happened.
C. In Midian there appear the “Shasu of Yahu” tribes, implying that the children of Israel, believers in a god bearing this name, were already in the Sinai-Midian region at this period.
D. Akhenaten, who ruled after Amenhotep III, moved to belief in one god—something that may indicate Hebrew influence on him, perhaps even recognition of the power of the one God through the series of plagues of Egypt.
E. The slaughtering of the lamb on Passover fits the desecration of the chief god in this period—Amun-Ra—and not in other periods.
In the religious world, those who hold this approach are Rabbi Yoel Elitzur, Yehuda Elitzur, and Yitzhak Meitlis. To the best of my knowledge, no real public discussion has taken place between the conflicting positions in the religious world.
It is interesting that this 200-year problem already appeared in the words of the Sages, not at all because of archaeological conclusions but because of interpretation: from the contradiction in the texts between the date of the Exodus from Egypt after four generations (Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses)—about 210 years after their arrival there—and the explicit verse stating 430 years of exile within Egypt. The Sages resolved the contradiction by cross-referencing the two dates into one specific point at which the children of Israel left Egypt, which indeed occurred four generations after they entered it, and 430 after the birth of Isaac. I would like to suggest the opposite solution, and say that both dates in the text, as well as both archaeological datings, are correct in that they refer to a double event.
The reconciliation between the methods is to say that both are right:
This is the proposal: a double dating of the Exodus from Egypt. In the Bible there is a hint of waves of (at least) two main departures—the primary one of all the enslaved tribes, in the days of Ramesses or Merneptah, and that is the one explicitly written in the Torah and receives most of the focus; with regard to it, Scripture counts about 430 years from the descent of the children of Israel to Egypt (apparently at the beginning of the Hyksos period). The secondary, minor one—earlier, sometime in the days of Thutmose or Akhenaten (about 200 years earlier)—was of the sons of Joseph from the royal class (these are called by the Sages under the code name “the sons of Ephraim”—below), who moved around in Canaan—which was an Egyptian province—until their settlement in Shechem. It is only hinted at in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), mainly in Chronicles. With regard to this earlier Exodus, Kings counts 480 years backward. According to this, 430 years and 480 do not intersect at one date, but are separated by about 200 years, because the 430 is counted from the days of the descent to Egypt toward the future in which they would leave there, whereas the 480 years is counted backward—from the building of the Temple—toward the past when the first exiles returned in the first ascent to the land of Canaan, long before the collective Exodus.
Solomon’s reason for counting the years to the early and minor date (the “Exodus of the sons of Ephraim”) rather than to the main Exodus written in the Torah:
A. Solomon’s intention was to strengthen the children of Israel’s dwelling in the land, and to say that their settlement was already many hundreds of years old. This idea supports Solomon’s power as ruler over one great kingdom over an ancient people. (Similar to Ben-Gurion in his conversation with Einstein and Velikovsky, who held that the children of Israel never fully left the land. Likewise the Declaration of Independence—”In the Land of Israel the Jewish people arose”—we thus have a tendency of leaders.) According to this, this number is counted to Solomon’s credit; perhaps it was even publicized in proclamations in his name at the time of the Temple’s construction.
B. Another possibility—the bringing forward of the date of entry into the land in Solomon’s words is as a declaration: “We have already been in the land 480 years, and until now God has been dwelling in a temporary tent and Tabernacle (starting from the first ascent of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Yair), and only now have I merited—as king—to build a house for the God of Israel.” This position places Solomon as a redeemer and savior, very much in parallel to Moses, whose redemption of Egypt attributed to him is greatly magnified if he redeemed a people enslaved for 430 years, and not “only” 210, as in the Sages’ calculation and the plain sense of Genesis 15 and Exodus 6 (only four generations between Levi and Moses). Moses redeems the exile of the people, and Solomon supposedly redeems the exile of God.
C. A final possibility: this datum was added by a later author of Kings, likely after the destruction, in line with his numerological tendencies: 480 years passed from Solomon’s time until the destruction—in full symmetry with the years from the Exodus from Egypt until the building of the Temple. (It may be assumed that this is a typological number based on the 12 High Priests, but it must at least be roughly in the order of magnitude of the stated number.)
The position I have proposed would fit with all the above factors and with others:
A. The tribes of Manasseh, Yair = “Yairu,” indeed were already in the land of Canaan. (This makes it understandable that Moses says, “and he called them the villages of Yair to this day,” because many years had passed since Yair conquered them.)
B. This explains why Joshua did not need to conquer Shechem—because ancient Israelite groups or their allies were settled there; also half the tribe of Manasseh suddenly appearing in the inheritances of Gad and Reuben fits this position.
C. This explains Joshua’s renewed covenant in chapter 24—with people who did not experience the whole Exodus from Egypt and Mount Sinai, because they had been in the wilderness.
D. The Habiru (Ephraim?) who joined Labayu (Levi?), ruler of Shechem, as documented in the Amarna letters in the 10th century BCE, fit well with a Hebrew population = Habiru.
What remains to be clarified:
A. Whether it is possible to calculate the generations from the days of Ephraim until the death of his sons in the land of Canaan, as brought in Chronicles (in addition to other verses in this spirit), in a way that would intersect with the date to which Kings points for the entry into the land (approximately 1440 BCE).
B. If these things are true, what was special about that date when a Hebrew population penetrated back into Canaan? Did they see that bondage was about to come and hurry to leave? How did they sense it? One particular theory holds that with the expulsion of the Hyksos to Canaan, the Semites who remained in Egypt were enslaved, as a result of the native Egyptians’ vengeance against the Semitic god who had ruled their land. This fits the text: “A new king arose over Egypt” (a new dynasty) “… lest he also join our enemies” (as the Hyksos did) “and fight against us and go up from the land.” This would also fit the days of the Exodus from Egypt in the time of Ramesses II about three hundred years later, leaving 130 years before the expulsion of the Hyksos for Jacob’s sons’ entry into Egypt. According to this, Joseph could have been viceroy because of the Semitic rule of his time—something that would be unthinkable in a purely Egyptian dynasty.
But the date of the expulsion of the Hyksos occurred about 550 years before the days of Solomon and does not match the number 480 years even approximately. The date of Israel’s entry into Canaan took place a hundred years after the expulsion of the Hyksos and therefore cannot be identified with it, despite the temptation.
C. Perhaps one can think of another possibility: that the Hebrew settlement was always in the land, and the counting of 480 years from the days of the Exodus from Egypt means the departure of Egyptian rule from the land (in the early period), something celebrated as an original Independence Day, to which they later counted generations? Even though Thutmose returned and conquered, etc., they still did not refrain from counting from these days. According to this, one would need to prove that 480 years before Solomon there is a date that could fit Egyptian chronology.
This requires further study.

I have an answer: 215 + 215. The preparation for the bondage was 215 years, and the bondage itself was 215 years. Just as a person who breaks the law does not immediately receive actual imprisonment but remains under house arrest and is sometimes sent to perform what is called community service and only then is brought to the jail cell, so too with an entire people. God’s dimension of time is not a human dimension, like light-years.

Religious people are confused. On the one hand, Torah from Heaven. On the other hand, Torah as a history book.
If the Torah describes what happened in the land, then it is not from Heaven.
You need to decide.

With God’s help, 13 Adar 5781

Since the land of Canaan was under the authority of the rulers of Egypt in the days of the patriarchs, the archaeologist Dr. Yitzhak Meitlis suggests (in his book Crossroads, on the Torah portions from a geographic-historical-archaeological perspective) that the “habitation of the children of Israel in Egypt” includes the days of the patriarchs, when the cities of Canaan were vassals of Egypt.

At the Exodus from Egypt, 430 years of dependence of the children of Israel on Egyptian rule came to an end, beginning with their being strangers in kingdoms subordinate to Egypt, continuing as strangers in Egypt itself, and ending in complete bondage in Egypt. From now on, that dependence was severed, in the hope that Egypt would no longer be the state that determines our lives.

With blessing,
Amityoz Yaron, may his lamp continue to shine

The Covenant Between the Parts came after Abraham defeated the alliance of the kingdoms of Mesopotamia and its surroundings, under whose rule the inhabitants of Canaan had been, and following the defeat of the northern kings, Egypt became the dominant power in the land of Canaan.

Decisor, explain the contradiction.

According to the rabbinic explanation, that the 400 years are from the birth of Isaac and the 430 from the Covenant Between the Parts, it comes out that the Covenant Between the Parts was thirty years before Isaac’s birth, meaning when Abram was seventy years old. But on the other hand:
“And Abram went, as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.”
Genesis 12