The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

[POI]

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[POI]

It sounds like it says the Israelites were the Hyksos.

Asked in my prior response. if you already addressed it there, then no need to repeat here:

You don't have a position here? Do you think academia is basing a conclusion upon a) haste, and/or b) to spite the Biblical account?

[RBD]

The title of this thread is:

The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

When someone presents actual evidence of the Exodus that has been gathered, the new question becomes "why did you post that?", proving they don't really care about the answer to the question, only that they've been deprived of the opportunity to argue total nonsense yet again.

I was actually disappointed that they give no evidence against Exodus. Every time these people promise damaging evidence against the Bible, all they have is blind disbelief, that they try to pass off as rational demands to prove the Bible true.

The point is that the Bible doesn't need material proof, in order to believe it. So long as there is no verifiable proof against it.

The conclusion is that there are objective skeptics, who do wait for more evidence to prove something is true. But then there are the determined disbelievers, that are ideological antagonists, not honest critics.

Only blind disbelief can say the Bible can't possibly be true, when there is no proof against it...

[RBD]

One of the reasons I don't care what you believe, is because I only care about any proof of Bible errors, not about claims of error for the purpose of not believing.

Why would you expect the unfalsifiable claims in the Bible to be potentially disprovable?

It's called logical book review. If any part of a book is proven false, then the whole book becomes suspect, especially the unfalsifiable parts.

This is especially true with a Book claimed to be written by a perfect Person and Author. The Author makes Himself falsifiable by His own claim of a perfect Book. If there is any internal or external error, then the unfalsifiable Authorship is proven false, which would include any other unfalsifiable claim made by the imperfect author.

This is self-evidently why so many people search the Bible, in order to see if it is unerring as a perfect Author could only write. I.e. there are millions of people through history, that would disagree with any superficial unserious reader, that says errancy or inerrancy of the Bible is irrelevant to the unfalsifiable Author and His claims.

[RBD]

One of the reasons I don't care what you believe, is because I only care about any proof of Bible errors, not about claims of error for the purpose of not believing.

But I already gave you one demonstrated Bible error a while ago, and you hand-waved it away. Did you already forget?

I've rebutted every challenge to the Bible I've come across. If I missed one, then repeat it, or give the post #.

However, you need to speak to yourself. You've never acknowledged any detail of my argument against your 'unfalsifiable' ruse about the Bible, much less prove any of it wrong.

Although I did congratulate your unique way of calling the Bible a myth, by saying the Bible is unfalsifiable, which is only the case for myths and fables. But, of course, the Bible is not unfalsifiable. Much of it is very verifiable.

I long ago understood, that it's not the miracles, spiritual kingdom, nor claims of error found in the Bible, that turns people from the God of the Bible, but it's simply the 'Thou shalt not..." And the judgment for doing it anyway...

I would first have to believe there really exists some claimed invisible cosmic agency who is actually there to judge, in order for your statement to gain any traction.

You mistake me for a proselytizer. I don't care if it gets traction. I just state the obvious, that I have learned by experience.

The fact that so many people spend so much time trying to disprove a book, is proof that the book matters to people's lives.

I don't believe the Koran. I could care less what Mooohammed has to say. I don't argue about his book, nor with believers in his book. It's a meaningless waste of time to me. There's no there there to tract...All I have to say about the Koran, is that the author contradicts himself from the beginning, when claiming to speak for the God of Abraham, and the god he calls Allah. Therefore, the rest of the book can be interesting as a curiosity, but nothing important in life to argue over.

Now, getting back on topic:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

Answered too many times.

[RBD]

Faith is necessary to believe the Author of the Bible is who He says He is.

Faith is also necessary if you want to believe that something false is actually true.

Being a disbeliever, your idea about faith is nonsensical. Blind faith is necessary to believe a lie. It's called self-deceit, delusional, foolish imagination, etc...

Bible faith is believing in the possible, and doing it. Bible faith is the forerunner of all faith, whereby people have done great things, that were thought to be impossible.

If you want to believe in Big Foot, this would take faith.
Same for Nessie.
Alien abductions.
Fairies.
Allah.

Once again. A disbeliever talking about faith, is the same as desert dweller talking about living on the sea. They only mock such a thing as impossible.

Wanting to believe is not believing. If faith is not lived by, then the Bible calls it dead faith without works, being alone.

It's not faith at all, but only vain imagination.

[POI]

If I missed one, then repeat it

At least one of the Bible authors thinks the world is flat. Remember?

I just state the obvious, that I have learned by experience.

But it makes no sense to state that an unbeliever would even care what an imaginary agency thinks.

The fact that so many people spend so much time trying to disprove a book, is proof that the book matters to people's lives.

I've explained why. This religion in intrenched within many of my own family members and friends. Rather than to raise any discord with them, I come here in anonymity to debate observations.

Answered too many times.

Yes, this is why I asked again. In that, so far, you have had nothing to offer. Maybe this time will be different?

[otseng]

You're just repeating the argument from authority fallacy, the ad populum fallacy, and red herring fallacy.

Nah, instead, you are placing rubberstamps upon my basic observations to avoid just that, which is obvious basic observations.

I'll let the readers judge if your responses are "basic observations" or fallacious responses.

Who knows? But it's interesting they base it on such a dearth of evidence.

You don't have a position here? Do you think academia is basing a conclusion upon a) haste, and/or b) to spite the Biblical account?

Another red herring. Who cares why they hold a position when the evidence is lacking? Sure, I can give all sorts of guesses, but it'd be off topic and not relevant to whether there is evidence to support the Exodus or not.

Further, maybe the given fringe position regarding "the Hyksos being the Israelites" is the actual dearth in and of itself?

I'll soon summarize my arguments and let readers assess who has the most evidence and rational arguments.

[POI]

You're just repeating the argument from authority fallacy, the ad populum fallacy, and red herring fallacy.

Nah, instead, you are placing rubberstamps upon my basic observations to avoid just that, which is obvious basic observations.

I'll let the readers judge

This seems to be your (go-to) answer in many cases. Which is why I adopted it too in many of these exchanges with you. The readers have decided that the "Hyksos hypotheses' likely has no legs. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is also exactly why I pasted almost an entire publicist's entry, so they can decide themselves if a Hyksos expulsion makes more sense.

Another red herring. Who cares why they hold a position when the evidence is lacking? Sure, I can give all sorts of guesses, but it'd be off topic and not relevant to whether there is evidence to support the Exodus or not.

It is not a red herring. See directly above, for a prime example. Meaning, you seem to sometimes care what others think, but not other times. And it seems quite odd you do not care what others, (in this case, what academia thinks). Since you are the one who brought up the Hyksos, you must think this hypothesis carries legs? Otherwise, why bring it up at all? However, alternatively, it instead seems to be either:

a) 'academia' does not know who the heck the Hyksos really were for sure?
b) 'academia' does know who the Hyksos really were, and most do not associate them to the Biblical account because....

In the very beginning of this exchange, you stated (paraphrased) - "we'll see which position makes more sense." Well, if your position makes more sense, then why the heck does "academia" not unanimously agree with a direct Hyksos/Israeli link? You must have some idea? Is "academia"...

a) jumping to conclusions to soon, as there is not enough data?
b) denying the obvious, to spite a Bible narrative?
c) just plain ignorant to the Bible story, otherwise, they would unanimously side with a Hyksos/Israeli narrative?
d) other?

Enquiring minds want to know?

I'll soon summarize my arguments and let readers assess who has the most evidence and rational arguments.

You did it again. Why care what others think sometimes, but not other times? Further, you already gave your argument in another thread, and no one is coming to your defense, which includes believers of the Exodus story.

**************************

Without directly summarizing our exchange regarding the "Hyksos", here is why I brought up this topic. You admitted that if "the Exodus" was not a factual event, then the Bible is in deep doo doo. Well, I admit that even the most bias of source(s) can have kernels of truth within them. This would include most legacy media outlets, as well as ancient religious books - like the Bible. But, in this particular case, do the mundane claims, which-is-to-mean, do the non-supernatural claims stand "evidentially"? Were the expressed Israelites in Egypt at the said time? Were they really enslaved for centuries in Egypt? Were they later set free? Did they really wander the desert for decades? etc etc etc?

Most believers have opted to go with the position of "absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence.", and then go from there to give excuse after excuse as to why we have no evidence... You, on the other hand, may understand that this varied stance may be a little too damning of a position to hold, in retaining the position that the Bible holds true veracity -- in spite of some minor "hiccups".

Well, there seems to be not much leeway granted, or 'hiccups' allowed, where the story of an 'Exodus' account is concerned. It either happened or it didn't. In this case, if it didn't, you cannot then merely pivot and then deem the "Exodus" account as a metaphorical storyline, like many believers will do for some of the Genesis storyline. Which is why you are attempting to link another tribe. Which is also why few others may also try to link another tribe, like the Habiru.

[Clownboat]

I was actually disappointed that they give no evidence against Exodus.

Don't be disappointed, but think about this logically. If I were to claim that I owned a dog, but didn't, you wouldn't find evidence for no dog, you would note that there is no evidence for there being a dog though. Like for the Exodus story as told in the Bible currently. Do you think we will ever find evidence for this event?

Every time these people promise damaging evidence against the Bible,

Can you provide an example of this? If this was just an emotional response, then no need.

all they have is blind disbelief,

Acknowledging that there is no evidence for the Exodus story yet is not blind disbelief. Shame on you. I'm guessing that you employ this falsehood in order to protect some preconceived religious belief you happen to hold, but please don't level that at me as it is false.

The point is that the Bible doesn't need material proof, in order to believe it. So long as there is no verifiable proof against it.

So no proof should be required in order to believe that the bodies of hundreds of saints got out of their graves and walks Jerusalem, appearing to many? Nothing, just the words from one of the gospels is good enough? You sure about that?
Same thing for talking animals?
Virgin births?
Conjuring up fishes and loaves?
Living in the belly of a fish for 3 days?

You would have made a great Muslim had you been born in the Middle East I would think.

The conclusion is that there are objective skeptics, who do wait for more evidence to prove something is true.

I agree. Now, do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

But then there are the determined disbelievers, that are ideological antagonists, not honest critics.

Again, I believe this is just an emotional reaction in order for you to justify why others don't think like you. You dodge an argument you know you cannot win by inventing some group of humans and charging them with having an emotional reaction to the Bible (Exodus here specifically) in place of a rational criticism of it.

Noting that there is no evidence for the event as told is to criticize the claim and is rational.
Failing to address this and instead making ad hominem fallacies accusing others of being determined disbelievers is what should be avoided.

Only blind disbelief can say the Bible can't possibly be true, when there is no proof against it...

Now you have invented some group of people that say the Bible can't possibly be true. Why on earth could nothing in the Bible be true? The Bible is a collection of books written over many years by many people. Why couldn't at least some of it be true? Where do these weird claims of yours come from?

[RBD]

I don't dodge arguments from people arguing about a Book, that they don't believe nor care what the Book says. I only show they are arguing about a book, that they don't allow to speak for itself.

This is not interesting, nor is it worthy debating. Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

The dodging part is on people talking about a book, that they don't believe nor care what it says of itself, and also think they are making an argument from the book.

Talking about a book that a person doesn't believe in nor car about is in fact not dodging.[/quote]

Not caring about what what a book says, while arguing against it, is not the same as not caring about it at all. It's self-evident that someone cares much about something, by the abundance of time spent arguing against it.

Blindly arguing against something without understanding it first, is by fear. People who refuse to at least understand the truth of something, are afraid of it. It's the fearful and unbelieving...

The author of a book is not the authority of his own book??

They are not an authority and you know it.
The proof is:
I could write a book about delusional Christian beliefs. Am I now some sort of an authority on delusional Christian beliefs in your world? Yes or no?

No. You are only an authority on what you write about such things. The Author of the Bible is the authority of what's written therein. No reader has more authority over the Bible, than the Author.

The problem once again here, is that for the purpose of judging validity of the Bible, I only care what the Bible says. I don't care what people believe about the Book itself.

You're so caught up in your disbelief in the Book, that you can't separate yourself from it long enough to at least understand what Bible is saying. Therefore, your fearful disbelief prevents you from being an objective critic of the Book itself. You attack the Bible for saying things, that are only in your own unbelieving mind about it. You don't have the necessary objectivity to report only what the Book says.

If you were reporting on Plato's Republic or Milton's Paradise Lost, then you would only be talking about what the author's say in their books. You wouldn't be wasting so much time reporting your personal opinions about them. Which once again, proves you care about the Bible, but only to attack it, not report on it honestly.

The track record however is 1 for the Bible. Many didn't believe it's record of the Assyrian empire, until the evidence was found. Some then believed, and some then just moved on to something else to find fault with. But those who believed before the evidence was unearthed, didn't need it to be, and simply continued on believing.

Do I have your understanding correct here?:
Because a claim about the Assyrian empire was shown to be correct, all the claims made in the Bible are true and an authority?

And we see here, that your refusal to understand what the Bible says, extends to accurate arguments about it.

I agree. It's no more interesting to be trading psychological analysis back and forth.