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?

[otseng]

Again, we can stop at question one. Egyptology admittedly doesn't know, but you do?

I already gave my closing argument. I'm waiting for yours...

After this, present your summary argument and give your answers to the six initial questions about the Hyksos. After you've done this, if you want, I can go into other lines of evidence the Israelites were in Egypt.

In the meantime, I'm moving on to another important and related topic - Did Moses write the Torah?

[POI]

Again, we can stop at question one. Egyptology admittedly doesn't know, but you do?

I already gave my closing argument. I'm waiting for yours...

You simply regurgitated the argument(s) I already responded to. And then you just labeled some of my responses as 'ad hoc.' I was then willing to just (keep-it-moving) forward, but now you want to instead completely move on without addressing the new points? Okay. If I'm getting the last word here, then I'll try to do so without providing a text wall...?

Few believers argue that the 'Hyksos' were the said "Israelites". Few believers instead argue for the 'Habiru' as being the "Israelites". Other scant believers will instead argue for the 'Shasu' tribe as being the "Israelites." Apparently, they all provide "scholarly" evidence. Which already raises a red flag. Without 'appealing to authority', I instead make a basic observation... In that 'academia' does not unanimously conclude a direct Hyksos/Israeli link. Why?

Is it because...

a) this is the pitfall to all ancient antiquity? If so, how can 'academic' conclusions be fairly unanimous in any case?
b) scholarship rejects evidence to spite the Biblical narrative?
c) many biblical scholars don't actually know their own Biblical Exodus narrative, otherwise, they would have to logically link the Hyksos with the Israelites?
d) other?

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

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Pentateuch:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

This means this publication is then set on higher alert. This is one of the reasons why the Biblical account is not just another line of evidence and is scene with higher levels of scrutiny. The Bible is one of the OG's of 'fake news'. But sure, sometimes even fake news can have nuggets or kernels or truth within them, which is why believers can debate "facts" or plausible considerations, in some cases.

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

Long ago, Otseng stated (paraphrased) - that if the Exodus did not happen, then the Bible cannot be trustworthy. This would include all natural claimed events pertaining to the Exodus storyline. I have to wonder why the Exodus has to be a literal event, but not many other events? Is it maybe because Otseng feels this event has enough 'evidence' to make an argument, where-as storylines in Genesis do not, and therefore, they do not have to be literal? Anyway, I digress...

For me, it's very simple.... If I were to realize that the natural events in the said Exodus really happened, meaning, the Israelites were enslaved, later released, and later wandered the desert, it still would not move the (belief-needle) for me. Why? Because then I would still have to throw it into the pot, with all the other Bible storylines, where there is a mix of naturalism with supernaturalism in the storyline. And I do not buy the claims of supernaturalism. But of course, those supernatural claims cannot really be falsified, so there is no point in trying.... Which is why I'm going after this claim. In this case, the natural said events in the Exodus account are in great question. Which is why few will try to link other tribes.

Most believers here have opted for the position of "absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence." Where I then reply with... I think it depends on the claim. This is a very large claim, which would leave tons of evidence. Right? Which takes us right back to my question asked above (unanswered)? In applying basic observance, enquiring minds want to know... If 'academia' can unanimously reach some conclusions from antiquity, then why is the Exodus not one of them? Or can no solid conclusion(s) be reached when addressing claims from ancient antiquity?

What is my current hypothesis? I think it's possible the Bible sometimes barrows from other events and makes it their own.

I also have other points in posts 869 and 870.... But I will not repeat them again here.

[RBD]

2) Debating religion and politics opens up the dialogue to many topics, which keeps my mind sharper.
3) It's fun to debate
4) I like to test my current positions against other educated folks who ponder these topics as well.

I accept your reasons. You don't have to care about a subject, if all you want to do is argue it's merits, as a matter of intelligence gathering and sharpening of skills.

In fact, many times I learn the Bible more perfectly, by the necessity of making a disciplined argument against some of the teachings of other believers, as well as all the accusations of unbelievers.

The necessary self-discipline is to remain objective, and accept any legitimate correction myself. I also discipline myself not to get embroiled in 'unprofessional' personal issues.

Because you don't care. Got it.

Negative. Please read what I actually wrote.

Duly corrected. If you say you don't care anymore about the Bible than you do about, say, Homer's Iliad, other than as a great source of study and literary debate, then I take you at your word.

I've cared about these psychological exchanges, because they've been interesting. But now their getting old, and I don't care anymore. I'll return to addressing challenges to the Bible.

Great! I don't blame you, since all you are demonstrating is avoidance, ad hominem attacks, strawman attacks, etc., anyways...

However, you're more 'engaging', if you try to let your arguments speak for themselves. I try to avoid accusing others of these 'debate' errors, simply because everyone makes them and always believes the other one is doing it, but never ourselves.

Since we are back to square one:

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?

You could also do better by avoiding repeating yourself, when already answered. Especially when not responding to the answer. It's only fun and profitable to debate to a point. Mindless repetition gets old fast.

[RBD]

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

Being a disbeliever, your idea about faith is nonsensical.

My statement about faith was and is 100% correct. If it wasn't, you would have shown where my thinking was wrong, but instead, all you have done is to slap a label on me as if that would make your words correct. Sorry, but my words about faith are true and your slander only proves its truthfulness.

Ok. To be objectively fair, someone that disbelieves one thing, does not mean they don't have faith in anything. In fact, all people have faith in something, even if it's only in this life. The atheist has faith that this life is all there is. And so lives accordingly.

And it's only blind faith that believes something is true, that is proven false.

Bible faith is believing in the possible, and doing it.

I reject this definition because it is wrong, demonstrably so.
Blind faith is the unquestioning belief in something without requiring or considering evidence or proof. Like how you read the Exodus story that comes from our Bibles.

Here is where your zealous disbelief in the Bible continues to interfere with objective reasoning. Believing in the possible and doing it, is the faith that all people succeed by. Just because the Bible teaches it, doesn't make it wrong. That's only the unreasonable response of someone, that only wants to find something wrong with the Bible, demonstrably so.

Bible faith is the forerunner of all faith, whereby people have done great things, that were thought to be impossible.

Bible faith is just normal faith, but applied specifically to the Bible. Therefore, Bible faith is not special.

Once again, your disbelief towards the Bible clouds your judgment. The Bible is the oldest known Book, that speaks of faith and living by faith, no matter the present circumstances in the life. In fact, there is scant evidence of other books doing so, including religious, until after the Bible began to be read beyond it's own people.

The only reason you can say the faith taught in the Bible is just 'normal' faith, is because of the Bible being the most common Book of faith ever read.

It's like saying the American dollar is nothing special in the world, as though it's irrelevant.

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.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
In reality, you have no idea just how well I happen to understand faith and how/why it is used.

I've accepted the correction pertaining to defining objective faith. Just because you don't believe the Bible, doesn't mean you have faith in nothing. Now you can accept the correction, that Bible faith is only so normal in the world, because the Bible is most common Book in the world.

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

You should not live by faith. As you have learned, faith is a required mechanism that is employed in order for people to believe in false things,

Now, your zealous disbelief in the Bible, misrepresents an accurate teaching on a life of faith. Only blind faith is believing in something false. Faith that is practiced and succeeds in it's purposed hope, is living faith.

Heb{11:1} Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Are you now saying, that your definition of any faith a person acts by, can only be in something false? All faith is false?

Or, do you only apply that definition of faith to the Bible?

When you praise faith as if it was some noble virtue when it isn't, I see it as someone bragging about a disability they have.

Are you saying someone voicing their faith to complete a marathon, and working toward that goal with faith, is just bragging of the disabled?

Or, you must be limiting your definition of faith, to Bible faith. if so, then it's nonsense for a disbeliever in the Bible, to tell a believer about faith in the Bible. It's like a desert dweller trying to tell an islander about the sea.

Faith is not needed in order to believe in real things, like black holes, the wind and quarks for a few examples (things we can't see, but can detect there interactions with reality).

True. Notwithstanding the fact that faith is required in the science of what is not seen. But, it's blind faith to believe in something not proven, as though ti were. Such as the ideology of the Big Bang, that poses as proven science.

[RBD]

RBD Wrote:
The Author of the Bible is the authority of what's written therein.

False! The author of any book is the author of said book. The author may or may not be an authority on the subject.

One more try: The author of a book knows most about the book he's written. Not necessarily about any subject he writes of.

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

Already answered and repeated enough times long ago.

[POI]

You could also do better by avoiding repeating yourself, when already answered.

I've heard this before. No one is perfect in their execution. If I feel my point is not fully addressed in a satisfactory type of way, or even skipped, rather than trying to find all the places I stated it prior, I just restate it again, (in the new response), to save some time. Oh well....

If you say you don't care anymore about the Bible than you do about, say, Homer's Iliad, other than as a great source of study and literary debate, then I take you at your word.

It's a little more than this though. As I stated in point #1.

[Clownboat]

My statement about faith was and is 100% correct. If it wasn't, you would have shown where my thinking was wrong, but instead, all you have done is to slap a label on me as if that would make your words correct. Sorry, but my words about faith are true and your slander only proves its truthfulness.

Ok. To be objectively fair, someone that disbelieves one thing, does not mean they don't have faith in anything. In fact, all people have faith in something, even if it's only in this life. The atheist has faith that this life is all there is. And so lives accordingly.

And it's only blind faith that believes something is true, that is proven false.

This is an odd way to admit that my words about faith were correct and that your slander was misplaced.

Here is where your zealous disbelief in the Bible continues to interfere with objective reasoning. Believing in the possible and doing it, is the faith that all people succeed by. Just because the Bible teaches it, doesn't make it wrong. That's only the unreasonable response of someone, that only wants to find something wrong with the Bible, demonstrably so.

Again, instead of showing that my definition for blind faith was wrong (because you can't due to its correctness) you slap a label on me and pretend that I'm some zealous Bible disbeliever. Your continued ad hominins are happening because you are failing to debate, something our godless atheists are able to do on this site I note.

Bible faith is just normal faith, but applied specifically to the Bible. Therefore, Bible faith is not special.

Once again, your disbelief towards the Bible clouds your judgment.

Please read my clarifying words above about faith and note that you were unable to show that my words were incorrect. Sadly, you once again accuse me of having an emotional reaction to a book instead of a rational criticism of it in place of showing that my words are incorrect.

The Bible is the oldest known Book, that speaks of faith and living by faith, no matter the present circumstances in the life. In fact, there is scant evidence of other books doing so, including religious, until after the Bible began to be read beyond it's own people.

If a person is trying to arrive at truths, then faith needs to be avoided, even if you point to a religious book that is the first to talk about faith.
To show the truth of my words.
If you buy a house, you don't take it on blind faith that it is in order. You hire a professional to do an inspection. Now you have a reason to move forward with the purchase of the house or to back out. Arguing that the Bible is the first book to talk about faith just shows weakness in the book. It certainly doesn't justify using faith in your life. Faith should be avoided.

The only reason you can say the faith taught in the Bible is just 'normal' faith, is because of the Bible being the most common Book of faith ever read.

Faith is faith, no matter what Book mentions it. Faith should be avoided unless you have a desire that some hope you have is true. Then faith is the mechanism in order to pretend that your hope is true.

Just because you don't believe the Bible, doesn't mean you have faith in nothing.

What a meaningless thing to say. Just leaving it here for all to read though.

Now you can accept the correction, that Bible faith is only so normal in the world, because the Bible is most common Book in the world.

This odd accusation that I need correction doesn't change the definition of what faith is. Faith is faith, and Bible faith is just to apply faith to the Bible. How common the Bible is or isn't is irrelevant.

Now, your zealous disbelief in the Bible, misrepresents an accurate teaching on a life of faith. Only blind faith is believing in something false. Faith that is practiced and succeeds in it's purposed hope, is living faith.

Now I have zealous disbelief in the Bible!
Your words are false that only blind faith is to believe in something false.
To demonstrate your wrongness, see the Muslim that applies faith in their religion that you believe is wrong, while at the very same time you have this same Muslim thinking that your faith is misplaced.

Are you now saying, that your definition of any faith a person acts by, can only be in something false? All faith is false?

It is alarming that this is the conclusion you arrived at.
Faith is a mechanism that is required in order to believe that something false is true. That doesn't mean that a person cannot believe that Big Foot is real via faith today to then have Big Foot discovered to be real tomorrow. Faith can lead to a true belief, but it shouldn't be employed as a mechanism due to the fact that it can lead to false beliefs being believed to be true.

Do you now understand as to why I argue that faith should be avoided? Remove the religious aspect that gets you emotional and think about faith while buying a house or concluding about the realness of Big Foot.

Are you saying someone voicing their faith to complete a marathon, and working toward that goal with faith, is just bragging of the disabled?

Nope.
A person that hasn't prepped for a marathon and just believes on faith that they can complete one just may have arrived at a false belief that they can complete the said marathon due to the faith they are employing. No 'reason' is detected.
A person that has prepped for a marathon would have 'reason' to believe that they can complete the said marathon and would not need to employ faith, because they have 'reason'.

I have 'reason' (it past inspection and has a good price point) to buy this house is wise.
I have 'faith' (I hope this house is a good purchase) that I should buy this house is to not employ reason and is therefore less unwise. We should use wisdom, right?

Or, you must be limiting your definition of faith, to Bible faith. if so, then it's nonsense for a disbeliever in the Bible, to tell a believer about faith in the Bible. It's like a desert dweller trying to tell an islander about the sea.

Your words do not ring true and seem to just be a weak justification for Bible faith.
Faith is faith. You can employ faith that a holy book is true and call it holy book faith for all I care or you can have faith that Big Foot is real and call it Big Foot faith. Faith remains faith though and faith I have argued is a mechanism that can lead to believing false beliefs and should therefore be avoided, not praised.

Faith is not needed in order to believe in real things, like black holes, the wind and quarks for a few examples (things we can't see, but can detect there interactions with reality).

Notwithstanding the fact that faith is required in the science of what is not seen.

This informs me that you are not understanding.
We have 'reason' for black holes, the wind and quarks, therefore faith is not necessary.
If you want to believe in fairies, science will not lead you to fairies, but you can hope that fairies are real and then apply faith and now you accept a false belief.

But, it's blind faith to believe in something not proven, as though ti were. Such as the ideology of the Big Bang, that poses as proven science.

There is evidence and reason as to why the Big Bang is accepted. You seem to be applying faith that the Big Bang is just some ideology without evidence or reason. Faith has led you to this false belief about the Big Bang. Now there is some irony!

[Clownboat]

The Author of the Bible is the authority of what's written therein.

False! The author of any book is the author of said book. The author may or may not be an authority on the subject.

One more try: The author of a book knows most about the book he's written. Not necessarily about any subject he writes of.

One more try at what? Either amend your thinking or show that what I said was false so I can amend mine please. Since you now agree with me that an author may not be an authority on what they write, what are you trying to accomplish with your "one more try"?

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

Already answered and repeated enough times long ago.[/quote]
Was your answer yes or no? Perhaps I missed it with all the name calling?