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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Too bad both Jewish and Egyptian archeologists don't have your logic. They should already know nothing could ever be found. For decades, these archeologists continue to waste their time.

It is like the game of basketball, and the crossover dribble.

Sure, it is nice to have good crossover dribble, but you can get by without it.

See what I'm saying?

All your response demonstrates, is that there IS no evidence for an Exodus. The Bible is the claim, and no evidence backs up this claim.

No external Biblical evidence backs up this claim.

And I do not buy the notion that external Biblical evidence is required.

You are merely giving an excuse as to why nothing has been found, despite looking and looking and looking.

According to Scripture, the Jews inhabited Egypt for hundreds of years, which also includes millions of Jews continuing to inhabit Egyptian territory after the Exodus. And yet, no mass graves, bones, DNA, nothing? Further, the Egyptians, who were meticulous record keepers, mention nothing of plagues, or anything about how they owned Jewish slaves, etc? And when the Jews made the journey from point A to point B, nothing at all there either?

Sure, as if one of the hieroglyphs would read "we got asses handed to us by the God of the Israelites...our Gods were clearly no match for Yahweh".

Second, chances are, you aren't going to believe in the Bible regardless of the fact...making what is/isn't in the Bible irrelevant at that point.

Further, during the Egyptian conquest of Canaan, (around 1450 BCE to 1100 BCE), which would have included the said time of the Exodus story, the Egyptians inhabited/occupied the destination area in which the Jews were said to "flee to". This means the Jews fled from Egypt, to other Egypt? That makes no sense. Why would they flee from Egypt to more Egypt? Maybe Egyptians secretly wanted to re-station the Jewish slave camps

Depends...maybe the reason the Egyptians did not continue dominate control of that region was because precisely because of the Exodus...according to the Bible, the entire Egyptian army was wiped out.

Welp, there goes your muscle right there.

After that, it was like taking candy from a baby.

And why would they fled from Egypt to more Egypt? Because God had guaranteed them the land and once that happened and there was no "more Egypt" at that point.

Here's a thought, maybe during this time period, the Jews were never in this region at all? Which then renders the Bible untrustworthy.

Sure, go with that.

It's really a futile argument, because Bible apologists have tried very hard to make Evidence fit the Bible. From Canaanite migrants painted on Tomb walls being claimed to be 'Israelites' to the storm papayrus Or maybe inscription being hopefully related to the plagues, when there is no real connection.

It is water -muddies by Canaanite stuff being called 'proto - Hebrew' which it is but that is misunderstood as Hebrews at as early stahe, not Canaanite writing, and even names being adopted by the Israelites when they appeared after the Bronze age collapse.

The thing is that Egyptian records do not show anything that even looks like an enslaved population that (Biblically) didn't even exist yet. I know trhat Biblical bias makes negative evidence be no evidence against the Bible, but in fact it is no evidence For the Bible. Not only t do the Hebrews not appear, but the conditions suggest that the exodus could not happen, except as I said, the small window in Akhenaten's time when Egyptian authority lapsed in canaan and the vassals wrote frantic messages in Akkadian saying the 'Habiru' were attacking them

If I donned my theist hat, that is when I'd try to smuggle in a case for the exodus, because it really don't fit Egyptian history anywhere else.

Thutmose III (1995.21)
ca. 1479–1425 B.C.
Hatshepsut (as regent)
ca. 1479–1473 B.C.
Hatshepsut (29.3.2)
ca. 1473–1458 B.C.
Amenhotep II (66.99.20)
ca. 1427–1400 B.C.
Thutmose IV (30.8.45a–c)
ca. 1400–1390 B.C.
Amenhotep III (56.138)
ca. 1390–1352 B.C.
Amenhotep IV (perhaps the Pharaoh of the Bible)
ca. 1353–1349 B.C.
Akhenaten (66.99.40) (loss of Egyptian authority on Canaan)
ca. 1349–1336 B.C.
Neferneferuaton
ca. 1338–1336 B.C.
Smenkhkare
ca. 1336 B.C.
Tutankhamun (50.6)
ca. 1336–1327 B.C.
Egyptian authority over Canaan restored.

[POI]

Too bad both Jewish and Egyptian archeologists don't have your logic. They should already know nothing could ever be found. For decades, these archeologists continue to waste their time.

It is like the game of basketball, and the crossover dribble.

Sure, it is nice to have good crossover dribble, but you can get by without it.

See what I'm saying?

So far, all you are saying, is that besides the claim, which is not evidence at all, you have nothing else.

Sure, as if one of the hieroglyphs would read "we got asses handed to us by the God of the Israelites...our Gods were clearly no match for Yahweh".

More excuses as to why you cannot produce any evidence to substantial such a large claim.

Second, chances are, you aren't going to believe in the Bible regardless of the fact...making what is/isn't in the Bible irrelevant at that point.

What 'fact'? So far, it's a claim, and a very weak one. The claim is that millions of Jews inhabited this region for 100's of years. And yet, for decades, Jewish archeologists have found nada. Now reigns the excuses.

If the Exodus did not happen, the Bible is certainly not trustworthy. If millions of Jews did inhabit the said region for 100's of years, I would not have created this topic. This claim is not a small one. It's a big one, in both scope of population and timeframe.

Depends...maybe.........

Everything after 'maybe' is another weak excuse, as it is unfounded by any actual evidence.

Sure, go with that.

I will, and until any evidence is actually provided to suggest that millions inhabited a region for 100's of years, you should too.

[SiNcE_1985]

So far, all you are saying, is that besides the claim, which is not evidence at all, you have nothing else.

Um, I also don't have evidence that my grandfather scored 4 touchdowns in one game (Al Bundy style) on his 1948 high school football team.

But if I view my grandfather as an honest, trustworthy person based on what I've come to know of him, then I will believe him if that's what he told me.

More excuses as to why you cannot produce any evidence to substantial such a large claim.

No, I was simply making a rebuttal to an objection that you raised.

What 'fact'?

If we found indisputable evidence that the Exodus occured, would you become a Bible believing Christian?

Probably not.

So the entire subject strikes me as irrelevant as usual....as most of these over-sensationlazed threads do.

So far, it's a claim, and a very weak one. The claim is that millions of Jews inhabited this region for 100's of years. And yet, for decades, Jewish archeologists have found nada. Now reigns the excuses.

No one is making excuses.

I can't prove that X occured.

Just like you can't prove that X didn't occur.

So at the end of the day, it is simply a matter of either you believe it, or you don't.

If the Exodus did not happen, the Bible is certainly not trustworthy.

I agree.

Everything after 'maybe' is another weak excuse, as it is unfounded by any actual evidence.

Um, the "maybe" was a hypothesis...and actual evidence against it is unfounded.

So two can play that game.

I will, and until any evidence is actually provided to suggest that millions inhabited a region for 100's of years, you should too.

When evidence is presented which suggests that millions did not inhabit that region for hundreds of years, I will.

Now, how about that?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #151]

I don't have much to say here.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #151]

I don't have much to say here.

Ok. That is fair. It is all Egyptology and who knows about that? But here is where I'm going to be fair. My Theory (hypothesis) doesn't seem to be mainstream yet.

It is this: The Genesis and Exodus were 'origin stories' written during the exile when Jews needed to keep up and bolster their identity. Which has worked pretty well for them. They used Babylonian Myths and records, like the Creation: The god (Marduk) splitting the waters (Tiamat) into those above and below, and the Flood and Ark being an old legend that goes back to Sumeria.

When it came to the origins of the Hebrews specifically, Abraham came from Ur, which Babylonians knew was the earliest city or one of them. As for the Exodus, I have seen evidence in Josephus that he thought the Hyksos were the Jews exiting from Egypt. He didn't invent this, but drew on the Bible story which (I propose) drew on Babylonian records including Egyptian records about the Hyksos and they used the story of the Canaanite Hyksos being kicked out of the Nile delta by Ahmose and turned it into the Hebrews being led out of the delta by Moses.

The derivation of Moses from Babylon is shown by the life of Sargon of Akkad. Found in the bulrushes, just like Moses. This explains why we have an anachronistic 12 tribe Hebrew people with a God they has to be taught about and laws they had to be given as they trudged the long way round. I suggest because they knew they has entered Canaan from the Eastern mountains, not from Gaza, where the Hyksos had been settled and later became the Philistines, - after Israel had already become settled in part of Canaan at least. After the Exodus was supposed to happen or realistically could have happened. The Philistines were the excuse for them diverting through Sinai (13.17) when Philistia didn't exist yet.

This is another clue (apparently missed by all the Experts who know their Bible by heart) that Exodus was written much later than Believers would have us suppose.

Now you may reject that, or ignore it as you do the history window when an exodus might have happened. But that doesn't matter. The existence of an alternative Theory even without the clues (of which there are several) means that the Exodus comes into question.

Which is the Whole Question. Is there reason to doubt it? The Theory I propose above is gradually being picked up (independently probably) by the Experts in the Bible, and will become a 'shout of doubt' about whether the Exodus (as the Bible version) really happened.

There is no good reason to think it did and some good reasons to think it didn't, and couldn't.

And it is about history in and out of the Bible, not about buried litter on the trail to Jebl Laws, which wouldn't prove much anyway.

[POI]

Um, I also don't have evidence that my grandfather scored 4 touchdowns in one game (Al Bundy style) on his 1948 high school football team.

But if I view my grandfather as an honest, trustworthy person based on what I've come to know of him, then I will believe him if that's what he told me.

Just another excuse as to why you cannot produce any evidence for this very very very large claim.

If we found indisputable evidence that the Exodus occured, would you become a Bible believing Christian?

If we had evidence that millions of Jews inhabited this region for 100's of years, I would not have raised this topic. The Bible would be at least partly trustworthy. But it mentions a very large event, which miraculously left behind no evidence?

So the entire subject strikes me as irrelevant as usual....as most of these over-sensationlazed threads do.

You agree, if the Exodus did not happen, then the veracity of the Bible is in deep doo doo. And so far, we have no evidence to support this very very very large claim

No one is making excuses.

You have provided many excuses. I point them out as we go along.

I can't prove that X occured.

Just like you can't prove that X didn't occur.

The claim is that millions of Jews occupied a physical space for hundreds of years. Not finding any evidence to support this very large claim, not even in the slightest, leads to reasonable doubt. Which then renders the claims for Bible veracity to be seriously questioned.

So at the end of the day, it is simply a matter of either you believe it, or you don't.

And apparently, your threshold for belief is extremely low, at least where this claim is concerned.

When evidence is presented which suggests that millions did not inhabit that region for hundreds of years, I will.

Now, how about that?

LOL! How about that? The claim is that millions did. You have provided no evidence to support this very large claim. After decades, archeologists still have come up with nada. Fingers crossed.

[SiNcE_1985]

Just another excuse as to why you cannot produce any evidence for this very very very large claim.

Um, no.

I have no problem acknowledging that there doesn't seem to be any evidence (that we know of), of X.

However, in your typical fashion, you decided you wanted to probe and pry by asking follow-up questions, and I simply shared with you my thoughts on your questions.

Nothing more, nothing less...and certainly no excuses.

If we had evidence that millions of Jews inhabited this region for 100's of years, I would not have raised this topic. The Bible would be at least partly trustworthy. But it mentions a very large event, which miraculously left behind no evidence?

Let's see if your reasoning passes the syllogism test...

1. There is no evidence that person X committed a crime.

2. Therefore, person X did not commit the crime.

Non sequitur.

It simply does not follow.

Elementary failure in logical reasoning.

Test: Failed.

You agree, if the Exodus did not happen, then the veracity of the Bible is in deep doo doo. And so far, we have no evidence to support this very very very large claim

Sure, "if".

"If" my uncle was a woman he'd be my auntie.

The claim is that millions of Jews occupied a physical space for hundreds of years. Not finding any evidence to support this very large claim, not even in the slightest, leads to reasonable doubt. Which then renders the claims for Bible veracity to be seriously questioned.

Yeah, just like there is no evidence to support abiogenesis, which is the atheistic default position..and is also a very larger claim than the Exodus...but that doesn't stop atheists from entertaining that idea, does it?

No.

Well, apply that same skepticism that you have with the Exodus to abiogenesis and see where it gets ya.

And apparently, your threshold for belief is extremely low, at least where this claim is concerned.

Opinions.

LOL! How about that? The claim is that millions did. You have provided no evidence to support this very large claim. After decades, archeologists still have come up with nada. Fingers crossed.

You have provided no evidence that it didn't happen.

So hey, back to belief..either you believe it, or you don't.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #155]

Ahh, thanks for sharing your hypothesis.

Quite impressive.

Mind if I shared with you mines?

My hypothesis: The Exodus occured and is a historical fact, just like the Bible says it is.

[POI]

Um, no.

I have no problem acknowledging that there doesn't seem to be any evidence (that we know of), of X.

However, in your typical fashion, you decided you wanted to probe and pry by asking follow-up questions, and I simply shared with you my thoughts on your questions.

Nothing more, nothing less...and certainly no excuses.

Excuse with a tantrum.

Let's see if your reasoning passes the syllogism test...

1. There is no evidence that person X committed a crime.

2. Therefore, person X did not commit the crime.

Non sequitur.

It simply does not follow.

Elementary failure in logical reasoning.

Test: Failed.

Nice strawman.

It instead goes like this:

P1 The Bible makes a claim
P2 The claim is very large in both scope of people and time
P3 The claim would leave behind evidence, which is exactly why archeology investigates
P4 The claim is then investigated extensively
P5 No evidence is found to support the claim, after extensive search
P6 The claim likely did not happen in reality, or, it's a 'miracle' that no evidence is ever found
P7 Therefore, the Bible is likely not trustworthy, unless 'god' covered up the evidence on purpose to increase blind faith

"If" my uncle was a woman he'd be my auntie.

My "if" is doing no heavy lifting.

Yeah, just like there is no evidence to support abiogenesis.... Well, apply that same skepticism that you have with the Exodus to abiogenesis and see where it gets ya.

Nice red herring.

Opinions.

Belief, with no evidence, is a classic definition of blind faith. Which is a very low standard for belief. You possess blind faith that the Bible is right about its claim, which has no evidence.

[SiNcE_1985]

Excuse with a tantrum.

I said what I said.

Nice strawman.

It instead goes like this:

P1 The Bible makes a claim
P2 The claim is very large in both scope of people and time
P3 The claim would leave behind evidence, which is exactly why archeology investigates
P4 The claim is then investigated extensively
P5 No evidence is found to support the claim, after extensive search
P6 The claim likely did not happen in reality, or, it's a 'miracle' that no evidence is ever found
P7 Therefore, the Bible is likely not trustworthy, unless 'god' covered up the evidence on purpose to increase blind faith.

1. There is no evidence of X.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Same failed logic as before.

Moving along..

Nice red herring.

Um, no.

The point is simple; be consistent with your skepticism.

Belief, with no evidence, is a classic definition of blind faith. Which is a very low standard for belief. You possess blind faith that the Bible is right about its claim, which has no evidence.

There is no evidence against it, either.

And I will provide evidence for the Exodus, when you provide evidence for abiogenesis.