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]

1. There is no evidence of X.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Same failed logic as before.

Moving along..

You can move along, at your own detriment.

You exclude the basis of the claim. You assume all claims are equal. They are not.

The point is simple; be consistent with your skepticism.

I am. I'm completely agnostic about non-theoretical scientific claims. Are you agnostic about an Exodus claim? No. The claim needs to be true for the Bible to hold water. Hence, you apply blind faith, because there is no evidence. We could be under some type of 'god(s)' or intentional creations, but if the Exodus is false, then I search for other places than the Bible for "truth" in origins.

There is no evidence against it, either.

I've already stated my position. Your "ask" is illogical.

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

You already stated you do not have any evidence. Were you "fibbing"?

[SiNcE_1985]

I am. I'm completely agnostic about non-theoretical scientific claims.

Non-theoretical scientific claims = scientific claims with no evidence supporting them.

Don't pretty it up, say it like it is..in the same way you are saying it like it is when it comes to theistic claims.

Are you agnostic about an Exodus claim? No.

No, because as I stated before, when someone/something has proven itself to be trustworthy to me, I don't need to fact check the truth value in everything they say...or what I see.

The claim needs to be true for the Bible to hold water.

I agree.

Hence, you apply blind faith, because there is no evidence.

There is no evidence against it either.

We could be under some type of 'god(s)' or intentional creations, but if the Exodus is false, then I search for other places than the Bible for "truth" in origins.

?

I've already stated my position.

So did I.

You already stated you do not have any evidence. Were you "fibbing"?

Um, no.

That's how confident I am that you cannot provide evidence for abiogenesis.

[POI]

claims with no evidence supporting them.

Would be claims, such as the Exodus.

No, because as I stated before, when someone/something has proven itself to be trustworthy to me, I don't need to fact check the truth value in everything they say...or what I see.

The Exodus is a claim, for which you CAN actually fact check. This claim would leave behind evidence to investigate. It would be much more difficult to fact check a one-time "miracle" claim, based upon said eye-witness attestation alone. And when one does, there apparently is none. And this is a BIG claim. One is which you happily admit, if it is false, the Bible is in deep doo doo.

There is no evidence against it either.

Again, consider the claim.

If I told you I just shot myself in the foot, or my house just burned down, and you saw that my foot was un-shot, or that my house was not burnt, wouldn't the absence in evidence demonstrate that my claims are false?

?

Even if I were to accept some type of deism/theism, the Bible is still untrustworthy.

That's how confident I am that you cannot provide evidence for abiogenesis.

*facepalm*

[SiNcE_1985]

The Exodus is a claim, for which you CAN actually fact check. This claim would leave behind evidence to investigate.

McDonald's wrappers? BBQ grills? Tire rims? Graffiti sprayed on hieroglyph walls saying "We were here"?

I'm curious as to what evidence you think they would have left behind, especially considering their left over property and land would have been taken over by local Egyptians who would have stamped their own trace evidence over the Israelites.

It would be much more difficult to fact check a one-time "miracle" claim, based upon said eye-witness attestation alone. And when one does, there apparently is none. And this is a BIG claim. One is which you happily admit, if it is false, the Bible is in deep doo doo.

Again, consider the claim.

If I told you I just shot myself in the foot, or my house just burned down, and you saw that my foot was un-shot, or that my house was not burnt, wouldn't the absence in evidence demonstrate that my claims are false?

False equivalence fallacy.

Even if I were to accept some type of deism/theism, the Bible is still untrustworthy.

I asked would you become a Christian if we found indisputable evidence confirming the Biblical Exodus.

Yes or no.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Yes, but the evidence is against it, and there is NO good evidence for it, and that is where the Bible fails.

And darnnit this is the second time today I've said this - Bible apologetics depends on not knowing the evidence or dismissing it - just as you did.

You wave away my hypothesis. ok, you aren't the only one, but the Experts (even those who question the Bible) seem to have missed the clues of the Chariot and the Philistines, though they noted the borrowing of Sargon's story for Moses, which underpins my rather audacious hypothesis that Ahmose = Moses, and thus the Hyksos = the hebrews, which some Bible apologists still try to claim, though it really can't be. And, as noted, the Egyptians controlled Canaan, really until the 10th c BC, or later,

The thing that made me credit my own hypothesis was finding that Josephus sorta interpreted the Hyksos as the Exodus even he must have seen that the siege of Avaris hardly fits the exodus story. It only requires that Josephus 'got the story' from earlier sources that falsely interpreted the Hyksos as the Exodus to explain where the Hebrews came from and the Babylonian sources make it all click into place. It is a story misusing historical records in Babylon during the exile. At first I saw it as a very tenuous theory but now I think the evidence supports it, just as it Fails to support the Bible account.

[POI]

I'm curious as to what evidence you think they would have left behind,

I already answered this.... Also, I already told you that it is too bad archeologists don't all have your logic.

especially considering their left over property and land would have been taken over by local Egyptians who would have stamped their own trace evidence over the Israelites.

Eqyptians had problems covering up the existence of one person, let alone millions.

False equivalence fallacy.

You completely missed my point. Consider the claim.

I asked would you become a Christian if we found indisputable evidence confirming the Biblical Exodus.

Yes or no.

This question is meant for you to have an 'out'. I've already explained. If the Exodus did happen, then I would not have created this topic. But there would still be plenty of other topics to raise. But since Jews likely did not inhabit this area, during the Bible's said circumstances, the Bible is not trustworthy, period. Which you already agreed. Hence, you, with the blind faith and all.

[TRANSPONDER]

Turn the elephant in the room around. "Would you become an atheist if it was proven that the Gospels were fabricated and the resurrection didn't happen?" Never min Exodus which is an irrelevance really.
I suppose it is either a Flag-waving thing. One must believe that everything in the Bible is true, even if it doesn't matter, Or if one thing in the Bible is admitted to be wrong, how does one defend against he next question?

[SiNcE_1985]

I already answered this.... Also, I already told you that it is too bad archeologists don't all have your logic.

If they are Christians, they do.

You got guys 3,000 years removed from the fact trying to piece together stuff.

I'm trusting the earlier source, the Bible.

Eqyptians had problems covering up the existence of one person, let alone millions.

?

You completely missed my point. Consider the claim.

Yeah, I considered the point...and the conclusion I draw is that you made an apples/oranges equivalency.

This question is meant for you to have an 'out'.

Jesus Christ is meant for you to have an "in" (John 14:6).

I've already explained. If the Exodus did happen, then I would not have created this topic. But there would still be plenty of other topics to raise. But since Jews likely did not inhabit this area, during the Bible's said circumstances, the Bible is not trustworthy, period. Which you already agreed. Hence, you, with the blind faith and all.

First off, that's not what I agreed to...are you "fibbing"..and I gave at least two analogies where I specifically stated the Bibles "trustworthiness", literally using the word....so for you to say that I agreed otherwise, is disingenuous if not borderline lying.

[TRANSPONDER]

I already answered this.... Also, I already told you that it is too bad archeologists don't all have your logic.

If they are Christians, they do.

You got guys 3,000 years removed from the fact trying to piece together stuff.

I'm trusting the earlier source, the Bible.

Eqyptians had problems covering up the existence of one person, let alone millions.

?

You completely missed my point. Consider the claim.

Yeah, I considered the point...and the conclusion I draw is that you made an apples/oranges equivalency.

This question is meant for you to have an 'out'.

Jesus Christ is meant for you to have an "in" (John 14:6).

I've already explained. If the Exodus did happen, then I would not have created this topic. But there would still be plenty of other topics to raise. But since Jews likely did not inhabit this area, during the Bible's said circumstances, the Bible is not trustworthy, period. Which you already agreed. Hence, you, with the blind faith and all.

First off, that's not what I agreed to...are you "fibbing"..and I gave at least two analogies where I specifically stated the Bibles "trustworthiness", literally using the word....so for you to say that I agreed otherwise, is disingenuous if not borderline lying.

This is all terrible apologetics. But "Evil oft will evil mar" and you flag up a point - Bible archaeology has the Christian apologertic mindset and at best falls over itself to fit the evidence to the Bible, is too eager to accept dubious relics as authentic if they are convenient, and at times embraces frauds. Not just the Ark sites or the Sinai camp site nonsense, but the Nazareth inscription that has vanished (site finds do not vanish) was found without witnesses in a spoil heap where an inscription would never be missed (spoil heaps are routinely sieved for missed finds) and by a Christian evidence faker who should never have been allowed to dig, never mind after hours with nobody watching.

This is seriously dodgy stuff and flags up the problem with Scientists who are also Christians. We have to trust them not to let Theist bias corrupt the work.

Closer to home, so much Egyptology has been misrepresented to make it support Exodus. Notably the 'papyrus and inscription that relates bad times for Egypt that were without a scrap of excuse, passed off as evidence of the plagues. I won't even go into the Red Sea chariot wheels.

But apart from that the rest is irrelevant to either topic or reason, like quotes from John, whose record I cannot trust because none of the synoptics record the raising of Lazarus. They could not ALL have not known about that unless John invented it. So his opinions about Jesus are worth nothing, and neither are yours.

Which covers your earlier point - if we can't trust the 1st record (supposedly) we sure can't trust the earlier ones. I get it There's this clunk view of the uninformed that the nearer an event a person is the more they know about it.

Nope. A soldier at Waterloo or Da Nang has less idea what happened than a historian today. A first c historian knows less about ancient history than modern researchers. And you may take that to the bank.

Your ignorance "?" real of feigned is in response to the fact that some rulers tried to obliterate earlier rulers (Hatshepsut; Akhenated) from the record, but they could not do it.

An Israelite slave population could not be concealed, even if they tried (and why should they?) and we would know of it. We know of enslaved Libyans and Nubians and even early 'sea peoples' defeated and put into the Egyptian army.

If the Israelites were really an enslaved known demographic in Egypt, we would know. Even if the Pharaohs suppressed the Exodus.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #168]

It's obvious you have nothing to add in this thread. Not even sure why you initially responded in the first place.... You would have instead been better off just leaving it alone. Your belief in an Exodus is purely blind faith based. You have an extremely low standard for belief. Each claim rises and falls upon its own merits. And a claim of this magnitude carries with it basically no evidence. Since this claim likely did not happen, then the Bible is not trustworthy.