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]

I don't think anything from history can be demonstrated. I believe things went as told in the Bible. And for me the existence of the Bible is one evidence for that the things went as told in the Bible.

Then you would believe in all other opposing religious books too. Further, the existence of the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
But of course, Senmut would have to be Joseph, ...

I think Joseph was more likely called Imhotep in Egypt.

Imhotep was architect to Djozer, and that would be before the Egyptians had the chariot. So Joseph couldn't follow the king around in one. Also Moses won't work as Senmut as the times under Hatshepsut, apart from the Pharaoh being a woman, doesn't fit.

I think you need a better story than picking up a few prominent names in Egyptian history and assigning them to Biblical characters.

[1213]

...Imhotep was architect to Djozer, and that would be before the Egyptians had the chariot...

Why should anyone believe they didn't have the chariot?

...Also Moses won't work as Senmut as the times under Hatshepsut, apart from the Pharaoh being a woman, doesn't fit.

Please explain why do you think so?

[1213]

I don't think anything from history can be demonstrated. I believe things went as told in the Bible. And for me the existence of the Bible is one evidence for that the things went as told in the Bible.

Then you would believe in all other opposing religious books too. Further, the existence of the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim.

It depends on what the opposing books say.

When the Bible has ideas that humans would not have without God, it becomes evidence itself also.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Imhotep was architect to Djozer, and that would be before the Egyptians had the chariot...

Why should anyone believe they didn't have the chariot?

...Also Moses won't work as Senmut as the times under Hatshepsut, apart from the Pharaoh being a woman, doesn't fit.

Please explain why do you think so?

I have explained this before. The Hyksos beat the Egyptians mainly because they had the chariot and the Egyptians didn't. The Egyptians only managed to reconquer Egypt and expel the Hyksos when they adopted chariot warfare.

Thus they had chariots in the New Kingdom but they didn't have it before. In Djozer's time nobody in the Middle east had chariots. Thus, the Biblical claim that Joseph followed his king around in a chariot makes him a new kingdom figure and in no possible way a figure in Djozer's time.

You have simply taken a couple of noted persons - Imhotep - and senmut and airily claimed they were Joseph and Moses without any regard to the circumstances. There is no reason to credit your claim and every reason to reject it.

Same with Moses being Senmut: the Pharaoh of Moses is a man, surely, and Hatshepsut was female. Of course you could wangle Moses as being the favorite of Hatshepsut, her son enslaving the Hebrews and he as the Pharaoh of the Bible sending chariots after the fleeing Hebrews. But the problem there is that Moses avoided the Philistines, who didn't exist yet. They only settled in Gaza after the sea peoples invasion under the Ramessids. And the Merneptah stone shows the Israelites were already in Canaan by that time.

The Biblical story just doesn't work but the idea that it is a later false history loosely based on the Hyksos and with Moses partly based on the story of Sargon makes more sense if written in Babylon, because Josephus shown that he was associating the Hyksos with the Hebrews, and while it could have been his own idea, the fact that it is in the Bible indicates this link suggests that it was was earlier Hebrew writers had the idea.

That fits, your hypothesis doesn't.

[POI]

I don't think anything from history can be demonstrated. I believe things went as told in the Bible. And for me the existence of the Bible is one evidence for that the things went as told in the Bible.

Then you would believe in all other opposing religious books too. Further, the existence of the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim.

It depends on what the opposing books say.

When the Bible has ideas that humans would not have without God, it becomes evidence itself also.

Claims are not evidence. Further, we've been all over this 1213. You have yet to demonstrate that any claim, from the pages of the Bible, could not have been presented by humans alone.

Further, where the very large claim of the Exodus is concerned, looks like the claim is severely lacking, to say the very least. If you were willing to watch the 9-minute video, you would get the gist:

[1213]

You have yet to demonstrate that any claim, from the pages of the Bible, could not have been presented by humans alone.

I think the entire Bible is what I think humans would not have without God. And that is, atheist can't understand it, they think it is contradictory, which I think shows it is not entirely by humans. If it would be just by humans, atheists would not struggle to understand it so much.

Further, where the very large claim of the Exodus is concerned, looks like the claim is severely lacking, to say the very least. If you were willing to watch the 9-minute video, you would get the gist:

Sorry, sounds like a bad opinion. If you think he has some good evidence for something, please tell what it is.

[POI]

You have yet to demonstrate that any claim, from the pages of the Bible, could not have been presented by humans alone.

I think the entire Bible is what I think humans would not have without God. And that is, atheist can't understand it, they think it is contradictory, which I think shows it is not entirely by humans. If it would be just by humans, atheists would not struggle to understand it so much.

Further, where the very large claim of the Exodus is concerned, looks like the claim is severely lacking, to say the very least. If you were willing to watch the 9-minute video, you would get the gist:

Sorry, sounds like a bad opinion. If you think he has some good evidence for something, please tell what it is.

Please stop responding to anything I post. I would greatly appreciate it.

[TRANSPONDER]

You have yet to demonstrate that any claim, from the pages of the Bible, could not have been presented by humans alone.

I think the entire Bible is what I think humans would not have without God. And that is, atheist can't understand it, they think it is contradictory, which I think shows it is not entirely by humans. If it would be just by humans, atheists would not struggle to understand it so much.

Further, where the very large claim of the Exodus is concerned, looks like the claim is severely lacking, to say the very least. If you were willing to watch the 9-minute video, you would get the gist:

Sorry, sounds like a bad opinion. If you think he has some good evidence for something, please tell what it is.

You are clearly struggling. Just sayin' you deny the demonstrated contradiction and say 'atheists don't understand'. I think we do, and better than many Christian apologists who can't explain the real shockers so pretend they don't exist.

I suppose they have to deny history too. Your easy foisting of Joseph and Moses on a couple of famous old Egyptians without knowing or caring about their history shows the old story of fundamentalist Christian apologetics (and maga propaganda for that matter) - making claims that are without substance and little more than untruth, and trusting the believers won't know better, don't want to know better and dismiss those who do know better.

Exodus does not work or make sense. There is negative evidence too, since you demand it. The supposed evidence for Hebrews in Egypt makes more sense as Semitic Canaanites. To use a Theist apologetic 'My theory is as good as yours'. That the evidence for Semites in Egypt is more to do with the Hyksos than the Israelites means that nobody has to beleive the Biblical exodus, when it hardly works anyway and the Bible fails in so many other areas.

Just sayin' as they say. If you want to deny everything, it's up to you. It is about atheist apologetics, pushing back against the claims that the Bible is true, makes sense, has no contradictions and is supported by history.

No. Not true. Sure, both New and Old T have historical content. The Hebrew kings struggled with the Assyrians and Babylonians all the time. But the religious spin put on that is no more than that - religious spin. I trust the Assyrians saying that Hezekiah gave in and paid tribute. God did not smite anyone. I trust the History and Archaeology that says that Tyre was never destroyed and not rebuilt. The Bible is wrong. And I once accepted the exodus as a real event, but more and more, I came to doubt it, and the pet theory I had and hardly credited firmed up when I realised that Josephus equating the Hyksos (shepherd kings) with the exodus was not his own idea but probably derived from earlier writers. I am more than half convinced of it - the exodus is a Hebrew origin - story based on Babylonian material. Sargon in the bulrushes being a massive clue.

We have to have more than your denial and faithclaims to make a case. Bible apologists of course argue from the basis of their own Rightness which is the basis of their Faith which is the basis of their apologetics. Thus they reckon they win if they deny everything; science, rules of logic and even what the Bible says.

Goddless, materialist atheists argue from evidence and reason; where it leads. It leads me to think Jesus real and so was Paul. I think the crucifixion happened. I don't dismiss things just because i am an atheist. I follow the clues. Right from the start Truth was important Faith wasn't. For the Bible - apologist, Faith is all that matters and Truth, if it undercuts the faith, is to be dismissed and denied.

This is how your post works, we all know it and so do you.

Now, Theists do not watch videos, or so I gather. I haven't watched it, yet, and indeed I have refused demands to go and look for evidence elsewhere and have said 'Make your case here'. So I will have a look and tell you what I think.

Well, we had it here. Negative evidence in a very ancient history where records are extensive and meticulous. Bible apologetics where they try to make scraps fit the Bible, like proto hebrew or Semitic names which only shows the Hebrews borrowed from Caananite culture, never mid nonsense like the storm papyrus or stele, the Moses site and chariot wheels in the Red Sea (and I think 'natural explanation' apologetics shoot their own feet off - they may validate the events, but eliminate the miracle) and where we end up, as the video says, is Bible apologetic excuses as to why there is no evidence where there should be. And haven't we heard that before?

I got to the point where it was shown that Egypt controlled the Sinai and Canaan right up to the time when the Ot material was written down and Egypt was in the later dynasties period and Assyria and Babylon ruled the middle east. It didn't occur to the writers of Exodus that Egypt ruled Canaan pretty much up to the 11th c BC. The point is made that the account of Moses can hardly be BY Moses. Sure, one can say that the account of Moses death was by a Hebrew Samwise "The last pages are for you". But I liked the point that Moses could hardly have written 'Moses was a humble man. The most humble man on earth'. There was never anyone as humble as him, in all history nobody had ever been as humble as he was, there was this man who came up to him, tears in his eyes... No. This is 3rd party writing.

And the video points up an anachronism. City of Dan was not called Dan until after the date or guesstidates assigned for the Exodus. It has to be written long afterwards. Well, so it isn't written at the time. nor were the gospel accounts. They have got to be later, but are they reliable? The evidence is, No, they do not stack up, Not NT or Old.

P.s came across vid pt 3 about the sun standing still.



We know the answer of course. When the Bible was written, it was believed the world was a flat circle with a sky dome over it and the sun, moon etc. were added later on (after daylight) to trundle around the interior. it is a pretty obvious this and not scientific fact (the undenied stuff) is what is in the Bible.

[1213]

I trust the History and Archaeology that says that Tyre was never destroyed and not rebuilt.

Sorry, are you really saying that Tyre was never destroyed?