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?

[marke]

I don't feel led to watch an indoctrinationist video. We can discuss the individual points ourselves or we can allow the video propagandist to propagate his ideas on others without our participation.

Um, okay? You can address some of the points listed in post 75, but the video also provides more context, as to not waste time.

Your source ignores the archaerological evidence of the fallen walls at Jericho.

What about it?

Archaeological evidence at the site of the former city of Jericho supports the Biblical narrative about the fall of Jericho's walls when surrounded by Jews under Joshua's leadership.

[POI]

Maybe because most of the died? Or that your claim is not really true.

You obviously never watched the video. Otherwise, you likely would not respond like this...

Ok, so the questions that I took from your post [Replying to POI in post #75] were not actually from the video? I think they could be answered without watching the poor atheist propaganda.

They kind of can't. Just like you cannot effectively answer questions without actually reading the required book for a book report. But labelling the video like you have is a great way for you to avoid doing the work

[POI]

Archaeological evidence at the site of the former city of Jericho supports the Biblical narrative about the fall of Jericho's walls when surrounded by Jews under Joshua's leadership.

According to the current scholarly consensus, there is no substantial archaeological evidence that directly supports the biblical story of the Exodus as described in the Torah, meaning that the large-scale exodus event as depicted in the Bible is not considered historically accurate by most archaeologists; while some potential historical elements may exist, no definitive proof has been found to validate the full narrative of the Exodus.

Lack of direct evidence: No archaeological discoveries have been made that clearly link to the specific events of the Exodus, such as a mass migration of Israelites out of Egypt or a large-scale crossing of the Red Sea.

The Merneptah Stele: While sometimes cited as evidence, the Merneptah Stele, an Egyptian inscription mentioning "Israel," is generally interpreted as referring to a small group of Israelites already settled in Canaan, not a large exodus from Egypt.

Debate among scholars: While most scholars agree that the Exodus narrative as described in the Bible is not historically accurate, some debate exists regarding the possibility of a smaller migration event that may have inspired the story.

[marke]

Archaeological evidence at the site of the former city of Jericho supports the Biblical narrative about the fall of Jericho's walls when surrounded by Jews under Joshua's leadership.

According to the current scholarly consensus, there is no substantial archaeological evidence that directly supports the biblical story of the Exodus as described in the Torah, meaning that the large-scale exodus event as depicted in the Bible is not considered historically accurate by most archaeologists; while some potential historical elements may exist, no definitive proof has been found to validate the full narrative of the Exodus.

Lack of direct evidence: No archaeological discoveries have been made that clearly link to the specific events of the Exodus, such as a mass migration of Israelites out of Egypt or a large-scale crossing of the Red Sea.

The Merneptah Stele: While sometimes cited as evidence, the Merneptah Stele, an Egyptian inscription mentioning "Israel," is generally interpreted as referring to a small group of Israelites already settled in Canaan, not a large exodus from Egypt.

Debate among scholars: While most scholars agree that the Exodus narrative as described in the Bible is not historically accurate, some debate exists regarding the possibility of a smaller migration event that may have inspired the story.

According to atheist consensus there is nothing in life that supports the Bible. Big deal.

[POI]

According to atheist consensus there is nothing in life that supports the Bible. Big deal.

No. According to most/all archeologists - (believers and unbelievers alike), the continued search for evidence pertaining to an 'Exodus" produces nothing but a big goose egg. However, such a large event would produce all sorts of evidence. And since the Exodus likely did not happen, it's crisis time for the Christian believer. Hence, I cannot blame you for minimizing things here, as you are required to deflect.

[Clownboat]

Archaeological evidence at the site of the former city of Jericho supports the Biblical narrative about the fall of Jericho's walls when surrounded by Jews under Joshua's leadership.

According to the current scholarly consensus, there is no substantial archaeological evidence that directly supports the biblical story of the Exodus as described in the Torah, meaning that the large-scale exodus event as depicted in the Bible is not considered historically accurate by most archaeologists; while some potential historical elements may exist, no definitive proof has been found to validate the full narrative of the Exodus.

Lack of direct evidence: No archaeological discoveries have been made that clearly link to the specific events of the Exodus, such as a mass migration of Israelites out of Egypt or a large-scale crossing of the Red Sea.

The Merneptah Stele: While sometimes cited as evidence, the Merneptah Stele, an Egyptian inscription mentioning "Israel," is generally interpreted as referring to a small group of Israelites already settled in Canaan, not a large exodus from Egypt.

Debate among scholars: While most scholars agree that the Exodus narrative as described in the Bible is not historically accurate, some debate exists regarding the possibility of a smaller migration event that may have inspired the story.

According to atheist consensus there is nothing in life that supports the Bible. Big deal.

If there was evidence for an actual mass exodus as told, we would know about it. I don't know of any, do you?

[marke]

Archaeological evidence at the site of the former city of Jericho supports the Biblical narrative about the fall of Jericho's walls when surrounded by Jews under Joshua's leadership.

According to the current scholarly consensus, there is no substantial archaeological evidence that directly supports the biblical story of the Exodus as described in the Torah, meaning that the large-scale exodus event as depicted in the Bible is not considered historically accurate by most archaeologists; while some potential historical elements may exist, no definitive proof has been found to validate the full narrative of the Exodus.

Lack of direct evidence: No archaeological discoveries have been made that clearly link to the specific events of the Exodus, such as a mass migration of Israelites out of Egypt or a large-scale crossing of the Red Sea.

The Merneptah Stele: While sometimes cited as evidence, the Merneptah Stele, an Egyptian inscription mentioning "Israel," is generally interpreted as referring to a small group of Israelites already settled in Canaan, not a large exodus from Egypt.

Debate among scholars: While most scholars agree that the Exodus narrative as described in the Bible is not historically accurate, some debate exists regarding the possibility of a smaller migration event that may have inspired the story.

According to atheist consensus there is nothing in life that supports the Bible. Big deal.

If there was evidence for an actual mass exodus as told, we would know about it. I don't know of any, do you?

Whether archaeological evidence exists or whether people are aware of the evidence or whether people accept the evidence is immaterial to the fact that if an event happened then it happened.

[POI]

Whether archaeological evidence exists or whether people are aware of the evidence or whether people accept the evidence is immaterial to the fact that if an event happened then it happened.

I guess, in this case, is where blind faith is needed and/or necessary.

[Clownboat]

Whether archaeological evidence exists or whether people are aware of the evidence or whether people accept the evidence is immaterial to the fact that if an event happened then it happened.

I agree with you.
Why do you think there is no evidence for an exodus event as told in the Bible?

[marke]

Whether archaeological evidence exists or whether people are aware of the evidence or whether people accept the evidence is immaterial to the fact that if an event happened then it happened.

I agree with you.
Why do you think there is no evidence for an exodus event as told in the Bible?

Time has erased massive amounts of evidence from ancient history, yet archaelogists are still uncovering more evidence that supports the Biblical historical narratives.