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]

[Replying to RBD in post #350]

Short and sweet...

Are you either:

A) Arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or instead...
B) Arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

[POI]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #349]

Since it seems quite apparent that this Christian interlocutor also does not have any evidence to substantiate the very large claim that, millions and millions of Israelites were held captive by the Egyptians for 100's of years, then I can see why the conservation has completely directed to another unfounded claim. I see that this happens a lot. And Christians, in my experience, do not mind going to the 'resurrection' because they know they are much more protected there. Why? Because claims to a risen corpse are completely unfalsifiable, and they have a little more wiggle room to raise 'reasonable doubt'. The Exodus, not so much, which is why there is very little in this thread.... It's quite apparent they are instead left with excuses as to why we have no evidence.

[RBD]

I don't argue about leprechauns, because I don't care.

I didn't ask whether or not you argued about them. I asked if you're neutral about them, despite the lack of evidence,

Sure. I'm neutral about them. And if anyone asks if I believe in them or not, I tell them I don't care. And if someone tells me they do believe in them, then I tell them that's fine. I don't care.

as you're asking us to be about the Exodus.

I'm also not asking you to be anything about Exodus nor the Bible. I'm not a proselytizer. I don't care what other people are towards the Bible. I only answer for my own faith.

The only thing I care about here is any charge of error against the Bible. No external evidence for or against it proves nothing.

I'm asking if your literal money is where your mouth is. Do you worry about the possibility that leprechauns will ruin the economy by dumping their pots o' gold onto the market? There's no evidence that they will do so, or even that they exist, putting them on par with the Exodus. Do you stick to your own principles and believe?

With the Bible, yes. Not with Leprechauns, because they don't rate principled consideration.

So, if you have any accusation against Bible errancy, I'll be glad to look at that.

Arguing about no external evidence for or against it, is nothing, because having no such external evidence, proves nothing.

[RBD]

In any case, I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus, rather than just another declaration of disbelief,

Please supply evidence that Allah is not the one true God.

Already responded elsewhere. Maybe you didn't see it.

The Koran claims to be inspired by the God of Israel, calling Him Allah, and then rejects the God of Israel begetting a Son.

Psa 2:7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Yes, Allah has corrected your misunderstanding about him having a son.
When you cannot disprove this, you must believe in order to be consistent.

Once again, the argument is not about whether someone wants to believe or disbelieve the Bible nor the Koran. It's about inerrancy or errancy of an author's book, that would make it intelligently believed or not.

Moohammed's self-contradiction of claiming to speak for the God of Abraham as Allah, and denouncing the God of Abraham for having a Son, proves Moohammed is not entirely believable, and so rules him out as a spokesman for any perfect and true God.

The intelligent reason I don't believe him, is by the obvious errancy of his own authorship. Whether others still want to believe Allah, instead of the God of Abraham, is their own choice. But it's willful ignorance of Moohammed's false claim, to want to be believe both are the same one true God.

because of faith you have placed in the Bible and the absurdity of believing in things because they haven't been disproven.

Because of the objective intelligence of the Book and all failed arguments to find error, I willingly choose to believe it is all true. And others don't, which is their right in this life.

The absurdity is claiming the Book can't possibly be true, with no evidence against it. That is an irrational conclusion not based upon unbelief alone, but from a personally blind angst, that has no honest place in objective investigation.

No charge can be proven by no evidence. Lack of corroborating evidence is not sufficient to prove a charge of false witness. The witness doesn't have to be believed, but also can be believed, even if seemingly unbelievable to others.

"Something is considered "unfalsifiable" when it is impossible to prove false, meaning there is no conceivable evidence that could disprove the claim; essentially, it is a statement that cannot be tested or refuted by any means, often seen as a characteristic of pseudoscientific or conspiracy theories."

And also books of spiritual things, that only appear in the words, works, and events of natural life.

Such books, therefore have a reasonable possibility of being believed, and also practiced in one's own life.

Basing one's life upon spiritual faith is far more common, than blindly living life without any regard to the spirit of life.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2Pe 2:12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus. - RBD
Please supply evidence that Allah is not the one true God. - Clownboat

I was checking to see if you are consistent with how you arrive at things being true. You are not.

Be well.

I was checking to see if you are consistent about what others say. You are not.

[RBD]

PS. I don't actually request that you supply evidence that Allah is not the one true god.

That certainly explains why you don't care enough to read it.

I say all this to show why your reasoning is invalid, because it is precisely a lack of evidence that justifies belief in all of our god concepts.

Since you don't care to read the response to your phony request, then you have no clue about the it's reason.

You say: Prove the Exodus didn't happen.

Which has no internal nor external evidence against it. So, it can be believed.

I say: Prove that Allah is not the one true God.

Which has internal evidence against it by it's own author, and so no one can intelligently believe both the Bible God and the Koran's Allah are the same God.

But that doesn't mean anyone can't try to believe both are the same God. Afterall, not everyone is rational in their efforts to believe something.

The goal here is only to show that without any internal nor external evidence against Bible inerrancy, then it certainly can be reasonably believed. And without such evidence, it's unreasonable to say it can't be believed.

[Difflugia]

I don't argue about leprechauns, because I don't care.

I didn't ask whether or not you argued about them. I asked if you're neutral about them, despite the lack of evidence,

Sure. I'm neutral about them. And if anyone asks if I believe in them or not, I tell them I don't care. And if someone tells me they do believe in them, then I tell them that's fine. I don't care.

You don't want to examine the corner you've painted yourself into, so you retreat into nihilism? That went from "enlightened faith" to "I don't care" in nothing flat.

The only thing I care about here is any charge of error against the Bible. No external evidence for or against it proves nothing.

But apparently only the Bible. When it comes to other things, a lack of external evidence is at least a de facto reason to not believe in something. When asked about the difference, the response is to shout that you don't care.

With the Bible, yes. Not with Leprechauns, because they don't rate principled consideration.

Yes. Leprechaun magic is so much sillier than Jesus magic. In principle.

So, if you have any accusation against Bible errancy, I'll be glad to look at that.

God killed the same livestock twice, once in Exodus 9:6 and again in 9:25.

Arguing about no external evidence for or against it, is nothing, because having no such external evidence, proves nothing.

So, it's not that you believe that there are no tigers or leprechauns in your house, but you just don't care if there are. Got it.

[POI]

This question was posed to RBD, but, since (s)he has ducked out from the question, I'll instead ask the other observing Bible believers. Since it has been well established, by now, that believers have to acknowledge that there exists no evidence to suggest millions of Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians for 100's of years, and instead only furnish excuses as for why we have no evidence, I'd now like to ask:

Are you, the Christian, either:

A) arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or instead...
B) arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

[RBD]

And the Book of Mormon was written because Joseph Smith met Gabriel and received a magic hat and magic glasses to then write this book. He never denied his inspirations. Therefore?

Therefore, anyone can believe him, if they want. However, no one can intelligently believe he is writing a testament for Jesus Christ, Who says He has no other testament, than that already written by His apostles in the Bible.

And, if any angel did visit and inspire him with another false testament, like that of Mohammed falsely claiming to speak for the God of Abraham, then it was just the fallen angel warned of in the Bible:

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore I reject that believing in the gods is comparable to believing in a scientific theory.

What's not comparable is believing in the Bible, and believing in human evolution. The Bible is wholly complete without any error in it, but human evolutionary theory is incomplete with gaps. Therefore, blind faith is needed to fill gaps in human evolution, but not in the Bible, since there are no gaps to fill.

The evidence of the creation is a fact. Believing creation is created by a Creator, is more reasonable than beleiving no matter 'evolutionized' into matter, and fish into man.

This is nothing but an argument from ignorance and you lie by calling creation a fact.

It's an argument from the evidence at hand, which is a written record called the Bible. That evidence is a physical fact.

Anyone saying written evidence is not evidence, has no business arguing about evidence. Especially of they argue no evidence is more evidence than a written record. Or, that archeology is the study of no evidence.

This is another problem with people applying faith.

Exactly. Faith in something with no evidence, is applying blind faith to an argument.

Falsehoods are justified and lies are stated

Whether by blind faith and blind unbelief alike.

So long as someone is hypothesizing about human evolution, and not teaching it as proven science, then no harm no foul.

Again, if you don't think that evolution is a valid explanation.

Limited biological evolution is a proven science, that can be validly taught for limited biological change within species.

Human evolution is an unproven science, that cannot be validly taught for transformation between species. The former is scientific fact, the later is pseudo-scientific projection.

Find a rabbit in the Cambrian layer for just one example and evolution will need to be replaced.

It's a socially-engineered latter day effort to replace ancient and present belief in a Creator. And like 'Global warming', it must be falsified to be taught for scientific fact.

This, I find respectable. Allah did it! I do not and neither do you, but change it to the Bible God and I am then to pretend it is different?

No need to respond again to a question, that you admit is fake, and have no interest in the answer.

I choose not to believe their unproven theory.

Belief is for religion. Keep your beliefs out of science.

Then fill in the gaps of your pseudo-science.

Especially if unbelief in Genesis is the hypothetical source or conclusion.

Why on earth should Genesis even be considered as valid unless a person is not only religious, but religious for one specific religion?

Because no one needs to be religious to believe in the Creator of all things. Which is proven by many irreligious believing people.

You keep injecting religion into a grammatical argument about a Book, because you can't separate literary analysis from religious proselytization. I call it Bibliophopia.

According to Genesis 1, the universe was created with stars already far flung from day 1.

Please show your work.

[/quote]

Read it for yourself. If you see any error in it, or contradiction with anything else written in the Bible, then I'd like to hear it.

One person already tried to find error between the light shining in the world on the first day, and the creation of lights shining in the world on the 4th day. It failed by willful blindness to the light of God shining in the world, and the natural lights created by God.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

2Co 4:6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

By science we know they are now flying away.

Science does seem to be the best mechanism that we have for determining truths about the natural world.

True. But obviously not for all things natural, since some things are known, but are not explained by science. Confining the natural world to science alone, is therefore by blind faith alone. As well as, a fear of what is known being understood by spiritual revelation.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

"I guess I will forever wonder why you asked about a person generating from a fish."
In place of telling me why you brought it up, you tell me to read about something I already know about.

Oh, I see. You're not questioning that human evolutionary theory doesn't begin with apes to man, but with mammals from fish to apes to man. You're instead you are demanding to know why I frame human evolution man from fish, rather than just from apes.

First, because it's true. Second, because the social engineering of human evolution must be framed in a way most favorable, which is the traditional are argument of man from apes, not man from fish. It's called politically and socially setting the narrative, in order to relate to the widest audience.

Afterall, if apes and men are argued, then they at least have some form of common physical appearance, but fish and men? Not.

And your angst about my factual reference to the argument of human evolution, proves the point. (Afterall, calling a guy a big gorilla is more relatable, than a big salmon)

Cool. Please demonstrate something that is of the spirit.
Human thought is spiritual. It's unseen until spoken or done, and works in the natural world.
How prideful you must be to make assertions and then pretend that it qualifies as 'demonstrating'. I must note that you failed to demonstrate something that is of the spirit.

One problem with refusing to understand something, as well as not believe it, is that a resultant unlearned response usually proves the very point, that is meant to be rejected.

Faith is a spiritual work.

More accurately, faith is a mechanism to avoid work.

Jas 2:20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Dead faith as a mechanism to avoid work, is called spiritual darkness.

Mat 6:23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Believing something does not make it necessarily so, but believing at all is the spirit at work.

The first part is true, the second is just silly. When kids believe in Santa (believing at all as you said) no spirit is at work that we know of. Therefor this claim must be rejected currently.

Unseen spirit is as provable as unseen thought. Denying thought is spiritual, is denying thought is unseen, as though neither thought nor spirit exist. That's what people call 'acting without thinking'.

Just think of a light appearing over someone's head in a drawing, and you'll see that thought is not only spirit, but also light. They're called bright ideas at work.

[otseng]

This question was posed to RBD, but, since (s)he has ducked out from the question, I'll instead ask the other observing Bible believers. Since it has been well established, by now, that believers have to acknowledge that there exists no evidence to suggest millions of Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians for 100's of years, and instead only furnish excuses as for why we have no evidence, I'd now like to ask:

Are you, the Christian, either:

A) arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or instead...
B) arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

As I've posted before (which apparently all skeptics have ducked out from even acknowledging my post):

The silence, from the Christian populous here, remains deafening. Do you folks have an answer here? I posited a video, via post 12, which ultimately states that if "The Exodus" story line happened, we would have all sorts of evidence(s) to support this claimed event. But we really don't?.?.?. The lack in evidence, is what suggests this story line did not happen. Aside from the Bible's say-so, there exists little else to grab on to...?

Christians, I again offer the debate questions:

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?

The debate I had with Otseng pretty much looked at all that there is.

I did an in-depth coverage of the Exodus out of Egypt in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. I spent so much time on it, I'm not going to rehash that again. You can see the synopsis of the arguments at Defending Christianity.

After my research on this topic, my conclusion is:
1. Yes, there is extra-Biblical evidence for it.
2. If it didn't happen, then one might as well take the entire Bible as allegorical.

I'll add a question:
3. If there is extra-Biblical evidence for the Exodus and it aligns with the Biblical account, does this sway the skeptic's position at all?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #350]

Short and sweet...

Are you either:

A) Arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or instead...
B) Arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

Neither. You are arguing from the disbeliever's demand for external evidence. The objective observer knows that external evidence is not needed to prove the evidence of a written record.

So long as the evidence of a written record is not proven untrue, then it can be true, and can be believed as true.

Only irrational disbelief would say it can't possibly be true. (In which case, they wouldn't accept any external evidence for it, but only continue the demand for more evidence.)