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]

This is not being intellectually honest in the least. In fact, it is quite the opposite in that you are somehow under the impression that it helps your argument. It is like you've "been there done that and bought the tee-shirt, which makes you an expert" and now you are out to demonstrate to the rest of us the mistakes we've made.

The proof is in the pudding sir. This topic was created a year and a half ago. All interlocutors verify that outside the Bible's say-so, there's basically nothing more to offer. You are also exchanging here and have not offered anything to address. The owner of this website waited 18 months, and then presented the 'Hyksos'. Okay, kool. What about them? And as soon as it gets vetted, in the least, we both already know it will stalemate. Why? Because we both already know there is no way to verify if the 'Hyksos' included no Israelites at all, or some Israelites, or all Israelites? But these folks being Israelites is paramount to the storyline. And yet, this interlocutor just wants to pass go, and move to the next step. Tsk tsk. Well, without verifying whether or not they are even Israelites, it's all wishful thinking on the believer's part.

If you have something to add, bring it. But it's safe to say that if you actually had something to add, you would not instead only continue on your text-wall diatribe, in attempting to throw out ad hominem attacks.

The problem is, you are no expert in the least, which is demonstrated by the extreme lack of knowledge you have concerning the Bible and also your lack of knowledge as far as Christianity is concerned.

LOL!

The reason you have such a severe lack of knowledge concerning these things, is exactly because you never read the Bible and took the word of others, which means your understanding has been completely flawed by those you were taking the word of.

Your reasoning here is flawed. Since you do not know who I obtained my information from, you are then assuming that anyone who teaches students who have not yet read the Bible themselves, is flawed in what they teach.

When you finally decide after decades of your life to actually read the Bible, it is not as though the objections you have concern Christianity in the least, but rather it concerns refuting the reckless theology you were exposed to.

You have absolutely no idea what I was taught. You are just pulling guesses out of your keister, at this point. I was raised as a Catholic, and then later converted under the protestant umbrella. It's a good thing you have the right "theology" though But it's funny how every Christian I meet believes theirs is the right one. And yet, they all conflict with one another in one way or another.

One thing I can assure you of is the fact that it would not have taken me decades of my life to come to understand that the theology you were exposed to was "wacked" in that it is not in touch with any sort of reality.

Again, I was under multiple disciplines, over the years. You do understand that "Christianity" have differing beliefs, right? Which micro-sect did you adopt? Let's start simply... Which of the 3 main branches are you under -- (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant)? And that is only the tip of the iceberg, as we would need to drill it down from there. Under the Protestant branch alone, we then have the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, Anglican/Episcopals, the Pentecostals, and many others. And then, from there, we can drill it down even further. Your 'theology' must closely mirror one of them?

But again, I am the type of person who is not going to take the word of others, and I am going to read and study for myself before I actually make such a major life decision that is not only going to affect my life, but also the life of my children.

Great! Which denomination are you? Or, are you a non-denom? Which one is the right one? We are all eagerly awaiting the right doctrine, void of this 'reckless theology'

Though I would love to just address everything you stated below, one thing is for dang sure. You have offered nothing to the (2) debate questions. And this is likely because we both know, that outside the Bible's say-so, there really is nothing to offer.

Which begs the follow-up question. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not happen, does it matter to you? Maybe it doesn't? Which would then verify that you are under the umbrella of the 'minimal facts' Christian.

[POI]

So many words typed!

Sure is. I find it rather endearing.

Were any of them evidence for the Exodus?

Nope! But it's just as well. No one else has either.

[Difflugia]

And so, the question is simple: where did their new livestock come from? Or, can it only be imagined that the old dead livestock had to live again to be killed again, or the Author forgets within several verses, that all their livestock was now dead and couldn't possibly be killed again?

You missed one: the stories of the plagues weren't intended to be accurate in historical detail. Since you're arguing from incredulity that a single author wouldn't leave such a historical contradiction, your assertion of intentional historical detail is simply question-begging.

From Propp's Exodus 1-18 volume of The Anchor Bible, pp. 347-348:

Any rigorous attempt to explain the whole Plagues narrative as a naive but basically accurate report of a chain of natural calamities is doomed from the start. Rationalistic explanations for miracles, common in Hellenistic times (e.g., Artapanus) and revived to counter Enlightenment skepticism, are anachronistic today. To believe that the Bible faithfully records a concatenation of improbable events, as interpreted by a prescientific society, demands a perverse fundamentalism that blindly accepts the antiquity and accuracy of biblical tradition while denying its theory of supernatural intervention. It is particularly unmethodical to discern causal links between events narrated in different documentary strata, all the more since Psalms 78 and 105 prove that the Plagues' number and sequence were fluid in Israelite tradition. Exodus itself never refers to written sources about the Plagues, but rather implies a chain of oral tradition (10:2). Not surprisingly, many aspects of the biblical Plagues find parallels in world folklore.

This reinforces what we've seen with the other contradictions so far: the problem isn't so much that the Bible contradicts itself or reality, but that the Bible contradicts what you want it to be.

It's only an assumption that the Egyptians didn't get any new livestock, which is nonsensical, since they would certainly do so if at all possible. The only question is whether there was motive, time, and opportunity to do so. The motive answers for itself: they needed to replenish their herds, because all their livestock was dead.

The accusation of a contradiction therefore only pertains to time and opportunity, which is based upon two assumptions about time and opportunity: There wasn't any time nor opportunity to replenish their herds before the second killing of their livestock. Both of which are proven false by the text:

They had plenty of time between the two killings to replenish their livestock, especially with the urgent motivation to do so. First there was an intervening plague of boils, which took time, and also Moses had to visit Pharaoh's court two more times to confront him with the same demand. That time alone included several days, especially since some plagues took as much as a week to accomplish. We than add the time of warning to the people themselves, and we have plenty of days for the urgent Egyptians to get new livestock.

You're simply expecting us to believe that one bit of narrative nonsense is solved if you add some of your own. If the stories are intended to be read as a historical sequence, then the sequence has to make sense as written. The same incredulity that applies to an author writing such a contradiction also applies to the same author omitting your speculative solution, especially when the language of the story itself argues against your solution. You assert that your own imagined part of the story takes place over "plenty of days," but the language of the genuine story is between time frames of "tomorrow" and "early in the morning." Unless the author is coining the now old joke of "months from now, at 7 AM," then your harmonization falls a bit flat.

[otseng]

And I rest my case.

Hahaha. I had a feeing you would say something to this effect. You got me. Not! You omitted my prior explanation. Further, I already addressed your attempted line of questioning. Before you can venture off onto question/point #2, you must first demonstrate that the 'Hyksos' were at least 'Israelites.' And you have not done that. Hence, the exchange is at a halt regardless.

I'll let readers assess if you actually answered any of my questions. As for addressing if the Hyksos were the Israelites, it required going through all of the 6 questions, not just the first. Since we can't get you to go past even the first one after pages of debate, there is no indication you want to have a rational debate. So, until you give an answer to the first question and not just repeatedly claiming the Hyksos were not Israelites, I'll see if anybody else wants to engage in a rational debate with me.

Were any of them evidence for the Exodus?

Why are you addressing Realworldjack when he's not arguing for the historicity of the Exodus? Would you be willing to address me instead since I'm the one actually presenting the evidence?

You can engage me by addressing the first of the six questions:

Here's a significant piece of evidence the Israelites were in Egypt - the Hyksos.

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long?
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved?
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt?

Give me your answers and then I'll give mine. Then we'll compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

Or you can just say you agree to my answer to question 1 and then you can answer question 2.

1. Who were the Hyksos?

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt c. 1782 BCE at the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt, thus initiating the era known in Egyptian history as the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c. 1570 BCE).

https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

Hyksos, dynasty of Palestinian origin that ruled northern Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630–c. 1530 bce.
Modern scholarship has identified most of the Hyksos kings’ names as Semitic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hyksos ... an-dynasty

the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin.
The Hyksos period marks the first in which foreign rulers ruled Egypt.
The Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs alongside Egyptian ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #471]

You quote me saying.

This is not being intellectually honest in the least. In fact, it is quite the opposite in that you are somehow under the impression that it helps your argument. It is like you've "been there done that and bought the tee-shirt, which makes you an expert" and now you are out to demonstrate to the rest of us the mistakes we've made.

Above, I am addressing the fact that it is not intellectual honesty to admit you were convinced of a dead man rising from the grave, nor bothering to read the Bible for decades of your life, and you respond with,

The proof is in the pudding sir. This topic was created a year and a half ago. All interlocutors verify that outside the Bible's say-so, there's basically nothing more to offer. You are also exchanging here and have not offering anything to address. The owner of this website waited 18 months, and then presented the 'Hyksos'. Okay, kool. What about them? And as soon as it gets vetted, in the least, we both already know it will stalemate. Why? Because we both already know there is no way to verify if the 'Hyksos' included no Israelites at all, or some Israelites, or all Israelites? But these folks being Israelites is paramount to the storyline. And yet, this interlocutor just wants to pass go, and move to the next step. Tsk tsk. Well, without verifying whether or not they are even Israelites, it's all wishful thinking on the believer's part.

If you have something to add, bring it. But it's safe to say that if you actually had something to add, you would not instead only continue on your text-wall diatribe, in attempting to throw out ad hominem attacks.

What in the world does any of the above have to do with my comment concerning you not being intellectually honest by admitting to not using the mind in order to make such a life decision? It is like you quote me and then go off on a completely different subject. Again, it is not being intellectually honest in the least to admit to being convinced a dead man rose from the grave without the use of the mind.

From what I have gathered, it seems we all agree there was indeed an Exodus out of Egypt by a group of people. The only question now is, was it the Hyksos, the Israelites, or was the Hyksos and the Israelites one and the same? My contention is, there are reasons to believe the Hyksos and the Israelites to be the same, and there is also reason to believe these clans to be different. The one thing which seems to be agreed upon is there was indeed some sort of Exodus.

Of course, I am no expert on this subject in the least and have gathered what information I have concerning the issue from the comments made here, along with a very brief survey of what I could find on the web. So then, if I am incorrect in any of the above, I would be more than happy to be corrected. If I am correct, then we have what is contained in the Bible describing an exodus out of Egypt, and we also have evidence outside the Bible which allows us to be certain that an exodus took place out of Egypt. This would mean the only question is, are they one and the same exodus?

Now, as far as your accusation of ad hominem attacks, I can only address the points being made by others. The only way I know of in which I could have possibly known about your previous life when you made major life decisions without the use of the mind, is if you freely offered the information. What I am attempting to understand is, how in the world can it be viewed as an ad hominem attack, when I am simply repeating exactly what you have said about yourself? I mean, if this information is not relevant to the discussion we are having, then why bring it freely into the conversation? If you bring it freely into the conversation, then how can it be referred to as a personal attack for another to repeat what it is you have reported about yourself? How is a personal attack if I say it, but you can say it about yourself, and it is not viewed as a personal attack on yourself? I mean, there are those who seem to proclaim this about themselves as if they are somehow proud of the fact, and when and if I say it just as proudly about them, it is viewed as an attack.

Either you are proud of the fact that you were a onetime convinced Christian for decades of your life and was able to think your way out, or you are ashamed of the fact that you made such a major life decision without the use of the mind. If you are proud of the fact that you were able to make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, then why do you view it as an attack when I repeat it? If you are ashamed of this fact, then I will take this into consideration and never mention again concerning you. The point is, if you are proud of it, and believe it to be relevant to the conversation then do not take it as an attack when others repeat what you have said yourself. If you are ashamed of this fact, then don't bring it into the conversation as if it is relevant.

However, the thing is, whether you bring it into the conversation or not, along with whether you are proud of this fact or ashamed, I can assure you that this fact is relevant. It is not relevant to the conversation if you do not reveal it, but the fact remains that it is indeed relevant to know someone could come to be convinced for decades of their life that a man rose from the dead, and they are now convinced, that what they were once convinced of for decades, has no facts and evidence in support. I can tell you this, as a thinking person myself, I would be asking myself, how could I have been so convinced one way with no facts and evidence in support, to being so convinced in the completely opposite direction. I think if I were being intellectually honest with myself, I would have to admit that I tend to believe what it is I would rather believe, no matter the facts and evidence. I am being intellectually honest with you when I tell you that I would much rather not believe Christianity to be true, because I cannot imagine anyone who truly understands it wanting it to be true.

LOL!

Yeah! It is really comical at how much knowledge you actually lack concerning what you are so critical of.

Your reasoning here is flawed. Since you do not know who I obtained my information from, you are then assuming that anyone who teaches students who have not yet read the Bible themselves, is flawed in what they teach.

First, you seem to fail to realize just how many conversation we have had in the past, and just how much information you have given out. Next, you admit yourself that you simply took the word of others, and as we read what you have to say concerning Christianity, it is very easy to determine that you have a serious lack of knowledge concerning Christianity and the Bible.

You have absolutely no idea what I was taught. You are just pulling guesses out of your keister, at this point. I was raised as a Catholic, and then later converted under the protestant umbrella. It's a good thing you have the right "theology" though But it's funny how every Christian I meet believes theirs is the right one. And yet, they all conflict with one another in one way or another.

Yes, I have a pretty good idea of what you were taught, and I know for a fact that you simply took the word of those who taught you. At this point it is not about one particular theology being correct. I do not suppose that the theology I adhere to must and has to be the correct theology. I am quite aware of the possibility of my own error. However, there is a difference between one's theology being completely free from error, as opposed to one who shows a tremendous lack of knowledge of what they are so critical of. So then, you show a tremendous lack of knowledge, and you admit that you did not come up with the theology yourself because you did not read the Bible for yourself, and this sort of demonstrates your faulty thinking had to come from those you were taking the word of.

Again, I was under multiple disciplines, over the years. You do understand that "Christianity" have differing beliefs, right? Which micro-sect did you adopt? Let's start simply... Which of the 3 main branches are you under -- (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant)? And that is only the tip of the iceberg, as we would need to drill it down from there. Under the Protestant branch alone, we then have the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, Anglican/Episcopals, the Pentecostals, and many others. And then, from there, we can drill it down even further. Your 'theology' must closely mirror one of them?

My friend, I have enough sense to know that most all Churches today are what you called "wacked" which is exactly why we have so many Christians who have no idea what they believe, nor why they believe as they do. Most Churches are concerned about "butts in the seat" and to get "butts in the seat" they are not in any way appealing to the mind but rather the emotions. Then you have many other Churches who are far more concerned about the behavior of those outside the Church than they are about the spiritual welfare of those "butts in the seat". I mean, you want to talk to me about "Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, Anglican/Episcopals, the Pentecostals, and many others" which sort of demonstrates my whole case concerning your lack of knowledge. You show me someone who claims to be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopal, etc. and I can more than likely show you one who takes the word of others. Anyone who is a thinking person has to know that most all these Churches have very little to do with creed and doctrine, because if you concentrate on creed and doctrine you have to appeal to the mind, and if you appeal to the mind, you are going to lose a lot of "the butts in the seat".

Great! Which denomination are you? Or, are you a non-denom? Which one is the right one? We are all eagerly awaiting the right doctrine, void of this 'reckless theology'

I want you to just take a minute here and sit back and read your question again. I am seriously sitting here attempting to figure out how to say this nicely. If you cannot see the simplicity in the thinking which could have formed this question, then I really cannot help you. Seriously! "Which denomination are you"? Do you seriously believe that I am going to line up with a denomination? I cannot imagine anyone who actually thinks for themselves lining up with a denomination. I mean, one can attend a Church which lines up with a denomination, but I cannot imagine any thinking person agreeing to every single doctrine a particular denomination holds. Again, if they do, then I would have to imagine such a one is allowing others to do their thinking. It is not about who has the correct doctrine, and that the Church I attend has it correct, while all others are off base. Rather, it is about most Churches are really not concerned with the doctrine they claim to adhere to, because again, if they concerned themselves with doctrine they would have to appeal to the minds of folks, and when and if you begin to appeal to the mind, you will lose many of the "butts in the seats".

I want to be clear here in saying that I am not insisting my theology is the correct theology while all these other Churches have an errant theology. No, the problem is, most all these Churches are really not concerned with theology very much at all, because this would mean an appeal to the mind. Appealing to the mind is hard work, and it does not add "butts in the seats". It is far easier to appeal to entertain, and appeal to the emotions.

Though I would love to just address everything you stated below

I highly doubt it.

You have offered nothing to the (2) debate questions.

I have, and I have offered again above.

Which would then verify that you are under the umbrella of the 'minimal facts' Christian.

GOOD GRIEF! You certainly have a thing about what you refer to as "minimal facts Christian". I do not know how to explain it better. If we cannot agree to certain things, then we have to be willing to concede certain things in order to have a meaningful debate. Okay, so you have no regard for the Bible, and I have no problem with that, and therefore I will concede that in the debate we will not take the Bible as being completely accurate. However, we then go on to attempt to find something we can agree upon, and we work from the agreement. Now, if you would like to insists this makes me a "minimal facts Christian" that is fine, but I'm just thinking that is just having common sense. I mean, is there some Christian out there who has come up with this thing and is under the impression that it is some sort of break through? I'm thinking this is the way in which debates have always worked.

[POI]

The reason this topic exists is because you, along with consensus, agrees that if the claims from the Exodus are deemed myth/fiction/other, then the entire Bible might as well be... I see this topic as a pivotal one, in defense of defending the veracity claims of the Bible. And so far, I'm not seeing much defense in suggesting "the Exodus" is factual and literal. Sure, you come along 18 months later and post up a group of folks no one else has mentioned, or, wants to really defend, but I digress....

I'll let readers assess if you actually answered any of my questions.

This topic has been setting here for 18+ months. This topic has thousands of views, likely from many believers. And also likely from many well-educated believers. Seems quite strange that, not-a-one, ever thought to bring up this ancient group of folks? And since you came along, and brought them up, not one believer has sense come to your defense in also asserting they may very well have been the correct group of folks. Likely for 2 logical reasons:

1. They never really studied the historicity of the Hyksos themselves, and do not have anything to add (one way or another).
2. They have studied them and agree with the pushback points from modern scholarship, that the 'Hyksos' are not the correct group of folks the Bible describes.

As for addressing if the Hyksos were the Israelites, it required going through all of the 6 questions, not just the first.

No, it does not. The first question asks, "who were the Hyksos?" This is a very general question. Almost too general. The answer can include their race, their role, their timeline, other, (and) how we know all of this.

Since we can't get you to go past even the first one after pages of debate, there is no indication you want to have a rational debate.

Explained above.

I'll see if anybody else wants to engage in a rational debate with me.

I would think all the usual players would have come to your aid my now.

The silence has been quite deafening. Maybe the tides will change, for others to now come to your aid -- in an attempt to shoehorn "the Hyksos" in there for the win? So, come on believers, study up!

[POI]

What in the world does any of the above have to do with...

Here is where the rubber meets the road. What in the world does any of your given antics have to do with the debate topic? I stopped really taking you seriously. And I also stop taking other interlocutors seriously when they dump a topic over the fence and then ask their opponent to do the dirty work for them. Which is why I mentioned 'flat-earthers', 'young-earthers', 'evolution deniers', other...

Let's get back to the topic. Shall we?

From what I have gathered, it seems we all agree there was indeed an Exodus out of Egypt by a group of people.

Um, no. You, of all people, love to mention 'scholars'. Most modern scholars would agree that 'the Exodus' is comprised of myth/other. So no, we do not ALL AGREE.

we also have evidence outside the Bible which allows us to be certain that an exodus took place out of Egypt.

Like what?

This would mean the only question is, are they one and the same exodus?

Are you hinting or suggesting a way to wiggle out of this topic, because you know there exists no direct evidence to support the claims, as told from the Bible's account?

was it the Hyksos, the Israelites, or was the Hyksos and the Israelites one and the same? My contention is, there are reasons to believe the Hyksos and the Israelites to be the same, and there is also reason to believe these clans to be different.

Well, what do you believe about the Hyksos sir? Were they, or not? "Modern scholarship" says, likely not.

*************************

I do not recall you addressing the second debate question? Or maybe you did, and it got lost in all your provided unsolicited advice, in which you were offering to me:

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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #477]

Here is where the rubber meets the road. What in the world does any of your given antics have to do with the debate topic?

Oh, it has a lot to do with it. Again, you are the one who brought into the equation that you were a convinced Christian for decades when there would be no facts and evidence in support of Christianity. This certainly demonstrates that it does not take a whole lot to convince you. Seriously! How in the world can one be convinced of something without any sort of facts and evidence? For real! You cannot make this stuff up. The point is, when you are in debate with one, it is relevant when this person freely brings it into the conversation, because it allows us to know what type of person we are dealing with, and we are dealing with one who could be convinced of something for decades, which had no facts and evidence in support. You are now, decades later insisting that facts and evidence be given for what you were convinced of for decades without facts and evidence, and when this evidence is supplied, you simply claim that it does not pass your test for evidence, which causes many of us to wonder if you really know what evidence is. More on this below.

I stopped really taking you seriously.

No, you have not. If this were the case, you would no longer respond to my post, but you continue, and this is evidence that you do take me seriously. If you did not take me seriously then you would simply allow what I have to say to speak for itself, because you would know that what I have to say would be so ridiculous that it would need no response. The thing is, I really do not believe you have it in you not to have the last word. Again, if you did not take me seriously it would only be because you understand that what I am saying is so ridiculous that it deserves no response, and yet you continue to respond because you feel the need to.

And I also stop taking other interlocutors seriously when they dump a topic over the fence and then ask their opponent to do the dirty work for them. Which is why I mentioned 'flat-earthers', 'young-earthers', 'evolution deniers', other...

Simply because I bring up what you at one time believed to be relevant in that you were a convinced Christian for decades of your life without having any facts and evidence to be convinced of such a thing, does not mean that I have "dumped a topic over the fence." I have made it clear that I am not an expert on the subject. Are you? From what I have gathered thus far is, we have enough facts to know there was some sort of Exodus out of Egypt. More below.

Um, no. You, of all people, love to mention 'scholars'.

I mean, you really cannot make this stuff up. I have been on this site for over a decade, and you can go back and look at when I have referred to the scholars, and I have never referred to the scholars as any sort of authority. In fact, it would be the exact opposite. What I have done is to refer to the critical scholars of Christianity and noted that these scholars are convinced that the earlier followers of Jesus were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. In other words, these scholars are convinced that these followers were not making the reports up. This appeal is not in any way to suggest that since this is what the scholars believe, then it must be true. Rather, it is to demonstrate that there must and has to be some sort of facts and evidence which convinces these scholars this is the case, while you seem to want to insist there are no facts and evidence at all. So then, you can disagree with the scholars in that we cannot know these early followers (including the apostles) were not making the story up, which would mean that it is possible that they could have made the story up.

I'm just telling you that I really do not believe you want to take up the argument that it would be a possibility that they made the story up. If you are not willing to take up such an argument, then you are agreeing that we have enough facts and evidence surrounding the claims to know this would not be a possibility. So then, it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that I have not appealed to the scholars as any sort of authority. I am appealing to the fact that even the critical scholars are convinced that it is not possible that the resurrection appearances were made up, which means there must, and has to be some sort of facts and evidence which convinces them that this is the case, while you insist, we have no facts and evidence in order to examine.

I make this argument above, which is not at all an appeal to the scholars as an authority, and you complain that I am appealing to the scholars as an authority, all the while you uphold the scholars as an authority. You wonder why I continue to say, "you cannot make this stuff up"? It is like you cannot remember what you say from one post to the next. Let's all keep in mind that you do not take what I have to say seriously.

Let's go through this again. I have never appealed to the scholars as an authority. You complain that I appeal to the scholars, and point out the fallacy in appealing to the scholars, all the while you continue to appeal to the scholars, and here is an example in your very next sentence.

Most modern scholars would agree that 'the Exodus' is comprised of myth/other. So no, we do not ALL AGREE.

This is beyond belief! I am not talking about the Exodus at this point, but rather the fact that I have never appealed to the scholars as any sort of authority, and when you think that I have, I am scolded and told what a fallacy this would be, and then you go straight ahead and appeal to the scholars as if they are some sort of authority.

My friend, I have no doubt that these scholars agree that the Exodus of the Israelites would be myth/other. Again, I am no expert, but would these same scholars adhere to the conclusion that there was never any sort of Exodus out is Egypt at all? Or would they agree that there was a clan of folks referred to as the Hyksos who exited Egypt? Because you see, from what I have gathered thus far from the web on this subject is, there was a clan referred to as the Hyksos, who exited Egypt. The one question is, were they expelled by force? Or were they allowed to leave freely?

I am just telling you that I am not in any way insisting that the Hyksos were the Israelites. I am just saying at this point that there seems to be a consensus that there was indeed some sort of Exodus out of Egypt.

Like what?

Well, this is explained above, and I welcome where I may be in error, because as I have said I am not an expert. It seems to me from what I have gathered from the web is that most all agree that the Hyksos exited Egypt, in some form or another, as far as whether they were expelled forcefully, or they were allowed to leave.

Are you hinting or suggesting a way to wiggle out of this topic, because you know there exists no direct evidence to support the claims, as told from the Bible's account?

No wiggle here. I am simply acknowledging the fact that what is contained in the Bible reports an Exodus out of Egypt, along with there seems to be enough facts and evidence to convince historians and scholars there was some sort of Exodus out of Egypt. I am absolutely correct in that what is contained in the Bible reports an Exodus out of Egypt. The only question that remains is, is there enough facts and evidence to convince historians, and scholars there was some sort of Exodus out of Egypt? This does not mean the Exodus has to be one and the same. Rather, it is to simply point out the fact that both the Bible, along with evidence outside the Bible, point to an Exodus out of Egypt.

Well, what do you believe about the Hyksos sir? Were they, or not?

What I say is, it seems we have enough facts and evidence to convince the historians and scholars that the Hyksos exited from Egypt either by force or they were allowed to leave. Either way, we are left with reports inside the Bible of an Exodus out of Egypt, along with evidence outside the Bible of an Exodus out of Egypt. Were the Hyksos the Israelites? I cannot say they were, and you cannot say they were not, but we can both agree that there is evidence to convince the historians and scholars there was some sort of Exodus out of Egypt.

"Modern scholarship" says, likely not.

Is this an appeal to the authority of the scholars? Next, if it is only "likely not" as far as the scholarship is concerned, does this mean there is a possibility that it is? Seriously! Think about what I am saying. Is it possible the Hyksos were the Israelites? I mean, if this is a possibility, then we have the evidence from the Bible of an Exodus of the Israelites, and evidence outside the Bible the possibility the Israelites exited Egypt.

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?

We have been over, and over this, and it is these sorts of questions which continually reveal your tremendous lack of knowledge concerning the material contained in the Bible. It also reveals the fact that you did indeed take the word of others, and even though you may have rejected what you were so convinced of for decades of your life, you are still having difficulty thinking for yourself. Allow me to give this one more shot.

If we have an author who authored material thousands of years ago concerning historical events, and thousands of years later we have a completely different author who authors material concerning a completely different historical event, if we discovered that what the earlier author wrote to be in error would this fact have any sort of bearing in the least upon what the later author recorded? Okay, let us say hundreds of years after the later authored penned his account of a completely different event thousands of years later, there was a committee who decided for whatever reason to place these two authors in the same exact book, would the fact that the earlier writer was not reporting factually have a thing in the world to do with what the later writer had to say, thousands of years later concerning a completely different event?

I mean, it is like since all this material is contained in the same book, it causes you to have some sort of mental block. Or better yet, you are still being influenced by the reckless theology you were exposed to which convinced you with no facts and evidence whatsoever, that the Bible is inerrant, and if anything at all is discovered to be in error inside the Bible, then this somehow demonstrates none of what is contained is truthful.

It is like you have more confidence in the Bible than I do. Allow me to ask you a question. You are going to have to read carefully, because of what you have been exposed to as far as theology is concerned. Do you believe that God was involved in the process of compiling the Bible? Notice, the question has nothing whatsoever to do with God being involved in the writing of the Bible. Okay, now allow me to answer for you. Of course, you do not believe God was involved in compiling the Bible. Well, guess what? I do not believe God was involved in the process of compiling the Bible.

So then, if God was not involved in the process of compiling the Bible, then what we have is one author reporting upon events thousands of years earlier, and then thousands of years later we have a completely different author reporting on a completely different event, with one event having nothing whatsoever to do with the other, and somehow since they were compiled in the same book hundreds of years after the second event, this blinds you to the fact that what the one author has to report would have no bearing whatsoever upon the truthfulness of what the second author had to report.

You see, this is why I continue to point out just how elementary your arguments are. You have got it in your mind that if anything in the Bible at all is found to be in error then the whole house of cards falls, and any thinking person at all would have thought through all this very early on and would have had to come to realize that this math does not add. It is like that it is impossible for you to shed yourself of the faulty thinking you were exposed to, which convinced you to believe something for decades of your life with no facts and evidence in support.

[POI]

Oh, it has a lot to do with it. Again, you are the one who brought into the equation that you were a convinced Christian for decades when there would be no facts and evidence in support of Christianity. This certainly demonstrates that it does not take a whole lot to convince you.

No, it has nothing to do with this topic at all. And if you really believed this, you would provide actual 'facts and evidence' for the claims of "the Exodus" account, for which you would know you would easily flip me to your view and win the debate.

No, you have not.

Yes, I have. Notice I do not respond to the majority of your long-winded drivel. It's temping, because there would be so much off-topic stuff to address. But it becomes a complete off-topic event which is surely going to disinterest many attempting to gather viewpoint(s) of this topic. A matter of fact, it's really hard to get through all of it to see if your responses ever actually address my response or direct question(s). And others likely feel the same way. If you are going to 'attack' me, stop writing text-walls at least. Please learn to express, what you feel is important, into more consolidated responses. I do it all the time, where I work. No one wants to read long and drawn-out words/paragraphs/chapters to get what you could instead express in a much shorter and prettier package.

Here's a tip... Imagine you are in school, and the professor asks you to explain the premise of a story in 50 words or less. I digress now.

Simply because I bring up what you at one time believed to be relevant in that you were a convinced Christian for decades of your life without having any facts and evidence to be convinced of such a thing, does not mean that I have "dumped a topic over the fence."

I did not accuse you of this. I accused another. The other brought up the "Hyksos" and is asking/expecting his interlocutor to do his dirty work for him.

I have never referred to the scholars as any sort of authority.

Yes, you have. In our last exchange, you reference 'Bart Ehrman' in such a way. As if I need to care what he thinks on a topic. Just present the actual "facts and evidence." You are quite good at stating 'facts and evidence' without actually issuing 'facts and evidence,'

I'm just telling you that I really do not believe you want to take up the argument that it would be a possibility that they made the story up. If you are not willing to take up such an argument, then you are agreeing that we have enough facts and evidence surrounding the claims to know this would not be a possibility.

The reason I bring up 'the Exodus' is because there is a really good chance 'the Exodus' is entirely made up. Unlike the story of Jesus, where there is a much better chance the entire story is not made up. Meaning, we have reasonable cause to believe the story of Jesus was not pure/complete myth. Meaning, Jesus likely existed, and also likely did some stuff, and was also likely executed. Where "the Exodus" is concerned, it's instead likely such stated folks were never even in the region the Bible expresses. This is evident by the fact that, in ~ 18 months, no one has attempted to come to this topic to provide any actual evidence to suggest they did, other than appealing to slogans (or) now trying to introduce another group of folks. Which then lines up with what 'modern scholarship' suggests -- that this entire story may be comprised of myth and/or borrowed events.

This is why one individual wants to make the 'Hyksos' relevant.

I have never appealed to the scholars as an authority. You complain that I appeal to the scholars, and point out the fallacy in appealing to the scholars, all the while you continue to appeal to the scholars, and here is an example in your very next sentence.

Yes, I did this exactly because I know this is your tactic. Know your opponent.

I am not talking about the Exodus at this point,

Since you entered this topic, you hardly ever have -- so I am not surprised.

I am no expert, but would these same scholars adhere to the conclusion that there was never any sort of Exodus out is Egypt at all?

I'm detecting more wiggle here... My topic is not asking if just (ANY group of folks -- maybe even differing race(s) -- were ever enslaved somewhere and then set free from this said somewhere once upon a time). No. I'm instead asking if THE EXODUS, as told from the Bible, happened? As I told Otseng, we are testing the veracity claims from the Bible. If this particular story is comprised of myth, or borrows events which happened to another elsewhere, or at another time, then the veracity claims of the Bible are questionable, at best, being this event is supposed to be factual and literal.

Or would they agree that there was a clan of folks referred to as the Hyksos who exited Egypt? Because you see, from what I have gathered thus far from the web on this subject is, there was a clan referred to as the Hyksos, who exited Egypt. The one question is, were they expelled by force? Or were they allowed to leave freely?

See my reply directly above.

Well, this is explained above, and I welcome where I may be in error, because as I have said I am not an expert. It seems to me from what I have gathered from the web is that most all agree that the Hyksos exited Egypt, in some form or another, as far as whether they were expelled forcefully, or they were allowed to leave.

See my response above.

No wiggle here. I am simply acknowledging the fact that what is contained in the Bible reports an Exodus out of Egypt, along with there seems to be enough facts and evidence to convince historians and scholars there was some sort of Exodus out of Egypt. I am absolutely correct in that what is contained in the Bible reports an Exodus out of Egypt. The only question that remains is, is there enough facts and evidence to convince historians, and scholars there was some sort of Exodus out of Egypt? This does not mean the Exodus has to be one and the same. Rather, it is to simply point out the fact that both the Bible, along with evidence outside the Bible, point to an Exodus out of Egypt.

Again, see my response above. As I told another, seems Otseng might be trying to 'shoehorn' the "Hyksos" in there for the win.

What I say is, it seems we have enough facts and evidence to convince the historians and scholars that the Hyksos exited from Egypt either by force or they were allowed to leave. Either way, we are left with reports inside the Bible of an Exodus out of Egypt, along with evidence outside the Bible of an Exodus out of Egypt. Were the Hyksos the Israelites? I cannot say they were, and you cannot say they were not, but we can both agree that there is evidence to convince the historians and scholars there was some sort of Exodus out of Egypt.

See my response(s) above.

if it is only "likely not" as far as the scholarship is concerned, does this mean there is a possibility that it is?

We are dealing with claims made from ancient antiquity. It is what it is. But "the Exodus" seems to more-so fail these lower standards of exception, using the historical method. Such as, but not limited to:

a. Is the source(s) deemed fallible?
b. Does the located source possess any kind of bias?
c. Would/could the said source possess any political/religious motivation?
d. Do any archeological artifacts corroborate the claim(s)?
etc etc etc

Is it possible the Hyksos were the Israelites?

We cannot 100% rule out virtually any claim from ancient antiquity. We can only instead base our conclusions upon inference and probability. What does your 'gut' tell you?

We have been over, and over this, and it is these sorts of questions which continually reveal your tremendous lack of knowledge concerning the material contained in the Bible. It also reveals the fact that you did indeed take the word of others, and even though you may have rejected what you were so convinced of for decades of your life, you are still having difficulty thinking for yourself. Allow me to give this one more shot.

If we have an author who authored material thousands of years ago concerning historical events, and thousands of years later we have a completely different author who authors material concerning a completely different historical event, if we discovered that what the earlier author wrote to be in error would this fact have any sort of bearing in the least upon what the later author recorded? Okay, let us say hundreds of years after the later authored penned his account of a completely different event thousands of years later, there was a committee who decided for whatever reason to place these two authors in the same exact book, would the fact that the earlier writer was not reporting factually have a thing in the world to do with what the later writer had to say, thousands of years later concerning a completely different event?

I mean, it is like since all this material is contained in the same book, it causes you to have some sort of mental block. Or better yet, you are still being influenced by the reckless theology you were exposed to which convinced you with no facts and evidence whatsoever, that the Bible is inerrant, and if anything at all is discovered to be in error inside the Bible, then this somehow demonstrates none of what is contained is truthful.

It is like you have more confidence in the Bible than I do. Allow me to ask you a question. You are going to have to read carefully, because of what you have been exposed to as far as theology is concerned. Do you believe that God was involved in the process of compiling the Bible? Notice, the question has nothing whatsoever to do with God being involved in the writing of the Bible. Okay, now allow me to answer for you. Of course, you do not believe God was involved in compiling the Bible. Well, guess what? I do not believe God was involved in the process of compiling the Bible.

So then, if God was not involved in the process of compiling the Bible, then what we have is one author reporting upon events thousands of years earlier, and then thousands of years later we have a completely different author reporting on a completely different event, with one event having nothing whatsoever to do with the other, and somehow since they were compiled in the same book hundreds of years after the second event, this blinds you to the fact that what the one author has to report would have no bearing whatsoever upon the truthfulness of what the second author had to report.

You see, this is why I continue to point out just how elementary your arguments are. You have got it in your mind that if anything in the Bible at all is found to be in error then the whole house of cards falls, and any thinking person at all would have thought through all this very early on and would have had to come to realize that this math does not add. It is like that it is impossible for you to shed yourself of the faulty thinking you were exposed to, which convinced you to believe something for decades of your life with no facts and evidence in support.

Did you actually answer my 2nd debate question? I again got distracted with the ad homs....

Again, if the story told from the pages of the Bible is deemed myth, does this concern you? Yes or no? It would certainly concern Otseng, which is why I smell the desperation in trying to equate the 'Hyksos' as the expressed group of interest.

[otseng]

I'll see if anybody else wants to engage in a rational debate with me.

I would think all the usual players would have come to your aid my now.

The silence has been quite deafening. Maybe the tides will change, for others to now come to your aid -- in an attempt to shoehorn "the Hyksos" in there for the win? So, come on believers, study up!

I'm not asking for a Christian to come to my aid. I'm asking for any skeptic to engage with me that is willing to answer my questions. This request is open to anyone who rejects the Israelites being in Egypt. We'll wait and see which side is silent.