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?

[Difflugia]

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony.

You haven't established this.

What is in question is the witness' veracity.

You haven't established genre(s) or author(s), let alone whether any witnesses were involved.

What's not in question is that the document is written by an eyewitness, Moses:

That's absolutely a valid question. This isn't Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma, where the Bible is considered authoritative. Here, what the Bible says is only evidence that the Bible says it.

The book of exodus is the direct evidence written by Moses.

In this subforum, scholarship matters. From the New Oxford Annotated Bible, "Introduction to Exodus:"

Like the rest of the Pentateuch, Exodus contains contradictions and redundancies. For example, Moses’s father‐in‐law is sometimes called Reuel and sometimes Jethro; and the mountain of revelation is Sinai in some passages and Horeb in others. The narratives of Moses on the mountain in chs 19 and 24 have many overlapping and conflicting details, as does the account of the calamities—called “ten plagues” in postbiblical tradition but not in the Bible—against the Egyptians in 7.8–10.29. Differences in vocabulary, style, and ideas are also evident. Thus Exodus is best understood as a composite of streams of traditions shaped over many centuries by an unknown number of anonymous storytellers and writers. Eventually those traditions—often labeled J, E, D, and P according to critical biblical scholarship—were skillfully combined into the present canonical book by one or more redactors or editors who accepted these multiple traditions as valid.

Experts are convinced that Exodus is a composite story, crafted over centuries.

If someone doesn't want to believe him, then all the evidence in Egypt would not persuade them.

All the evidence in Egypt won't convince someone ensnared by Christian dogma.

[Clownboat]

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony.

Well, then the answer to the exodus story has been answered and it really did happen, if you speak the truth.
One little request that seems very reasonable. Please show that you do speak the truth in this and then kindly inform me where the claim about the exodus story comes from. Much appreciated!

[POI]

Evidentiary evidence is direct evidence, which as you confirm, is eyewitness testimony, documents of testimony, photographs, physical objects, etc...

Yes, but we do not know IF we even have 'eyewitness' testimony. As I already stated, we do not know who wrote these stories from the Torah.

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony.

Someone wrote it, sure. But we do not know who, which means we do not know of their source information as well as what their motivation(s) were? We know we have no evidence to corroborate the claim(s), as well as having evidence against it. Such as, but not limited to, when they reached the "promised land" does not jive with the fact that the Egyptians still owned this said region at the time the Bible states the Israelites were expressed to have arrived there, which makes absolutely no sense.

What is in question is the witness' veracity.

Well, being we have a large collection of claims, which would leave tons of evidence, and has instead left none, then the veracity is very low.

What's not in question is that the document is written by an eyewitness, Moses:

Then I guess you must admit that Moses expresses how he was both the a) humblest man to have lived, as well as b) recording his own death? Hmm? Let's try again. As stated prior, we do not know WHO wrote such documents, and what was their source(s)/motivations?

Anyone can reasonably say there is no supporting evidence outside that of the witness' testimony,

It's even more than this. We can also reasonably say we do not know who wrote it, what their source(s) were, and what was their motivation(s)?

but no one with evidentiary reason can say there is no evidence at all.

Yes, we can. Aside from the anonymous claim from the Bible, we got nutt'n. And with every response, you further confirm this reality.

[POI]

I've never bothered to look. The Joseph Smith proves he's false by the cover alone. He says he's writing another testament for Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ says He has no other testament than that written by His chosen apostles in the Bible.

Jesus never wrote anything. And the Gospels are not trustworthy written documents, in which we know Jesus did not write anyhow. I made an entire topic about it, if you are interested?

Please try again.

Some claims in the Book of Mormon lack archaeological, linguistic, or historical evidence, including the existence of "reformed Egyptian" language, the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, and the specific geography and timeline of the Book of Mormon's events. All we have are claims from the Book of Mormon. Just like with the Torah. All we have is the claim, while lacking any evidence to substantiate the claim.

Why reject the Book of Mormon's claim while accepting the Torah's claim?

Until you acknowledge what I write, you don't know enough about it to comment on the logic.

I know that the Torah makes a large physical claim, for which has no evidence to support it. I know the Book of Mormon also makes a large physical claim, for which there is no evidence to support it. Why accept one, and not the other?

[Clownboat]

I would add that the miracle of the Bible, is not just that eyewitnesses recorded such things, but rather that all their eyewitness accounts are preserved intact exactly as first written over thousands of years.

Holy monkeys! That is fantastic!
Please show that you speak the truth and that you are not here to deceive. Please explain the differences we found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Why do some scrolls contain significant variations, including additions, omissions, or reordering of entire sections of text for example?

Gen 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD?

Yes, there is. Forgiving sins without the need for a human blood sacrifice (animals did suffice at one time) is one such task.
Ridding the world of sin is also something this god concept has failed at, more than once (Kicking Adam/Eve from the garden, Noah's flood and the sacrifice of his son all failed).
He also failed to write a book, with a message for everyone that doesn't require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret the said message.

And not in stone, but recorded over and over again on paper nonetheless. And then finally all the eyewitnesses agree with one another, and in many pages of books.

Which Bible are you talking about:
Protestant Bibles with 66 books?
Catholic Bibles with 73 books?
Orthodox Bibles with upwards of 75 books?
Jewish Bibles which contain what Christians call the Old Testament (without the Deuterocanonical/Aprocryphal books)?
Or perhaps you mean the Ethiopian Bibles which contain between 81 and 84 books?
Can you clarify which one contains all the eyewitness agreement you are making claims about?

This is why inerrancy between all the eyewitness accounts in the Bible is so important. If one 'jot or tittle' disagrees between them, then it proves the Author cannot be the perfect and holy Eternal One. This is why those who don't want it to be true, put in so much effort to try and find that fault.

It seems you are claiming that there are numerous eyewitness accounts in the Bible, but only one author. Can you clarify why you believe such a thing because on its face, this is self defeating. How can you believe that Moses authored some books while simultaneously believing that Paul authored some books while also claiming one author? This doesn't even address the unknown authors of the gospels.

The word "author" refers to someone who writes published books.

Some people began by seeking evidence of error in the Bible, who in the end became some of the most ardent Bible believers and supporters. (Me, for example. )

Let's grant that this is true. Please make whatever point you had in mind.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #499]

For an example, Daniel 9 foretells the time of Christ's death to the very week.

Need I post this again?

By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of |seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, |i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ranslation

(Sorry for the momentary derail)

[otseng]

Present your case. Since you have done the work, I'm confident you can condense it, from the original 30 pages, as this is not a research class, it's a debate forum.

I've already summarized it multiple times regarding the Hyksos:

But, I'll get to the punchline. All the questions about the Hyksos regarding who they were, when they entered Egypt, why they were able to take over lower Egypt, why they were able to take the most fertile land, why the Egyptians tolerated them for so long, why they eventually fought each other, and how they eventually left Egypt all fit in with the Biblical account. Those who reject the Biblical account of the Exodus do not have a coherent narrative to explain all of this. So, given the evidence of the Hyksos, it is reasonable to accept the Exodus account.

And to go through the line of reasoning, I started off with asking six questions regarding 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.

I already started the line of evidence by answering the first question:

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

I've repeatedly been asking you for your answer to question one. Or you can simply agree to my definition and then we can go on to question two. This is what I've been waiting from you for quite awhile in order to proceed with the debate.

[otseng]

I'll take your word for it that it is reasonable to accept the Exodus account.

Until an alternate explanation is presented that is backed with evidence, it's the only explanation on the table. When one is offered, then we can compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

Is there any evidence that it took place? For example, the remains we found in the desert for millions of people having lived there (as told in the story).

If they actually wandered in the desert for 40 years, should we expect remains to have survived for so long?

As long as the answer is not "I don't know". Being honest about not knowing will be met with a degrading response I have learned.

Being honest is fine about not knowing the answers. However, you also added:

I provided my answers as I'm curious as to where this may take us.

So, you did not leave it as you did not know the answers, but somehow thought it would be leading to something. What did you expect it would lead to?

And which part of my response did you consider degrading?

Without having evidence that people lived in the Sinai, I fail to see why I should put effort into determining if the Hyksos are responsible for what we haven't found.

I don't think it would be necessary to find remains if it's not even reasonable remains should last that long.

However, there is evidence of them entering Canaan that matches the Biblical account. We can go through that after the evidence of the Hyksos.

You are asking me to put the cart in front of the horse. 'If' a story didn't take place, why should I wonder who is responsible for what didn't happen?

Don't understand your point. I am making a chronological argument about the Exodus by starting with the Israelites entering Egypt. Isn't that where we should be starting? Why skip that and even ask about them crossing the desert?

Personally, I think it is most likely that something took place that spawned the Exodus story, but there is a lot I don't know as you have demonstrated. I don't currently believe that it happened as told in the Bible though, because I believe we would have lots of evidence for such a thing if it had.

As for the evidence, that's what we're trying to look at now with the Hyksos.

[KUWN]

Regarding this Title's question, the answer lies in what Interpretive Method one holds. I hold to the literal, grammatical, historical method, but some hold to a symbolic interpretive model. If this is your method, you would not likely hold to a literal interpretation

[POI]

O <-- This is us.

But, I'll get to the punchline. All the questions about the Hyksos regarding who they were

Were they even Israelites? Yes, no, or we don't know for sure? 'Modern scholarship' says likely not. We both already know the common counterpoints, as expressed in the video -- so let's just keep it moving. Why is 'modern scholarship' still wrong? See below...

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?

A better first question would be, were "the Hyksos" Israelites? Well, were they? If so, how do you know? If you can demonstrate that they were, then we can move on to Q2.

Give me your answers and then I'll give mine.

How about you give us your rationale? You mentioned "the Hyksos". It's your fight. Fight.

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)

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.

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

Okay? Were they Israelites? Yes, no, or I don't know? We already agreed expressing them as being "Semitic" does not mean they are Israelites.

I've repeatedly been asking you for your answer to question one.

I already did. Just because you don't like my answer does not mean I did not answer. Were they Israelites?

Or you can simply agree to my definition and then we can go on to question two.

As i already stated, the given definition(s) are incomplete. Were they Israelites? Asking (who they are) would logically include answering this specific question, about their "race".