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 otseng in post #590]

Seems we are in a stalemate...

I asked for your best piece of evidence, since this is a debate arena, and no one should be asked to read through a 30-page link -- (Where's Waldo-style). You lobbed the Hyksos over the fence, which in and of itself, is just another claim, and then proceeded to ask 6 questions. (No one is answering them, skeptics or believers). If you are going to lob the Hyksos over the fence, it is your job to provide some evidence that they are the expressed Israelites, as claimed from the Bible. Start drawing connections between the claims from the Bible and the Hyksos. You have no problem giving a brief synopsis to others. A matter of fact, my last response to you addresses such a summary, for which you happily sent to RBD, without you insisting he first answer any pre-Q's.

The ball is in your court.

[Difflugia]

You haven't established this.

Jesus does.

Only in the way that Luke Skywalker established the power of the Force. Jesus is a character in a series of similar stories. You haven't offered any reason to think that any of the New Testament authors or their characters had any more information about the authorship of the Old Testament than you do.

It's evidence given by eyewitness testimony.

Repeating your claim isn't evidence that your claim is true.

The rest of Moses can be read as well, to make a judgment of His character, which is shown by the character of his writing.

We don't have anything written by Moses, even if he was real.

In this forum pseudo-scholarship matters most, for them seeking fault, where there is no fault.

Only seeking fault is a self-defeating error caused by limiting one's horizon. When no other possible options can be allowed, then none are sought.

Being insulting doesn't support anything you've claimed.

I am an objective observer, that at least seeks those other possible options.

But, since there is no evidence in Egypt against the Exodus,

You're mistaken. You've still trying to rely on a lack of evidence for the Exodus being insufficient, even when we should expect such evidence, but there's much more than that. The archaeological evidence of the early Israelites is that they're displaced Canaanites rather than an external force having traveled across the desert. Israel Finkelstein wrote the following in The Bible Unearthed:

In the years since 1967, the heartland of the Israelite settlement—the traditional territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh—have been covered by intensive surveys. Teams of archaeologists and students have combed virtually every valley, ridge, and slope, looking for traces of walls and scatters of pottery sherds. The work in the field was slow, with a day’s work covering, on the average, about one square mile. Information on any signs of occupation from the Stone Age to the Ottoman period was recorded, in order to study the highlands’ long-term settlement history. Statistical methods were used to estimate the size of each settlement in each of its periods of occupation. Environmental information on each site was collected and analyzed to reconstruct the natural landscape in various eras. In a few promising cases, excavations were undertaken as well.

These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages—all apparently established within the span of a few generations—indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites.

The Israelite highlands were settled by Canaanites moving out of the cities, not Israelites escaping Egypt. No Israelites from Egypt, no Exodus.

then the point is mute.

And moot.

However, it's not the same for those only seeking fault. Even after other evidence than the Bible record of the Assyrian empire was found, there are still fault finders accusing the Bible evidentiary record of being false...I.e. not all the evidence of Assyria in Iraq persuaded them, so neither would any evidence of Exodus in Egypt.

I guess if anyone ever finds any, we'll see.

My view of the God of the Bible, is that having once shown other evidence in one place, and the purposed fault finders did not repent, then He doesn't even bother in another place.

Or having shown evidence in no place, eh?

As they say, not all the gold of Croesus can persuade a single person to change their heart, if they are not of a mind to do so...

Maybe if we had all the gold of the leprechauns.

[RBD]

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.

Moses wrote Exodus, also called the book of Moses, which makes it an autobiography as well as an eyewitness account.

Mar 12:26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony.

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.

Rebutted this in post 579. Egypt never owned Canaan, but only established military trade routes and towns after their 15th century victory atf Megiddo. There was no Egypt-Canaan, like some Roman province.

And if the Israelites had defeated a unified Egyptian 'province' on their own turf at every turn, rather than local independent cities, then it would have been an even greater record of power broadcast to surrounding nations and enemies of a beaten Egypt. Especially since they had already heard of the Hebrew slaves, that bested Egypt in their homeland, and left with Egyptian spoils.

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?

Right. That would be a parenthetical insert, and a conclusion added by the writer of Judges. Anything else you want to know about posthumous insertions/additions to an autobiography?

[RBD]

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.

Not true. He wrote something in the dirt once, but He didn't have His apostles record what He wrote.

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?

Not in people's personal beliefs or unbeliefs. Only factual evidence in the Bible, or other evidence outside the Bible.

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.

I don't instruct you anymore in the nature of evidence by eyewitness and secondhand accounts.

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

Also already answered this to you.

Once I learn someone is only trying to have a one-sided dialogue, without acknowledging rebuttals, then I move on.

[RBD]

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!

And spotless primates are cool!

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.

It explains why they aren't in the Bible.

Why do some scrolls contain significant variations, including additions, omissions, or reordering of entire sections of text for example?

If you're talking about sections of the Bible, then give the examples.

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.

I'm not interested in theological opinions about the Bible by unbelievers. That includes about how to be a Christian.

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?

The Bible from Genesis to Revelation, with all the books therein, which is the only possible Bible of the God of the Bible, since it's the only inerrant Book.

Any other books that don't agree, can't possibly be the written words of the God of the Bible. They can be informative and interesting, but they aren't true Scripture.

Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:

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.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


While I understand some people don't believe in the Spirit nor in spiritual things, nevertheless, they can at least understand the concept of being inspired by a spirit to believe, write, speak, and do things.

The Greeks called it the Muse, which was a pale groping for the inspired Spirit of truth. Such blind groping failed however, in that they did not always agree in their inspired writings about the same things.

This doesn't even address the unknown authors of the gospels.

I don't address unknown authors of other gospels, but only the four written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

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.

Some critics are objective, and willing to give the Bible a fair showing, others are not. They only seek fault.

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Which is fine by me, since I not only learned much from the Bible by reviewing supposed errors in the Bible for myself, but I still learn much about how the Bible continues unerringly, when reviewing supposed errors from others.

Psa 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Rev 22:6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

[RBD]

Some even go so far as to try and say, that no archeological evidence for it, is archeological evidence against it...(Once again, a radical self-contradiction spawned by personal unbelief in the ancient eyewitness inscription...)

Then you must reserve any conclusion, and remain completely agnostic, about the Book of Mormon's claim(s) about such said group(s) inhabiting the Americas.

What we are finding is that it's the purposed unbelievers that ignore the evidence at hand,

No, I acknowledged it. The first debate question asks:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? No? Okay. Commence with the slogan, which is all you've got!

and argue only about opinions and matters of faith,

No evidence to corroborate an anonymous claim is not opinion, it's fact. Which is why I continue to ask:

Are you arguing that:

a) we will find 'evidence' someday? Or...
b) we will never find evidence?

And they also accuse the believers of having blind faith alone, despite what they call an absence of evidence.

No more or less than the Mormon who believes the Lamanites inhabited the Americas, as told from a differing dusty ol' book.

If you have anything new, then I'll be glad to look at it. Otherwise, I only dance in circles for so long...

[RBD]

All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

Show us examples of ancient inscriptions being treated uncritically by people qualified to have an opinion.

Everyone is qualified to have an opinion, but no opinion qualifies as proof of anything.

Then who are these people that "normally presume" that any ancient inscription is true?

Don't know of anyone that believes everything, just because it's recorded as evidence of something. Nor should anyone.

That's not to say, that it's not recorded evidence of something. If it's an eyewitness account, then it's direct evidence. If it's second hand testimony, then it's indirect evidence.

If "no opinion qualifies as proof of anything," then what was your goal in claiming that ancient documents "are normally presumed true?"

You'll need to give the source of this quote. What's recorded as evidence of something, is taken as evidence of it. That does not in itself prove it's true, but only possibly true.

Now, if someone is saying they are only giving opinion about something, then that of course is not evidence of anything.

Once again, you're asked to support your claims and once again, you avoid doing so.

What we are finding is that it's the purposed unbelievers that ignore the evidence at hand,

Who's "we?" What evidence are you accusing us of ignoring? So far, the only evidence you've offered is your unsupported assertion that the Bible qualifies as eyewitness testimony and should be presumed true because it's ancient.

Many books are plainly eyewitness testimony, and they say so. The Bible also confirms Moses is the writer of Exodus, called the book of Moses, and He certainly was an eyewitness. It simply means it's the direct evidence of eyewitness testimony, not an opinionated claim.

But so far as me saying such testimony should be presumed true, you'll need to quote me on that, or continue lying in order to personally skew the argument.

[RBD]

The Bible is also direct evidence of an eyewitness of Exodus,

The is the anonymous claim to an event which looks likely not to have happened in reality. As evidence by the fact that this very large claim would leave behind tons of evidence, which would be preserved by the hot dry air. Also, as evidence by the fact that Christians are offering nothing but excuses as to why we find no evidence.

as well as secondhand indirect evidence repeating the eyewitness.

A later book referencing the tale, as told from an older book, is not indirect evidence. It's no evidence.

Dittoes on nothing new here. Old tired dance.

[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!

You mean prove Moses wrote it? Because Jesus says so:

Mar 12:26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

He also confirms Moses wrote Genesis and Job, as well as Exodus and the books of the law. Want to see it?

However, it doesn't necessarily prove the evidence is true. It only proves that Exodus is an eyewitness account, giving testimonial evidence. It could also be called the Exodus biography of Moses. Just like that of Daniel. However, that doesn't necessarily stop anyone from disbelieving either of them.

What it does prove is, that no one can call Exodus a book of various unknown writers, nor that it can't be true. Eyewitness accounts are judicially and historically taken as direct evidence, that certainly can be believed, so long as there is no contradicting evidence.

And so, none of this is about proving the Bible must be believed, since that it not possible with a race of beings, that have power to refuse to believe the truth, even if it slaps us upside the face. All this proves, is that it certainly can be accepted with reasonably educated faith.

It's not necessarily against honestly objective critics, that hold out for other evidence to confirm it. It's only intelligently against fault-finders, that declare the Bible can't be believed, so that only uneducated blind believers fall prey to it's hokey commands and claims of great miracles. (I mean, really, let's not be so gullibly boorish, shall we? Afterall, this isn't the nonrational, counter-enlightenment, prescientific, perverse fundamentalist days of blind antiquity. Or so says, one really, really skeptical elocutionator put it. )

- You failed to show that the Exodus is an eyewitness account (the Bible is not an authority). The Quran is not true because the Quran claims to be true after all. I cannot make exceptions for you just because you struggle with this, sorry.
- You failed to inform me where the claim about the exodus story comes from. This one being so simple, I wonder why the failure on your part with it. Can you explain?
- Why do you think everyone is incapable of providing evidence that millions wandered the Sinai for 40 years?

I await your further failures (learn your history as they say), but truly hope that you succeed in an honest way with answering these questions.

[RBD]

I only reject them as false, if they contradict the Bible witness. Beginning with the lie, that the book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ says it's just another false gospel about Him, that is also cursed by Him.

By this rationale, the Orthodox Jew has just as much clout to reject the New Testament, as they do not accept Jesus as the Mesiah due to lack of this/that/other. Ultimately, the Jews accuse the NT of either being a lie or mistaken, just like you now accuse the Book of Mormon.

They attempt to show evidence of contradiction between writings of the prophets of Jehovah, with that of the apostles of Jesus Christ. They fail, but are still free to reject Jesus Christ the promised Son and risen LORD God of Israel.

It's plainly shown that J Smith contradicts the apostle of Jesus Christ, by saying his book is another testament of Jesus Christ. Which you still fail to acknowledge.

This will be another last dance step with you, until you begin to have a debate, rather than an old worn out repetitive dialogue with yourself.