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?

[1213]

...
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?

Obviously, if it didn't happen, then Bible would not be correct and it would matter to me. But, if you don't see the evidence, it does not mean it didn't happen.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
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?

Obviously, if it didn't happen, then Bible would not be correct and it would matter to me. But, if you don't see the evidence, it does not mean it didn't happen.

I concur with your point that if the OT is not true (and if the Exodus isn't what is?) then it would be a matter of concern that the Bible is not correct.

But appeal to unknowns is neither logic nor correct assessment of evidence. With no real evidence for the Exodus, the Bible record is legitimately open to doubt. But you have to ignore the evidence that the Exodus is anachronistic. It has to be post 17th dynasty because of the references to chariots, there is only a small window I can see for an exodus working (during the Amarna period) and even then, the Philistines came later and Egypt was back in control of Canaan after that when Israel was battling with the rival states. So (for me) the reference to avoiding the Philistines means the Exodus cannot be historical and makes more sense as a later myth invented after the exile, using Babylonian material.
You may dismiss that as my opinion, but it does at least address all the evidence, including what is in the Bible; you ignore it all.

[POI]

...
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?

Obviously, if it didn't happen, then Bible would not be correct and it would matter to me. But, if you don't see the evidence, it does not mean it didn't happen.

This is why I bring up the Exodus specifically. This claim would leave behind evidence. Likely a lot of evidence... Thus, aside from the Bible's say-so. do we have any? If so, what?

Did you watch the video in post 12 at least?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #63]


I recall our pal says he does not watch videos. Why should he as all the evidence in them is just 'opinion' anyway. But it makes a good point regarding 'absence of evidence'. While I can coast along with the idea of the exodus leaving no trace even if it happened, and aside from the anachronistic elements in the whole story, the lack of any mention of the enslavement or even existence of the Israelite people having 12 tribes if not exclusive god -worship (His exclusive Authority had to be shewn the Hebrews as yet) nor yet the Exodus of the humiliation of Pharaoh's chariot wing, is excused as the Egyptians hushing it up. The point is made that Akhenaten and the whole Atenist episode was subjected to damnatio Memoriae. Removal from history - yet they couldn't do it. Of course the Aten and the ruler were made a cult in tombs and monuments, and the enslaved thousands weren't. But no mention or hint?

The efforts to present the Tempest stele (which if the Hyksos are NOT the Exodus and that is dated to Akhenaten's time, if not later, can't be anything more to do with the plagues than it looks - which isn't much like), nor that papyrus with a few Semitic slaves' names are pretty thin to base an entire enslaved people forced to work on public projects on. It's the old story of bias or mindset at least - if one takes the Bible as true, evidence for or against or lacking can be excused, dismissed or claimed in absentia as is liked, while starting with no assumption without good reason is the logical and correct way to do it, but that is earthly wisdom, not Biblical.

[1213]

...This claim would leave behind evidence. Likely a lot of evidence...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. There is simply no reason to assume there would remain lot of evidence for the event.

[1213]

... is legitimately open to doubt...

I think everything is always open to doubt.

[TRANSPONDER]

...This claim would leave behind evidence. Likely a lot of evidence...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. There is simply no reason to assume there would remain lot of evidence for the event.

Perhaps, but there ought tobe evidence of a large enslaved population of Hebrews in Egypt and some indication of a sudden appearance of a conquering nation of Hebrews and an option (free of Egyptian imperial control) for them to do so, but there really isn't. So the problem is not just No evidence For, but all the evidence is against.

And anticipating 'Sorry, I don't agree' that counts for absolutely nothing without you making some kind of case for the Exodus. Otseng I have to say did the best job anyone could do, but I can't recall that you have done anything but denial and dismissal of the evidence, and claim evidence that isn't avaliable as somehow evidence for the Exodus.

... is legitimately open to doubt...

I think everything is always open to doubt.

Including faithclaims? But if so, Faith is worth nothing by itself, and so he have nothing to indicate what's true other than evidence analysed in a logical way, and so while you are right to point to doubt, it does not do what you want - eliminate evidence and make Faith the only valid arbiter...provided it is the Right Faith of course.

If that's the way it is supposed to work...it doesn't.

[POI]

...This claim would leave behind evidence. Likely a lot of evidence...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. There is simply no reason to assume there would remain lot of evidence for the event.

A little birdie told me you do not watch videos. However, in THIS case, you might want to make an exception. This is why I brought up the Exodus specifically. Please watch the video in post 12.

[1213]

...This claim would leave behind evidence. Likely a lot of evidence...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. There is simply no reason to assume there would remain lot of evidence for the event.

A little birdie told me you do not watch videos. However, in THIS case, you might want to make an exception. This is why I brought up the Exodus specifically. Please watch the video in post 12.

I don't think it is worth watching, sorry. If you think there is some good point, please write it here shortly as one example.

[1213]

Perhaps, but there ought tobe evidence of a large enslaved population of Hebrews in Egypt and some indication of a sudden appearance of a conquering nation of Hebrews and an option (free of Egyptian imperial control) for them to do so, but there really isn't. So the problem is not just No evidence For, but all the evidence is against.

Maybe the greatest evidence is the unfinished structures and the decline of Egyptian empire.