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?

[RBD]

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

Great "technicality" RBD! But I think we both know, in what context, I'm referring to.

Got to have some fun.

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

Alternatively, we know the Book of Mormon was written by Jospeh Smith. Who claims to be a witness to things. Hence, by your standard(s), the Book of Mormon is in the lead.

I also won't be repeating the reason why both J Smith and Muhammed contradict themselves, about which gospel and God they are writing for.

And also, again by your own standard(s), the Orthodox Jews have the same justification to reject the New Testament, as you do for the Book of Mormon.

Not necessarily true. The only way for an anti-NT Jew to contradict himself, is to say he believes in the God of Israel, but then like Muhammed, denies He begets a Son. Other than that, they just do not accept Jesus as the Christ and only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 5:18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Sure, you 'answered', but you did not give a coherent one.

Well, at least you finally acknowledge an answer given. It's a start. Now, if you want to show any incoherence to the argument, then I'll be glad to clarify. Or, if you want to show any error in it, then I'd like to see it.

[RBD]

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.

It's plainly seen that the first 5 books were not written by Moses, so we cannot trust "Jesus". And since your given reason for belief, that Moses wrote them, is because Jesus says so, then I guess your entire argument here is kaput. See post 604 for a recap.

By your unbelief in the Book, you argue against what's written in the Book. By my objective reading of the Book, I only teach what the Book says...

Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the Book, is irrelevant when arguing about the Book itself. If someone wants to argue for something else than the Book, then they can set aside any pretense of analyzing the Book, and go on to argue whatever else they want...

[POI]

The writer of the parenthetical insert spoke of Moses' meekness above all others of the day. A contradiction would be the Bible saying that Moses was not the meekest of his day, or that another during his time was as meek as he...

It's more than that. Much of Numbers and Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses, as these books refer to Moses in the third person, which begs the questions, unanswered. Who wrote them and when? Which then begs another question. What was their motivation(s)?

Sure, he also wrote Genesis and Job, which can be proven the same for writing Exodus, which is called the book of Moses. No need to rely on unsure 'traditions'.

The traditional attribution for the authorship of the Book of Genesis is Moses. However, most modern scholars, (believers and skeptics alike), believe it's a redacted literary work, compiled over time, with the final version potentially reaching its form as late as post-exilic Israel around 400 BCE.

Again, who actually wrote these books, and when?

Every prophesy of the Messiah written before the other prophets, was written by Moses. Therefore, Moses wrote the earliest prophecies of the LORD coming to earth in Gen 3 and Job 19. Moses wrote Genesis and Job...

You have provided faulty logic here, in more than one spot... 'Adam and Eve' were not the first humans, which is why you must fight evolutionary biology. This has been explained in your other thread. Also, we already know the claims to an actual Moses writing these things is suspect.

The Bible is not governed by what unbelievers say about it.

Of course not. It's governed by logic. And logic states these books were both anonymous and wrong.

[POI]

I also won't be repeating the reason why both J Smith and Muhammed contradict themselves, about which gospel and God they are writing for.

Based upon your own prior given reasoning, the Book of Mormon has the Torah beat. We absolutely know, for sure, what J. Smith claimed to have written. At least with way more confidence than with the Torah. Which makes the Book of Mormon much more validated as a direct piece of evidence,

Not necessarily true.

Yes, it is true. The writings of the Torah are not written by an eyewitness. We know this because much of the Torah is written in the third person, centuries later, when speaking about Moses, etc.........

Well, at least you finally acknowledge an answer given. It's a start.

What I mean, is that you responded. But this means little here, as already demonstrated.

Now, if you want to show any incoherence to the argument, then I'll be glad to clarify. Or, if you want to show any error in it, then I'd like to see it.

I already did....

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

At this point, besides the anonymous claim from the Bible, we have no evidence of an Exodus, as told from the Bible. You know it, and most others do too. Which is why a sparce few will try to shoehorn in the Hyksos, and the like.... As not being able to provide evidence for a claim of this size and magnitude is a crushing blow for the believer....

[POI]

I'm more inclined they want to believe this based on a political motivation.

I feel this warrants its own separate response.

Alternatively, I say the Bible was inspired by both (political and religious) motivation(s). Rendering it untrustworthy, from the jump. Much like a 'righty' or a 'lefty', in the political realm, watching their favorite legacy media news station for their 'news'.

[otseng]

The timeline is off, way off. I've already explained more than once.

No, it's not way off. I've already addressed it as well:

Even the AI search engines do not have precise agreement on the dating. So it shows nobody really knows the exact date when the Hyksos entered Egypt.

Another thing to note is if they entered Egypt in 1876 BC, it would take them awhile to be large enough in numbers to establish a settlement to leave archaeological remains. The only way we know the exact date is from the chronological date from the Bible. So, the dates from the Bible and archaeology are compatible with each other.

We're discussing dates thousands of years ago with a minority group entering a new land. It's doubtful they'd be able to leave archaeological remains immediately, but it's more reasonable it'd take several decades at least to even remotely find artifacts from them.

Also, how do they date archaeological artifacts? Dating is normally based on a range, not exact dates. Even C-14 dating is based on a range. So, outside of textual evidence, it's impossible to nail an event to a specific date.

The only dating that would be "way off" is the late date of Exodus. This is what most who believe the Hyksos not being the Israelites argue for. I haven't found any skeptic that accepts the early dating since they already realize the dates are compatible.

Continuity of Culture: Archaeological findings, particularly in pottery and other material culture, indicate a strong degree of cultural continuity between the pre-Israelite Canaanite period and the emerging Israelite culture.

Sure, there could exist cultural similarities.

Gradual Settlement: Dozens of hill-country sites dating back to the Iron Age I (roughly 1200-1000 BCE) suggest a gradual, localized settlement process rather than a sudden influx of people.

It's the major cities that were attacked by the Israelites. The hill-country sites would've been populated over time.

Periodic Settlements: Some sites show periods of both settlement and abandonment, suggesting the Israelites may have been nomadic pastoralists who periodically settled in the Central Hill Country.

That could be true as well, but don't see how that argues one way or the other.

Common Ancestry: Studies comparing the genetic makeup of modern Jewish populations to ancient Israelite remains and other populations in the region suggest a shared ancestry with the ancient Canaanites.

Same for either position.

Samaritan Connection: Samaritans, an ethnic group in the Levant who consider themselves descendants of the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, show a closer genetic relationship to ancient Israelite samples than other Jewish groups.

Bronze Age-Iron Age Continuity: One study even found genetic continuity between the Bronze Age and Iron Age populations of the southern Levant, including Israelites and Judahites.

Canaanite Languages: The languages spoken by the ancient Israelites were closely related to Canaanite languages.

Don't see how these are relevant.

In Conclusion: The archaeological and genetic evidence points towards a more nuanced picture of the Israelites as a group who evolved within the existing Canaanite landscape. This suggests a process of gradual settlement, cultural integration, and possibly even the absorption of existing Canaanite populations.

This position leads to the question who exactly were the Israelites? If they were not the same people as those described in the Bible, who were they? If they were not the children of Israel that came out of Egypt, were they natives in Canaan all along? What could distinguish them from the other Canaanites and what would it even mean they were absorbed into the Canaanites?

According to Avraham Faust "most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt."

If scholars agree there is some historical core to the Exodus account, then what actually happened? Some Israelites went into Egypt and some had always been in Canaan?

Why should Jews practice many of their traditions if it was all based on a lie? How could the tradition of the Passover Seder be so ingrained into their culture if it was a myth? Why even follow the 10 commandments since the only reason they should follow the commandments was God brought them out of Egypt? Why did they practice the sacrificial system if they were never commanded by God on how to do it while they were in the wilderness?

The alternative explanations to these would be so ad hoc shows such a position would be unreasonable.

This is why I asked, where do you draw the hard line in the sand when stating, why trust the Bible if it is not inerrant? But in this case, it seems the Bible is just a little more 'errant.'

The line would be major points vs minor points. And I find all the major points of the Exodus account to match quite well with archaeology. I've already covered some of them:

Both the Israelites and the Hyksos overlap in:
1) Who they were - Semitic people
2) Where they came from - Canaan
3) Where they went to - land of Goshen
4) How they were able to take over the land - peacefully inhabited it
5) When they occupied lower Egypt - 12th dynasty to 19th dynasty
6) They both grew in number to threaten the Egyptians

There are more similarities than what I've listed so far, but this is sufficient evidence to support my case. Multiple points of congruence is hard to explain in any other way. And I've pointed out there is no alternative coherent explanation to how the Hyksos were able to peacefully take over the best land.

But if we want to go into some of the minor points to support the Exodus account, we can do that.

I'm more inclined they want to believe this based on a political motivation.

I feel this warrants its own separate response.

Alternatively, I say the Bible was inspired by both (political and religious) motivation(s). Rendering it untrustworthy, from the jump. Much like a 'righty' or a 'lefty', in the political realm, watching their favorite legacy media news station for their 'news'.

OK, present your scenario of how the Bible was created by political and religious motivations in the context that the Exodus never happened.

[RBD]

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.

Thank you. I wrote wrong, and your correction is good. Historical documents are accepted as evidence, but whether they are true or not, may be verified by other evidence.

Without any other evidence, they can individually be accepted as true or false. No one can intelligently say the Bible must always be believed, nor can anyone say the Bible can never be believed.

And it's only those believing the Bible, that are expected by the Author to believe all or none of what He says:

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

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

called the book of Moses,

In later Jewish tradition, anyway.

When Jesus called Exodus the book of Moses, He was not following Jewish tradition. In fact, believers in some Jewish traditions rejected Him for not supporting their traditions.

The same can be said of some Christian traditions.

It simply means it's the direct evidence of eyewitness testimony, not an opinionated claim.

The angel Nephi claims to have been an eyewitness to events of the Book of Mormon. 1 Nephi 1:1-3:

And so, J Smith was not an eyewitness of the events themselves, like Moses was.

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days. Yea, I make a record in the a language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. And I know that the record which I make is a true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

Was he?

An angel? According to the Bible, there's no reason not to believe it. In fact, there's every reason to believe Smith was visited by an angel to write another gospel of Jesus Christ. But just not an angel of God and Jesus Christ:

Gal 1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The same goes for Muhammed or anyone else receiving anything from false angels, that contradict the Bible testimony of the LORD and His own angels.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

Otherwise, it's obvious many books of the Bible are eyewitness accounts, which say so themselves, and so count as direct evidence by judicial law and historical review.

Find me any judicial case where a found narrative is referred to as eyewitness testimony.

The Bible is not a 'found' narrative of unknown authorship. All the words are faithfully written and preserved from the original manuscripts of the prophets, and apostles.

Find me any bona fide historian that treats such a found narrative uncritically.

All bona fide critical historians accepted all recorded documents as evidence. It's only the personally uncritical amateurs, that won't even acknowledge historical records as evidence at all...

Being critical is objectively acknowledging the evidence of a historical record. Being objectively skeptical demands other evidence to confirm it as true. Without any evidence to the contrary, only the personally offensive observer declares a historical record can't possibly be true, even to the point of denying it's evidence at all.

Judging the words of testimony as just story-telling, without showing why, is just unproven personal opinion.

If Moses himself appeared in court and told the court his story, that would be eyewitness testimony.

A recorded eyewitness account of a dead man, does not demand the dead man in court, to verify it's his eyewitness account. So long as the chain of custody is not abridged by contrary evidence, then it is accepted. The scribes of Israel are the chain of custody kept inviolate from the time of testimony.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

We see here two things declared by Jesus: It was Moses writing the book of Moses. And the absurdity of demanding the writer speak in person from the dead.

But, no one can rationally say they are no eyewitness accounts, since they themselves say so.

Who is it that said that to you?

The Book does. No one can rationally say they are investigating a recorded account, and what it says about itself, who don't care what the account says.

And therefore, no one can legally and historically say there is no evidence the Bible is true...

That's right. There are many things that can be called evidence. The most compelling evidence, though, is that of the biblical scholars.

Readers of the Book are not greater evidence than the Book.

Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

No honest scholar's conclusions about a book, are more important than the book's own testimony of itself.

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

The Bible has no such chain of custody or even provenance.

You mean other than the record of all the class of ancient scribes, that diligently record as originally written even to this day? Or, the invention of the printing press is not accurate?

Right. the "record of all the class of ancient scribes" only goes back to roughly the middle ages.

The scribes of Israel did not begin in the middle ages.

[RBD]

Secondly, you imply the Bible somehow records a flat earth? Where is that? In fact, the Bible is the first record of a round earth, circular in shape:

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

Yes. Thank you. Ever heard of a circular table? Or a flat disk? A circle can be both. As well as a flat disked earth. See the link above. Now, if the Bible instead stated "sphere" or "ball", then you may have some kind of a point. But you don't.

This is an interesting alternative; however, the context and other Scriptures forbid it:

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The context is of sitting far above the earth to see upon it, which makes it the vantage point of a sphere. If the earth were a flat circle, then it would be sitting at any one spot on earth, the same as all creatures on earth, who can only see on a level around them.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

The same word is used, and the heavens are not flat, nor have they ever been thought of as flat. If you want to continue to argue for a flat circular earth, which is unique, then you must also argue for a circular flat heaven upon the earth, like an all terrestrial meat on a whole celestial bun, which is really unique...

[RBD]

Secondly, you imply the Bible somehow records a flat earth? Where is that? In fact, the Bible is the first record of a round earth, circular in shape:

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

The claim: The Bible is the first to record that the earth is not flat, that it is circular.
The evidence provided: See this verse from the Bible where it claims that the earth is a circle!

Who would like to inform our fellow debater the difference between a circle (flat) and a sphere (earth)?

While it is an interesting alternative than a normal reading, about someone sitting far above the earth on a circle, the context and use in other Scriptures, has no sense of a circular flat earth. See post 688

[RBD]

Then the Torah is (less than) the Book of Mormon. We do not know who wrote the Torah,

You don't want to know who write the Torah, because you don't want to believe the Bible, which tells us.

You don't want to accept the Book of Mormon, because you don't want to believe the Book of Mormon, which tells us the truth of itself.

Already shown the self-contradiction of the book of Mormon, about claiming to be a new testament of Jesus Christ added to the Bible.

Gal 1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

That cursed angel would be Moroni.

Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, are just few named writers and quoted.

For the sake of debate, I don't want to get into questioning the authenticity of this statement. For the moment, lets assume the statement is true as made. Can you then point me to their physical writings where they put pen to paper or reed to clay? I would like to examine the written words these authors penned.

Just read the words preserved by the scribes of Israel. They're now in print in any Bible from Genesis to Malachi...

In any case, the deposition of the historical court is examination of the witnesses by the documents they wrote. And even if some disbelievers could depose the dead writers, they would still not want to believe them:

I don't think you understand what you just presented. You present the amazing hypothetical scenario that we could depose writers from thousands of years ago. That would be so cool, yet you tell yourself that I would not want to believe them. Why wouldn't I? Seriously!

Anyone demanding to hear from the dead, in order to believe their words, that they can read, would not believe the words out of their own mouths.

The same principle applies to anyone demanding to hear from the dead men themselves, before believing they are the writers, that the Book says they are...

Would it be logical for me to think that you wouldn't want to depose Robert E Lee, because you want slaves?

I'd love to talk to Gen Lee, but he's dead. Neither he nor I want slaves, since he set his own free.

Same as Muhammed is found to be a liar about writing for the God of Abraham, and says that God does not have a born Son.

Since the Quran is true, because the Quran claims to be true and because the Quran is evidence for the claims it makes, the Quran is correcting the Bible on this matter.

You and any other Muslim can believe that. But Muhammed is still contradicting himself by claiming to speak for the God of Abraham and another God Allah, who contradict each other.

You can continue to argue about what people may choose to believe or not, but if you're not going to employ simple logic in a debate about contradiction, then the debate is over.