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?

[SiNcE_1985]

It's obvious you have nothing to add in this thread. Not even sure why you initially responded in the first place

And I'm not sure why this thread was made in the first place, ye unbeliever.

.... You would have instead been better off just leaving it alone.

And you are better off leaving Christianity alone.

You ain't a believer, so just let it go.

Your belief in an Exodus is purely blind faith based. You have an extremely low standard for belief. Each claim rises and falls upon its own merits. And a claim of this magnitude carries with it basically no evidence. Since this claim likely did not happen, then the Bible is not trustworthy.

It is trustworthy, to me.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is all terrible apologetics. But "Evil oft will evil mar" and you flag up a point - Bible archaeology has the Christian apologertic mindset and at best falls over itself to fit the evidence to the Bible, is too eager to accept dubious relics as authentic if they are convenient, and at times embraces frauds.

Not just the Ark sites or the Sinai camp site nonsense, but the Nazareth inscription that has vanished (site finds do not vanish) was found without witnesses in a spoil heap where an inscription would never be missed (spoil heaps are routinely sieved for missed finds) and by a Christian evidence faker who should never have been allowed to dig, never mind after hours with nobody watching.

I don't know about any of that, but if it is true what you say, then I share your.outrage.

This is seriously dodgy stuff and flags up the problem with Scientists who are also Christians. We have to trust them not to let Theist bias corrupt the work.

Yeah, the same way we should be skeptical about school text books on biology as relates to evolution, as my pal Kent Hovind has spent a lifetime exposing the lies and the frauds.

I want you to attack that stuff with the same vigor as you do the Bible.

Closer to home, so much Egyptology has been misrepresented to make it support Exodus. Notably the 'papyrus and inscription that relates bad times for Egypt that were without a scrap of excuse, passed off as evidence of the plagues. I won't even go into the Red Sea chariot wheels.

No, no need to go into it.

I already, for the record, stated that I do not support lies or deception to booster ones argument...and that goes for either side.

So please spare me any more "lie this, lie that" spiels, as it will be a strawman at this point.

But apart from that the rest is irrelevant to either topic or reason, like quotes from John, whose record I cannot trust because none of the synoptics record the raising of Lazarus. They could not ALL have not known about that unless John invented it. So his opinions about Jesus are worth nothing, and neither are yours.

We've already been there and done that with the Gospels...and you didn't fare too well in those discussions.

So, let's not.

Which covers your earlier point - if we can't trust the 1st record (supposedly) we sure can't trust the earlier ones. I get it There's this clunk view of the uninformed that the nearer an event a person is the more they know about it.

Nope. A soldier at Waterloo or Da Nang has less idea what happened than a historian today. A first c historian knows less about ancient history than modern researchers. And you may take that to the bank.

Your ignorance "?" real of feigned is in response to the fact that some rulers tried to obliterate earlier rulers (Hatshepsut; Akhenated) from the record, but they could not do it.

An Israelite slave population could not be concealed, even if they tried (and why should they?) and we would know of it. We know of enslaved Libyans and Nubians and even early 'sea peoples' defeated and put into the Egyptian army.

If the Israelites were really an enslaved known demographic in Egypt, we would know. Even if the Pharaohs suppressed the Exodus.

We do know. We know from Exodus.

[Clownboat]

That's how confident I am that you cannot provide evidence for abiogenesis.

Claim = Abiogenesis happened.
Answer: The claim is false, we actually don't know how life began on this planet.
Claim = The Exodus happened.
Answer: We don't know that it happened, but if it did, we cannot find evidence for it. The lack of evidence for this claim and the evidence against it suggests that it didn't take place.

Your confidence is misplaced and your criteria for believing claims is far to low. Especially when maintaining a priori religious belief is your motivation.

[POI]

Yeah, the same way we should be skeptical about school text books on biology as relates to evolution, as my pal Kent Hovind has spent a lifetime exposing the lies and the frauds.

I want you to attack that stuff with the same vigor as you do the Bible.

Your want has been granted.

viewtopic.php?t=41715

[SiNcE_1985]

Claim = Abiogenesis happened.
Answer: The claim is false, we actually don't know how life began on this planet.
Claim = The Exodus happened.
Answer: We don't know that it happened, but if it did, we cannot find evidence for it. The lack of evidence for this claim and the evidence against it suggests that it didn't take place.

Without even mentioning the obvious strawman here, notice the "Exodus claim" has more stuff stapled to its answer than abiogenesis'...when the same answer would apply to abiogenesis (strawman aside) as well.

This speaks volumes to the unbalanced skepticism that I mentioned earlier.

And the crazy part about it is; I don't even think you did it intentionally...it is just an automated, knee-jerk thing atheists do without even thinking

Your confidence is misplaced and your criteria for believing claims is far to low. Especially when maintaining a priori religious belief is your motivation.

My criteria, as previously stated, is quite simple.

If I found X to be trustworthy based on past dealings, then I don't need to fact check every claim.

If you have a spouse and she has been found to be trustworthy and loyal throughout your entire 40 year marriage, then you don't need to question the validity of her "I am hanging with the girls this Saturday night" claim.

The Bible is my spouse.

[TRANSPONDER]

Claim = Abiogenesis happened.
Answer: The claim is false, we actually don't know how life began on this planet.
Claim = The Exodus happened.
Answer: We don't know that it happened, but if it did, we cannot find evidence for it. The lack of evidence for this claim and the evidence against it suggests that it didn't take place.

Without even mentioning the obvious strawman here, notice the "Exodus claim" has more stuff stapled to its answer than abiogenesis'...when the same answer would apply to abiogenesis (strawman aside) as well.

This speaks volumes to the unbalanced skepticism that I mentioned earlier.

And the crazy part about it is; I don't even think you did it intentionally...it is just an automated, knee-jerk thing atheists do without even thinking

Your confidence is misplaced and your criteria for believing claims is far to low. Especially when maintaining a priori religious belief is your motivation.

My criteria, as previously stated, is quite simple.

If I found X to be trustworthy based on past dealings, then I don't need to fact check every claim.

If you have a spouse and she has been found to be trustworthy and loyal throughout your entire 40 year marriage, then you don't need to question the validity of her "I am hanging with the girls this Saturday night" claim.

The Bible is my spouse.

Total garbage. You may as well say 'Gravity has been constant all my life. The Bible is my gravity'. But it isn't for others. The fallacy is using a known as an analogy of an unknown or worse, using a validated thing to validate an unvalidated thing, by analogy.

Hoo boy, that isn't a strawman, that is a total fraud.

Thing is that the Exodus was considered history, then garbled history, and more an more, it is being shown that the spouse is in fact cheating on you but you refuse to accept the evidence.

It's called faithbased denial.

[POI]

Thing is that the Exodus was considered history, then garbled history, and more an more, it is being shown that the spouse is in fact cheating on you but you refuse to accept the evidence.

It's called faithbased denial.

Well said!

[TRANSPONDER]

Thing is that the Exodus was considered history, then garbled history, and more an more, it is being shown that the spouse is in fact cheating on you but you refuse to accept the evidence.

It's called faithbased denial.

Well said!

Thank you kindly, sir.

Another one I keep worrying at is the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Now, this is a bit different from the Exodus as it is true. Not a scrap of doubt. The Assyrians confirm it just as the Hittites confirm the battle of Kasesh.

But, just as we take the boast that Ramesses beat the Hittites pretty much single - handed with a shaker of salt, we may doubt that The Lord smote the Assyrians and next day they were gone. The Bible account pretty much says that the Assyrians invested Jerusalem, Hezekiah submitted and agreed to pay tribute, the Assyrians attacked and vanished after the Lord Smit them. Why would the Assyrians attack after Hezekiah had given in?

The Assyrian records put it this way- Sennacherin smashes Laschish; Sends to Jerusalem "See this? You're next" King submits and pays tribute.

Same story but, in the Bible, the submission and tribute is shifted to where it makes no sense and is replaced by a miracle.

Does it take a genius to work out what happened? And as someone said, "why trust the Assyrian account?" Well, it's coming to something when you can trust the Assyrians more than the Bible.
;

[POI]

Christians, here is another topic which raises serious pause for the believer. Virtually none of you have offered much of anything here....

If it should turn out evidence is severely lacking, or even non-existent, to the claim that an Exodus took place, how in the heck can you Christians logically retain your position in holding to this belief system? Surely a claim, as large as this one, would leave behind all sorts of stuff. As a refresher, here was a video, which was provided early on....

[1213]

... to the claim that an Exodus took place, how in the heck can you Christians logically retain your position in holding to this belief system? Surely a claim, as large as this one, would leave behind all sorts of stuff....

That is funny expectation, considering that you probably believe that humans have existed over 200000 years and didn't leave behind all short of stuff most of that time. But, what stuff you think should be remaining?