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?

[TRANSPONDER]

I trust the History and Archaeology that says that Tyre was never destroyed and not rebuilt.

Sorry, are you really saying that Tyre was never destroyed?

Let me be clear. In Alexander's, siege, Tyre was damaged. The mainland might have been 90% demolished to construct the causeway to the island. But it was not destroyed never to be rebuilt, which according to the prophecy, is what should have happened. That is how the prophecy fails. I am sure that we had discussed all this before.

[Difflugia]

I am sure that we had discussed all this before.

Every few months for the last three years.

It is not in ruins. It was up and running not long after Alexander's attack and Jesus and Paul went there and it exists today.

Sorry, because I can see the ruins, I think Bible is correct.

[TRANSPONDER]

I am sure that we had discussed all this before.

Every few months for the last three years.

It is not in ruins. It was up and running not long after Alexander's attack and Jesus and Paul went there and it exists today.

Sorry, because I can see the ruins, I think Bible is correct.

That's the thing. Our pal seems like so many Bible apologists where they do not understand evolution, history, science, or even the Bible, and when it is explained, they do not retain it as the atheist rebuttal, aside from they don't believe it.

It's been observed before that creationists advance the same arguments again and again even though they have been rebutted.

Sorry if we keep repeating the same points till you want to scream but Tyre is the touchstone on prophecy, especially as it is a favorite Believers' proof of prophecy. Slavery (don't they hate that one? ) is the touchstone of debunking Bible morality, and the order of creation scuppers Genesis - the touchstone being the daylight made before the sun Few will risk sounding like idiots by saying the sun WAS made later (they usually prefer the cloud - cover excuse - which also fails). And we have seen various evasions slung at the wall to see if any stick. And it is not only poor understanding of what science says, but what the Bible says - the original light is not day and night, morning and evening.

Also, while the nativities are the touchstone for Bible contradiction, the Resurrections are nearly as bad, and these have been debated before and i believe the attempt to explain or fiddle away that the Bible says the women (including Mary Magdalene, Luke says) did not see Jesus, and John agrees, when Matthew says clearly they did.

These Biggies, along with John having no transfiguration and only Luke having a penitent thief, and masses of other stuff like the synoptics have never heard of the raising of Lazarus, the Lord's prayer taught for the first time at two different times, the palsied man at two different times and locations, the nonsense of David and the shewbread, are all (to my way of thinking) killers of Bible veracity.

No wonder the Bible apologists ignore them and would rather discuss wordsalad arguments about the subjectivity of morality when it is based on a false premise (God as a given) anyway.

To me, they are misdirections and we play into their hands when we do not identify the Biggies that sink the Bible - heck, we can even prove it was not written by Jesus' followers but by Greek Christians, but not even the atheists use the best arguments, so why should the Bible apologists?

Jesus, man, I watched a vid where some of Bible expert was puffed as a scholar, author of many books, expert, teacher, speaks the old Biblical languages - and first crack out of the Box, says that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. It is demonstrable that they didn't and Mark itself is an edition of a lost original(and Bible scholarship, never mind atheists) know that dozens of old versions of the NT material were scrapped let alone different gosand the church fathers complained that the early material was messed up or deliberately changed. The present semi - tidied up gospels are then presented as all there ever was, handed down intact.

They know it isn't true, and yet we let them present their misinformation And even the experts seem lacking - I have NEVER heard David and the shewbread brought up. I have never hears that the Lord;s prayer is taught before the first time, at two different times. These skeptical experts do not seem to know their job, frankly. So no wonder if I frustrated rant at times.

And when you point it out, nobody listens, so can we complain if the Bible apologists keep resenting the same of stuff when they have been rebutted?

[1213]

I trust the History and Archaeology that says that Tyre was never destroyed and not rebuilt.

Sorry, are you really saying that Tyre was never destroyed?

Let me be clear. In Alexander's, siege, Tyre was damaged. The mainland might have been 90% demolished to construct the causeway to the island. But it was not destroyed never to be rebuilt,

Ok, so what are the ruins, if it was not destroyed?

which according to the prophecy, is what should have happened. That is how the prophecy fails. I am sure that we had discussed all this before.

Even if it would not be destroyed yet, the prophesy could be true, just not yet fulfilled.

[1213]

I am sure that we had discussed all this before.

Every few months for the last three years.
...

Sorry, if it is becoming boring. Please tell your opinion, if a new city is built on top of an old one, is the old rebuilt?

And what do you think, if there are ruins of an ancient city, can it be said it was not destroyed?

[TRANSPONDER]

I am sure that we had discussed all this before.

Every few months for the last three years.
...

Sorry, if it is becoming boring. Please tell your opinion, if a new city is built on top of an old one, is the old rebuilt?

And what do you think, if there are ruins of an ancient city, can it be said it was not destroyed?

It is the same city no matter how many times a rebuild is put on top.

It is becoming repetitive because you persist in denying the fact that the prophecy of Tyre fails in any meaningful way, just as you deny other undeniable fails in the Bible, because Faith leads to denial of fact.

See, here's the thing. Religious Faith demands that the religion be believed true and it requires evidence, to convince others and to fend off critics. Prophecy and historical reliability is the evidence. And when science questions the Holy Book by showing that Jericho's walls did not collapse in one go and was not inhabited during the supposed conquest, then the science is denied.

It may get boring, or repetitive, but as long as Bible - believers keep questioning refutations of claims from Eden was real to Jesus resurrected, we, or I at least, will keep validating the refutations, again and again. It is like doing work, it may seem repetitive, but has to be done.

But there is an exciting aspect to this, and it is Research. Every time something new is discovered, even as a theory, it is like finding the tomb of a king we thought might be mythical. The Exodus....well, the Flood and Ark always looked like a fairy tale, even though the apologists, not to mention clickbait media, are eager to pretend it has been proven true, (1) but the exodus was credited at least in some form, and it was only doubts about the lack of evidence for an enslaved Hebrew people in Egypt that raised doubts. The attempts to manufacture evidence like Wyatt's Red Sea crossing site, the tempest text and the argument about whether Caananite immigrants because the wall at the Goshen border had never been finished Really were Hebrews, really turned out to be poor if not misrepresented, evidence.

Like the Hyksos cylinder seal argued to represent the 12 tribes of Israel didn't really work, and simply raised problems about just how Israelite the israelites were supposed to be. The problem is that it looks like the ethos and culture of the Hebrews were backdated to a time when they seemed to not have or had lost them. But in the desert, they had the Temple admittedly portable, and all the tribes, and a complex system of laws and rules apparently 'given' all in one go, while wandering the desert.

But apart from thin evidence for and improbabilities, aside from the impressive but fanciful miracles, more and more doubts arose and Finkelstein's archaeology posed an alternative history for Israel. Cue not talking about it and denial. But the fact is that - like everything else in the Bible - the more it is argued for a true, the more problems and fails are going to appear. I guarantee it.

(1) On my Other forum the NAMI Ark was fought for by Believers, dismissing any doubts and questions using all the dirty tricks at their disposal, and when it was finally exposed as a big, fat scam, the silence was deafening. And still is.

[Difflugia]

Sorry, if it is becoming boring. Please tell your opinion, if a new city is built on top of an old one, is the old rebuilt?

Yes. That's kind of what rebuilt means.

And what do you think, if there are ruins of an ancient city, can it be said it was not destroyed?

You mean like the Collosseum in Rome or the Western Wall in Jerusalem?

[TRANSPONDER]

Sorry, if it is becoming boring. Please tell your opinion, if a new city is built on top of an old one, is the old rebuilt?

Yes. That's kind of what rebuilt means.

And what do you think, if there are ruins of an ancient city, can it be said it was not destroyed?

You mean like the Collosseum in Rome or the Western Wall in Jerusalem?

We all understand the Rules here and if the rules are claimed to be different in those days, then hoiw can we know anything in the Bible - which might suit b those who Interpret it to mean whatever they like.

But the rules are that you can have London destroyed in the Boudiccan revolt 60 AD, the great fire, 1666, the Blitz, 1940. Damaged or destroyed, it was and still is, London, no matter how many times it is rebuilt.

And If there had been a Biblical prophecy of Constantinople, then it was NEVER destroyed and is really the same city even with a new Islamic name, like Tyre is now Sur. Old Tyre is under the rebuild, never mind the ruins outside that. and was never really abandoned and not rebuilt, even when it was still called Tyre.

That Bible prophecy Failed, and is the touchstone for all the other Bible prophecy fails, including retrospective prophecy like the massacre of innocents.

[1213]

Sorry, if it is becoming boring. Please tell your opinion, if a new city is built on top of an old one, is the old rebuilt?

Yes. That's kind of what rebuilt means.

Interesting, I think rebuilt means that the old is repaired and built again as it was before the destruction. In the case of Tyre, it is replaced, not rebuilt.

[TRANSPONDER]

Sorry, if it is becoming boring. Please tell your opinion, if a new city is built on top of an old one, is the old rebuilt?

Yes. That's kind of what rebuilt means.

Interesting, I think rebuilt means that the old is repaired and built again as it was before the destruction. In the case of Tyre, it is replaced, not rebuilt.

Even that effort of reinventing language try to wriggle out of admitting the Tyre prophecy was wrong fails because Island Tyre was not flattened, but only broken into and captured, even if mainland Tyre was entiely demolished, which is not known for certain. So whichever way you try to fiddle semantics because you have to rewrite science, History and even the Bible is anything says what you disagree with, the prophecy still fails. It fails.

And the more you try to make, as Gimli the dwarf says, 'Stand on their heads', the prophecy of Tyre fails. as pretty much all the prophecy claims fail.

I noticed one of those clickbait online videos 'He prophesied the attempted assassination!' Didn't click on it. Because I know we never heard the prediction before the event but only a month or so afterwards. They fall into two categories, prophecies ahead of time - they have a history of not coming true, and we get attempts to fudge and then stretch the date - though not to more than 2,000 years, as the failed Last Days prophecy is stretched.

And the other is retrospective prophecy. Like science in the Bible (or the Quran indeed) the prophecy is only seen after the event or discovery, and then the HolyBook passage is interpreted to fit.

Tyre is a bit different. It could be a snarling bit of hate - speech which partially happened when Alexander demolished the mainland structures to make a causeway to attack the island, but it looks like it was written just after the siege when the mainland hadn't been rebuilt and the fishermen were spreading their nets on the causeway. But whatever, the prophecy fails, and both Jesus and Paul apparently visited Tyre, but let's not talk about the War, eh?

p.s Thanks for the thanks, folks. One more and you get my birthdate. Yes, I lived through the days of discovery. i saw the first steps into space. The first sight of the back of the moon and the first ground level photos of Mars and Venus. Human discovery has been one of the great pleasures in my life, as well and personal, music, travel and the religion - debate, which is probably the only Worthwhile thing I have ever done.