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]

....the Tyre prophecy was wrong fails because Island Tyre was not flattened,

The ruins tell a different story.

but only broken into and captured, even if mainland Tyre was entiely demolished,

There was no mainland Tyre. According to the Bible, there was daughter cities, which are not the same as the Tyre that doesn't exist anymore.

It is interesting how you can go against clear facts.

[TRANSPONDER]

....the Tyre prophecy was wrong fails because Island Tyre was not flattened,

The ruins tell a different story.

but only broken into and captured, even if mainland Tyre was entiely demolished,

There was no mainland Tyre. According to the Bible, there was daughter cities, which are not the same as the Tyre that doesn't exist anymore.

It is interesting how you can go against clear facts.

The Bible tells that Tyre was still a city in Jesus and Paul's time. And tyhere had to be a mainland Tyre because (as I already said) Alexander demolished it to built a causeway out to the Island. They were both Tyre. This is a matter of history and it is a matter of geography that the present city - renamed, as you pointed out but still as much Tyre as Instanbul is the same (rebuilt) city as Constantinople, covers the whole thing, Island Tyre, mainland Tyre and the causeway.

You lose, badly, again.

[1213]

...The Bible tells that Tyre was still a city in Jesus and Paul's time...

Where in the Bible it is said it was a city at that time?

...And tyhere had to be a mainland Tyre because (as I already said) Alexander demolished it to built a causeway out to the Island.

By what is said in the Bible, mainland had daughter cities, which were not the Tyre. I believe Bible in this case.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The Bible tells that Tyre was still a city in Jesus and Paul's time...

Where in the Bible it is said it was a city at that time?

...And tyhere had to be a mainland Tyre because (as I already said) Alexander demolished it to built a causeway out to the Island.

By what is said in the Bible, mainland had daughter cities, which were not the Tyre. I believe Bible in this case.

I recal that both Jesus and paul went to the region of Tyre. Not Phoenecia, not Byblos or Sidon, but Tyre. Furthe archaeology shows it was still occupied in Roman Times.

The Book of Acts: Describes Paul's voyage to Tyre and his stay there.
Catholic sources: Say that Paul prayed with Christians in Tyre and that the Tyrians did not want him to go to Jerusalem.
The New Testament: Also mentions that Jesus visited the region of Tyre and Sidon. (first click Internet responses).

And just where do you substantiate the claim that Tyre mainland was 'daughter - cities' in any history or archaeology. Never mind anything in the Bible that says so? I think you are just making stuff up and denying history and archaeology.

Just consider, even if you find an excuse i can't disprove, so you can tell yourself your beliefs are true, I win if you can't substantiate your case, and it is about those loking in to see who has the best case, bot how deep in denial you can go.

The development of Tyre was profoundly affected by the construction of a causeway built by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE to seize the city.[10] This reportedly 750 m-long[33] and 60 m-wide causeway was laid over a submarine shoal less than 5.4 m deep.[34] This shoal was interpreted as a sandbank (also called a ‘salient’), formed by the accretion of sand in the lee of the island, under the effects of the refraction and diffraction of waves around the island. The causeway interrupted longshore sand transport, forcing sand to accumulate along the causeway, rapidly creating an emerged sandy isthmus (or tombolo), linking the island to the mainland.[35][36]

This sandy isthmus rapidly inflated during the centuries following the construction of the causeway. By early Imperial Roman times, monumental buildings had been built over most of its surface. Their layout implies that the isthmus was by then nearly as wide as today. Therefore, the isthmus had completely reshaped the eastern coast of Tyre Island within 6–10 centuries after the construction of the causeway, spurring a radical transformation of the city.Wiki]ci

[POI]

Does any Christian besides 1213 have a response to the debate questions:

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]

I recal that both Jesus and paul went to the region of Tyre. Not Phoenecia, not Byblos or Sidon, but Tyre. Furthe archaeology shows it was still occupied in Roman Times.

By what I know, they went to the area of Tyre. It is possible that people were in that area and clearly the area still exists. It does not mean that the Tyre was rebuilt.

And just where do you substantiate the claim that Tyre mainland was 'daughter - cities' in any history or archaeology. Never mind anything in the Bible that says so?

...Her daughters who are in the field [daughter towns on the continent]...
Ezek. 26:6

[The Tanager]

It is interesting how you can go against clear facts.

Moderator Comment


Don't make comments about the poster. Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Moses was a real person, and there was indeed an exodus. The timeline might be off by a couple of centuries, but not every detail written about Moses and the exodus is intended to be pure history. The Torah wasn’t written to be a history book or a science textbook, nor was it meant to teach science.

Much of it consists of stories designed to show us the kind of faith we’re called to have. So, whether every part of the story happened exactly as told isn’t the main point.

[POI]

Moses was a real person, and there was indeed an exodus.

Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

The timeline might be off by a couple of centuries, but not every detail written about Moses and the exodus is intended to be pure history. The Torah wasn’t written to be a history book or a science textbook, nor was it meant to teach science.

Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

Much of it consists of stories designed to show us the kind of faith we’re called to have. So, whether every part of the story happened exactly as told isn’t the main point.

Did it even happen at all? 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]

Another topic bump... Does any Christian even care that the claim for "the Exodus" may not be true?