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]

I believe it happened, because I trust Bible is truthful. I believe it also because it is the best explanation for why we have the story. But, no historical story can be proven true. All history remains a matter of belief.

Don't you find it odd that such a large claim basically left behind no evidence?

What do you think should be found, if the story is true?

I think there is all the evidence there should be.

[SiNcE_1985]

This question insinuates that we need evidence outside the Bible.

Your answer insinuates we have no evidence, outside the Bible's say-so. Which is no evidence.

We have no evidence of King Tut, then.

Oh, I'm just diverting back to my parallel analogy of Egypt and King Tut, one of which you conveniently snipped & ignored...and which exposes your biasness, as you're willing to accept one as true and the other as false despite the similar parallel.

Since you admit there likely is no evidence, outside the Bible's mere say-so alone - (which is not evidence but instead only the claim alone), and this is a claim which should leave behind many ques and many clues, as it is a very large claim, I guess it's easy to discard this claim as pure myth/legend/fiction/folklore. Which in turn, means the Christian is in trouble...

Um, no.

I reject your premise that the Bible (Exodus narrative) needs external evidence supporting it.

[POI]

This question insinuates that we need evidence outside the Bible.

Your answer insinuates we have no evidence, outside the Bible's say-so. Which is no evidence.

We have no evidence of King Tut, then.

Oh, I'm just diverting back to my parallel analogy of Egypt and King Tut, one of which you conveniently snipped & ignored...and which exposes your biasness, as you're willing to accept one as true and the other as false despite the similar parallel.

Comparing evidence(s) related to one dude verses millions/etc is hardly a 'parallel' analogy. Further, my epistemology requires nothing of 'King Tut' to have actually existed in reality. A matter of fact, I have given it absolutely no thought as to whether or not he actually existed at all. Maybe he was pure legend too? If he was, then nothing changes for me, at all. Alternatively, if it should turn out that millions did not inhabit an area in which the Bible asserts they did, for hundreds of years, then this IS a problem for YOUR position. Unless you would now like to maybe pivot and state "the Exodus" was instead meant to be a 'metaphor/other'?

And just for goofs, a quick search for 'King Tut' states the following. But maybe it is still all a sham? I really do not care one way or another, and lose absolutely no sleep over it regardless. (i.e.):

We know that King Tutankhamun existed because his tomb was discovered in 1922 by British archaeologist Howard Carter and his benefactor Lord Carnarvon. Carter and his team began searching for the tomb in 1917, digging down to bedrock in each section. On November 4, 1922, they uncovered a plaster doorway stamped with Tutankhamun's name.

Contents:
-The tomb contained thousands of artifacts, including:
-Gold-covered chariots
-Alabaster vessels
-Inlaid furniture
-Tutankhamun's personal belongings, including jewelry
-Shrines and coffins
-A sarcophagus containing his mummy
-A famous solid-gold mask

Um, no.

I'm afraid so buddy. This claim is just too big to just state there would be nothing to support it. Sorry.

[POI]

Not being aware of evidence does not prove no evidence exists.

A claim this large would leave evidence.

[POI]

I believe it happened, because I trust Bible is truthful. I believe it also because it is the best explanation for why we have the story. But, no historical story can be proven true. All history remains a matter of belief.

Don't you find it odd that such a large claim basically left behind no evidence?

What do you think should be found, if the story is true?

I think there is all the evidence there should be.

Post 8 and post 75 explains, just for starters.

[SiNcE_1985]

Comparing evidence(s) related to one dude verses millions/etc is hardly a 'parallel' analogy.

Yeah, and those millions weren't kings of an ancient empire like that one dude was.

And besides, you're the one with the "we need external sources" mentality.

Further, my epistemology requires nothing of 'King Tut' to have actually existed in reality.

Yeah, and neither is it a requirement as to whether the Exodus existed in reality...but that obviously ain't stopping you.

A matter of fact, I have given it absolutely no thought as to whether or not he actually existed at all. Maybe he was pure legend too? If he was, then nothing changes for me, at all. Alternatively, if it should turn out that millions did not inhabit an area in which the Bible asserts they did, for hundreds of years, then this IS a problem for YOUR position. Unless you would now like to maybe pivot and state "the Exodus" was instead meant to be a 'metaphor/other'?

The point is, we can systematically reject any claim that doesn't have external evidence supporting it..if that is the criteria.

But since we don't, we have to pick & choose which claims we'll accept instead of being consistent across the board, equally.

You obviously don't have that same skepticism about other claims that don't match your criteria, do you?

But once it comes to the Bible, we become SUPER SKEPTICS.

And just for goofs, a quick search for 'King Tut' states the following. But maybe it is still all a sham? I really do not care one way or another, and lose absolutely no sleep over it regardless. (i.e.):

We know that King Tutankhamun existed because his tomb was discovered in 1922 by British archaeologist Howard Carter and his benefactor Lord Carnarvon. Carter and his team began searching for the tomb in 1917, digging down to bedrock in each section. On November 4, 1922, they uncovered a plaster doorway stamped with Tutankhamun's name.

Contents:
-The tomb contained thousands of artifacts, including:
-Gold-covered chariots
-Alabaster vessels
-Inlaid furniture
-Tutankhamun's personal belongings, including jewelry
-Shrines and coffins
-A sarcophagus containing his mummy
-A famous solid-gold mask

All that is irrelevant.

That stuff is internal evidence, and I clearly said external evidence.

I'm afraid so buddy. This claim is just too big to just state there would be nothing to support it. Sorry.

If we had the evidence supporting it, would you become a believer? Probably not.

So, as I stated in other contexts, if you aint gonna believe it with/without evidence, then it ain't about any lack of evidence.

Same thing with Gospels..

Unbeliever: There is no evidence in the Bible of who wrote either of the Gospels.

Believer: If there was evidence, would you become a believer?

Unbeliever: Well, no.

Believer: Well, SHUT UP then.

[POI]

Yeah, and those millions weren't kings of an ancient empire like that one dude was. And besides, you're the one with the "we need external sources" mentality.

Some claims would logically leave more 'evidence' than others. Millions of folks who inhabited a region for hundreds of years, who were held captive by a large tribe who were meticulous record keepers, and ultimately having nothing at all, seems a bit suspicious...

Yeah, and neither is it a requirement as to whether the Exodus existed in reality...but that obviously ain't stopping you.

The point being, is that it would likely stop you, in being a Christian, or you would at least have to perform a major pivot, if "the Exodus" did not happen. The claims to a 'King Tut' change nothing for me.

The point is, we can systematically reject any claim that doesn't have external evidence supporting it..if that is the criteria. But since we don't, we have to pick & choose which claims we'll accept instead of being consistent across the board, equally. You obviously don't have that same skepticism about other claims that don't match your criteria, do you? But once it comes to the Bible, we become SUPER SKEPTICS.

Is it actually rational to state that such a large claim would not leave mounds of evidence? It's not about being 'super skeptical' or anything. I just find it odd that all evidence for such a large claim has all vanished?

All that is irrelevant. That stuff is internal evidence, and I clearly said external evidence.

Kool. "King Tut" was all made up. Now what? Where have you demonstrated your 'gotcha' moment here? Please remember, I'm not making a faith claim which relies upon the veracity of 'King Tut'. Alternately, if "the Exodus" is false, it's bad news for you. And all I'm reading are weak excuses as to why you have no evidence to support what is a very large claim in history.

If we had the evidence supporting it, would you become a believer? Probably not.

This is not the point of this thread. If there exists evidence to support this very large claim, I would never have created this topic. I would then agree that a very large populous of people inhabited an area for hundreds of years. I may have still gone after the veracity regarding the claims about the supernatural parts of the story. But in this case, you cannot even provide evidence for the natural parts alone, which might actually be falsifiable.

If this story is false, it's bad news for you. And the fact that you are doing nothing more than waving your proverbial hands about, is quite telling here.... Remember, we are in an arena called 'Debating Christianity.' The objective here is to argue the veracity to the claims in Christianity. And Christians agree that "the Exodus" is an important part.

Unbeliever: There is no evidence in the Bible of who wrote either of the Gospels.

Believer: If there was evidence, would you become a believer?

Unbeliever: Well, no.

Believer: Well, SHUT UP then.

Negative. This topic was created because Christians agree "the Exodus" is important to be true. If it is false, it's pretty much game over.

[SiNcE_1985]

Some claims would logically leave more 'evidence' than others. Millions of folks who inhabited a region for hundreds of years, who were held captive by a large tribe who were meticulous record keepers, and ultimately having nothing at all, seems a bit suspicious...

I get it.

You'd think that there would be some mention on a wall or in an inscription of the Israelites and their 480 years on the land.

I can't be mad at that.

But the way I look at it, the fact that the Exodus story has always been embedded in the history of the Israelites, it's hard for me to image that this was all made up of legend.

Just my take on it.

The point being, is that it would likely stop you, in being a Christian, or you would at least have to perform a major pivot, if "the Exodus" did not happen. The claims to a 'King Tut' change nothing for me.

None of it should change anything for you..as a nonbeliever, right?

So, it really isn't your concern, not even in the slightest.

Obviously, for the most part, within every belief system there are always imaginable circumstances that could cause one's belief in the system, to come crashing down.

As I admitted, if the Exodus was found to be untrue, then that would be a major blow in the Judeo-Christian belief system.

Is it actually rational to state that such a large claim would not leave mounds of evidence? It's not about being 'super skeptical' or anything. I just find it odd that all evidence for such a large claim has all vanished?

Ok, then continue in your unbelief as you've been doing, and everything will be just fine as it has been for you.

Kool. "King Tut" was all made up. Now what? Where have you demonstrated your 'gotcha' moment here? Please remember, I'm not making a faith claim which relies upon the veracity of 'King Tut'. Alternately, if "the Exodus" is false, it's bad news for you.

Yeah, if the Exodus is false, it is bad news for me.

But, I'm taking my chances and I like my odds.

And all I'm reading are weak excuses as to why you have no evidence to support what is a very large claim in history.

My excuses are about as strong as your responses to the KCA thread (I guess my excuses are really weak, then).

Anyway, the Bible has a proven track record of being historically accurate and I have no reason to think otherwise when it comes to the Exodus.

This is not the point of this thread. If there exists evidence to support this very large claim, I would never have created this topic. I would then agree that a very large populous of people inhabited an area for hundreds of years. I may have still gone after the veracity regarding the claims about the supernatural parts of the story. But in this case, you cannot even provide evidence for the natural parts alone, which might actually be falsifiable.

If this story is false, it's bad news for you. And the fact that you are doing nothing more than waving your proverbial hands about, is quite telling here.... Remember, we are in an arena called 'Debating Christianity.' The objective here is to argue the veracity to the claims in Christianity. And Christians agree that "the Exodus" is an important part.

Well, we do not have the evidence that you are looking for as it relates to the Biblical Exodus.

We don't have evidence against it, either.

So, it all comes down to belief, either you believe it, or you don't.

Plain and simple.

And you are correct, this is a debate forum..the problem is, there isn't much to debate when the opposing side agrees with you.

Negative. This topic was created because Christians agree "the Exodus" is important to be true. If it is false, it's pretty much game over.

Well, go on a quest to disprove it and if you're lucky, you'll cause the Judeo-Christian belief system to come crashing down.

And then I'll be an unbeliever just...like...YOU.

Hurry up and get at it, it's getting dark.

[marke]

Not being aware of evidence does not prove no evidence exists.

A claim this large would leave evidence.

You may think a claim so big wold leave lots of evidence but that is an opinion you will have a hard time proving. Take fossils of dinosaurs in the Sahara desert, for example. There seems to be little debate that millions of dinosaurs once roamed what is now the Sahara but it was only recently that a significant find was finally uncovered in what has been described as the "Holy Grail" researchers had been fruitlessly looking for for a very long time.

https://www.kidsnews.com.au/science/sah ... 766877acf4


Very few dinosaur fossils from the late Cretaceous period, about 100 to 66 million years ago, have been unearthed on the African continent.

Discovered in the Sahara Desert in Egypt, Mansourasaurus is the most complete dinosaur skeleton from the late Cretaceous era (66 to 100 million years ago) ever found in Africa.

The remains include scattered bits of the creature’s vertebrae, skull, lower jaw, ribs, and leg bones.

Mansourasaurus is a titanosaur, a group which included some of the biggest land animals ever to have lived.

“When I first saw pics of the fossils, my jaw hit the floor,” said study co-author Matt Lamanna of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

“This was the Holy Grail* — a well-preserved dinosaur from the end of the Age of Dinosaurs in Africa — that we palaeontologists had been searching for a long, long time.”

[1213]

I think there is all the evidence there should be.

Post 8 and post 75 explains, just for starters.

- Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but no mention of keeping Israelite slaves, no plagues, no Moses, or no Exodus?

Maybe because most of the died? Or that your claim is not really true.

- Thousands of artifacts, preserved by the hot and dry desert, but nothing related to the slaves which inhabited this area for hundreds of years -- (they left no signs at all)?

Could it be that they took everything with them, when they left? Shouldn't be much, if they were slaves.

- No mass graves/bones with Israeli DNA?

Is there any mass graves from that era?

- Any path taken, from Egypt to "Canaan", shows no signs of a 40 year migration, where thousands would have died over the course of 40 years?

It is possible that only those died that are mentioned in the Bible.

- Both Jewish and Egyptian archeologists concluded, after years of research, that there exist no findings for a Jewish slave populous during this era?

if a blind man doesn't see anything, it does not mean nothing exists.

- During this era, Egypt stretched to what is currently modern-day Turkey. Their 40-year migration to "Canaan" would have landed them into more Egypt?

What is the evidence for this?

- Millions wandered this path for 40 years, while others did it in under 2 weeks?

I don't think you know the path.

- Millions more remained in Egypt and still no trace of their existence?

What do you mean with this?

- Why follow a book with little/no evidence, with evidence against it?

Why follow you, with no evidence against the story and with no knowledge about the era?