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?

[EYR]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #290]

Where does a researcher research - watching StarTrek or something?

I was at college many years ago and am still researching.

You could start with The Bible itself.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #288]

No. Do some research like I did - then you might believe.

Then at least tell us where you did your research.

EDIT: This reply was meant for EYR, not Athetotheist.

I'm afraid this is not how it works buddy. You made a claim. I'm asking you to elaborate upon your very vague claim. What 'markers' were left?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to POI in post #288]

No. Do some research like I did - then you might believe.

Then at least tell us where you did your research.

I'm afraid this is not how it works buddy. You made a claim. I'm asking you to elaborate upon your very vague claim. What 'markers' were left?

It boggles the mind just how often religious people will join this site, agree to its rules and then completely fail to abide by them. If those evil atheists can do it, why can't more Christians do it here?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #288]

No. Do some research like I did - then you might believe.

Then at least tell us where you did your research.

I'm afraid this is not how it works buddy. You made a claim. I'm asking you to elaborate upon your very vague claim. What 'markers' were left?

It boggles the mind just how often religious people will join this site, agree to its rules and then completely fail to abide by them. If those evil atheists can do it, why can't more Christians do it here?

They are here to preach... If only this arena was instead called 'preachingchristianity.com'

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #288]

No. Do some research like I did - then you might believe.

I did, and like archeologists, the evidence is lacking to non-existent. for the claim of millions of folks inhabiting an area for centuries as slaves. What exactly have you found?

[RBD]

Outside the Bible, there is no proof,

Then why should I trust the Bible's account as reliable?

No one has to, but so long as the Bible is not proven false, then anyone can choose to.

Just because the Egyptian record does not want to include such a disastrous event of Egyptian folly, that was made by it's own pharoah and people, does not prove it didn't happen.

It's quite a bit more than this...

Not when speaking of the book of Exodus.

We are speaking about a claimed era which was claimed to cover centuries of time and also involved millions and millions of people. In other words, there are some smaller clams and there are some large claims. And this one is one of those grand-daddy colossal claims.
But somehow, is completely erased from archeological discovery entirely?

Demanding evidence of the Exodus record in Egypt and Sinai wilderness, is a nonstarter. What physical evidence would remain of total blackness, a temporary dry land gap in the Red Sea, or blood filling the Nile? Locust and lice remains?

And any bones recovered in Sinai could never be determined to be Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, English, French...

You're claim is better directed at the whole Assyrian Empire and civilisation, where nothing remained of it's history, buildings, walls, and tablets, until the 1800's. Until then, the record of Assyria in the Bible was most scoffed at as fictitious as Atlanta.

The video in post 12 explains, with many details.

Skimming through the video, it's only about demanding the physical evidence of something, that wouldn't remain, other than the multitude of merchant and army bones. Unless, once again, the proud Egyptians had chosen to write about their own utter humiliation at the hands of slaves. That would go over real well with their enemies. Military intelligence alone would keep it hush hush.

Especially in that time, when all such engravings, shrines, memorial buildings, etc... were only commissioned by the Pharaohs.

As the saying goes, history is written by the victorious. The Author of the Bible however is more honest than any self-styled god Pharaoh, so that He includes both great victories and utter defeats of His nation of Israel.

If there turns out to be physical or literary proof, that Exodus did not happen as written in full, then of course it would. Until then, it can certainly be believed or not according to someone's own personal choice.

Since you admit we only have the claim but lack all physical evidence in which we should have, it is not unreasonable to dismiss this claimed event, which-in-turn, means we can then dismiss the Bible.

People can dismiss whatever they want by negative proof. However, no longer with the Assyrians since the 1800's.

Inerrancy of the Bible is not about proving it is true, nor 'forcing' anyone to believe it, because people can believe a known lie for their own personal reasons It's about proving the Bible can be true, and anyone can intelligently believe it. The only thing inerrancy does forbid, is anyone unintelligently claiming that anyone believing it, can only do so with irrational blind faith.

It's not about proving all the Bible is true, but is all about intelligently proving it's intelligently possible, by objective study of it's own inerrancy.

See my response directly above.
[/quote]

Mine too.

When you have any evidence of anything, I'd be glad to look at it, to see if it's concrete evidence, or just more misguided demands for something, that can't possibly still exist. Such as ancient remains of locusts, frogs, and lice in Egypt. Or, ancient boils on at least one dead Egyptian.

I'm thinking this is why no serious archeologist ever demanded such evidence in Egypt, but did for Assyria, until the 1800s when they got their wish. Did they then repent of their skepticism and believe all the Bible could be true?

[POI]

People can dismiss whatever they want by negative proof.

You are essentially admitting/reconciling there exists (little to no) evidence to substantiate the massive claim, which consists of millions of Israelites being enslaved in Egypt for 100's of years!

Inerrancy of the Bible is not about proving it is true, nor 'forcing' anyone to believe it, because people can believe a known lie for their own personal reasons It's about proving the Bible can be true, and anyone can intelligently believe it. The only thing inerrancy does forbid, is anyone unintelligently claiming that anyone believing it, can only do so with irrational blind faith.

All I read here is apologetic excuses for why there basically exists no evidence to support the massive claim for millions of Israelites being enslaved in Egypt for 100's of years during the said timeframe or era.

[RBD]

People can dismiss whatever they want by negative proof.

You are essentially admitting/reconciling there exists (little to no) evidence to substantiate the massive claim, which consists of millions of Israelites being enslaved in Egypt for 100's of years!

I was addressing the Book of Exodus, which proves any demanded evidence of the events recorded in Exodus, is an archeological nonstarter. (Which is tacitly conceded by no response.)

So far as before Exodus, it proves bones alone do not identify racial and genealogical identity.

It would also prove, that Joseph's bones were not the only ones taken back to the land of their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Especially from Egypt where the lowest Egyptian preserved the bones of their parents, and even mummified them. And, the Hebrews were not enslaved for the first hundreds of years in Egypt, until the generation of Moses. Which is when a Pharaoh rose up that knew not Joseph, and feared their prosperity without cause.)

It doesn't mean anyone has to believe anything, but only that they can choose to believe what is not disproven. (Saying what is not disproven cannot possibly be believed, is only the irrational response of a personal agenda against it.)

Inerrancy of the Bible is not about proving it is true, nor 'forcing' anyone to believe it, because people can believe a known lie for their own personal reasons It's about proving the Bible can be true, and anyone can intelligently believe it. The only thing inerrancy does forbid, is anyone unintelligently claiming that anyone believing it, can only do so with irrational blind faith.

All I read here is apologetic excuses for why there basically exists no evidence to support the massive claim for millions of Israelites being enslaved in Egypt for 100's of years during the said timeframe or era.
[/quote]
All you should have read is an archeological response to the evidence of Exodus.

Now, without any dispute to it, the shift is made midstream to the Hebrew bones in Egypt between Joseph and Moses. See above for the scientific and cultural response.

[POI]

I was addressing the Book of Exodus,

So am I. And the book of Exodus makes a very large claim, in that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for 100's of years. And yet, Egyptians are known to be meticulous record keepers. However, they do not mention enslaving Israelites within this era. The video in post 12 explains.

Let's start simply. Did millions and millions of Israelites inhabit this area, when the Bible says? The answer looks to be <no>. Otherwise, we would have all types of findings to support such a claim. And since evidence is basically absent, it is reasonable to dismiss the claim, which-in-turn, speaks to your other thread about 'proving God by proving the Bible.' Welp, the Bible here looks to be false, which means any logical person can then rationally dismiss the claim for the existence of a Bible God.

which proves any demanded evidence of the events recorded in Exodus, is an archeological nonstarter. (Which is tacitly conceded by no response.)

Let's start with evidence to back up the immense Biblical claim that millions of Israelites inhabited this area for 100's of years. Can you do that? Archeologists, of all kinds, seem to come up blank here. Seems a little suspect to me... Which props up the OP question, outside the Bible's say-so, what evidence do we have?

[Clownboat]

It doesn't mean anyone has to believe anything, but only that they can choose to believe what is not disproven. (Saying what is not disproven cannot possibly be believed, is only the irrational response of a personal agenda against it.)

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion...
Please disprove that Humpty Dumpty was not a real egg that fell off a wall. I'm tired of believing.
Is belief in Humpty Dumpty actually justified if you cannot disprove it?

Can you disprove that Allah is the one true God?

I can't agree that what you suggest is a valid way to arrive at true claims because it is a mechanism for believing false things to be true.
Evolution isn't true because it can't be disproven after all. There are reasons for why we know it happens and those reasons are missing in what you suggest above.