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?

[RBD]

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.

When they wanted to be, which was only when a Pharaoh prescribed something for posterity.

However, they do not mention enslaving Israelites within this era. [/quote]

Lack of evidence proves nothing. Your demand for physical evidence for the Book of Exodus is archeologically unsound. Demand for evidence before Exodus on the part of Egyptians, is an issue you can take up with them.

There are attempts to show archeological evidence confirming Hebrews in Egypt and their Exodus, which may be true or not, but it doesn't matter, since it's not necessary to choose to believe it. And of course, without any evidence to the contrary, not having evidence to prove it is mute.

Only direct incontrovertible evidence to Hebrews in Egypt, and the book of Exodus, can be used to prove any error. Such as, any record of the sons of Israel living out their lives in Canaan, and begetting tribes of offspring never in Egypt. Or, evidence of a Pharaoh letting Hebrew slaves go free without compulsion. Such as some sort of Royal Emancipation Proclamation on stone.

In any case, I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus, rather than just another declaration of disbelief, under cover of 'evidence', that is based solely upon the Egyptians not dutifully recording it.

Let's start simply. Did millions and millions of Israelites inhabit this area, when the Bible says? The answer looks to be <no>.

Looks to be and close to it, only works in horseshoes and grenades. Scholarship doesn't care about what's not there, but only what's there.

The Bible is there. Evidence against it is not there. Therefore, any evidence must be shown within the Bible itself.

And since evidence is basically absent, it is reasonable to dismiss the claim,

Anyone can dismiss anything they want. Whether it's reasonable or not, is another matter. Since there is no evidence against Exodus, then it's reasonable to choose to accept it. It's also reasonable for anyone to reject something without outside sources.

What's unreasonable is stating there's no reasonable way to accept what is not proven by outside sources. That's only a matter of faith.

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.

False. The Bible here and elsewhere is believed by some to be false, without any evidence proving otherwise. The challenge is to prove otherwise, and willful unbelief only proves a personal choice.

Someone's decision to believe or not, matters not. Only true contrary evidence within or without the Bible needs to be answered.

If you ever have any actual evidence against Exodus, or any other book in the Bible, then I'd be glad to see it. In the meantime, arguments about evidence that's not there has been interesting, but now it's become old.

[POI]

Lack of evidence proves nothing.

It depends on the claim! Imagine if I claimed that I just walked across a muddy pathway but left no evidence, like no footprint(s) or other. Would you still believe me?

Again, your statement flat out admits we have no evidence. All we have is a claim. and a very LARGE claim at that. A matter of fact, it is a claim that is so large, you believers would be tripping all over all sorts of evidence(s) to support such a LARGE claim. However, as it stands, claims are a dime a dozen. And this is all you have here. A claim.... And such a claim would leave behind all sorts of stuff. The video in post 12 explains.

Your demand for physical evidence for the Book of Exodus is archeologically unsound. Demand for evidence before Exodus on the part of Egyptians, is an issue you can take up with them. There are attempts to show archeological evidence confirming Hebrews in Egypt and their Exodus, which may be true or not, but it doesn't matter, since it's not necessary to choose to believe it. And of course, without any evidence to the contrary, not having evidence to prove it is mute.

LOL! Again, we are talking about millions and millions of folks inhabiting an area for centuries. Seems quite suspect archeology has found nothing. Further, that no Egyptian record(s) mention anything at all about holding Israelites as slaves.

Only direct incontrovertible evidence to Hebrews in Egypt, and the book of Exodus, can be used to prove any error. Such as, any record of the sons of Israel living out their lives in Canaan, and begetting tribes of offspring never in Egypt. Or, evidence of a Pharaoh letting Hebrew slaves go free without compulsion. Such as some sort of Royal Emancipation Proclamation on stone.

Nope. The Bible claims millions and millions of folks inhabited an area for centuries. Outside the claim of the Bible, we have absence of evidence. In THIS case, such a claim would leave behind mounds of evidence.

In any case, I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus, rather than just another declaration of disbelief, under cover of 'evidence', that is based solely upon the Egyptians not dutifully recording it.

Pure gaslighting is being presented here, nothing more...

Looks to be and close to it, only works in horseshoes and grenades. Scholarship doesn't care about what's not there, but only what's there. The Bible is there. Evidence against it is not there. Therefore, any evidence must be shown within the Bible itself.

Going in circles, but here we continue to go... The Bible makes the claim. That's it. Why should anyone believe such a LARGE claim, with no evidence to support the LARGE claim? And by large, I mean the claim that millions and millions of folks inhabited an area for centuries.

If you ever have any actual evidence against Exodus, or any other book in the Bible, then I'd be glad to see it. In the meantime, arguments about evidence that's not there has been interesting, but now it's become old.

More gaslighting....

[Clownboat]

In any case, I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus, rather than just another declaration of disbelief,

Please supply evidence that Allah is not the one true God.
Welcome to being a Muslim!

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes (as the saying goes).

[RBD]

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?

Why bother, since the author never claims it's historical record. If he did say so, then why not believe there was an egg called humpty-dumpty falling off a wall, and the cavalry coming to the rescue could not put him together again?

Can you disprove that Allah is the one true God?

He can't be if the one true God is perfectly unerring without contradiction with Himself.

His prophet claims He is the God of Israel, and then he claims he cannot have a Son, which he says is blasphemy. He therefore contradicts himself.

Moohammed heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, and with the anti-NT Jews rejected Him as the Christ of God. (And they both still agree Jesus deserved to be crucified for blaspheming the one true God.)

1Co 12:3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

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.

How so? Refusing to accept a negative as proof of a positive?

Or, choosing to believe the Author of a Book is exactly who He says He is? Or, that the faith is based entirely upon the unerring words in His Book, that were written over so much time between so many men?

Evolution isn't true because it can't be disproven after all.

True. And yet many people choose to believe it as not only true, but scientific fact.

There are reasons for why we know it happens and those reasons are missing in what you suggest above.

Again, how so? I have no objection to anyone believing something is true, without it being proven untrue.

Nor do I bother with the paleontological evidence and arguments about evolution. If someone prefers to believe a big bang theory, and evolution of intelligent being from unintelligent matter, then who am I to argue with that? Afterall, I was once a believer, until I started thinking about being evolutionized from something totally unthinking.

It's like believing humpty-dumpty was not only an egg by the name, but an egg-person. Why not? If a person cannot generate from a fish, then why not a fish-egg? Or, was that a chicken-egg?

[RugMatic]

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?

The only undisputed, Egyptian reference to Israel is the Merneptah Stele: Israel is ruined, its seed is no more, and Canaan is a widow. Scholars date this inscription around 1208 BC.

So not much to work with. The Bible mentions Egypt's smack down on Judah during Rehoboam's reign 1 Kings 14:25, but this is over 300 years later. The Bible doesn't reference Merneptah's conquest.

Its crazy bananas to celebrate a victory over the ancient Israelites. Seems embarrassingly trivial to celebrate that. Almost curiously trivial. Seems like an indication of animosity towards them for some reason!

Moses was a common Egyptian name. Here's a few Pharaoh's who had the name: Dedumose l, Dedumose ll, Ahmose, Thutmose l, Thutmose ll, Thutmose lll, Thutmose lV. When we get to Ramesses and beyond, we get messes instead of mose. I've been told its a pronunciation necessity and I don't know Jack about ancient Egyptian.


I'm not saying Charlton Heston liberated the Israelites with 10 plagues, but I think somebody named Moses did something. The oldest portions of the Old Testament have primitive poems about: God came from Teman...from mount Paran, Habakkuk 3:3, and God came from Sinai...from Seir ...from mount Paran, Deuteronomy 33:2. These primitive poems celebrate a journey through the outskirts of southern Edom not the Sinai peninsula. Maybe somebody named Moses left Egypt, went to mount Paran and brought some Edomite nomads into Canaan. Whatever it was, Merneptah sought revenge for it.

What we're left with is this: Either Merneptah enjoyed celebrating shamefully trivial victories, or maybe he was retaliating for something. Religiously inspired rebellion?

I realize Assyria, Babylon and Rome celebrated their victories over Israel as well, but it was in response to religiously inspired rebellion!



Its boring to just dismiss the Exodus entirely


No, it doesn't matter to me if the Exodus happened or not. Its just a religious story.

[RBD]

Lack of evidence proves nothing.

It depends on the claim!

No it doesn't. It depends on any evidence refuting the claim.

Imagine if I claimed that I just walked across a muddy pathway but left no evidence, like no footprint(s) or other. Would you still believe me?

Of course, why not? Now, if you said you flew with your arms over a muddy pathway and left no evidence, then I would have to choose not to believe it.

However, I could believe a tree falling in the woods, that I did not hear. It happens all the time.

Again, your statement flat out admits we have no evidence.

Right.

All we have is a claim. and a very LARGE claim at that.

Well, it's a large book.

A matter of fact, it is a claim that is so large, you believers would be tripping all over all sorts of evidence(s) to support such a LARGE claim.

Not me. By inerrancy alone, I choose to believe all things in the Book are true. Beginning with the Author calling Himself God Almighty.

I prefer that to not believing it, or believing the men writing the Book were unerring demigods, unlike all other men.

And such a claim would leave behind all sorts of stuff. The video in post 12 explains.

Your statement flat out admits that you have no evidence against the Book. Neither does the video, else you would quote it.

All you and your video got is unbelief based upon lack of outside evidence, nor any physical evidence to the contrary in the Book, nor outside it.

Your demand for physical evidence for the Book of Exodus is archeologically unsound. Demand for evidence before Exodus on the part of Egyptians, is an issue you can take up with them. There are attempts to show archeological evidence confirming Hebrews in Egypt and their Exodus, which may be true or not, but it doesn't matter, since it's not necessary to choose to believe it. And of course, without any evidence to the contrary, not having evidence to prove it is mute.

LOL! Again, we are talking about millions and millions of folks inhabiting an area for centuries. Seems quite suspect archeology has found nothing. Further, that no Egyptian record(s) mention anything at all about holding Israelites as slaves.

Your statement also flat out admits that you don't listen to rebuttals.

In any case, I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus, rather than just another declaration of disbelief, under cover of 'evidence', that is based solely upon the Egyptians not dutifully recording it.

that Pure gaslighting is being presented here, nothing more...

Are you saying that lack of evidence is presented evidence? Or, that you are not seeking to disprove the Book? Or, you are not a disbeliever in the Book? Or, that your presented 'evidence' is the Egyptians not recording any of it?

Are you even willing to say that if they had, you would believe the Book of Exodus as written? If not, then your whole argument for non-evidence is a red herring here, nothing more...

If you ever have any actual evidence against Exodus, or any other book in the Bible, then I'd be glad to see it. In the meantime, arguments about evidence that's not there has been interesting, but now it's become old.

More gaslighting....

Now you've corrupted the definition of gas lighting, which is used to divert from an argument by unreal suggestions. Such as claiming evidence for an argument, and then only arguing from non-evidence.

Demanding verifiable factual evidence is not gas-lighting, but only reasonable when being accused of something, for which there is no evidence.

[RBD]

In any case, I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus, rather than just another declaration of disbelief,

Please supply evidence that Allah is not the one true God.

Already responded elsewhere. Maybe you didn't see it.

The Koran claims to be inspired by the God of Israel, calling Him Allah, and then rejects the God of Israel begetting a Son.

Psa 2:7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #307]

The Koran claims to be inspired by the God of Israel, calling Him Allah, and then rejects the God of Israel begetting a Son.

Psa 2:7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son
(Exodus 4:22)

[POI]

Of course, why not? Now, if you said you flew with your arms over a muddy pathway and left no evidence, then I would have to choose not to believe it.

The absence of evidence to support the claim that I just walked across a muddy pathway, such as footprints or muddy shoes or other, would demonstrate that I most certainly did not actually walk across the muddy pathway. So no, it depends on the claim. Same goes for the claim that millions and millions of Israelites were said to inhabit an area for hundreds of years. The absence of any actual evidence to suggest they did, is even more unbelievable than the claim that I just walked across a muddy pathway without leaving any physical trace of doing so.

However, I could believe a tree falling in the woods, that I did not hear. It happens all the time.

Yes, exactly. It depends on the claim.

Right.

Yes. And in the case for THIS claim of an 'Exodus' storyline, the absence of any evidence demonstrates that millions and millions of Israelites inhabited an area for hundreds of years never happened.

Well, it's a large book.

And this large book claims that millions and millions of Israelites inhabited an area for hundreds of years. And yet, left absolutely no trace of their inhabitance

Not me. By inerrancy alone, I choose to believe all things in the Book are true. Beginning with the Author calling Himself God Almighty.

You believe by faith. In other words, you trust or hope that it is still true -- in spite of the fact there exists no actual evidence to suggest that millions and millions of Israelites were claimed to inhabit an area for hundreds of years.

Your statement flat out admits that you have no evidence against the Book. Neither does the video, else you would quote it.

Already explained above. The video is just the cherry on top of the whipped cream. Such a claim would not hinge upon blind faith that it happened alone. Archeologists would have found all kinds of stuff to support the claim. Further, the Egyptians would have also mentioned or attempted to suppress it...

Are you saying that lack of evidence is presented evidence?

No. I'm saying that there is no way such a claim would not leave findable evidence. As the video explains, the dry environment would preserve all sorts of evidence. Further, the Egyptians tried to erase all sorts of stuff, and we still have evidence of these lesser/smaller claims anyways, despite Egyptian efforts to suppress evidence to those lesser/smaller claims.

Or, that you are not seeking to disprove the Book?

The claim for an 'Exodus' is disproven. Explained directly above...

Or, you are not a disbeliever in the Book?

I do not believe the book when this claimed large story, in which would leave mounds of evidence, leaves no actual evidence at all.

Are you even willing to say that if they had, you would believe the Book of Exodus as written?

Well, if the Egyptians would have also mentioned that they kept Israelites captive, for hundreds of years, this topic would have never been created. Or, if we had evidence of the Egyptians attempting to suppress or sabotage all the left-behind physical evidence, in which the Israelites would leave behind, then I again would have never created this topic.

Please remember, my standards are pretty dang low here... All I'm asking for here, is that the storyline, as claimed from the Bibe, corelates with its surroundings. And in THIS case, it doesn't. Hence, the Bible can be dismissed. Which means the claims to your "God" can also be dismissed.

Now you've corrupted the definition of gas lighting, which is used to divert from an argument by unreal suggestions. Such as claiming evidence for an argument, and then only arguing from non-evidence.

You are attempting to make me doubt my own rationale. But my rationale is sound. In this case, the absence of evidence is damning for THIS claim that millions and millions of Israelites inhabited an area for hundreds of years.

[POI]

[Replying to RugMatic in post #305]

Out of curiosity, would you consider yourself a "minimal facts" Christian?