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?

[RugMatic]

[Replying to RugMatic in post #305]

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

Is this quip your only stock and store? Quoth the Raven nevermore.


I answered your question in a different post.

[POI]

Is this quip your only stock and store?

Since you answered how you answered, regarding question 2, I wanted to get your exact position prior to proceeding. I responded to your other post.

[Perspectivo]

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?

Greetings POI

For fourteen centuries Egyptians have unanimously affirmed that the prophet Moses overcame their Pharaoh and evacuated the Israelites. Their pre-Islamic assessments reqarding its historicity is obscure, nonetheless fourteen centuries of Egyptian consensus is peculiar.

I'm unaware of an any ancient fib that won the Fable Jackpot in a manner comparable to the Exodus, where the enemies of the story, the butt of the joke, accept it as historical.


Well goody! I made my first post

[otseng]

The silence, from the Christian populous here, remains deafening. Do you folks have an answer here? I posited a video, via post 12, which ultimately states that if "The Exodus" story line happened, we would have all sorts of evidence(s) to support this claimed event. But we really don't?.?.?. The lack in evidence, is what suggests this story line did not happen. Aside from the Bible's say-so, there exists little else to grab on to...?

Christians, I again offer the debate questions:

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 debate I had with Otseng pretty much looked at all that there is.

I did an in-depth coverage of the Exodus out of Egypt in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. I spent so much time on it, I'm not going to rehash that again. You can see the synopsis of the arguments at Defending Christianity.

After my research on this topic, my conclusion is:
1. Yes, there is extra-Biblical evidence for it.
2. If it didn't happen, then one might as well take the entire Bible as allegorical.

I'll add a question:
3. If there is extra-Biblical evidence for the Exodus and it aligns with the Biblical account, does this sway the skeptic's position at all?

[RBD]

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.

Not after thousands of years. You need to use analogies that at least stick with the subject at hand.

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 -

I trust it is true. My hope is to be part of the resurrection of life.

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

Such a claim would not hinge upon blind faith that it happened alone.-

Hinging on no evidence against the Book is blind disbelief. Hinging on evidence of the Book is enlightened faith.

Further, the Egyptians would have also mentioned or attempted to suppress it..

.
Suppressing it is by not mentioning it. Mentioning it at all makes it known.

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

The claim for an 'Exodus' is disproven..

.

The claim for an Exodus is the book of Exodus. The claim against the book has no evidence.

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.

Non answer. Not attacking something as false, is not a willingness to believe in it.

Kings, Chronicles, books of prophets, the gospels, Acts, etc... are independently verifiable. If not for al the Bible, do you believe them?

Please remember, my standards are pretty dang low here...

I know. Because the evidence is nill.

Any competent standard of accusation against something requires at least some evidence against it.

All I'm asking for here, is that the storyline, as claimed from the Bibe, corelates with its surroundings.

It did. When they children of Israel crossed on dry ground, it correlated with the surrounding waves of the Red Sea.

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.

No. I am defining gas lighting, which differs from your use of it.

It simply shows an alternative rationale for making the charge.

[RBD]

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?

Greetings POI

For fourteen centuries Egyptians have unanimously affirmed that the prophet Moses overcame their Pharaoh and evacuated the Israelites. Their pre-Islamic assessments reqarding its historicity is obscure, nonetheless fourteen centuries of Egyptian consensus is peculiar.

Unfortunately, Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Egyptians believing the OT Bible, does not prove pagan Egyptians believed the Exodus history.

I'm unaware of an any ancient fib that won the Fable Jackpot in a manner comparable to the Exodus, where the enemies of the story, the butt of the joke, accept it as historical.

And again, the size of the story doesn't make it true. The annals of Gilgamesh is a pretty big book, but only a myth.

However, the inerrancy of the Bible, as well as the proven veracity of many books in the Bible, would make it unintelligent to claim the sizeable book Exodus is only a great mythical lie. Especially when the claim is based solely upon disbelief alone, without any evidence to the contrary.

It simply makes such a large accusation look like a whole lot of blind unbelief.

[RBD]

After my research on this topic, my conclusion is:
1. Yes, there is extra-Biblical evidence for it.

True, in an indirect way. Such as evidence of widespread damage to the land of Egypt at the time, as well as inscriptions of Nubian and Asiatic (Canaanite) slaves building monuments.

However, I don't try to prove anything by outside confirmation, because in matters of faith it's fairly irrelevant. There's plenty of evidence for other historical books in the Bible, and they aren't believed either.

Nor is the argument against someone choosing not to believe the Book. It's only against those that irrationally say it's only unintelligent blind faith to believe it.

So long as there remains no evidence against it, then the inerrancy of the Bible allows any reader to intelligently choose to believe it.

2. If it didn't happen, then one might as well take the entire Bible as allegorical.

As well as just another historical myth of man, such as the flood of Gilgamesh.

I'll add a question:
3. If there is extra-Biblical evidence for the Exodus and it aligns with the Biblical account, does this sway the skeptic's position at all?

There are scholars who have been converted by the Bible's veracity and inerrancy, after failing to objectively find any error in it.

However, anyone subjectively not wanting to believe something, never will choose to believe, unless they first remove their own personal bias against it.

[Perspectivo]

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?

Greetings POI

For fourteen centuries Egyptians have unanimously affirmed that the prophet Moses overcame their Pharaoh and evacuated the Israelites. Their pre-Islamic assessments reqarding its historicity is obscure, nonetheless fourteen centuries of Egyptian consensus is peculiar.

Unfortunately, Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Egyptians believing the OT Bible, does not prove pagan Egyptians believed the Exodus history.

I'm unaware of an any ancient fib that won the Fable Jackpot in a manner comparable to the Exodus, where the enemies of the story, the butt of the joke, accept it as historical.

And again, the size of the story doesn't make it true. The annals of Gilgamesh is a pretty big book, but only a myth.

However, the inerrancy of the Bible, as well as the proven veracity of many books in the Bible, would make it unintelligent to claim the sizeable book Exodus is only a great mythical lie. Especially when the claim is based solely upon disbelief alone, without any evidence to the contrary.

It simply makes such a large accusation look like a whole lot of blind unbelief.

POI asked for references outside the Bible. That was why I used Islam. There's no historical references to the exodus outside of religion. I noticed people keep telling POI that the exodus happened because the Bible says it did. That's not what the OP is asking.

Billions of people don't believe in the annals of Gilgamesh. Its not comparable to the Fable Jackpot that the Exodus fib hit. I don't see any correlation there.

[POI]

Not after thousands of years. You need to use analogies that at least stick with the subject at hand.

My analogy was submitted after you made the following statement --> "Lack of evidence proves nothing". The point being... Even in your last response, you now must admit that your given statement is false, in that evidence would be necessary in some cases. In which I stated, it depends on the claim. If I told you I just walked across a muddy pathway, and you saw no evidence, you would not believe me. And in the case for the claim that millions of folks were enslaved by the Egyptians, for hundreds of years, I've given just some examples as to why this claim is not believable. (i.e.):

1) The primary reason why there is no evidence to suggest the ancient Israelites were enslaved in Egypt is because the extensive historical records of ancient Egypt, including inscriptions and papyri, do not mention the inhabitance of Israelites anywhere, despite the detailed biblical account of the Exodus story. This lack of corroborating evidence from any/all Egyptian sources, who recorded basically anything and everything, leads most scholars to doubt the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative regarding Israelite slavery in Egypt.

2) Egyptians left evidence of trying to erase physical evidence regarding other people and events, as mentioned in the video from post 12. This means that if the Egyptians were trying to cover up interaction(s) with the Israelites, for whatever reason(s), we would see plenty of evidence of their attempts to cover-up and/or sabotage existing evidence of their existence.

3) The believer also cannot argue that the evidence would be too degraded, as we have tons of evidence from the exact same period, of the Egyptians, and many/all of their action(s). This is due to the climate, which preserves all evidence.

I trust it is true. My hope is to be part of the resurrection of life.

Yes, you have 'faith.' But we can apply such 'faith' to virtually any claim.

a) Hinging on no evidence against the Book is blind disbelief. b) Hinging on evidence of the Book is enlightened faith.

a) See my (3) points alone, given above.

b) The book is the claim. Any book can make any claim. Just-the-same, if there existed some ancient book which claimed that millions and millions of Egyptians did this and that for hundreds of years, but left behind no traces of evidence, it would be quite reasonable to dismiss this storyline too as folklore or other.

I know. Because the evidence is nill.

You missed my point. As I've repeatedly explained, there is basically no way the claim for millions and millions of Israelites inhabiting an area for hundreds of years would not leave behind tons of physical evidence --- just like if there existed no book of claims about Egyptians, we could still easily find all sorts of physical evidence to such. I've explained why above. My standard is low, in the sense that if we at least had evidence that Israelites were indeed in that region, I never would have even raised this topic. But it seems, instead, the Bible may very well be telling a pretty tall tale. Which speaks to your other thread about 'proving the Bible proves your God.'

It did. When they children of Israel crossed on dry ground, it correlated with the surrounding waves of the Red Sea.

??

No. I am defining gas lighting, which differs from your use of it. It simply shows an alternative rationale for making the charge.

"Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that causes someone to doubt their own perceptions." You have done it more than once in this exchange, like telling me "Lack of evidence proves nothing", or "Hinging on no evidence against the Book is blind disbelief. Hinging on evidence of the Book is enlightened faith", and other(s). The conclusion is clear, and requires little faith. It is highly unlikely, (due to the reasons given), that millions and millions of Israelites were actually enslaved by Egyptians during the said time. Which, in your particular case, is pretty damning.

[POI]

[Replying to Perspectivo in post #313]

Holy book(s) offer the claim. In this case, we would also find all sorts of evidence to corroborate the claim(s).

As a primer, I'd suggest watching the video in post 12. Or, if you care not too, you can start here:

1) The primary reason why there is no evidence to suggest the ancient Israelites were enslaved in Egypt is because the extensive historical records of ancient Egypt, including inscriptions and papyri, do not mention the inhabitance of Israelites anywhere, despite the detailed biblical account of the Exodus story. This lack of corroborating evidence from any/all Egyptian sources, who recorded basically anything and everything, leads most scholars to doubt the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative regarding Israelite slavery in Egypt.

2) Egyptians left evidence of trying to erase physical evidence regarding other people and events, as mentioned in the video from post 12. This means that if the Egyptians were trying to cover up interaction(s) with the Israelites, for whatever reason(s), we would see plenty of evidence of their attempts to cover-up and/or sabotage existing evidence of their existence.

3) The believer also cannot argue that the evidence would be too degraded, as we have tons of evidence from the exact same period, of the Egyptians, and many/all of their action(s). This is due to the climate, which preserves all evidence.