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?

[Difflugia]

Having blind disbelief based upon no evidence, is the logical antithesis to an accusation of having blind faith based upon evidence.

Is it? Are you truly neutral on the existence or nonexistence of leprechauns?

At some point, the lack of evidence where we would otherwise expect it, as is the case with leprechauns and Israelite migration, is itself strong evidence of nonexistence. Even if you can't prove there are no tigers in your living room, I'd be willing to bet that you don't bother setting a tiger trap. You know, just in case.

[POI]

At some point, the lack of evidence where we would otherwise expect it

Oh, the interlocutor responded here....

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

Cased closed, as they say in court.

or here:

Lack of proof does not prove anything.

In the case of Assyria, there was expected to be archeological evidence of their stone inscriptions and buildings, which were not found until the 1800's. Until then, the Bibliophobes said it was just another Atlantean myth.

[RBD]

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.

The words you just typed contain no contradiction. If you don't believe me, please re-read what you supplied.

Muhammed claims he is the prophet of the God of Abraham, calling Him Allah. He then says Allah cannot have His own Son, which is blasphemy. Allah therefore is not the God of Abraham, and so Muhammed contradicts himself, that he last great prophet of the God of Abraham.

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?

Nope. Allow me to demonstrate.
For the sake of debate, let's pretend that you believe that Bigfoot, Nessie and Allah are all false. You could, via faith, decide that any of these concepts are true. Faith is the mechanism that would allow you to believe in these false things as if they are true. That is why, not some acceptance of negative proof.

The argument is not about faith, but about literary evidence and conclusions. A negative does not prove a positive.

Inerrancy means believing it is intelligently possible. No one has to believe it. Nor does the unbelief of some negate the choice to believe.

Inerrancy argues against anyone declaring it cannot possibly be believed. That is an unintelligent conclusion, not based on the evidence alone.

Or, choosing to believe the Author of a Book is exactly who He says He is?

We know who wrote some of the Bible and none of the known authors are Gods. Even you know this, yet somehow still claim, via faith I note, that some god concept authored them.

Correct. I don't choose to believe the men penning the words of the Bible are Gods, nor do I revere and idolize them as some do. I choose to believe them, when they say they are only writers for the one Author, the LORD God and Christ.

Psa 45:1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Or, that the faith is based entirely upon the unerring words in His Book,

Yes, faith is also required in order to believe that the Bible is unerring, because it in fact does have errors.

Unbelief is required in order to believe that the Bible is erring, because it in fact does not have errors.

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

True.

And yet you ask us to disprove the Exodus. Your thinking is not consistent.

I must have misread your statement. Evolution of man would possibly be true, unless it is disproven by irrefutable evidence. However, man's evolution remains only an unproven theory with evidentiary gaps still remaining.

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

Evolution is an established scientific fact. The theory describing the fact can be falsified if you are up to it.

Evolutionary biology is proven fact. Evolution of man is only an unproven theory projected from it. Teaching it as fact is a social engineering lie.

You offer no evidence for the Exodus for us to examine and instead argue that we need to prove that it didn't happen.

The book of Exodus can be examined for any error in it. The absence of evidence against it, does not disprove it.

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

At least you are consistent here! Good on you for also being ok with others believing in unproven concepts.

I only acknowledge it doesn't matter to them if I agree or not, nor do I care if they believe it or not.

In matters of faith I necessarily live and let live. I don't care what others believe, only what they do.

Myself personally, I would encourage people to believe in things for valid reasons.

Which is why more failed arguments for errancy in the Bible, such as apparent contradictions within it, or absence of evidence against it, makes believing in it's inerrancy all the more valid for the believer.

Nor do I bother with the paleontological evidence and arguments about evolution.

Thank you for being so honest! Good on you again!
I do bother with evidence when it comes to all things.

Clarification. I don't bother to argue about evidence for the evolutionary theory of man, because an evidentiary gap, aka missing link, leaves it unproven.
It remains an unproven theoretical projection from evolutionary biology, that takes faith to accept it as true, and dishonesty to teach it as scientific fact.

I also don't bother arguing the evidence given against evolutionary theory for man, because it's not necessary to disprove an assumed projection theory, in order to accept the inerrant Bible as true. Even as it's unnecessary to prove Exodus is true by archeological evidence.

Perhaps that is why I could no longer maintain my religious beliefs.

That's the problem with religious beliefs. They come and go according to the will of the person. I don't have religious beliefs, but only one belief in the Author of the Bible, being who He says He is, the LORD God Almighty.

Eph 4:2There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

If you began to bother with evidence, are you fearful that you would loose your religious beliefs?

Demanding proof against a belief is not being afraid of unbelief.

I don't care enough about what others believe, in order to be afraid of their unbelief.

Gal 1:10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

If someone prefers to believe a big bang theory

There is evidence for this belief.

Like evolutionary theory about man projected from evolutionary biology, it's only another unproven proposition made from proven evidence of something else. The evidence of an expanding universe, does not require a beginning from one space, where there was no space.

And it certainly doesn't demand that it was without cause. That argument is a matter of faith, because that's not a simple debate about matter coming from nonmatter, but rather is disbelief in a Creator of all things.

The initial 'explosion' of matter from nothing, is only in error in two ways: The cause was the word of the LORD, and the explosion was not from one place, but instantly spread. The fact of a widening spread of stars does not mean it began from one central place, where there was no place, especially that it was without intelligent cause.

Faith is not required.

Faith is required when gaps remain to prove something.

and evolution of intelligent being from unintelligent matter, then who am I to argue with that?

Unless you were to try to argue that an egg and sperm are intelligent, then you should not argue that something intelligent cannot come from unintelligent matter.

It's the life in the egg that is alive, not the shell matter. And the sperm is the life in the living womb.

Afterall, I was once a believer, until I started thinking about being evolutionized from something totally unthinking.

So you had a desire to have come about by some thinking thing?

Clarify.

If a person cannot generate from a fish, then why not a fish-egg?

Why are you asking about a person generating from a fish?

Not a person, but a human body. Person's are not generated, because intelligent spirit is not generated, but instantly created.

Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


I've already seen evidence that you don't know the foundation, nor present status, of the debate on the theory of evolutionary man and the Big Bang theory. Now you show you don't know that the evolutionary theory of man begins with that of all mammals from fish.

That's why there's Darwinian car details of a fish with legs.

Your lack of knowledge of the unproven status of both theories, that are only assumed projections from other limited proven science, shows your own blind faith to accept the unproven theories as true.

My study of the Bible, and the failed attempts to discredit it, shows my faith in the Author is based on certain knowledge.

[otseng]

Your lack of knowledge of the unproven status of both theories, that are only assumed projections from other limited proven science, shows your own blind faith to accept the unproven theories as true.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting on other posters.

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.

[Clownboat]

Muhammed claims he is the prophet of the God of Abraham, calling Him Allah. He then says Allah cannot have His own Son, which is blasphemy.

You error in assuming blasphemy when it's possible that a correction is taking place. You leave no room for this possibility.

Allah therefore is not the God of Abraham, and so Muhammed contradicts himself, that he last great prophet of the God of Abraham.

Or you are just rejecting the words or Gods last and greatest prophet.

<snipped stuff about inerrancy as there was nothing to debate>

when they say they are only writers for the one Author, the LORD God and Christ.

There are about 40 authors for the Bible over a period of about 1,500 years. Most all of these authors did not say what you claim. You are either mistaken or embellishing, so which is it?

Unbelief is required in order to believe that the Bible is erring,

Unbelief is required for belief. I'm sorry, but I reject this for being nonsensical.

because it (Bible) in fact does not have errors.

I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but yes it does contain errors.

However, man's evolution remains only an unproven theory with evidentiary gaps still remaining.

Perhaps you are not aware of just what a scientific theory is?
A "theory" is a well-substantiated explanation for a phenomenon, based on evidence and observation, that can be tested and refined through further research.
Yes, human evolution is well substantiated, it is based on evidence, observation and it can be tested and falsified. Once something reaches a scientific theory, it's kind of a big deal. I'm sure you have heard of germ theory...

Evolutionary biology is proven fact. Evolution of man is only an unproven theory projected from it. Teaching it as fact is a social engineering lie.

Hopefully you have now corrected your thinking one what a scientific theory is and how big of a deal it is to get a hypothesis to that point.

You offer no evidence for the Exodus for us to examine and instead argue that we need to prove that it didn't happen.

The book of Exodus can be examined for any error in it. The absence of evidence against it, does not disprove it.

My point stand: You offer no evidence for the Exodus for us to examine and instead argue that we need to prove that it didn't happen.

Which is why more failed arguments for errancy in the Bible, such as apparent contradictions within it, or absence of evidence against it, makes believing in it's inerrancy all the more valid for the believer.

I have read the bible from cover to cover. You cannot trick me, sorry.

Clarification. I don't bother to argue about evidence for the evolutionary theory of man, because an evidentiary gap, aka missing link, leaves it unproven.
It remains an unproven theoretical projection from evolutionary biology, that takes faith to accept it as true, and dishonesty to teach it as scientific fact.

I don't have religious beliefs, but only one belief in the Author of the Bible, being who He says He is, the LORD God Almighty.

Well, now you have been informed that there were closer to 40 authors over the course of 1,500 years. It is good to learn!

The initial 'explosion' of matter from nothing, is only in error in two ways: The cause was the word of the LORD, and the explosion was not from one place, but instantly spread.

The truth is that we don't know. You, like many humans accept the answers from one of our many religious holy books that all offer explanation for this unknown. I note the special pleading and find it wanting.

<snipped stuff about stars>

It's the life in the egg that is alive, not the shell matter. And the sperm is the life in the living womb.

My point stand: "Unless you were to try to argue that an egg and sperm are intelligent, then you should not argue that something intelligent cannot come from unintelligent matter."

Not a person, but a human body. Person's are not generated, because intelligent spirit is not generated, but instantly created.

I guess I will forever wonder why you asked about a person generating from a fish.

Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Cool. Please demonstrate something that is of the spirit.

I've already seen evidence that you don't know the foundation, nor present status, of the debate on the theory of evolutionary man and the Big Bang theory. Now you show you don't know that the evolutionary theory of man begins with that of all mammals from fish.

I have a good understanding of evolution, your slander above not withstanding.

Your lack of knowledge of the unproven status of both theories, that are only assumed projections from other limited proven science, shows your own blind faith to accept the unproven theories as true.

When the debate is lost, slander become the tool of the loser. - Socrates

My study of the Bible, and the failed attempts to discredit it, shows my faith in the Author is based on certain knowledge.

As you have learned, it was false knowledge. There were close to 40 authors over the course of about 1,500 years as you have now learned.

It seems that you have made an idol of the Bible. If your god concept is real, he might not be very pleased with this.
You shall not make idols is one of the 10 commandments after all.

[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.

Yes, Allah has corrected your misunderstanding about him having a son.
When you cannot disprove this, you must believe in order to be consistent.

Once again, the argument is not about whether someone wants to believe or disbelieve the Bible nor the Koran. It's about inerrancy or errancy of an author's book, that would make it intelligently believed or not.

Moohammed's self-contradiction of claiming to speak for the God of Abraham as Allah, and denouncing the God of Abraham for having a Son, proves Moohammed is not entirely believable, and so rules him out as a spokesman for any perfect and true God.

The intelligent reason I don't believe him, is by the obvious errancy of his own authorship. Whether others still want to believe Allah, instead of the God of Abraham, is their own choice. But it's willful ignorance of Moohammed's false claim, to want to be believe both are the same one true God.

because of faith you have placed in the Bible and the absurdity of believing in things because they haven't been disproven.

Because of the objective intelligence of the Book and all failed arguments to find error, I willingly choose to believe it is all true. And others don't, which is their right in this life.

The absurdity is claiming the Book can't possibly be true, with no evidence against it. That is an irrational conclusion not based upon unbelief alone, but from a personally blind angst, that has no honest place in objective investigation.

No charge can be proven by no evidence. Lack of corroborating evidence is not sufficient to prove a charge of false witness. The witness doesn't have to be believed, but also can be believed, even if seemingly unbelievable to others.

"Something is considered "unfalsifiable" when it is impossible to prove false, meaning there is no conceivable evidence that could disprove the claim; essentially, it is a statement that cannot be tested or refuted by any means, often seen as a characteristic of pseudoscientific or conspiracy theories."

And also books of spiritual things, that only appear in the words, works, and events of natural life.

Such books, therefore have a reasonable possibility of being believed, and also practiced in one's own life.

Basing one's life upon spiritual faith is far more common, than blindly living life without any regard to the spirit of life.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2Pe 2:12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

[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.

Yes, Allah has corrected your misunderstanding about him having a son.
When you cannot disprove this, you must believe in order to be consistent.

So, you're Islamist?

In any case, once again, the argument is not about whether someone wants to believe or disbelieve the Bible nor the Koran. It's about inerrancy or errancy of an author's book, that would make it intelligently believed or not.

Moohammed's self-contradiction of claiming to speak for the God of Abraham as Allah, and denouncing the God of Abraham for having a Son, proves Moohammed is not entirely believable, and so rules him out as a spokesman for any perfect and true God.

The intelligent reason I don't believe him, is by the obvious errancy of his own authorship. Whether others still want to believe Allah, instead of the God of Abraham, is their own choice. But it's willful ignorance of Moohammed's false claim, to want to be believe both are the same one true God.

because of faith you have placed in the Bible and the absurdity of believing in things because they haven't been disproven.

Because of the objective intelligence of the Book and all failed arguments to find error, I willingly choose to believe it is all true. And others don't, which is their right in this life.

The absurdity is claiming the Book can't possibly be true, with no evidence against it. That is an irrational conclusion not based upon unbelief alone, but from a personally blind angst, that has no honest place in objective investigation.

No charge can be proven by no evidence. Lack of corroborating evidence is not sufficient to prove a charge of false witness. The witness doesn't have to be believed, but also can be believed, even if seemingly unbelievable to others.

"Something is considered "unfalsifiable" when it is impossible to prove false, meaning there is no conceivable evidence that could disprove the claim; essentially, it is a statement that cannot be tested or refuted by any means, often seen as a characteristic of pseudoscientific or conspiracy theories."

And also books of spiritual things, that only appear in the words, works, and events of natural life.

Such books, therefore have a reasonable possibility of being believed, and also practiced in one's own life.

Basing one's life upon spiritual faith is far more common, than blindly living life without any regard to the spirit of life.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2Pe 2:12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

[RBD]

I incorrectly assumed your example was that no evidence of footprints found afterward. Saying evidence is found afterward, before it is swept away, is not analogous with any old evidence not found.

My given example was to refute your claim that "Lack of evidence proves nothing". Your claim is false.

Not without evidence against it, such as no footprints in the sand, or bones in Egypt.

No charge of false witness can be proven by lack of evidence. Your charge is false.

The sound of evidentiary silence is deafening.

I also conceded, right away, that your statement depends on the claim. In this specific claim from the Bible, no evidence means the claim is likely not a valid one.

This is true, where there is no evidence for something. The Bible is one evidence.

See above, how evidence of a recent activity does not apply to long ago, when the evidence can be overrun.

Right. It is situational and it depends on the claim. And I've explained, extensively, why this claim is not founded or believable.

Based entirely upon your own personal opinion alone without due evidence to the contrary. It's also based upon pseudo-archeological 'evidence' that is no evidence at all.

your argument is now self-destructive. Talking no evidence proves nothing, but talking about erasing evidence, proved evidence was for it.

You talk about erasing evidence, which is evidence of something to erase. I talk about not leaving any evidence at all.

If someone wants to talk about the defeated and humiliated Egyptian Pharaoh erasing the Hebrew bones of Goshen from Egypt, in order not to leave any evidence of them being there and departing in miraculous victory. Then I could believe that, since they had multitudes of Egyptians and foreign slaves to do his bidding over enough time.

However, I believe it's more likely that the Hebrews themselves carried off the bones of their forebears, along with that of Joseph's. We know Jacob's bones were reburied in Shechem.

1) You skipped right over my first point. Most archeologists conclude the Exodus story is false. Therefore, they must be irrational.

Already answered enough times.

2) And my argument is not self-destructive. We have no evidence of Egyptians trying to erase evidence.

You talked about it first. I had no such thoughts, until you suggested it.

Now, it's an interesting argument.

3) You also skipped my third point. 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.

Already answered enough times.

People have the power believe anything they want. Intelligent people can believe anything they study and accept, unless there is evidence against it.

Right, we all possess cognitive dissonance(s).

But, when someone's sole purpose is to conclude something unproven, especially a false accusation, then they must set aside their own normal cognitive objectivity to blindly conclude something without evidence.

Jhn 1:5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Mat 6:23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

In the case of the Bible, the fault finders limit themselves to surface reading alone without study, as well as pseudo-archeology without evidence.

Confirming the fact that lack of evidence proves nothing,

Unless you wish to argue that God himself destroyed all the evidence to test the truly faithful maybe?.?.?.?

You suggested the Egyptians. I prefer the Israelites themselves. The Author does not speak against either. Perhaps the Israelites only took the bones of their forefathers, and the Egyptians cleansed the bones of their foremothers from their 'sacred' land? Either is practicable.

In any case, the absence of evidence does not prove a lie. Your accusation is false.

[RBD]

Neither size of the book, nor numbers of unbelievers is the point. The proper comparison is between the Bible and Gilgamesh as fantastic historical myths. Which would be the case if Exodus is proven false by conclusive evidence, either within the Book itself or independently.
No evidence proves nothing.

If millions of ancient Israelites didn't roam an area for 100's of years, what evidence do you think we would find?

If millions of Israelites did live in Egypt for 430 years, then where are their bones in Goshen?
1. Bones do not have genetic material for race. Therefore, distinguishing between Egyptian and Hebrew bones is not possible.

2. Along with the bones of Joseph and Jacob, all the Israelites also removed the bones of their own forebears. Or, if they only removed the bones of their forefathers, then the Egyptians could have rid their land of their foremothers. So as not to leave any trace of their enslaved enemies, that humiliated and defeated them. (Not good optics for the enemies of the day, that look for any sign of weakness to invade.)

[RBD]

Having blind disbelief based upon no evidence, is the logical antithesis to an accusation of having blind faith based upon evidence.

Is it? Are you truly neutral on the existence or nonexistence of leprechauns?

Objective neutrality in an argument is necessary to make intelligent conclusions.

I don't argue about leprechauns, because I don't care.