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]

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.

[/quote]
The problem with these unruly debate forums, is that no one is in a court, where our arguments are ruled acceptable or not, as well as our manner of argument.

I would welcome it wholeheartedly. Afterall, if I'm found arguing without evidence, or disregarding the sound arguments of others, then I am more than glad to be corrected.

What's missing with many people on both sides of the Bible argument, is a lack of regard for discipling ourselves as in a court of law, where our judgment depends on it.

Since you show objectivity, perhaps you would continue moderating, especially with me under your judicial microscope.

[RBD]

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.

The charge of blasphemy is by the Koran against anyone saying God begets a Son on earth. Which proves Allah is not the God of Abraham who begets His own Son. Mohamet contradicts himself, by claiming to speak for the God of Abraham.

He can't be an unerring true spokesman for a perfectly true God. The prophets and apostles of the Bible can be, since they never contradict themselves. Especially not with something so obvious.

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.

Moses was the first prophet of God, to deny he was writing for himself, and not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And no, all of them did not have to repeat it. However, none of them ever deny all the Scriptures they write, are by sole inspiration of the Spirit of the LORD God and Jesus Christ.

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?

Human evolution is an unproven theory, based upon proven science of limited biological evolution.

The same for the unproven Big Bang theory, based upon proven science of an expanding universe.

Both are unproven projections, that are only believed to be from scientific fact. They both require faith to accept them. The same as creation by God in Genesis.

The evidence of the creation is a fact. Believing creation is created by a Creator, is more reasonable than beleiving no matter 'evolutionized' into matter, and fish into man.

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.

So long as someone is hypothesizing about human evolution, and not teaching it as proven science, then no harm no foul. I choose not to believe their unproven theory. Especially if unbelief in Genesis is the hypothetical source or conclusion.

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.

I have no doubt you have. There's no trick to it. The trick is finding error, which is no proven evidence, but is only claimed by disbelief alone.

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.

Exactly, and it has less evidence to know, than the evidence in the Bible, which is abundantly unerring. According to Genesis 1, the universe was created with stars already far flung from day 1. By science we know they are now flying away.

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."

The egg has life within. The human sperm has intelligence within.

Unless of course someone doesn't want to believe, that it's a babe kicking in the womb, but only unintelligent fetal tissue.

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.

Already responded once. Read any beginner's book on human mammal evolution from fish to primate to man. Or, just look at the Darwinian decal of a fish with legs and believe that.

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.

Human thought is spiritual. It's unseen until spoken or done, and works in the natural world.

A greatest proof of the intelligent creator, normally unnoticed, is the intelligence of men and women. Faith is a spiritual work. Even the natural man that does not believe in spiritual things, must think about it not to believe it.

Believing something does not make it necessarily so, but believing at all is the spirit at work.

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

I accept that the site rule does not want the person referred to, when judging their arguments.

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

Perhaps, I should follow your example by only making an accusation of slander, rather than calling someone a slanderer.

[POI]

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.

We continue to do complete circles. This claim would leave tons of evidence. I'm not going to continue repeating why.

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

All the Bible represents here is that it fabricated a story which is not backed by any evidence.

1) Based entirely upon your own personal opinion alone without due evidence to the contrary. 2) It's also based upon pseudo-archeological 'evidence' that is no evidence at all.

1) It is not my "own personal opinion". it is instead the 'opinion' of scholarly consensus.

2) I find it very convenient that when scholarly consensus deems a told story as a myth/other, then it is labeled "pseudo-archeological". But if the scholarly consensus held to the veracity of the said claim, it's instead legit.

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.

My point here is to demonstrate that believers cannot use the argument that Egyptians attempted to erase any evidence. Which means it is one less excuse believers to hide behind.

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.

This looks to be wishful thinking alone. Not only do we have no evidentiary account for the claim that millions of Israelites were enslaved for 100's of years, but now you wish to argue that all dead Israelite slave bones were carried to another region. Further, just because a deemed 'special' corpse was moved, does not also mean all no-name slaves would be as well. Jacob would more likely be an exception to the rule.

How many dead bodies did each migrated slave take with them on their 40-year journey?

Already answered enough times.

Then your given 'answer' has been completely refuted, and I await an actual answer.

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.

It's more than "interesting." It's more-so down-right damning to your position.

Already answered enough times.

Then your given 'answer' has been completely refuted, and I await an actual answer.

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.

The burden lies with the claim that an 'Exodus' story-line actually happened. Now, all you basically have left is... (paraphrase) - Well, we just haven't found all this evidence yet.

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

LOL! In other words, if the Bible tells a story which has no evidentiary basis in reality, pivot accordingly, to retain the faith.

You suggested the Egyptians. I prefer the Israelites themselves.

Right, and your rationale here, is that because Jacob's body was moved, so were all the non-name slave bodies.

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

Argue this 'point' with scholarly consensus.

[Difflugia]

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

I didn't ask whether or not you argued about them. I asked if you're neutral about them, despite the lack of evidence, as you're asking us to be about the Exodus.

I'm asking if your literal money is where your mouth is. Do you worry about the possibility that leprechauns will ruin the economy by dumping their pots o' gold onto the market? There's no evidence that they will do so, or even that they exist, putting them on par with the Exodus. Do you stick to your own principles and believe?

[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.

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;

I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus. - RBD
Please supply evidence that Allah is not the one true God. - Clownboat

I was checking to see if you are consistent with how you arrive at things being true. You are not.

Be well.

[Clownboat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sound of evidentiary silence is deafening.

Therefore, Allah is the one true God then, right? You are deafening me with your silence. Are you sure that is how this should work? Checking for consistency.

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

To correct you, the Bible is not evidence, the Bible is what makes the claim.
Allah is not the one true God because the Quran claims it after all, right? Right?!?

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.

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

PS. I don't actually request that you supply evidence that Allah is not the one true god. I say all this to show why your reasoning is invalid, because it is precisely a lack of evidence that justifies belief in all of our god concepts. Yours included.

You say: Prove the Exodus didn't happen.
I say: Prove that Allah is not the one true God.

Both of these positions are illogical (and I only make mine to demonstrate why, not because it is valid reasoning to believe a claim).

[Clownboat]

He can't be an unerring true spokesman for a perfectly true God. The prophets and apostles of the Bible can be, since they never contradict themselves. Especially not with something so obvious.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "You error in assuming blasphemy when it's possible that a correction is taking place. You leave no room for this possibility."

Moses was the first prophet of God, to deny he was writing for himself, and not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "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."

And no, all of them did not have to repeat it. However, none of them ever deny all the Scriptures they write, are by sole inspiration of the Spirit of the LORD God and Jesus Christ.

And the Book of Mormon was written because Joseph Smith met Gabriel and received a magic hat and magic glasses to then write this book. He never denied his inspirations. Therefore?

Human evolution is an unproven theory, based upon proven science of limited biological evolution.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "Perhaps you are not aware of just what a scientific theory is?"

The same for the unproven Big Bang theory, based upon proven science of an expanding universe.
Both are unproven projections, that are only believed to be from scientific fact. They both require faith to accept them. The same as creation by God in Genesis.

Faith only enters the equation when reasoning for belief is not there.
There is evidence for both and evolution is easily falsified. Just find one fossil out of place.
Therefore I reject that believing in the gods is comparable to believing in a scientific theory.

The evidence of the creation is a fact. Believing creation is created by a Creator, is more reasonable than beleiving no matter 'evolutionized' into matter, and fish into man.

This is nothing but an argument from ignorance and you lie by calling creation a fact. This is another problem with people applying faith. Falsehoods are justified and lies are stated, like creation being a fact. You are not dealing with children here.

So long as someone is hypothesizing about human evolution, and not teaching it as proven science, then no harm no foul.

The proof you speak of belongs in math and whiskey. In science, things are falsified.
Again, if you don't think that evolution is a valid explanation, find a rabbit in the Cambrian layer for just one example and evolution will need to be replaced. Until then, it is the accepted theory for best explaining what we see and for so far not being falsified.

This, I find respectable. Allah did it! I do not and neither do you, but change it to the Bible God and I am then to pretend it is different?

I choose not to believe their unproven theory.

Belief is for religion. Keep your beliefs out of science. If you don't think evolution is a good explanation for the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record, then please supply the better hypothesis so I can compare them.

Especially if unbelief in Genesis is the hypothetical source or conclusion.

It is you that is burdened with Genesis. For me... not my pig and not my farm. Why on earth should Genesis even be considered as valid unless a person is not only religious, but religious for one specific religion? You act as if I have a desire for Genesis to be false. That would be like me claiming that you have a desire for Santa Clause to not be real. What you lay at my feet above just doesn't apply.

Exactly, and it has less evidence to know, than the evidence in the Bible, which is abundantly unerring.

There are errors in the Bible, but that is off topic.

According to Genesis 1, the universe was created with stars already far flung from day 1.

Please show your work.

By science we know they are now flying away.

Science does seem to be the best mechanism that we have for determining truths about the natural world. What did NOT happen was that Genesis informed us about moving stars. Science did what it does and then religious people attempt to fit science in to their religious beliefs.
Genesis 1:14
New King James Version
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

Already responded once. Read any beginner's book on human mammal evolution from fish to primate to man. Or, just look at the Darwinian decal of a fish with legs and believe that.

I understand human evolution fairly well. I said I don't understand as to why you wonder here in this thread as to a person generating from a fish.
Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "I guess I will forever wonder why you asked about a person generating from a fish."
In place of telling me why you brought it up, you tell me to read about something I already know about.

Cool. Please demonstrate something that is of the spirit.

Human thought is spiritual. It's unseen until spoken or done, and works in the natural world.

How prideful you must be to make assertions and then pretend that it qualifies as 'demonstrating'. I must note that you failed to demonstrate something that is of the spirit.

A greatest proof of the intelligent creator, normally unnoticed, is the intelligence of men and women.

You agree that this is in fact not proof of Allah, right?

Faith is a spiritual work.

More accurately, faith is a mechanism to avoid work. If you wanted to understand evolution, you would either have to take the time to understand, or you use faith, apply it to one of our available religions and pretend to have an answer. Therefore, faith is used to avoid doing work.

Believing something does not make it necessarily so, but believing at all is the spirit at work.

The first part is true, the second is just silly. When kids believe in Santa (believing at all as you said) no spirit is at work that we know of. Therefor this claim must be rejected currently.

Perhaps, I should follow your example by only making an accusation of slander, rather than calling someone a slanderer.

Only when the description fits should you do so. Keep in mind, I included the slander in my reply so no one should have to wonder what I was talking about.
The slander again for transparency reasons:
- Your lack of knowledge of the unproven status of both theories
- are only assumed projections from other limited proven science
- shows your own blind faith to accept the unproven theories as true.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #346]

To correct you, the Bible is not evidence, the Bible is what makes the claim.

Just to correct you, it is not possible that the Bible makes any claims, because the claims were made long before any sort of Bible. You are correct to say that the Bible is not evidence. However, that which is contained in the Bible is indeed considered to be evidence, and it is this evidence contained in the NT which has convinced the overwhelming majority of scholars, even the critical scholars that the early followers of Jesus, (including the apostles) could not have possibly made the reports up, but were rather convinced they had truly witnessed Jesus alive after death. That is pretty stout evidence. Of course, it does not demonstrate a resurrection, but what it does do is to demonstrate that what we have contained in the NT can, and is used as evidence in order to demonstrate there are certain things we would all have to agree upon by reading the material.

Allah is not the one true God because the Quran claims it after all, right? Right?!?

You do yourself no favors by attempting to compare Christianity to religious claims. The first reason is the fact that one would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other. In other words, even if we were to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of religious claims are false, this would have no bearing in the least upon the rest, nor would it even make the rest to be more unlikely. All it would do is to demonstrate the other religious claims to be false.

Next, at least according to one critical scholar who was an atheist, and never a Christian, "the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity." Now, where in the world do you think he got the evidence to make such a claim? Well, that would be from what is contained in the NT. Since this is the case, I think we would have to concede that what is contained in the NT is at least evidence enough to demonstrate that the evidence for Christianity is "outstandingly different in quality and quantity" compared to other religions. How can this critic of Christianity make such a bold statement? Because as a scholar, he is forced to understand that Christianity is not based upon claims, but is rather based upon historical facts and evidence we can be certain about coming from what is contained in the NT whether one believes the material to be trustworthy or not.

[Clownboat]

Just to correct you, it is not possible that the Bible makes any claims, because the claims were made long before any sort of Bible.

Please show that you speak the truth. You will be upsetting many Christians by the way that choose to believe a God authored the Bible.

You are correct to say that the Bible is not evidence.

I am also correct that the Bible is what makes the claim. Unless you were able to show where the claims came from that later made it into the Bible.

However, that which is contained in the Bible is indeed considered to be evidence,

Just like how the Quran is evidence for the Muslim. I respect what you call evidence as much as you do for the Muslim. I am not going to pretend that your beliefs are special unless a reason is provided.

and it is this evidence contained in the NT which has convinced the overwhelming majority of scholars, even the critical scholars that the early followers of Jesus, (including the apostles) could not have possibly made the reports up, but were rather convinced they had truly witnessed Jesus alive after death.

You are wrong. See the bold. What you claim is not possible... is very possible. You just pretend that it isn't, which isn't convincing.

That is pretty stout evidence.

No, it really isn't. Especially when we are talking about a dead and decomposing corpse reanimating to life.

Of course, it does not demonstrate a resurrection, but what it does do is to demonstrate that what we have contained in the NT can, and is used as evidence in order to demonstrate there are certain things we would all have to agree upon by reading the material.

It does not demonstrate that we all must agree that corpses can reanimate to life though. That Christians use the NT as evidence is not new.

You do yourself no favors by attempting to compare Christianity to religious claims.

Christianity is a religion that makes claims, like all other religions. Noting this does favor me.

The first reason is the fact that one would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

I never claimed they did. What I do is to check for consistent thinking, which believers in differing religions do not have.
Christian: My book makes 'this' claim!
Muslim: My book also makes 'that' claim.
Christian: I reject your book.
Muslim: I reject your book.
They have more to do with each other than you would like, which is why I point out the inconsistency for accepting one book, but rejecting another.

In other words, even if we were to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of religious claims are false, this would have no bearing in the least upon the rest, nor would it even make the rest to be more unlikely. All it would do is to demonstrate the other religious claims to be false.

I see nothing to respond to.

Next, at least according to one critical scholar who was an atheist, and never a Christian, "the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion.

Therefore a decomposing body reanimated to life? Surely you jest.
I could likely find a Middle Eastern scholar saying something similar about Muhammed flying on a winged horse and you would not find it meaningful. As you shouldn't, because such things are not evidence.

Now, where in the world do you think he got the evidence to make such a claim?

How am I to know when you allude to people not here debating? I ask you for evidence and you point to others.

Well, that would be from what is contained in the NT. Since this is the case, I think we would have to concede that what is contained in the NT is at least evidence enough to demonstrate that the evidence for Christianity is "outstandingly different in quality and quantity" compared to other religions.

This book is different than that book, is not evidence for the claims made within either.

How can this critic of Christianity make such a bold statement?

I don't know, nor do I care as this person is not here to debate with. If you however had evidence for an Exodus, I would care greatly.

Because as a scholar, he is forced to understand that Christianity is not based upon claims, but is rather based upon historical facts and evidence

Sweet! Now please supply the evidence for the Exodus specifically.
If you point to some people believing it, I'll point you to the Muslim and readers will then check for consistency.

we can be certain about coming from what is contained in the NT

You sure about that?
Matthew 27:52-53
and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (53) They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
You really think we are justified to be certain that this happened?

[RBD]

All the Bible represents here is that it fabricated a story which is not backed by any evidence.

Nor discounted by any evidence, which in itself proves nothing. However, when added to the Bible's own inerrancy, it makes accepting Exodus entirely reasonable.

1) Based entirely upon your own personal opinion alone without due evidence to the contrary. 2) It's also based upon pseudo-archeological 'evidence' that is no evidence at all.

1) It is not my "own personal opinion". it is instead the 'opinion' of scholarly consensus.

And yet, the opinion of scholarly consensus already failed against the Bible record of Assyria, when the archeological evidence of Assyria was found.

Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, the opinion of scholarly consensus against the Bible is proven nonsense. It's just consensual unbelief.

Reaching consensus without evidence, is reaching a conclusion without sense. Consensus without fact is the agreed upon conclusion of common ignorance.

2) I find it very convenient that when scholarly consensus deems a told story as a myth/other, then it is labeled "pseudo-archeological".

Pseudo-archeology is the study of no archeological evidence.

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

My point here is to demonstrate that believers cannot use the argument that Egyptians attempted to erase any evidence.

I don't use that argument. I simply turn it on it's head, when unbelievers use it to suggest if they had, then there would be evidence of it.

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.

This looks to be wishful thinking alone.

It's called personal interpretation of limited Bible evidence. Which is why I speak of only believe it likely, rather than teach it as Bible fact.

But, so far as looking for Hebrew bones in Goshen, that's another pseudo-archeological endeavor, since bones don't provide genetic evidence of race. They can be dated, but not racially divided from one bone to another. (The same for the pseudo-racial genetics in blood.)

Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth...

Further, just because a deemed 'special' corpse was moved, does not also mean all no-name slaves would be as well. Jacob would more likely be an exception to the rule.

If you want to try and argue Bible interpretation, then you need to go by the Bible standard, not Egyptian. To you and the Egyptians, they were only no-name slaves. To the children of Israel, they were the bones of known patriarchs, forefathers, and parents.

One man's trash, is another man's treasure.

Let's continue the interpretative argument:
Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.


Joseph commanded about his bones as a matter of faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not just personal favor. The command was solely based upon faith, that their God would keep His promise and lead His people out of Egypt back to the promised land of Abraham. And, His command was made to all the children of Israel about their departure, not just a few.

And again, the commandment was not limited to his own bones alone, since those of Jacob were also brought out of Egypt. Therefore, to assume such a matter of faith in the God of their faithers, did not apply to all His people, is not at all likely among such a called people, that honor mother and father by faith in their God.

And finally, such an assumption that only two bones were taken, is shown to be made by unbelievers in that God, who agree with the Egyptians, that the Hebrews were just a bunch of no-name slaves. (Which they quickly learned was a foolish means of their own defeat and humiliation at the hands of no-name slaves...)

How many dead bodies did each migrated slave take with them on their 40-year journey?

Once you begin to make comments about interpretation, you confirm it's possibly true.

It's the same with contradictions. Once anyone begins to need arguments to make it a contradiction, it confirms it's possibly not true.

The burden lies with the claim that an 'Exodus' story-line actually happened.

The burden of proof lies with any claim, that Exodus can't be true. The fact of there being no external evidence confirming Exodus happened (as with the Assyrian Empire for many generations), does not prove Exodus didn't happen. (As with the Assyrian Empire.)

As with the Bible itself. There is no burden to prove it is true, but only to prove it can't be true. Absent that, the Bible can be true and believed as written, flawlessly so...

Now, all you basically have left is... (paraphrase) - Well, we just haven't found all this evidence yet.

False. Quote me ever saying that external evidence must or shall be found, in order to allow for belief in Exodus. As well as the Bible itself.

Like the miracle plagues, so long as no outside evidence proves they couldn't happen, then no outside evidence is necessary to prove they did.

2Co 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.

So long as there is no outside evidence against the Bible, then the Bible is enough evidence to believe it. Especially when the Bible itself is inherently unerring.

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

LOL! In other words, if the Bible tells a story which has no evidentiary basis in reality, pivot accordingly, to retain the faith.

The Bible is in reality a physical book. To say the Bible is not evidentiary basis in reality, is to depart from the reality, that the Bible is in reality a physical Book.

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

Argue this 'point' with scholarly consensus.

The whole Assyrian Empire already has.

Fool me once shame on you O Bible, says the scholarly consensus. Fool me twice, shame on someone else, says the pseudo-scholarly consensus.

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.