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]

[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.

On the subject of the Bible being, or not being evidence in itself. It is.

The Bible is a written record as ancient as any inscription. All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

Because the Bible preserves the ancient inscriptions in one Book, rather than on old stone, readers falsely treat it as only another book of literature, rather than the inscribed ancient record that it is.

Therefore, it's own popularity and common access is unfairly used against it, sort of like a prophet is not honored in his own country...But when someone sees an ancient encryption on stone, they trust it's veracity. They don't immediately wonder if it's true, but only what it says.

The Bible, like any other ancient record preserved over the millennia, should be treated like any other: Verified evidence of an ancient record.

The ancient Bible is it's own independent evidence, like any other archeological find inscribed on stone, even more perfectly preserved.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #350]

Short and sweet...

Are you either:

A) Arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or instead...
B) Arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

Neither. You are arguing from the disbeliever's demand for external evidence. The objective observer knows that external evidence is not needed to prove the evidence of a written record.

So long as the evidence of a written record is not proven untrue, then it can be true, and can be believed as true.

Only irrational disbelief would say it can't possibly be true. (In which case, they wouldn't accept any external evidence for it, but only continue the demand for more evidence.)

All you have continued to provide, is excuses as to why there is no evidence. Which means you acknowledge that, outside the claims of the Bible itself, there is no evidence. I've explained, ad nauseum, how damning this conclusion looks for the Bible believer -- especially since believers must acknowledge that this claimed storyline is such an important and integral part of the storyline. The reason I focused on the Exodus, is because it is an investigable claim, which would leave tons of evidence behind. It is a claim which has been exhaustively addressed by archeology. Your pushback here is that we just have not found anything (yet), as you have mentioned another event where 'archeology' did not find anything until well after a premature conclusion of assuming such a said event never happened. Which means, in this particular case, you are in position A). Well, does this mean the archeologists should keep searching, because the evidence is there, or not?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

You now go on to gaslight skeptics, by telling skeptics that we are irrational if we conclude that "an Exodus" likely did not happen. Please remember, it is not only the skeptics making the conclusion, but believers too. Both believers and unbelievers of the Bible share the same conclusion. That 'the Exodus' likely did not happen. Hence, to gaslight the skeptic (me), and tell me 'it can't be possible', is wrong.

Based upon your given response, it is not 'neither', but instead, a little of both <A) and B)>.

This topic was initially created as I asked another interlocutor (paraphrased), regardless of one's personal position of the Bible -- (being some allegorical or all literal), would the Exodus HAVE to be a literal event, regardless of what position one holds? The answer was basically that "the Exodus" would have to be a literal physical event. Well, since it is likely not a literal physical event, now what?

The answer to this question pretty much puts your other created topic to bed. You cannot prove your god, because you cannot prove the Bible.

[POI]

This question was posed to RBD, but, since (s)he has ducked out from the question, I'll instead ask the other observing Bible believers. Since it has been well established, by now, that believers have to acknowledge that there exists no evidence to suggest millions of Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians for 100's of years, and instead only furnish excuses as for why we have no evidence, I'd now like to ask:

Are you, the Christian, either:

A) arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or instead...
B) arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

As I've posted before (which apparently all skeptics have ducked out from even acknowledging my post):

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?

1. What and where?
2.
3. I never would have created this topic. It would mean the Bible gets it right in this event. That's all. There would still be many to go. And this is only investigating the claims which pertain to 'the natural' claims and not the 'supernatural' claims. (EDIT) Even if this collection of books was right about any/all said natural events, would still merit no more veracity towards any claims to the supernatural. But I doubt this collection of books even gets it right with all said natural events alone, which is even more telling....

[RBD]

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,

Sure. I'm neutral about them. And if anyone asks if I believe in them or not, I tell them I don't care. And if someone tells me they do believe in them, then I tell them that's fine. I don't care.

You don't want to examine the corner you've painted yourself into, so you retreat into nihilism? That went from "enlightened faith" to "I don't care" in nothing flat.

From informed choice to accept what is not disproven in one case, to informed choice not to accept what is not disproven elsewhere. Since the Bible is silent on such things, then there is no need to choose between one or the other. Many Irish believers in the Bible, also choose to believe in their own ancient tales. I don't.

Once again, it's not about proving what must be accepted and believed as true, but only what is believable and so also acceptable. Because you're only fixated on disbelieving one thing, then you have no objectivity in the argument. By your perverse logic, only those Bible believers, that also believe in leprechauns and other fae-folk, can be 'consistent'.

Under that doctrine of 'faith', anyone believing in faeries, unicorns, centaurs, etc... that are not disproven, must also believe the Bible. Do you believe in leprechauns, or discount them as mere Irish fantasy?

Choosing to believe something that is not disproven, does not mean all things not disproven, must be believed.

However, all those intent on disbelieving something, so long as there is no external evidence, must disbelieve all things that have no external evidence. Therefore, anyone not believing the Bible accordingly, and yet believing the Big Bang, is inconsistent. They go from nihilism to faith in nothing flat...

[Clownboat]

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.

You typed a lot of words. Were any of them evidence for the exodus event as told in the Bible?

[Clownboat]

I was checking to see if you are consistent about what others say. You are not.

Let's see if you have a point shall we?
For the sake of this debate, I grant you that I am not consistent about what others say. Can you please tell the class what that has to do with the observations I have made about your reasoning and why it is currently being rejected?

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

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

And this:
"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 this:
"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."

[Clownboat]

On the subject of the Bible being, or not being evidence in itself. It is.

The Bible is what makes the claims. Claims are not evidence, therefore the Bible is not evidence for the claims it makes anymore than the Quran is evidence for the claims it makes. If the claims in the Bible are evidence, then claims in the Quran must be and so too would claims in the Book of Mormon and on and on. This demonstrates that you are wrong and why you are wrong. You simply stick your head in the sand about this and that is not respectable.

The Bible is a written record as ancient as any inscription. All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

The books in the Bible were written by 40 some authors over the course of 1,500 years. That you compare this to some inscription found is unjustified and comical. I currently find your worship of this book to be unjustified.

Because the Bible preserves the ancient inscriptions in one Book,

You think the Bible came from previous inscriptions and not oral tradition? To debate such a silly thing would be to give it credit it doesn't deserve. I currently find your worship of this book to be unjustified.

rather than on old stone, readers falsely treat it as only another book of literature, rather than the inscribed ancient record that it is.

Ask a Jew about the Old Testament. They will likely tell you that it is a story about their history and that some of it even happened. I currently find your worship of this book to be unjustified.

Therefore, it's own popularity and common access is unfairly used against it, sort of like a prophet is not honored in his own country...

Son of a!!!!!! Now you want me to believe that humans can tell the future. Why should I believe such a thing? I know, because it is unfalsifiable and we cannot prove that humans cannot tell the future.

But when someone sees an ancient encryption on stone, they trust it's veracity. They don't immediately wonder if it's true, but only what it says.

Please provide the stone or stones you are referring to that the Bible was written on and then we can compare them to these other ancient stones you bring up.

The Bible, like any other ancient record preserved over the millennia, should be treated like any other: Verified evidence of an ancient record.

We just don't know which parts describe events that actually happened.
For example, did the dead bodies of saint get out of their graves and walk Jerusalem? Did a man live in a fish for 3 days? Did a donkey/snake speak? Did Jesus conjure up fish and loaves? You MUST do better than to just point to religious promotional material and declare it as true. I currently find your worship of this book to be unjustified.

The ancient Bible is it's own independent evidence, like any other archeological find inscribed on stone, even more perfectly preserved.

You are wrong. You are wrong because the Bible and the stone are what makes the claim. If a stone inscription said that millions of Muslims wandered an area for years, the stone would be making the claim and the located graves and fire pits would be the evidence. NOT the stone!

[Difflugia]

The Bible is a written record as ancient as any inscription. All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

Can you find a historian that claims this? Is the Enuma Elish presumed true unless independently proven untrue? How about the Sumerian King List? There's no evidence disproving either one, yet historians consider both to be largely mythical or legendary.

From informed choice to accept what is not disproven in one case, to informed choice not to accept what is not disproven elsewhere.

Informed by what? Your argument, the paint with which you're painting yourself into the corner, is that a lack of evidence, even when we would expect it, isn't evidence of anything. If a lack of evidence is meaningless, then with what are you informing your intelligent choice?

Once again, it's not about proving what must be accepted and believed as true, but only what is believable and so also acceptable.

If you look in the refrigerator and it's empty, is it nonetheless believable or acceptable that a turkey dinner is in there? After all, lack of evidence isn't meaningful, right?

Because you're only fixated on disbelieving one thing, then you have no objectivity in the argument.

There's that projection again.

By your perverse logic, only those Bible believers, that also believe in leprechauns and other fae-folk, can be 'consistent'.

Ah, yes. The perversity of logic.

Under that doctrine of 'faith', anyone believing in faeries, unicorns, centaurs, etc... that are not disproven, must also believe the Bible.

If that's a stated reason, then yes. If "not disproven" is a valid reason for intelligent people to believe in something, then leprechaun believers should also believe the Bible stories, believe in Santa Claus, and believe that there's a tiger in their bedroom.

Do you believe in leprechauns, or discount them as mere Irish fantasy?

They're mere Irish fantasy.

Choosing to believe something that is not disproven, does not mean all things not disproven, must be believed.

So, if the presence, absence, and quality of evidence aren't the salient factors, how do you distinguish between whether to believe in the Bible stories compared to, say, whether or not there's a tiger in your bedroom?

However, all those intent on disbelieving something, so long as there is no external evidence, must disbelieve all things that have no external evidence. Therefore, anyone not believing the Bible accordingly, and yet believing the Big Bang, is inconsistent.

Your insistence that we deny the evidence doesn't somehow make it go away.

They go from nihilism to faith in nothing flat...

How does taking the time to understand the evidence equate to either nihilism or faith? Those are both positions that inherently ignore evidence in the first place.

[RBD]

God killed the same livestock twice, once in Exodus 9:6 and again in 9:25.

C'mon. Seriously, you're making fun, right?

Exo 9:6 And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.

Exo 9:25 And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.

You're just being flippant. I mean, you don't think cattle are beasts of the field, lions, roebucks, wolves, etc...? Right? I mean, unless there were perhaps wild longhorn mustangs. Cattle don't even all livestock, such as oxen, horses, and mules. Even as a city dweller, that didn't like camping and hunting, I still read children's books of different farm animals, and wild beasts. They even had pictures. I also liked to watch Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom...

You're either making a joke, or getting so desperate, that it's become embarrassing.

[RBD]

This question was posed to RBD, but, since (s)he has ducked out from the question, I'll instead ask the other observing Bible believers. Since it has been well established, by now, that believers have to acknowledge that there exists no evidence to suggest millions of Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians for 100's of years, and instead only furnish excuses as for why we have no evidence, I'd now like to ask:

Are you, the Christian, either:

A) arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or instead...
B) arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

Answered in 360 from 351.

Also, acknowledging there is no external evidence, does not mean there is no internal evidence. The evidence for Exodus, is the ancient record of Exodus, preserved perfectly intact to today.

Normally, ancient inscriptions and records are treated as preserved evidence. That's not the case when someone has a personal dislike for it, which of course is not scholarship, but simple angst or phobia. Which if unchecked, can also become obsessive enough to think that no other evidence, means an ancient record isn't even itself evidence...