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?

[POI]

Answered in 360 from 351.

See post 362.

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.

If by "internal evidence", you mean the baseless claim made by the Bible itself, then you have a very fast and loose usage of the term 'evidence', regardless of what descriptive word you place in front of the word 'evidence', (i.e.) internal.

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.

LOL! It's not about "dislike" or any "phobia". It is instead basic logic. It would be no different than asking about any other claim made from any other book. If the reference comes from one ancient book, and the event is very large, but is not substantiated or corroborated by anything else at all, it is generally safe to say that maybe that very large, stated event may not have actually happened. And in this case, as the video in post 12 demonstrates, a claim this large would leave stuff behind, all over the place.

Which if unchecked, can also become obsessive enough to think that no other evidence, means an ancient record isn't even itself evidence...

More gaslighting... This is becoming all too common, coming from you.

[otseng]

1. What and where?

I already provided the links:

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.

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....

That's why I spent so much time on the How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? thread. I guess I could resume that thread again and add additional arguments to support the Bible.

[POI]

I already provided the links:

This is why I asked. Most of what is in the provided links corresponds with the ultimate conclusion that Israelites were not in Egypt during this expressed time. This is then quite a big 'fib', as told from the Bible. (i.e.):

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel."
http://websites.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm

"The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it. So we prefer not to talk about it, and hate to be asked about it.... There is nothing in the Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing."
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Con ... say-348464

"The Torah devotes more than four books to the proposition that the Israelites came to Canaan after having been subjugated in Egypt for generations, and yet there is no archaeological evidence to support that they were ever in Egypt."
https://www.reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt

**************************

And in post 788 of your thread, you also stated:

"Yes, it will be challenging to provide empirical evidence to support any of the claims surrounding the Exodus, esp since there are professionals in the field that say there is absolutely no evidence for it.

I might not be able to produce any direct evidence, but there is indirect evidence that fits and supports the Biblical narrative to make the story plausible. I grant there are some aspects of the Biblical narrative to be incorrect, but I believe the major claims would be correct - Israelites living in Egypt, Joseph having a high position in Egypt, Israelites becoming slaves, a series of calamities affecting the Egyptians, Israelites leaving Egypt and then going into Canaan."

***********************************

The point being, if archeology has not found anything by now, and also states this event likely did not happen, then it's likely because archeology has made a logical conclusion that such an expressed massive event, from antiquity, would have produced mounds of findable evidence. And instead, has basically produced basically nada. And all I see from the believing side, is desperate grasps at straws: to spin things, or to make weak attempts to force something to fit, or to ultimately come up with excuses as to why we have not found anything (yet).

If you instead feel sufficient evidence has been located to support this very large claim, I'd love to see it. I'd also like to know why all of archeology has been so inept, to this point, and has rejected what you have discovered? Or, if it is something you feel others have missed, I'd also love for you to contact (the-powers-that-be) and provide to them what you believe you have located to turn the entire world of both (archeology and academia) on its proverbial head. You would easily be in line for major accolades, kudos, and prize(s) abound

That's why I spent so much time on the How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? thread. I guess I could resume that thread again and add additional arguments to support the Bible.

As far as I'm concerned, you lost that battle at post 3830.

[RBD]

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.

All you have continued to provide, is excuses as to why there is no evidence.

No. As seen above, I also provide correction for false assumptions made by purposed disbelievers, who apparently demand answers, that they then don't care to be corrected by.

Which means you acknowledge that, outside the claims of the Bible itself, there is no evidence.

I acknowledge that outside evidence is not necessary to accept the available evidence. Only opposing evidence must be addressed.

I've explained, ad nauseum, how damning this conclusion looks for the Bible believer

I've explained equally ad nauseum, how meaningless disbeliever's looks are to Bible inerrancy. Especially when they are looking at nothing. Such looks can't hold water, much less kill anything.

-- especially since believers must acknowledge that this claimed storyline is such an important and integral part of the storyline.

Every part of the Bible is an important integral part of the Bible, which is what makes it wholly and unerringly complete. Like a picture puzzle perfectly fit together, without any missing pieces. (Unlike the missing links in human evolutionary theory...)

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.

Exhausting claims made by no evidence, is exhausting from the start.

Your pushback here is that we just have not found anything (yet),

I don't pushback at nothing. I only dismiss conclusions based upon nothing. Which I have exhausted enough.

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?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

Let them search away. If they are supported to do it, then more power to them. People got to do something to make a buck, including archeologists.

If anyone finds any evidence against the Bible evidence, then I'd like to see if it is evidence indeed, or just more no-evidence wistful conclusions of pseudo-unobjective 'archeologists'.

Concluding there is no other evidence, does not conclude there is no evidence at all, and certainly does not conclude the available evidence can't be true...That's an irrational conclusion denying the evidence at hand, followed by an ideological conclusion against the only evidence available.

Neither conclusion has anything to do with an objective archeological research, that presently concludes there is no more evidence, than that which is already known.

You now go on to gaslight skeptics, by telling skeptics that we are irrational if we conclude that "an Exodus" likely did not happen.

A skeptic is objective, and needs to be convinced by more evidence. They make no conclusions otherwise.

A fault-finder is unobjective, and is already convinced no matter the evidence. Their conclusions are only personal, and any demand for more evidence is only thin cover for pseudo-objectivity.

Please remember, it is not only the skeptics making the conclusion, but believers too.

Believers such as myself can conclude there is no more evidence than the Bible, and is unnecessary. Anyone saying they believe only the parts of the Bible proven by more evidence, is not a believer in the Bible, but only a believer in part:

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

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

Nope. Still neither. Read the response so you can understand what others believe, not what you want others to believe.

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.

True. As with any ancient event recorded as historical fact.

Well, since it is likely not a literal physical event, now what?

Since likely is only speculative and not conclusive, then there is no now what? Come back when you have conclusive evidence, rather than just conclusions based upon no evidence.

Likely is only as conclusive as what is liked.

I only deal with factual arguments for proven conclusions, not anyone's personal 'likes'. I don't argue with personal opinion nor beliefs about things...

You cannot prove your god, because you cannot prove the Bible.

This is true, because what is unseen cannot be proven by what it seen.

Heb{11:1} Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Heb 11:6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Jhn 20:28 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


Therefore, I don't try to prove that God is, by proving that the Bible is true. I only disprove any accusations that the Bible is untrue.

So long as the Bible remains unerring, then it certainly can be true, and the Author can be who He says he is, the LORD God Almighty.

Whether anyone likes it or believes it, has nothing to do with the physical evidence seen in an erring Book, that can be Authored by the unseen God Himself.

[Difflugia]

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

I am, but I'm making fun of your apparently serious theology.

Now therefore send, hasten in thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; for every man and beast that shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die. 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'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. The word translated as "cattle" in the KJV means livestock in general, not just bovine cattle as it does now. 9:19 tells us that every animal in the field will die. "Therefore, quickly bring in your livestock and all that you have in the field, because the hail will fall upon every man and animal remaining in the field and not brought home, and they will die."

I mean, unless there were perhaps wild longhorn mustangs. Cattle don't even all livestock, such as oxen, horses, and mules.

Again, this is livestock in general, not just bovine cattle. Even so, Exodus 9:3 reinforces that He meant all domesticated animals: "...behold, the hand of Yahweh is upon your livestock in the field, upon the horses, upon the donkeys, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks. There will be a terrible slaughter."

All of the Egyptians' domesticated animals were killed in 9:6 and then again in 9:25.

Or is this one of the inerrantist cases where no two verses share the same context? When Yahweh explained what animals would be slaughtered in verse 3, He didn't mean it by the time verse 6 rolled around?

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...

Are you still reading your children's Bible, too? Maybe you need to switch.

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

When it comes to inerrantist apologetics, the jokes make themselves.

[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.

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

Thanks for repeating my argument. Looks better every time I see it.

Especially the part about scholarly consensus is already proven a long-term flop pertaining to the Bible, and still is.

Also, the part about agreeing with the Egyptians, that the Hebrews were nothing but no-name slaves in Egypt. They of course cared less about such heathen judgments, and honored their forefathers and parents as faith unto their true God, who humiliated, defeated, and killed many of them.

[RBD]

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?

Sure, but this instruction is only for unobjective readers, that don't pay attention to what others write in disagreement, because their focus is limited to their own predetermined conclusion.

Any conclusion based upon a careless misrepresentation of another argument, is a meaningless false conclusion of that argument.

You failed to address this:
"Yes, Allah has corrected your misunderstanding about him having a son.

Answered in 336 from post 328

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

Since this would make every scientific and historical theory absurd, then it's not a reasonable argument to make about something not disproven.

A theorem is a working hypothesis based upon known evidence, that can be accepted and practiced, unless or until there is evidence disproving it.

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."

Also answered in 336.

I'll also answer it in another way, since it brings the debate back to the original intent.

Your description is accurate enough, including things of the Spirit. However, it doesn't apply to a physical Book, that can be reviewed, critiqued, and analyzed for conceivable error, or not. In such a case, it's falsifiable by it's own written record.

Remember, it's not about proving the Bible is true by inerrancy, but only about proving it can be true by no other known evidence to the contrary.

Bible inerrancy still requires faith on earth, since anyone can disbelieve the truth and believe a lie, no matter the evidence. (However, according to the Bible, these days of such taking such liberties with the truth and a lie, will end when the LORD comes again to earth with power to judge and rule all nations on the earth.

Rev 1:7Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.


At that time, if the Bible is true, everyone on earth will made a believer by sight, whether they like it or not. And man will not like it at all. However, many will love it:

2Ti 4:8Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

[otseng]

Most of what is in the provided links corresponds with the ultimate conclusion that Israelites were not in Egypt during this expressed time.

The point being, if archeology has not found anything by now, and also states this event likely did not happen, then it's likely because archeology has made a logical conclusion that such an expressed massive event, from antiquity, would have produced mounds of findable evidence. And instead, has basically produced basically nada. And all I see from the believing side, is desperate grasps at straws: to spin things, or to make weak attempts to force something to fit, or to ultimately come up with excuses as to why we have not found anything (yet).

The conclusion is it doesn't matter what evidence is produced to support the Bible, it is categorically rejected by skeptics and the claim is made that "basically produced basically nada" even if I spent 30 pages producing evidence for it.

I'd also like to know why all of archeology has been so inept, to this point, and has rejected what you have discovered?

Nobody is claiming "all of archeology is inept". And it is not me that have made discoveries, rather I've cited all my sources.

Or, if it is something you feel others have missed, I'd also love for you to contact (the-powers-that-be) and provide to them what you believe you have located to turn the entire world of both (archeology and academia) on its proverbial head. You would easily be in line for major accolades, kudos, and prize(s) abound

Much of what I argued for is not novel.

As far as I'm concerned, you lost that battle at post 3830.

I'll let readers assess who lost. Here's post 3830. And here's my summary argument on morality and slavery.

[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?

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?

It would sway a skeptic, not an antagonist. A skeptic is objective, and withholds judgment for more confirming evidence. An antagonist is unobjective, and refuses to believe something no matter the evidence at hand. Therefore, a skeptic would be persuaded by more evidence found in Egypt, but anyone now declaring Exodus false, based solely upon no other evidence is found, is an antagonist, not a skeptic.

The Bible is evidence for Exodus from Egypt, as well as the Assyrian Empire. There were those who ceased being skeptics of the Bible after more evidence was found of Assyria. But the antagonists remained antagonists, who just moved on to antagonize other parts of the Bible. Such as Exodus from Egypt...

[RBD]

[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.

Only if you ignore also providing correction to wrong assumptions about my arguments, as above.

Which means you acknowledge that, outside the claims of the Bible itself, there is no evidence.

Which means it's not an excuse, since more evidence is not necessary.

The ancient evidence of the Bible itself for Exodus, Assyria, the great flood, the Red Sea crossing on dry ground, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc... is sufficient to believe, so long as there is no evidence disproving it.

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.

Every single verse of the Bible is an all important integral of the Bible, else it would not be wholly complete and unerring (Such as human evolutionary theory is gap-toothed with missing links.)

The Bible is as a jigsaw puzzle perfectly fit together in every piece, showing the picture in every detail and as a whole. That's why objective disciplined study is necessary to know the parts and see the whole big picture...

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

A fault finder without plain evidence to the contrary, is as someone picking at the edges of certain pieces, until they think they've made one unfit for use, and so condemn the picture as a whole...

The reason I focused on the Exodus, is because...

Is because no one can focus on Assyria and remain a skeptic, and so someone must keep their focus only on Exodus of Egypt to remain an antagonist...

it is an investigable claim,

All recorded claims on earth are evidence that can be investigated. No other evidence only proves the claims are possible, not proven confirmed.

Proving the Bible by proper study, is not about proving it's true. It's proof-reading for errors, that proves it certainly can be true, when no error is found.

which would leave tons of evidence behind.

"Life is full of would've, could've, should've..." Some would say get over it, and deal with what is present, rather than what is not.

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?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

There is an objective skeptic, not an antagonist, who has already agreed that the other 'event' (If that's what someone wants to call the whole Assyrian Empire), debunks any rationale for conclusions about the Bible record, based upon no other evidence...

So, let them search away in Egypt as well, if they have the funds. It still remains that other evidence than the Bible record itself, is unnecessary to prove it's true. The Bible evidence for Assyria was just as true, before any other evidence was found.

The only other evidence that matters to the truth, is evidence that the record can't be true.

You now go on to gaslight skeptics, by telling skeptics that we are irrational if we conclude that "an Exodus" likely did not happen.

Not skeptics, only antagonists. Skeptics rationally withhold judgment for more evidence. Antagonists irrationally judge something false without evidence to the contrary.

Skeptics seek objective confirmation. Antagonists only seek fault.

Many Bible skeptics ceased their skepticism after more evidence of Assyria was found. They objectively concluded that the Bible could also be right elsewhere, that no other evidence was found. Antagonists simply now keep their unfounded accusations confined to Exodus of Egypt.

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.

Bible unbelievers are not Bible believers. Only Bible believers are Bible believers.

Believing only parts of a book, as someone likes, is not a believer in the book...

Hence, to gaslight the skeptic (me), and tell me 'it can't be possible', is wrong.

Skeptics do not make conclusions based upon no evidence, nor do they call it 'gaslighting' to say it's irrational to make conclusions without evidence. Only personal antagonists conclude something is false without the evidence to prove it. And so, they take it personal when told it's irrational to do so, as though the self-evident is 'gaslighting'.

There are plenty of antagonists that say something is false, and don't care if it's rational or not. That's why the purpose here is only to expose the antagonists without evidence, who also want to claim that's rational...

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

Nope. Still neither. A skeptic will investigate further into the response to accept it, not an antagonist.

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?

Since likeliness based upon personal conclusions without evidence, is meaningless, there is no now what?. Unless it's to conclude further argument is just as meaningless.

Whether it's scholarly consensus, or rallying the personal opinions of unbelievers, it's senseless to conclude anything from no other evidence, especially after such antagonism is already proven wrong elsewhere, and thus irrational.

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.

Not all of the Bible can be proven, which is why it doesn't need to be proven to be believed. Only evidence proving the contrary can affect objective belief or skepticism.

Without proven opposing evidence, the Bible can be true, and the Author can be believed to be who He says He is, the LORD God Almighty.

Whether anyone believes it or not is irrelevant to the rational possibility, that it is true. And if any antagonist demands the Author do more to prove Himself, then they'll have to wait until after the grave:

Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven...A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it.

Jhn 20:27 Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

And they that do see the Bible is without evidence of error within or without the Book, are rational to believe it, and even more so the promised blessing from it.