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]

Without provable conclusions, the 'educated' faith of scholars is no more valid than that of others, that educate themselves in the same thing.

The principle remains the same, that recorded evidence can be believed or not, unless internal or external evidence proves otherwise. In any case, the inscribed record is evidence, whether of historical fact, legend, or mythology...

Some claims in the Book of Mormon lack archaeological, linguistic, or historical evidence, including the existence of "reformed Egyptian" language, the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, and the specific geography and timeline of the Book of Mormon's events.

For example, "Reformed Egyptian" Language: The Book of Mormon states that the golden plates were written in "reformed Egyptian," but there's no evidence of such a language ever existing, and Egyptologists have not found any connection between it and known ancient Egyptian dialects.

Or how about the Nephite and Lamanite Civilizations: The Book of Mormon describes advanced civilizations in the Americas, including the Nephites and Lamanites, but there's a lack of archaeological evidence to support these claims, including the cities, societies, or artifacts they are said to have

And then there's Geography and Timeline: The Book of Mormon places its events in the Americas and describes a specific geography, including a "narrow neck of land," but there's no archaeological or historical evidence to corroborate this geography or timeline.

Or what about Linguistic Connections? The Book of Mormon suggests that some ancestors of Native Americans came from the Jerusalem area, but Native American linguistic specialists haven't found any Native American language that appears to be related to languages of the ancient Near East.

Joseph Smith's Translation: Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from the golden plates using a stone, but there is no evidence that he had any prior scholarly research or that he read much before the Book of Mormon appeared.

Lack of Archaeological Evidence: Despite the Book of Mormon's claims of a large, advanced civilization, there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of the cities, societies, or artifacts described in the text.

Anachronisms: The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms, such as the use of steel and other metals, which were not known in the Americas at the time it claims to take place.

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

Based upon your logic, we cannot rule any of these factors out

[POI]

For Debate:

1. Outside the miraculous Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

To put the question in perspective, you are asking about a Bible that can show it records prophetic miracles and, therefore, it has no human explanation to account for its source. No human can make hundreds of prophecies and get each one right. For an example, Daniel 9 foretells the time of Christ's death to the very week. Again, there is no human explanation to explain this accuracy. The Bible is self-authenticating as to its origin. So don't let liberals cause you to doubt.

Nothing you stated above addresses the question. Again, aside from the Bible's say so, do we have any evidence to demonstrate that millions and millions of Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for centuries?

[otseng]

Nothing you stated above addresses the question. Again, aside from the Bible's say so, do we have any evidence to demonstrate that millions and millions of Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for centuries?

Keeping on asking the posters who are not presenting extra-Biblical evidence is pointless, especially when I've already presented multiple pages of extra-Biblical evidence for it:

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.

So, whether we don't have evidence or we do have evidence, it doesn't matter to the skeptics. Either way the skeptics keep claiming there is no evidence to support Biblical claims.

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.

[POI]

Nothing you stated above addresses the question. Again, aside from the Bible's say so, do we have any evidence to demonstrate that millions and millions of Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for centuries?

Keeping on asking the posters who are not presenting extra-Biblical evidence is pointless

“Au contraire, mon frère”. I disagree. The prerequisite to creating this thread was to first find out if this stated event was to be taken as an actual literal event. Seems this is the case. This topic was then created to continue to demonstrate that the claims to the veracity of the Bible are basically kaput. Some will redirect, some will give excuses as to why we do not have any evidence, some will say we do have evidence - (when we likely don't), some will demonstrate an extremely low standard for belief in this claim (regardless) - as compared to alternative claims from other holy books in which they reject. The list goes on and on... This topic is to demonstrate that the veracity of the Bible is severely compromised. The exchanges from believers continue to solidify this conclusion. And I welcome further demonstration.

especially when I've already presented multiple pages of extra-Biblical evidence for it:

Yea, I looked over your link. Can you please point to, what you feel, is the biggest piece of evidence to demonstrate that millions and millions of Israelites were actually enslaved in Egypt during this said era, for centuries? And please remember, archeology, (from believers and skeptics alike), have explored and exhausted this claim and reached the conclusion that there is really no basis for belief in the claims from the Bible here.

So, whether we don't have evidence or we do have evidence, it doesn't matter to the skeptics. Either way the skeptics keep claiming there is no evidence to support Biblical claims.

I've already responded here. My standards are fairly low. Produce enough to demonstrate the basics of the physical claim, that millions of Israelites were enslaved for centuries, and I would let this topic go. There is plenty else to address about the Bible. I reckon some claims are fairly accurate, some are not, some are strange, some are down-right incorrect, some are made up, some are other other other.... The point being, this claim is a very LARGE claim, and it is likely false, (per archeology entire). This is why I bring it up. For THIS claim to be false, is a BIG problem for Christians.

[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?

Rephrase.

OK. "Show us examples of ancient inscriptions being treated uncritically by people qualified to have an opinion."

All inscriptions are evidence of something inscribed about. They don't need 'other' evidence to be evidence of something inscribed.

Rephrase.

The inscribed Epic of Gilgamesh is physical evidence claiming a great flood.

The extant tablets are physical evidence that somebody wrote down a story. It's possible that someone believed the story, but we have better reasons for thinking that it was intended as an allegory or morality play in the form of a legend than as straight history.

The inscribed Code of Hammurabi is physical evidence claiming law in early Babylon.

Again, we have multiple copies of Hammurabi's code in different formats. The inscribed code doesn't claim anything. It presents a lists of laws. Whether these were intended as practical laws to be enforced, a political document intended to show the fairness of the Babylonian government, or as an open-ended treatise of how law should be practiced is an open question among scholars.

The inscribed Bible is physical evidence claiming many more such things.

Again, what a story about something was intended by the author to "claim" is a much broader question than you're giving credit for.

Saying there is no evidence for Bible claims, is to deny the physical Book exists. If there is no other physical evidence of those claims, does not mean there is no evidence for them: The Bible is recorded evidence.

Sure. People often colloquially claim that very poor evidence for something is no evidence. The Bible could be seen as evidence that a demigod dying and coming back to life was an event that actually happened. It's extremely poor evidence, considering how rare demigods and resurrections are in history when compared to how common fictional stories are, but you're technically correct: it's evidence.

'Historians consider' is called educated guesswork, which is just as valid as 'scholarly consensus'. I.e. it's only what some scholars believe. Faith, not fact.

Without provable conclusions, the 'educated' faith of scholars is no more valid than that of others, that educate themselves in the same thing.

And this is one of the grand equivocations of Christian apologetics: expert opinions are no better than guesses, so apologetic excuses are on a level playing field with scholarship. It's classic anti-intellectualism: "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

The principle remains the same, that recorded evidence can be believed or not, unless internal or external evidence proves otherwise. In any case, the inscribed record is evidence, whether of historical fact, legend, or mythology...

And if we do away with any sort of critical evaluation of that evidence, then all claims are equal, no matter how fatuous. If all evidence is equal, then the Exodus, homeopathy, and Santa Claus are on equal footing with and just a rational as modern chemistry, economics, or historiography. It's just a choice.

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?

See above about lack of other evidence, does not make the evidence at hand, not evidence.

That's right, but you haven't established that it's good evidence. The milk and cookies being gone is evidence that Santa Claus is real. It's not good evidence, but it's evidence.

My educated faith in the Bible is from Bible evidence, that is not contradicted by any other evidence.

Remember that we got here by you discounting the archaeological evidence that the Exodus didn't happen. Your evidence, such as it is, is your uncritical and unfounded belief that the stories in the Bible represent historical events. It's possible, but there other interpretations of the evidence that are much, much more likely to be true.

I could also say over time, that there is a larger scholarly consensus for it's inerrancy, than against it. But of course, that doesn't prove it's true, but only possibly true.

You can say that all you want, but it's false. For any reasonable definitions of "scholar," "consensus," and "inerrant," the consensus of scholars is that the Bible isn't inerrant.

However, no educated person can say it can't possibly be true, without first proving contradictory evidence within the Bible.

And this is the equivocal conflation of possible with probable, another mainstay of Christian apologetics.

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?

The evidence of a refrigerator certainly means a refrigerator is there. And the Bible is not empty. It's a full refrigerator with evidence of food that is meat and drink indeed, that lasts forever.

Exodus is a story of a refrigerator. The Sinai Peninsula is the refrigerator. Archaeologists have found no sign of a massive migration of ancient Israelites in the refrigerator.

I'll rephrase. By the logic you use, if we can believe something, because it is not disproven, then we must believe all things no unproven.

My logic is that if your argument is based on the mere possibility of something not disproven, then the argument works equally well for anything that is merely possible. Your argument that the Exodus happened works equally well for the existence of Santa Claus and His workshop. Since Santa Claus probably isn't real, then the argument probably isn't a very good one.

That's not true. We can believe all things, if they are not unproven, but we don't have to...The liberty to believe something, that is not disproven, is not a mandate.

Rational people use the state and quality of evidence to decide which things to believe. If you're blindly picking what to believe, then you're probably wrong about a lot of other things, too.

I choose to believe the Bible is true, because I can without contradiction. I can believe in fae-folk without contradiction, but I don't choose to.

I suspect you're being disingenuous here. I suspect (or I hope, at least) that you don't believe in the fae-folk because the evidence for their existence is poor, instead of just a conscious choice. The reason you claim a choice, though, is because you're self-aware enough to recognize that belief in gods faces the same quality of evidence.

I do not see nor touch a tiger there.

And so you recognize that there are cases where absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. Israelites in the Sinai are the tigers.

And so far as the Bible being it's own evidence. A roar of a tiger is evidence that it roars, so with the words in the Bible. Whether anyone believes what is roared or not, is irrelevant to the evidence in the Bible, that it roars.

The Bible isn't the roar, the Bible is a story about the roar. It's a kid telling you that she heard a tiger roar in her room. When you look in the room and there's no tiger, what do you conclude?

Joe 3:16The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I am a man, I have put away childish things.—1 Cor. 13:11

[POI]

My logic is that if your argument is based on the mere possibility of something not disproven, then the argument works equally well for anything that is merely possible. Your argument that the Exodus happened works equally well for the existence of Santa Claus and His workshop. Since Santa Claus probably isn't real, then the argument probably isn't a very good one.

We have just as much, as RBD would put it, "internal evidence(s)", for the several claims made by the Book of Mormon, verses what we 'have' for the claims from the Bible's account for "an Exodus". I've given these Mormon-based claims in post 391. And yet, somehow, my gut tells me, RBD has flat out rejected those Mormon-based claims, or 'internal evidence(s)', due to not producing any evidence at all to actually substantiate those claims. Hmmm?

[otseng]

This topic is to demonstrate that the veracity of the Bible is severely compromised. The exchanges from believers continue to solidify this conclusion. And I welcome further demonstration.

Really what it shows is skeptics can easily debate against believers who only bring up the Bible to support Biblical claims, so that's where they spend most of their time debating against.

Can you please point to, what you feel, is the biggest piece of evidence to demonstrate that millions and millions of Israelites were actually enslaved in Egypt during this said era, for centuries?

Your OP states, "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?"

So, to answer that question, yes, we have positive evidence to support the claim the Exodus took place. I don't claim it's conclusive evidence, but they are extra-Biblical evidence.

Were "millions and millions" enslaved? Maybe, maybe not. But, the number doesn't really matter in terms of the claim the Israelites were in Egypt.

And please remember, archeology, (from believers and skeptics alike), have explored and exhausted this claim and reached the conclusion that there is really no basis for belief in the claims from the Bible here.

And there are people who have explored it and reached the conclusion there is a basis for the claims. So, it's a meaningless statement to support one position or the other. What really matters is looking at the evidence itself.

My standards are fairly low. Produce enough to demonstrate the basics of the physical claim, that millions of Israelites were enslaved for centuries, and I would let this topic go.

Why add the "millions" here then when your OP never stated that?

[POI]

Really what it shows is skeptics can easily debate against believers who only bring up the Bible to support Biblical claims, so that's where they spend most of their time debating against.

Nah, it's quite a bit more than that sir. It instead reveals a topic, in which presents with a catastrophic failure for the believer. This claim, which requires being literally and factually true, is likely not literally and factually true. But it is quite interesting to see Christians try various work-around arguments or responses, in place of just conceding the realized conclusion --> that Israelites were likely never even enslaved in Egypt, per the Bible's claim.

So, to answer that question, yes, we have positive evidence to support the claim the Exodus took place. I don't claim it's conclusive evidence, but they are extra-Biblical evidence.

You provided a link. It is a link with all sorts of stuff. I asked you to select, what you feel, is the best piece of evidence, to support the claim that millions of Israelites were actually enslaved in Egypt, as the Bible claims in "the Exodus". Do you have one? I sifted through it and did not find anything really worthy of a reference? Maybe you can enlighten me?

Were "millions and millions" enslaved? Maybe, maybe not. But, the number doesn't really matter in terms of the claim the Israelites were in Egypt.

The number does matter. This is a very large claim. The Bible states 100,000's left. This means millions were apparently enslaved. Do we even have evidence that Egyptians enslaved Israelites really at all?

And there are people who have explored it and reached the conclusion there is a basis for the claims. So, it's a meaningless statement to support one position or the other. What really matters is looking at the evidence itself.

Some scholars suggest that the Exodus story may have roots in historical events, such as the experience of forced labor or the movement of people into and out of the region, but that the story has been shaped and transformed over time to serve a religious and cultural purpose.

What evidence suggests that millions of Israelites were enslaved by the ancient Egyptians? The Bible makes this claim. Is there actual evidence to support this claim? Scholars say no, and render the story 'myth.'. Archeology has basically found nada. Enough so to render the conclusion that Israelites were likely never there, per the Bible's claim. I would love to see what evidence might turn both (scholarship and archeology) on it's proverbial head?

Why add the "millions" here then when your OP never stated that?

I have to start somewhere. The Exodus makes various claims. I'm asking for the bare minimum. In fact, I'm asking for evidence to a claim which should be one of the easiest to locate ->- that millions inhabited an area for centuries, like the Bible says. With numbers this large, the evidence should be vast and broad.

[otseng]

Nah, it's quite a bit more than that sir. It instead reveals a topic, in which presents with a catastrophic failure for the believer. This claim, which requires being literally and factually true, is likely not literally and factually true.

As far as I can tell, nobody else in this thread has produced any extra-Biblical evidence for the Exodus account. I posted links to evidence that I had already presented. Yet of all the responses from skeptics, they have only responded to believers who have not presented any extra-Biblical evidence. Only you have responded to my post, but even then you simply hand waved the evidence produced, "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)."

You provided a link. It is a link with all sorts of stuff. I asked you to select, what you feel, is the best piece of evidence, to support the claim that millions of Israelites were actually enslaved in Egypt, as the Bible claims in "the Exodus". Do you have one?

Yes. See below.

The number does matter. This is a very large claim. The Bible states 100,000's left. This means millions were apparently enslaved. Do we even have evidence that Egyptians enslaved Israelites really at all?

I agree size matters, but the exact size does not. The important point is did the Exodus take place, which is what your OP stated. But it could be on order of 100,000s of people involved.

Some scholars suggest that the Exodus story may have roots in historical events, such as the experience of forced labor or the movement of people into and out of the region, but that the story has been shaped and transformed over time to serve a religious and cultural purpose.

The question is what group of people were these? And whose story is the correct one? And how are we to decide who is correct?

Archeology has basically found nada. Enough so to render the conclusion that Israelites were likely never there, per the Bible's claim.

If archaeology hasn't found anything, then it wouldn't have been even possible to write a single post to support it, yet I've spent 40 pages covering it.

With numbers this large, the evidence should be vast and broad.

Here's a significant piece of evidence the Israelites were in Egypt - the Hyksos.

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long?
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved?
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt?

Give me your answers and then I'll give mine. Then we'll compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

[POI]

Nah, it's quite a bit more than that sir. It instead reveals a topic, in which presents with a catastrophic failure for the believer. This claim, which requires being literally and factually true, is likely not literally and factually true.

1) As far as I can tell, nobody else in this thread has produced any extra-Biblical evidence for the Exodus account. 2) I posted links to evidence that I had already presented. Yet of all the responses from skeptics, they have only responded to believers who have not presented any extra-Biblical evidence. 3) Only you have responded to my post, but even then you simply hand waved the evidence produced,

1) You'd be right. This is likely because these other interlocutors already know and realize that there is really no evidence to provide.

2) Yes, and I asked you to start by picking the best 'argument' to address, regarding the claim that millions of Israelites were actually enslaved in ancient Egypt. I looked through the link and could not find anything worth addressing. So, I asked if you could enlighten me.

3) See 2).

Yes. See below.

I looked below but only see a series of 6 questions to answer prior to continuing. Not too promising... If you had something off hand, you probably would have led with it.

I agree size matters,

Thanks. "Scholars generally interpret the Exodus narrative as a founding myth, with the biblical numbers, (including the 600,000 men), being symbolic rather than literal, suggesting a large but not necessarily precise number of Israelites left Egypt." This would mean there were more than this in the storyline. "The Book of Numbers further states that the number of Israelite males aged 20 years and older in the desert during the wandering was 603,550, which works out to a total population of 2.5-3 million including women and children—far more than could be supported by the Sinai Desert.".

but the exact size does not.

Though the 'exact' size cannot be confirmed, scholarship unanimously agrees the numbers of said Israelites would be in the millions.

1) The important point is did the Exodus take place, which is what your OP stated. 2) But it could be on order of 100,000s of people involved.

1) The answer is likely no.

2) And no, scholarship puts the total number of claimed Israelites more-so in the millions.

The question is what group of people were these? And whose story is the correct one? And how are we to decide who is correct?

All interesting questions, and yet, scholarship has reached the conclusion that the said Israelites, from the Bible's claim(s), weren't there. Example: I may not know the answer to some questions, but this does not mean one cannot logically rule some options out. Case/point, someone could ask me how my car keys got from point A to point B, and I can rule out the option that "they flew there on their own", even though I have no idea how they got from A to B.

If archaeology hasn't found anything, then it wouldn't have been even possible to write a single post to support it, yet I've spent 40 pages covering it.

40 pages of what exactly? Again, please come forward with your best piece of evidence to support the claim that millions were enslaved in ancient Egypt for centuries?

Here's a significant piece of evidence the Israelites were in Egypt - the Hyksos.

Why is this significant? Also, why is it considered "evidence" to support the claim that millions of Israelite slaves inhabited ancient Egypt for centuries?

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long?
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved?
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt?

Give me your answers and then I'll give mine. Then we'll compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

How about you just give me yours. I've asked for evidence, for countless pages. So far. I have yet to receive/find any? Further, scholars generally don't equate the Hyksos with the Israelites in the Exodus story due to conflicting timelines, the Hyksos' status as rulers -- not slaves, and also the lack of direct evidence linking them to the biblical narrative.