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?

[otseng]

Which you have not provided any evidence for yet. The Hyksos were not the expressed Israelites from the story of 'the Exodus.'

This is only the first step of my arguments. We have the existence of the Hyksos in Egypt. The question is who were they? If they contained the Israelites, then we have a necessary element for the Exodus. If they are totally different, then my entire argument falls apart.

Common knowledge is that the number of involved Israelites, from an asserted 'Exodus' storyline, ranges from 2 million (plus). Speaking about a former group, where the number is a fraction of this size, is damming. And this is before we address anything else.

No, the exact number is not a defeater for the Exodus account. 600,000 would still be a significant number. Now if I said there were 30,000, then that would not really align with what we consider the Exodus story.

But, for sake of argument, let's accept the 2 million number.

Actually, I answered it twice. Allow me to explain it in another way, for a third time, as I already alluded to prior. Just because we do not know something for sure, does not mean we still cannot effectively rule out option(s). I'm not going to speculate the details about the reality of the Hyksos. However, based upon the storyline of the Bible, they are not applicable. I know you would like to merge them together as one in the same, but this is not likely the reality. I'll briefly explain more below.

You responded multiple times, but you have not yet answered it. Seeing that you'll never answer it, I'll answer it. Then you can just respond if you agree with my answer or not.

1. Who were the Hyksos?

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt c. 1782 BCE at the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt, thus initiating the era known in Egyptian history as the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c. 1570 BCE).

https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

Hyksos, dynasty of Palestinian origin that ruled northern Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630–c. 1530 bce.
Modern scholarship has identified most of the Hyksos kings’ names as Semitic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hyksos ... an-dynasty

the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin.
The Hyksos period marks the first in which foreign rulers ruled Egypt.
The Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs alongside Egyptian ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

Rather than to type a text wall, in which most may not read anyways, due to boredom/other, below is instead a 6-minute video outlining just some of the logical reasons interlocutors should no longer argue that "the Hyksos" correspond to "the Exodus" storyline in any way:

Instead of just posting a video, can you cite the relevant argument that he's making that disputes the Hyksos as a candidate for the Israelites? Are you referring to the timeframe?

[marke]

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?

Marke: Historical records and archaeological discoveries either support the Biblical record of the exodus or not but no evidence exists to refute the Biblical record.

[POI]

This is only the first step of my arguments. We have the existence of the Hyksos in Egypt. The question is who were they? If they contained the Israelites, then we have a necessary element for the Exodus. If they are totally different, then my entire argument falls apart.

Yes, the 'Hyksos' were in Egypt. But number are numbers. The number alone raises great concern for your wanted, needed, and down-right necessary 'Exodus' storyline. And by numbers, I mean the expressed numerical count of these "Israelites.' And this is before we even start to explore the other concerns. In essence, your argument already becomes irrelevant to address. See below...

No, the exact number is not a defeater for the Exodus account. 600,000 would still be a significant number. Now if I said there were 30,000, then that would not really align with what we consider the Exodus story.

I beg to differ. 600K <vs> 2 million (plus) is a significant difference. And again, this is before we even start to look at the other problems. So far, we have not needed to go there.

1. Who were the Hyksos?

It's debatable who they were exactly? However, it is an irrelevant question. But we know who they weren't, as we can rule them out if one actually adheres to the claims made from the 'Exodus' storyline. The Biblical narrative puts down some numbers which counts these folks out -- regardless of who they really were in reality.

Instead of just posting a video, can you cite the relevant argument that he's making that disputes the Hyksos as a candidate for the Israelites?

Instead of just telling me to sift through 40 pages or later asking me to answer a series of questions, get to your point(s). At least the video expresses many point(s) in a condensed 6-minute video.

[POI]

Historical records and archaeological discoveries either support the Biblical record of the exodus or not but no evidence exists to refute the Biblical record.

Then Mormonism is just as "validated" as the claims from the Exodus. Case/point:

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. So why do you reject these claims, in spite of no positive evidence to support them either?

[marke]

Historical records and archaeological discoveries either support the Biblical record of the exodus or not but no evidence exists to refute the Biblical record.

Then Mormonism is just as "validated" as the claims from the Exodus. Case/point:

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. So why do you reject these claims, in spite of no positive evidence to support them either?

Marke: There is no evidence for the alleged tribes mentioned in Mormonism but there is ample evidence of the existence of the Jewish nation for 4,000 years.

[POI]

There is no evidence for the alleged tribes mentioned in Mormonism but there is ample evidence of the existence of the Jewish nation for 4,000 years.

I'm not arguing that the "Jewish nation" has not existed for 4,000 years. I'm instead asking for evidence related to the claims from the Bible. (i.e.):

1) 2 million (plus) Jewish folks were enslaved in Egypt at the time the Bible claims
2) These Jewish folks were allowed to leave at the time the Bible claims
3) These Jewish folks wondered the desert for 40 years
4) These Jewish folks ultimately arrived at the actual said location, and also at the time the Bible claims

Without probing any other claims from the Bible, outside the Bible's say so, is there evidence to point to these 4 claims alone? If so, what?

If not, then my prior response stands, in that the Book of Mormon makes many specific claims too -- (which are also ONLY claims from the Book of Mormon itself) -- and currently carry no actual evidence to support these claims.

[marke]

There is no evidence for the alleged tribes mentioned in Mormonism but there is ample evidence of the existence of the Jewish nation for 4,000 years.

I'm not arguing that the "Jewish nation" has not existed for 4,000 years. I'm instead asking for evidence related to the claims from the Bible. (i.e.):

1) 2 million (plus) Jewish folks were enslaved in Egypt at the time the Bible claims
2) These Jewish folks were allowed to leave at the time the Bible claims
3) These Jewish folks wondered the desert for 40 years
4) These Jewish folks ultimately arrived at the actual said location, and also at the time the Bible claims

Without probing any other claims from the Bible, outside the Bible's say so, is there evidence to point to these 4 claims alone? If so, what?

If not, then my prior response stands, in that the Book of Mormon makes many specific claims too -- (which are also ONLY claims from the Book of Mormon itself) -- and currently carry no actual evidence to support these claims.

Marke: Just because modern archaeologists cannot tell how many people lived in Egypt 4,000 years ago does not mean the Bible is in error.

[POI]

There is no evidence for the alleged tribes mentioned in Mormonism but there is ample evidence of the existence of the Jewish nation for 4,000 years.

I'm not arguing that the "Jewish nation" has not existed for 4,000 years. I'm instead asking for evidence related to the claims from the Bible. (i.e.):

1) 2 million (plus) Jewish folks were enslaved in Egypt at the time the Bible claims
2) These Jewish folks were allowed to leave at the time the Bible claims
3) These Jewish folks wondered the desert for 40 years
4) These Jewish folks ultimately arrived at the actual said location, and also at the time the Bible claims

Without probing any other claims from the Bible, outside the Bible's say so, is there evidence to point to these 4 claims alone? If so, what?

If not, then my prior response stands, in that the Book of Mormon makes many specific claims too -- (which are also ONLY claims from the Book of Mormon itself) -- and currently carry no actual evidence to support these claims.

Marke: Just because modern archaeologists cannot tell how many people lived in Egypt 4,000 years ago does not mean the Bible is in error.

I would like for you to notice how ridiculous your argument presents to be...

Just because we have not found any evidence to substantiate the many said claims from the (Book of Mormon), does not mean the (Book of Mormon) is in error.

Now just replace the (Book of Mormon) with (the Bible) and you will see how ludicrous this position presents to be.

Further, you did not answer my question(s). Outside the Bible's say so, what evidence presents for the listed Bible claims (1 - 4)?

[marke]

There is no evidence for the alleged tribes mentioned in Mormonism but there is ample evidence of the existence of the Jewish nation for 4,000 years.

I'm not arguing that the "Jewish nation" has not existed for 4,000 years. I'm instead asking for evidence related to the claims from the Bible. (i.e.):

1) 2 million (plus) Jewish folks were enslaved in Egypt at the time the Bible claims
2) These Jewish folks were allowed to leave at the time the Bible claims
3) These Jewish folks wondered the desert for 40 years
4) These Jewish folks ultimately arrived at the actual said location, and also at the time the Bible claims

Without probing any other claims from the Bible, outside the Bible's say so, is there evidence to point to these 4 claims alone? If so, what?

If not, then my prior response stands, in that the Book of Mormon makes many specific claims too -- (which are also ONLY claims from the Book of Mormon itself) -- and currently carry no actual evidence to support these claims.

Marke: Just because modern archaeologists cannot tell how many people lived in Egypt 4,000 years ago does not mean the Bible is in error.

I would like for you to notice how ridiculous your argument presents to be...

Just because we have not found any evidence to substantiate the many said claims from the (Book of Mormon), does not mean the (Book of Mormon) is in error.

Now just replace the (Book of Mormon) with (the Bible) and you will see how ludicrous this position presents to be.

Further, you did not answer my question(s). Outside the Bible's say so, what evidence presents for the listed Bible claims (1 - 4)?

Marke: The fact that there is no evidence to support myths and the fact that there remains little or no evidence to support historical events of 4,000 years ago does not disprove the Bible.

[POI]

The fact that there is no evidence to support myths and the fact that there remains little or no evidence to support historical events of 4,000 years ago does not disprove the Bible.

Have you watched the video from post 12? The hot/dry desert has preserved tons of evidence to support the claims of the ancient Egyptians -- (from 4,000 years ago). We would also know if the ancient Egyptians tried to erase any evidence for the ancient Israelites, as they left evidence of trying to erase evidence of all sorts of embarrassing things. The claims from the Bible are just too large to leave nothing at all. We also have evidence of myth, as the Bible claims their destination was in the promised land, which we know is false, as this area was STILL occupied by the Egyptians This would be about as silly as stating that during WW2, some Jews escaped their concentration camp and sought refuge in Auschwitz Germany.

Hence, all you are producing here, are very weak excuses as to why there is no evidence to support the claims that 2 million (plus) Israelites were enslaved for centuries.