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]

Answered in 360 from 351.

See post 362.

See 380 response.

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.

Both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh are taken as recorded evidence of a great flood. The Code of Hammurabi is taken as recorded evidence of early law in Babylon. The stele of Simonides is take as recorded evidence for the Battle of Thermopylae.

It does not prove the evidence is true, but does prove there is recorded evidence for something. People can say the Bible evidence is not true, as well as that of Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, and Simonides, but no one can say there is no evidence for the exodus from Egypt, a great flood, law in early Babylon, and the fight at Thermopylae.

I'll no longer argue about what constitutes recorded evidence for something.

Normally, ancient inscriptions and records are treated as preserved evidence.

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.

Of course. No one has to make conclusions on the basis of one evidence alone, but can demand corroborating evidence. Likewise, someone can make a conclusion on one evidence alone, so long as there is no contradictory evidence.

You can choose not to believe Exodus without external confirmation, and I can choose to believe Exodus without external contradiction. That's why being 'generally safe' and 'may not' is not a proven conclusion, but only a choice.

Once again, it's not about proving the Bible is true, but only showing it is not proven untrue. Lack of external evidence, does not mean there is no evidence, nor does it prove the evidence at hand is false.

I'll also no longer argue this belabored point.

[POI]

If we can argue about the Hyksos, please answer the question of who they were since you rejected my definitions.

Anyone can argue pretty much anything. Please recall prior, where I mentioned the "flat earth society".

We are not sure who the "Hyksos' were exactly. You are trying to shoehorn them in as the expressed 'Israelites' from the Bible story. What evidence(s) suggest(s) these are the same folks, in which modern scholarship does not generally consider?

Why would we expect the Egyptians to record the full number of the Hyksos?
What percentage of ancient writings state the exact number of any population?

As stated prior, logic and common-sense math tells us how many said 'Israelites' were enslaved and then were allowed to leave. I'm really curious to know how the "Hyksos" fit in? Please remember, this topic has been setting here for a year and a half, and you are the first one to mention them?.?.?.?.? If this argument is so compelling, then why are no believers already aware?

All I'm claiming so far with the Hyksos is they were from the Canaan area and were Semitic. This checks off one requirement for them being the Israelites.

Again, we do not know who they were? You are pushing forward some possible wishful thinking? (The quote below is not 'appealing to authority', but instead pointing out that modern scholarship generally does not come up with the same notion as you, and I would like to know what you know, that they do not?):

"While the idea that the Hyksos were the Israelites from the Exodus has been a topic of discussion, modern scholars generally do not identify the Hyksos as the Israelites, though some suggest the Exodus narrative might draw inspiration from the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt"

1. Who were the Hyksos?

Even IF your provided links are accepted:

"Semitic" does not necessarily mean "Israelites." "Semitic" refers to a group of languages and the people who traditionally speak them, including Hebrew, Arabic, and others, and the term has been used in a broader, sometimes problematic, ethnic or racial sense.

You asked for the strongest evidence for the Exodus, so I'm presenting one of the strongest. I think you're implicitly acknowledging it's one of the strongest because you're not willing to engage in this, but simply just reiterating the Hyksos could not be the Israelites without stating why.

Your 'strongest evidence' is to throw the term 'Hyksos' at me and then expect me to do your work for you. Why are the "Hyksos" the expressed 'Israelites' from the Bible story when (modern scholarship) disagrees? What evidence do you have, that modern scholarship does not? So far, you provided some links which do not necessarily associate "the Hyksos" as actually being Israelites.

I can as well just post a bunch of YouTube videos without explaining what is my argument.

The point was to demonstrate that you are bringing up an ancient group of people, 'the Hyksos', and asking me to do your work for you. Cut to the chase and get to the point. This is a debate arena. Why are "the Hyksos" the expressed Israelites from the Bible? Since you did all the research, you should now have no problem consolidating your point(s), just like the guy in the 6-minute Youtube video expressed, as to why they are likely not.

I suspect you simply just did a search for why the Hyksos cannot be the Israelites and then just posted the link without watching it. Prove me wrong by presenting their arguments.

I selected the first video which aligns with the main points of scholarly contention. I'm sure you have already heard of them. But, as stated above, I told you why I posted this video.

[POI]

See 380 response.

See posts 384 and 385.

Both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh are taken as recorded evidence of a great flood. The Code of Hammurabi is taken as recorded evidence of early law in Babylon. The stele of Simonides is take as recorded evidence for the Battle of Thermopylae.

Then your use of the word 'evidence' differs from mine.

evidence - "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

proposition - "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion"

For example, the "standard version" of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest surviving literary work, was written in Akkadian on cuneiform tablets found in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, which is in modern-day Iraq. And outside of this claim/assertion/statement, do we actually have evidence to support it? This is a rhetorical question. But is to drive home the point that your standard for 'evidence' is quite low. Which makes me wonder why you do not accept these other assertion(s) as fact, which would make one very confused, as they cannot all be true.

For example, the Code of Hammurabi, one of the oldest known legal codes, is said to have been given to Hammurabi by Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and the god of justice. Which is argued to have been written before the Torah, and is also argued to be more complete, as well as also being argued that the author(s) of the Torah 'borrowed' bits and pieces from these earlier 'god given' writings.

It does not prove the evidence is true, but does prove there is recorded evidence for something. People can say the Bible evidence is not true, as well as that of Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, and Simonides, but no one can say there is no evidence for the exodus from Egypt, a great flood, law in early Babylon, and the fight at Thermopylae.

"The Exodus" is not evidence. "The Exodus" is the assertion or statement. My question is whether or not actual evidence backs up the claim/assertion? It would appear there isn't. Which means we have a giant assertion/claim, which would leave tons of actual evidence, but somehow, left absolutely none? And your follow-up response is that we have just not found it yet

I'll no longer argue about what constitutes recorded evidence for something.

Claims and assertions are not evidence. You admit we have no actual evidence. But someday, we will apparently find some -- for this rather large claim.

Once again, it's not about proving the Bible is true, but only showing it is not proven untrue. Lack of external evidence, does not mean there is no evidence, nor does it prove the evidence at hand is false.

Your argument is that we will find evidence someday. If we never find actual evidence, just keep waiting. Talk about faith.

[POI]

I simply do not agree that finding no evidence of the exodus after 4,000 years over limited shallow sections of a large expanse of desert means the Bible is a lie.

Then I guess we should not accuse the Book of Mormon of telling some fibs and lies too. Right?

Archeologists have looked where the Bible claims such events would have taken place.

Rinse/repeat:

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.

[otseng]

If we can argue about the Hyksos, please answer the question of who they were since you rejected my definitions.

Anyone can argue pretty much anything. Please recall prior, where I mentioned the "flat earth society".

You're not arguing about anything except just making claims and false comparisons. I'm asking for a definition of the Hyksos, which the only response from you has been just claiming they were not the Israelites and comparing it to a flat earth.

I'm really curious to know how the "Hyksos" fit in? Please remember, this topic has been setting here for a year and a half, and you are the first one to mention them?.?.?.?.?

Has anyone produced any evidence at all prior to me posting in this thread?

If this argument is so compelling, then why are no believers already aware?

Believers and unbelievers are unaware of many things.

The quote below is not 'appealing to authority', but instead pointing out that modern scholarship generally does not come up with the same notion as you, and I would like to know what you know, that they do not?

Yes, it's an appeal to authority fallacy, even if you claim it is not. What is more important is the evidence, not what scholars believe. So, please present the evidence the scholars use to justify their claims.

Ironically, you're guilty of the same charge you've been leveling against other Christians in this thread. Other Christians claim the exodus story is true because the Bible says it is true. You claim the exodus story is not true because scholars say it is not true. Both are using the appeal to authority.

1. Who were the Hyksos?

Even IF your provided links are accepted:

"Semitic" does not necessarily mean "Israelites."

Of course, like I've said, it's a necessary requirement, but it's not sufficient. This is only the first step in showing the Hyksos and the Israelites are compatible. I'm trying to get to step 2 now, which is addressing - How were they able to reside in Egypt? So, please answer this question.

I suspect you simply just did a search for why the Hyksos cannot be the Israelites and then just posted the link without watching it. Prove me wrong by presenting their arguments.

I selected the first video which aligns with the main points of scholarly contention. I'm sure you have already heard of them. But, as stated above, I told you why I posted this video.

All I'm asking for is for you to present the arguments and evidence that are in the video. Until you do that, I'm not even sure you've watched the video.

[POI]

You're not arguing about anything except just making claims and false comparisons. I'm asking for a definition of the Hyksos, which the only response from you has been just claiming they were not the Israelites and comparing it to a flat earth.

My claim is that I see no evidence to support the Bible's claim of an "Exodus". And so far, I have seen no correspondence to suggest there is evidence to support this very large claim.

Further, my given comparison is not a false one. The Bible also makes a claim that the earth is a flat disk. Until fairly recently, both believers and unbelievers to the Bible's claim, believed the earth was a flat disk. However, today, most Christians and skeptics alike are now aware that the evidence leads to the contrary. Same goes for 'the Exodus.' Evidence, or lack there-of, now leads to the contrary -- that an 'Exodus' likely did not happen. Hence, the given excuses, or absence of otherwise vigorous response(s) from believers.

Has anyone produced any evidence at all prior to me posting in this thread?

Aquinas For God tried. He posted a documentary. I responded. He aborted right after that. I think, he too, understands that there is no evidence for this very large claim, which is why we see excuses and the like...

Believers and unbelievers are unaware of many things.

Believers and unbelievers in academia are aware of the "Hyksos."

Yes, it's an appeal to authority fallacy, even if you claim it is not.

Then you missed my point. I'm asking you to give me your rationale as to why the "Hyksos" are the expressed Israelites from the Bible's claim -- in spite of the position of academia?

What is more important is the evidence

Yes! So far, you have thrown the term 'Hyksos' over the fence and are asking me to do your work for you. Please cut to the chase and present your case. This is a debate arena. Being you have done your due diligence; you should have no problem presenting a neat and tidy justification. Your interlocutor can then object, and cite reason(s), wherever they disagree with you.

please present the evidence the scholars use to justify their claims.

I have done so for others. But they already admit they have found no evidence, so the responses differ. For you, you have thrown the 'Hyksos' over the fence and want me to do your work for you. Give me your entire (condensed) case, and I will see if it makes sense? So far, question 1) of 6) fails.

Ironically, you're guilty of the same charge you've been leveling against other Christians in this thread. Other Christians claim the exodus story is true because the Bible says it is true. You claim the exodus story is not true because scholars say it is not true. Both are using the appeal to authority.

False. With the other interlocutors, I have expressed reasons why "the Exodus" should no longer be taken seriously. And so far, they respond with nada. So far, you have chucked the 'Hyksos' over the fence, and you want me to tell you why they are not to be considered. You are the one who brought up the 'Hyksos'. Present your case.

Of course, like I've said, it's a necessary requirement, but it's not sufficient. This is only the first step in showing the Hyksos and the Israelites are compatible. I'm trying to get to step 2 now, which is addressing - How were they able to reside in Egypt? So, please answer this question.

Here is a suggestion... Answer all 6 questions. (i.e.)

1) Maybe the Hyksos were Israelites, maybe not. Hence, question 1) is a throw away because it is speculative. Next question.....

All I'm asking for is for you to present the arguments and evidence that are in the video. Until you do that, I'm not even sure you've watched the video.

As I stated prior, since you stated you did much research about the Hyksos, I'm already confident you know all the common counter arguments. The video presents the ones I'm sure you have already heard.

[marke]

You claim you have not found any evidence of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. I believe you. I suspect any evidence that one existed may be quickly diminishing. Nevertheless, there are those who claim to have found some evidence.

AI Overview
While the biblical account of the Exodus is rich with detail, archaeological evidence directly supporting the story of the Israelites' enslavement in Egypt and their subsequent exodus is limited and often debated.
Here's a summary of the key points:[/b]

Marke: I simply do not agree that finding no evidence of the exodus after 4,000 years over limited shallow sections of a large expanse of desert means the Bible is a lie.

2) Also, the ancient Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, and yet, they never mention a thing about such centuries of slave ownership? "Pushback" is applied by the believer, stating that the ancients would attempt to hide any evidence, due to later embarrassment. However, we have found evidence(s) of them attempting to cover up many things for similar reason(s). See the video in post 12 for details.

Marke: We cannot rely on limited extant ancient records or modern excavations to tell us the whole story of ancient Jews in Egypt. The records we have are far from complete, yet scholars admit there is sufficient evidence to conclude Jews quite possibly lived in ancient Egypt exactly as recorded in the Bible.

Ancient Egypt
Further information: Sources and parallels of the Exodus
The Hebrew Bible describes a long period of time during which the Israelites (the ancient Semitic-speaking people from whom Jews originate[10]) settled in ancient Egypt, were enslaved, and were ultimately liberated by Moses, who led them out of Egypt to Canaan. This founding myth of the Israelites—known as the Exodus—is considered to be inaccurate or ahistorical by a majority of scholars. At the same time, most scholars also hold that the Exodus probably has some sort of historical basis,[11][12] and that a small group of Egyptian origins may have merged with the early Israelites,[11][13][14][15] who were predominantly indigenous to Canaan and begin appearing in the historical record by around 1200 BCE.[16][17]

[POI]

We cannot rely on limited extant ancient records or modern excavations to tell us the whole story of ancient Jews in Egypt.

I've already responded here. You ignored what I wrote. (Rinse/repeat) --> Then I guess we should not accuse the Book of Mormon of telling some fibs and lies too. Right?

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.

The records we have are far from complete, yet scholars admit there is sufficient evidence to conclude Jews quite possibly lived in ancient Egypt exactly as recorded in the Bible.

What is this 'sufficient evidence'?

Ancient Egypt
Further information: Sources and parallels of the Exodus
The Hebrew Bible describes a long period of time during which the Israelites (the ancient Semitic-speaking people from whom Jews originate[10]) settled in ancient Egypt, were enslaved, and were ultimately liberated by Moses, who led them out of Egypt to Canaan. This founding myth of the Israelites—known as the Exodus—is considered to be inaccurate or ahistorical by a majority of scholars.

The Hebrew Bible is the claim. I'm asking for evidence outside the claim. Just like the Book of Mormon is the claim, and claims a group of folks inhabited an area - for which there is no evidence to suggest they actually did. What is this evidence?

At the same time, most scholars also hold that the Exodus probably has some sort of historical basis,[11][12] and that a small group of Egyptian origins may have merged with the early Israelites,[11][13][14][15] who were predominantly indigenous to Canaan and begin appearing in the historical record by around 1200 BCE.[16][17][/b]

Okay? Can you please stop clipping/removing the parts you do not like from your AI Google search? See the part(s) in bold.

Scholarly consensus suggests the Exodus narrative, while possibly rooted in some historical events, is not a literal account and that the early Israelites, predominantly indigenous to Canaan, likely merged with a smaller group of Egyptian origins, appearing in historical records around 1200 BCE.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

The Exodus as a Founding Myth: The Exodus story, as depicted in the Torah, is considered by scholars to be a foundational myth of the Israelites, not a historical event.

Historical Core: While the Exodus narrative might not be a factual account, many scholars believe there's a historical core or basis to the story, suggesting some events or traditions inspired the narrative.

Indigenous Canaanite Origins: Modern archaeologists and scholars generally agree that the Israelites originated in Canaan and were not a large group that originated from Egypt.

Possible Egyptian Influence: Some scholars suggest that a smaller group of people with Egyptian origins may have merged with the early Israelites, contributing to the development of the Israelite identity.

Late Bronze Age Collapse: The Israelites appear to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE (around the time of the Late Bronze Age collapse) from the indigenous Canaanite culture.

Historical Record: The Israelites begin appearing in the historical record by around 1200 BCE.

[marke]

We cannot rely on limited extant ancient records or modern excavations to tell us the whole story of ancient Jews in Egypt.

I've already responded here. You ignored what I wrote. (Rinse/repeat) --> Then I guess we should not accuse the Book of Mormon of telling some fibs and lies too. Right?

Marke: I find your attempt at reasoning self-defeating because the logical conclusion that must be drawn from your argument is that no records of any kind can be trusted or else we must trust Mormon records as well.

[marke]

We cannot rely on limited extant ancient records or modern excavations to tell us the whole story of ancient Jews in Egypt.

The records we have are far from complete, yet scholars admit there is sufficient evidence to conclude Jews quite possibly lived in ancient Egypt exactly as recorded in the Bible.

What is this 'sufficient evidence'?

Ancient Egypt
Further information: Sources and parallels of the Exodus
The Hebrew Bible describes a long period of time during which the Israelites (the ancient Semitic-speaking people from whom Jews originate[10]) settled in ancient Egypt, were enslaved, and were ultimately liberated by Moses, who led them out of Egypt to Canaan. This founding myth of the Israelites—known as the Exodus—is considered to be inaccurate or ahistorical by a majority of scholars.

The Hebrew Bible is the claim. I'm asking for evidence outside the claim. Just like the Book of Mormon is the claim, and claims a group of folks inhabited an area - for which there is no evidence to suggest they actually did. What is this evidence?

Marke: What sort of 'proof' do you need before believing historical records of Jews and Egyptians? An oracle from Joseph Smith?

At the same time, most scholars also hold that the Exodus probably has some sort of historical basis,[11][12] and that a small group of Egyptian origins may have merged with the early Israelites,[11][13][14][15] who were predominantly indigenous to Canaan and begin appearing in the historical record by around 1200 BCE.[16][17][/b]

Okay? Can you please stop clipping/removing the parts you do not like from your AI Google search? See the part(s) in bold.

Marke: I have to edit long sources. I am sorry if you do not approve. I do tend to post only those portions of an edit which have direct bearing on the point I am making.