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?

[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.

Marke: There are clearly differences of opinions among historians.

[POI]

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.

You are essentially using the same rationale as RBD. To make a very long story short, or in a nutshell, you both are introducing Carl Sagan's slogan phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The reason I cluster such physical clams from the Mormons with the physical claims from the "Exodus" is because they both make very large claims. They both make claims which would be discovered using the same methodologies. I've asked you, more than once, if you reject these Mormon claims (or) if you are still holding out, because we have not found anything yet? You have skipped my question. Well, which one is it? Are you:

a) still reserving your conclusion about such said Mormon claims? Or...
b) rejecting these Mormon claims, due to lack of any evidence to support them?

[POI]

What sort of 'proof' do you need before believing historical records of Jews and Egyptians?

Good question. I honestly do not know. But I know my standards are fairly low. Just like I could ask you exactly what evidence I would need to produce to get you to believe the Mormon's claims. You may not know exactly.

Thus far, you admit we basically have no evidence, but that some scholars have made some hunches.

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.

The point of the source states that scholarship/academia deem the said event as myth. You conveniently omitted that part. Are we done here? If so, then you have no rational reason to remain a Christian, unless you wish to go on record and admit that "the Exodus" does not have to be an actual event? Maybe you are instead a 'Minimal facts' Christian?

[POI]

There are clearly differences of opinions among historians.[/b]

Sure, but what evidence even suggests that an "Exodus" took place?

[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.

You are essentially using the same rationale as RBD. To make a very long story short, or in a nutshell, you both are introducing Carl Sagan's slogan phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The reason I cluster such physical clams from the Mormons with the physical claims from the "Exodus" is because they both make very large claims. They both make claims which would be discovered using the same methodologies. I've asked you, more than once, if you reject these Mormon claims (or) if you are still holding out, because we have not found anything yet? You have skipped my question. Well, which one is it? Are you:

a) still reserving your conclusion about such said Mormon claims? Or...
b) rejecting these Mormon claims, due to lack of any evidence to support them?

Marke: I have studied decades old Mormon claims and found them contradictory and unsubstantiated. However, like you said, limited historical records from 4,000 years ago hardly disprove the Bible. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

[marke]

There are clearly differences of opinions among historians.[/b]

Sure, but what evidence even suggests that an "Exodus" took place?

Marke: Apart from Jewish or Christian records we may not have any remaining archaeological or historical records of Jewish occupation in Egypt 4,000 years ago.

[POI]

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.

You are essentially using the same rationale as RBD. To make a very long story short, or in a nutshell, you both are introducing Carl Sagan's slogan phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The reason I cluster such physical clams from the Mormons with the physical claims from the "Exodus" is because they both make very large claims. They both make claims which would be discovered using the same methodologies. I've asked you, more than once, if you reject these Mormon claims (or) if you are still holding out, because we have not found anything yet? You have skipped my question. Well, which one is it? Are you:

a) still reserving your conclusion about such said Mormon claims? Or...
b) rejecting these Mormon claims, due to lack of any evidence to support them?

Marke: I have studied decades old Mormon claims and found them contradictory and unsubstantiated. However, like you said, limited historical records from 4,000 years ago hardly disprove the Bible. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Is your response a) or b)?

[POI]

There are clearly differences of opinions among historians.[/b]

Sure, but what evidence even suggests that an "Exodus" took place?

Marke: Apart from Jewish or Christian records we may not have any remaining archaeological or historical records of Jewish occupation in Egypt 4,000 years ago.

Did you watch the video from post 12? If you did, you would understand why this response does not fly.

- The hot/dry desert preserves evidence.
- Egyptians were meticulous record keepers.
- All areas have been investigated, and believers and unbelievers have reached their logical conclusion -- rather than reserving their decision(s). Meaning, they were likely never there.
- We have tons of evidence, from the exact same era, of the Egyptians, all over the place.
- We have many records of the Egyptians trying to erase evidence from other people, in which they were embarrassed of.
etc etc etc.............

[otseng]

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.

It goes back to what I've stated before. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented to skeptics. It is all automatically rejected out of hand.

Further, my given comparison is not a false one. The Bible also makes a claim that the earth is a flat disk.

Diversionary statement and irrelevant to the discussion. And for readers of this thread, I've covered this in depth.

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...

Out of curiosity of what he said, what post number was that?

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?

That's what I'm doing, but the debate is getting dragged down by your diversionary tactics and failure to engage in answering my questions.

You have not answered who are the Hyksos and now avoiding answering how were they able to reside in Egypt. I posted these questions 5 pages ago and it shouldn't take so long to answer them. Why the avoidance of answering these questions if the Hyksos were not the Israelites? There should be plenty of evidence to support a contrary position if "all the scholars are right".

But, I'll get to the punchline. All the questions about the Hyksos regarding who they were, when they entered Egypt, why they were able to take over lower Egypt, why they were able to take the most fertile land, why the Egyptians tolerated them for so long, why they eventually fought each other, and how they eventually left Egypt all fit in with the Biblical account. Those who reject the Biblical account of the Exodus do not have a coherent narrative to explain all of this. So, given the evidence of the Hyksos, it is reasonable to accept the Exodus account.

But they already admit they have found no evidence, so the responses differ.

If they have no evidence, then on what basis can they justify any claim?

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.

Yes, I already know much of the counter arguments. But what is the point of you posting a video when you haven't even watched it? So, please present the argument he's making and I'll then address it.

[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.

You are essentially using the same rationale as RBD. To make a very long story short, or in a nutshell, you both are introducing Carl Sagan's slogan phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The reason I cluster such physical clams from the Mormons with the physical claims from the "Exodus" is because they both make very large claims. They both make claims which would be discovered using the same methodologies. I've asked you, more than once, if you reject these Mormon claims (or) if you are still holding out, because we have not found anything yet? You have skipped my question. Well, which one is it? Are you:

a) still reserving your conclusion about such said Mormon claims? Or...
b) rejecting these Mormon claims, due to lack of any evidence to support them?

Marke: I have studied decades old Mormon claims and found them contradictory and unsubstantiated. However, like you said, limited historical records from 4,000 years ago hardly disprove the Bible. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Is your response a) or b)?

Marke: The Mormon claims, like Santa Claus, are not factual.