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]

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.............

Marke: No, I did not watch the video and no, I do not believe lack of preserved evidence is proof the Bible is a lie.

[POI]

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.

It goes back to the beginning of this thread. No one presents any evidence at all, and instead makes excuses for why there isn't any. And then you come along, ~18 months later, mention the "Hyksos", and ask me to do your work for you. I accept many claims from the Bible. However, this isn't one of them, because we do not appear to have any evidence to support the claim(s). Which is damning for the believer, if not true. Believers know this...

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

No, it is instead an observation to let you know that there is a sparce amount of 'Hyksos are the Israelites' supporters, just like there is also a sparce amount of 'flat earth' supporters. And both parties are doing so to keep parts of the Bible "relevant". The question then becomes, should we still continue to take either position (flat-earthers <or> Hyksos supporters) seriously? This is somewhat rhetorical, and to express my position on your given position.

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.

That is because this isn't what you are doing. You are mentioning the 'Hyksos' and asking me about them. What about them? You brought them up.

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.

Finally! And to the part in bold, we are not sure if they were even Israelites or not? Hence, the entire string of follow up questions/statements are non-starters. You are attempting to shoehorn in the "Hyksos", when you too admit we do not know their origin. Your first point to address is speculative at best and is therefore basically a throw-away question. And yet, you want to forge forward to "point" #2 and beyond?

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

Outside the Bible's claim, they have no justifiable rationale to believe this claim. Which is damning for them. Hence, the apologetics abound...

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.

It is illogical to state I have not watched the provided video when I specifically explained I looked for the first video which lists common counter arguments. I'm merely curious if you have already encountered them. You state you have... Great. I already figured you have, since I already acknowledged you did your due diligence. But since you too realize you cannot prove the 'Hyksos' were even Israelites, then I guess we do not really even need to address any of them. It's already game-over, before we even get started. Prove or demonstrate the 'Hyksos/ were Israelites, and then we can move on. Otherwise, we are basically done and are instead required to accept the story based upon faith.

[POI]

The Mormon claims, like Santa Claus, are not factual.[/b]

The Book of Mormon claims a particular group of people inhabited a land mass, just like the Bible claims a particular group of people inhabited a land mass. We have no evidence for either. Why reject one, but not the other?

[POI]

No, I did not watch the video

Well, it shows....

and no, I do not believe lack of preserved evidence is proof the Bible is a lie.[/b]

Then why do you reject the Book of Mormon's claims and assume it is a lie?

[Clownboat]

Marke: No, I did not watch the video and no, I do not believe lack of preserved evidence is proof the Bible is a lie.

Rest assured, not all of the Bible is a lie.

Take the Old Testament for example. The Old Testament (Tanakh) is a history of the Jews and some of it even happened. The exodus story itself seems to not be one that can be deemed as credible though and this thread bares that out so far, but that wouldn't make the entire Bible a lie like you suggest (furthermore, why you don't allow for Biblical parables is lost on me)... which is illogical and a leap that even Evil Knievel wouldn't make, but you do you.

[marke]

The Mormon claims, like Santa Claus, are not factual.[/b]

The Book of Mormon claims a particular group of people inhabited a land mass, just like the Bible claims a particular group of people inhabited a land mass. We have no evidence for either. Why reject one, but not the other?

Marke: Mormons have come up with versions of history that are easily researched and debunked because the historical period is fairly recent. We have far fewer surviving ancient historical records to confirm or deny various accounts about ancient civilizations.

[RBD]

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.

Your correction is good. And I apologize for my sarcastic attitude toward your challenge. It's a good one that yields more good instruction in Bible reading. Thanks.

The cattle included all livestock. Nor can it be concluded that the wild beasts of the field were also killed with the livestock, since livestock includes beasts of burden.

And so, the question is simple: where did their new livestock come from? Or, can it only be imagined that the old dead livestock had to live again to be killed again, or the Author forgets within several verses, that all their livestock was now dead and couldn't possibly be killed again?

It's only an assumption that the Egyptians didn't get any new livestock, which is nonsensical, since they would certainly do so if at all possible. The only question is whether there was motive, time, and opportunity to do so. The motive answers for itself: they needed to replenish their herds, because all their livestock was dead.

The accusation of a contradiction therefore only pertains to time and opportunity, which is based upon two assumptions about time and opportunity: There wasn't any time nor opportunity to replenish their herds before the second killing of their livestock. Both of which are proven false by the text:

They had plenty of time between the two killings to replenish their livestock, especially with the urgent motivation to do so. First there was an intervening plague of boils, which took time, and also Moses had to visit Pharaoh's court two more times to confront him with the same demand. That time alone included several days, especially since some plagues took as much as a week to accomplish. We than add the time of warning to the people themselves, and we have plenty of days for the urgent Egyptians to get new livestock.

And of course, they had plenty of opportunity to get living livestock in the land, without importing from other nations. They had the livestock of the Hebrews to draw from. And such intercourse between the Egyptians and Hebrews is proven by the fact, that some of the Egyptians the second time around did save their livestock from death, by the fear of the LORD of the Hebrews.

No one can assume the Egyptians refused to go to the Hebrews for new livestock, nor especially that the Hebrews refused to aid them, since many Egyptians now enjoyed the fear and faith of the Hebrew's God. Indeed, it was a turning point in Egypt, when the Hebrews were once again on the rise, akin to the time of Joseph, since they could easily have sold their cattle to the Egyptians, the same way grain was sold to the starving Egyptians under Joseph's patronage.

Therefore, there was time, motive, and opportunity for the Egyptians to replenish their livestock from the Hebrews, before the second killing began.

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

And so this is both a true and false statement. The Egyptian livestock was killed twice, but not all the second time around. Some Egyptians getting new livestock from the Hebrews, were also wise enough to join themselves to them in their fear and trust in the LORD.

[POI]

Mormons have come up with versions of history that are easily researched and debunked

Same goes for the Bible. Which is why you and RBD wish to hide behind the slogan "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In the cases for both the Book of Mormon, as well as the Exodus, neither have left any evidence to substantiate the claim(s).

....the historical period is fairly recent.

The video in post 12, in which you refuse to watch, explains why this is irrelevant. I have also listed some of the reason(s) why this is irrelevant.

We have far fewer surviving ancient historical records to confirm or deny various accounts about ancient civilizations.[/b]

False. We have tons of evidence for claimed ancient civilizations. See the video in post 12. And again, such a large claim would leave evidence. Hence, you and RBD are hiding behind a slogan for protection.

All you demonstrate here is special pleading.

[POI]

The exodus story itself seems to not be one that can be deemed as credible though and this thread bares that out so far, but that wouldn't make the entire Bible a lie

I would like to go on record here, for anyone who is not aware of my position. I claim some of the Bible tells the truth, some is fabricated, some is parable, some is other. But in this case, I raised this topic because common Christian consensus suggests this is one storyline which is required to be factually true. And it would appear not to be. Hence, game over.

[otseng]

No one presents any evidence at all, and instead makes excuses for why there isn't any. And then you come along, ~18 months later, mention the "Hyksos", and ask me to do your work for you.

I had already spent 30 pages presenting evidence of the Exodus in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. So, you're not doing any work for me, I've already put a lot of work into it. I'm asking you to do just a little bit of work by answering a few questions.

I accept many claims from the Bible.

Really? Like what?

However, this isn't one of them, because we do not appear to have any evidence to support the claim(s). Which is damning for the believer, if not true. Believers know this...

Yes, if the Exodus account is not true, then we might as well take the rest of the Bible as allegorical and not historical. However, as I've demonstrated, we have plenty of evidence to support it. And right now we're just looking at one evidence, the Hyksos.

just like there is also a sparce amount of 'flat earth' supporters.

It is the skeptics that keep bringing up a flat earth. No Christians here is claiming the Bible is stating the earth is flat. So it's a straw man fallacy and a diversionary claim.

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.

That is because this isn't what you are doing. You are mentioning the 'Hyksos' and asking me about them. What about them? You brought them up.

I asked you pages ago the six questions. I'm asking you to provide answers to these to provide an alternate explanation to the Hyksos that places them to not be the Israelites.

We can then compare my explanation with yours and see which one is more reasonable.

I'll get to the punchline. All the questions about the Hyksos regarding who they were, when they entered Egypt,

And to the part in bold, we are not sure if they were even Israelites or not? Hence, the entire string of follow up questions/statements are non-starters.

That's why I asked you from the very beginning who were the Hyksos. I already provided my answer several pages ago. It's a non-starter for you since you have yet to provide any definition of who were the Hyksos except for reiterating whoever they were they were not the Israelites.

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

Outside the Bible's claim, they have no justifiable rationale to believe this claim.

If the scholars make the claim the Hyksos were not the Israelites, then they must've based it on some evidence. Again, what evidence do they have? If they have no evidence, the most they can claim is being agnostic on the Exodus account.

It is illogical to state I have not watched the provided video when I specifically explained I looked for the first video which lists common counter arguments.

I'm looking for evidence you watched the video. Just simply state what is the argument the video is making. I'll then address that argument.

I'm merely curious if you have already encountered them. You state you have... Great. I already figured you have, since I already acknowledged you did your due diligence.

I haven't addressed anything yet about the contents of the video. But, we can move on if you wish and assume those arguments in the video have been countered.

It's already game-over, before we even get started. Prove or demonstrate the 'Hyksos/ were Israelites, and then we can move on. Otherwise, we are basically done and are instead required to accept the story based upon faith.

Well, I can agree it's game over since I've been the only one answering the questions about the Hyksos. The narrative of the Bible fits well with what we know about the Hyksos. And there is no coherent alternative explanation of the Hyksos that places them to not be the Israelites of the Exodus.