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]

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.

We've been over this already. Rinse/repeat... Since you've done the work, you should be able to consolidate your argument into a neat and tidy package. Do not expect your interlocutor to sift through a vast amount of data. This is a debate forum. I asked you to give me your best piece of evidence. You then mentioned the "Hyksos". Okay? What about them? You then asked me 6 questions? Well, this is your argument, you present your case. The first question already presents going sideways, or as a non-starter, because we have no way of knowing or proving if these folks were even 'Israelites'? And this is an important factor to verify before moving on. Since we have no way of knowing, it becomes wishful thinking to just assume that they are, and then press on to question/point 2.

Your objective clearly looks to be to read a story from the Bible, for which you acknowledge must be factual and literal, and then find a way to make it fit. Just like the "flat earther" does when they read parts of the Bible which insinuates the earth must be a flat disk. Well, I see that neither argument is really taken very seriously. Further, no one here, (over the last 18 months), is coming to your aid in defense of the "Hyksos'. If the 'Hyksos was to be taken seriously, you would think this would be common knowledge for Christians to bother bringing forth. And again, this is not some fallacious conclusion based upon an appeal to majority but instead citing that "flat earthers" and 'Hyksos' supporters are no longer taken seriously. Sure, they both still present 'evidence', but I guess this depends on what one constitutes as evidence? As I stated prior, anyone can argue for anything.

Really? Like what?

Jesus was likely a real dude. Jesus was likely a carpenter. Jesus was likely executed for treason/blasphemy. Etc etc etc............ I digress.

Yes, if the Exodus account is not true, then we might as well take the rest of the Bible as allegorical and not historical.

Yes, which is why the 'Hyksos' is the last bastion attempt to keep the Bible relevant for the case of the "Exodus".

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.

Yes, just like the 'flat earther' also has plenty of evidence. What you call 'evidence', I do not. Were the "Hyksos" Israelites? yes (or) no (or) I don't know?

No Christians here is claiming the Bible is stating the earth is flat.

Exactly! Just like no one is arguing for the 'Hyksos'. Until you come along 18 months later.

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.

LOL! If you wish to believe I did not watch the video before sending it to you, then go for it. So far, there is no logical need to address any of the expressed counterpoints from the video. If you can demonstrate the 'Hyksos' were 'Israelites', then we can move forward.

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

I forgot to address this question from the prior post:

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

Post 283. This is partially why Aquinas now proclaims to be a 'minimal facts' Christian. Likely because he knows some of these otherwise important claims hold no water. Maybe you should do the same?

[otseng]

Since you've done the work, you should be able to consolidate your argument into a neat and tidy package.

I've already stated it:

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.

If anyone wants to see the evidence to support this summary, they can see the How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? thread.

Do not expect your interlocutor to sift through a vast amount of data.

You don't necessarily have to. Really, my entire purpose in joining this thread is to simply answer the question "do we have positive evidence to support the claim?" The answer is yes and I provided the link for all the evidence.

But since you challenged my position and claim I didn't present any evidence, then I'm asking you to defend the alternative view. If the Hyksos were not Israelites, then provide your arguments with evidence against it. It's easy for skeptics to demand for evidence to defend Christian positions, but when asked for them to provide evidence for their positions, we see them balk.

The first question already presents going sideways, or as a non-starter, because we have no way of knowing or proving if these folks were even 'Israelites'?

As I mentioned before, the first question is just the first link in the chain of arguments. It is the entire chain of evidence that argues they were the Israelites.

And this is an important factor to verify before moving on. Since we have no way of knowing, it becomes wishful thinking to just assume that they are, and then press on to question/point 2.

That's why I asked you who is the Hyksos so that we can move on. But you have yet to give an answer. If they are not a Semitic group from Canaan, who were they?

Your objective clearly looks to be to read a story from the Bible, for which you acknowledge must be factual and literal, and then find a way to make it fit.

My motivation doesn't really matter and it is another fallacious response. What is important is the evidence and reasoning.

Just like the "flat earther" does when they read parts of the Bible which insinuates the earth must be a flat disk.

Again, repeatedly bringing up a flat earth is a straw man. As a matter of fact, this entire myth was made up by skeptics.

Further, no one here, (over the last 18 months), is coming to your aid in defense of the "Hyksos'.

In practically all the debates I've had on this forum for over 20 years, it's usually just me against the skeptics. So, I'm used to it.

If the 'Hyksos was to be taken seriously, you would think this would be common knowledge for Christians to bother bringing forth.

And if they were not the Israelites, there should be plenty of evidence to support that position. Yet, strangely, no evidence has been presented in this discussion yet. Now, it's not that there is no evidence for this. I can list several. But it's not my job to argue for the skeptic's side.

Sure, they both still present 'evidence', but I guess this depends on what one constitutes as evidence? As I stated prior, anyone can argue for anything.

Well, go ahead and argue they were not the Israelites. Then when you've presented your case, then we have to go back to how are we to decide who is correct?

What you call 'evidence', I do not. Were the "Hyksos" Israelites? yes (or) no (or) I don't know?

I've already provided evidence of who the Hyksos were.

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

You do not consider this evidence? Please show me then your evidence of who the Hyksos were.

If you wish to believe I did not watch the video before sending it to you, then go for it. So far, there is no logical need to address any of the expressed counterpoints from the video.

OK, we'll consider your video to have been addressed, even though neither you nor I had to actually write anything about it. Saves time for me.

If you can demonstrate the 'Hyksos' were 'Israelites', then we can move forward.

I've given my summary argument already, but the actual argument we have not been able to move forward with. I've already answer my first question. If you accept my definition above, then I'll go to the second question - How were they able to reside in Egypt?

Post 283. This is partially why Aquinas now proclaims to be a 'minimal facts' Christian. Likely because he knows some of these otherwise important claims hold no water. Maybe you should do the same?

Here's the post:
viewtopic.php?p=1163514#p1163514

"Patterns of Evidence: Exodus" has been largely debunked by mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars because it presents a selective interpretation of evidence, often ignoring the vast majority of archaeological findings that contradict the biblical account of the Exodus, particularly regarding the scale of the event and the lack of substantial supporting evidence for a large-scale Israelite exodus from Egypt during the proposed timeframe; critics also point to the documentary's tendency to prioritize interpretations that fit the biblical narrative over established historical context.

Please present the evidence to back your statements. What is the evidence that contradicts the Biblical account?

[POI]

That's why I asked you who is the Hyksos so that we can move on. But you have yet to give an answer.

I have given an answer. We cannot know. Hence, to assume they are and move on as if we know they are, is wishful thinking to fulfill the given Bible narrative.

If they are not a Semitic group from Canaan, who were they?

I've already addressed this. Being a Semitic group from Canaan does not help your case. I already explained why. You agreed. Please give the point(s) to demonstrate why we would know they were expressed 'Israelites', as told from 'the Exodus' in the Bible?

My motivation doesn't really matter

Sure it does. It matters a lot. As with any religious position, or political position, or any other position which taps one's (core beliefs). Interlocutors are perpetually pressed to defend against claims and assertions which do not appear to align with logic and discovery.

Again, repeatedly bringing up a flat earth is a straw man. As a matter of fact, this entire myth was made up by skeptics.

I do not bring up the "flat-earther" as a 'straw man'. Really, the only reason I bring it up is to show that interlocutors are still pressed to defend against asserted Biblical position(s). Why? Because the Bible still holds much authority and we skeptics are still pressed to give alternative explanations, where we otherwise would not have to if this collection of beliefs was not still the majority global authority. Luckily, we skeptics almost no longer have to defend against the notion of a flat disk-shaped earth. We are not quite there yet, with 'the Exodus' storyline, but it seems most believers do not even want to try to defend it any longer. Which is why remaining believers brush it off and the like... But then there is you, who is still keeping hope alive here.

In practically all the debates I've had on this forum for over 20 years, it's usually just me against the skeptics. So, I'm used to it.

Not in many/most of the threads I create. Including this one, until 18 months later. But, in this thread, the responses were to validate the OP, in that outside the Bible's claim, believers acknowledge there is no evidence.

there should be plenty of evidence to support that position.

Sure. The exact same argument can be used from the "flat-earther" or the "young-earther." Heck, the 'young-earther' is not yet a fringe position, to keep the hopes of the Bible's claim(s) alive, and yet, is already not taken seriously in scholarly academia anyhow. Unless you count debates between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, which are orchestrated because the Bible is still "a thing" to many and hold political weight to boot. But why should the skeptic to these claims even continue to dignify some of the Bible's claims with an answer? (Rhetorical Q).

Same goes for 'the Exodus'. It's been investigated. It's been addressed. The work has been done. It does not look to be an actual and factual expressed event in the same way(s) we know the earth is not a flat disk, or that the earth is not less than 10K years old, or that we also know evolutionary theory is an actual thing... The Exodus is just another one of those claims in which we can confidently place to rest. Which is why more and more folks must pivot their position(s) about the Bible to retain their faith.

I can list several. But it's not my job to argue for the skeptic's side.

Yes, so can I. But it is pointless. Just like it is pointless for me to list all the evidence to suggest the earth is old to a "young-earther", or to present evidence to demonstrate human existence is older to an evolutionary denialist, or to present evidence to demonstrate that the earth is spherical to a 'flat-earther.'. Opposing groups, under the thumb of religious faith, can counter any skeptic's given evidence.

Please show me then your evidence of who the Hyksos were.

The kicker here, is that they must be 'Israelites'. And we do not even know if they were Israelites?

If you accept my definition above, then I'll go to the second question

No. Your definition speaks nothing about whether they were Israelites or not. So no, your given definition(s) add nothing.

How were they able to reside in Egypt?

Please demonstrate question/point #1 before moving on to (question/point) #2.

Please present the evidence to back your statements. What is the evidence that contradicts the Biblical account?

The point here was to demonstrate that this interlocutor immediately ducked out.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to otseng in post #462]

The problem that I find is, we have those on this site who freely admit to being a convinced Christian well into adulthood, who freely admit they did not engage the mind in order to be convinced that a man rose from the grave, who freely accepted the story of the Exodus without question along with any other claims contained in the Bible. Then, through certain chains of events, these folks come to realize that they did not engage the mind, and they also come to realize that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not engage the mind and do not really know what it is they believe, nor why they believe it, and it is this which causes these folks to change the mind concerning Christianity. Notice, I did not say, "the thinking process has changed" but rather it was a change of mind.

Now that the mind has changed, these folks seem to be just as convinced Christianity must and has to be false, as they were when they were convinced Christianity to be true. Moreover, most of these folks will insist there is no evidence whatsoever in support of what they were once so convinced of, and when one supplies such evidence, they usually do not engage the evidence but simply insist that the evidence which has been supplied is not really evidence in their eyes.

The bottom line is, there is indeed evidence there was an exodus out of Egypt whether it was the Israelites, or the Hyksos. That is a fact. There is evidence and reasons to believe the Hyksos may have been the Israelites. There is also evidence, and reasons to believe the Hyksos were not the Israelites, and this is why we have the debates which is to discuss the evidence we have on both sides. You see, when one is intellectually honest, they are able to acknowledge the evidence from the opposing side, while those who are not intellectually honest refuse to concede there is any evidence or reason involved whatsoever on the side of those opposed to them. But the thing is, when you are addressing one who refuses to acknowledge what evidence actually is, then there really is no reason to continue the debate.

As an example, these folks who were convinced a man rose from the dead for decades of their life, well into adulthood, now want to insist there is no evidence at all surrounding this resurrection they were once so convinced of. When you go on to point out the fact that we have enough evidence to convince even the critical scholars that the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, which means these followers were not making the reports up, these folks refuse to accept this as evidence of anything at all, when the fact is, this is the sort of evidence which demands some sort of explanation. The point is it seems to be a waste of time to discuss with another when we cannot even agree as to what would constitute evidence.

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #462]

The problem that I find is, we have those on this site who freely admit to being a convinced Christian well into adulthood, who freely admit they did not engage the mind in order to be convinced that a man rose from the grave, who freely accepted the story of the Exodus without question along with any other claims contained in the Bible. Then, through certain chains of events, these folks come to realize that they did not engage the mind, and they also come to realize that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not engage the mind and do not really know what it is they believe, nor why they believe it, and it is this which causes these folks to change the mind concerning Christianity. Notice, I did not say, "the thinking process has changed" but rather it was a change of mind.

Now that the mind has changed, these folks seem to be just as convinced Christianity must and has to be false, as they were when they were convinced Christianity to be true. Moreover, most of these folks will insist there is no evidence whatsoever in support of what they were once so convinced of, and when one supplies such evidence, they usually do not engage the evidence but simply insist that the evidence which has been supplied is not really evidence in their eyes.

LOL! Talk about a red herring. But I'll throw you a bone anyways. Yes, it is intellectually honest to admit I grew up trusting in the authority around me. It is also quite intellectually honest to admit I did not decide to read the Bible for myself until a few years ago. What I find curious however, is proclaiming to be a hyper-skeptic, later reading the Bible, and then believing. Especially since we both know the Gospels are wacked. See my other thread, in which you aborted. In conclusion, from our many exchanges, you look to be a cross between Lee Stroble - (in that you claim to have been a hyper-skeptic until you did some hard investigating), and also a cross between "Aquinas for God", in that you are likely, in part, a 'minimal facts' Christian - (in that the only thing that really matters is Jesus did this/that/other and to heck with if the rest is actually true or not).

But I'm sure glad to see you value my responses enough to still follow them. It's very flattering Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

The bottom line is, there is indeed evidence there was an exodus out of Egypt whether it was the Israelites, or the Hyksos. That is a fact. There is evidence and reasons to believe the Hyksos may have been the Israelites. There is also evidence, and reasons to believe the Hyksos were not the Israelites, and this is why we have the debates which is to discuss the evidence we have on both sides. You see, when one is intellectually honest, they are able to acknowledge the evidence from the opposing side, while those who are not intellectually honest refuse to concede there is any evidence or reason involved whatsoever on the side of those opposed to them. But the thing is, when you are addressing one who refuses to acknowledge what evidence actually is, then there really is no reason to continue the debate.

I read your response here, and it sounds very sincere and all, but it has no substance. So, it necessitates repeating the OP debate question(s).

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?

As an example, these folks who were convinced a man rose from the dead for decades of their life, well into adulthood, now want to insist there is no evidence at all surrounding this resurrection they were once so convinced of. When you go on to point out the fact that we have enough evidence to convince even the critical scholars that the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, which means these followers were not making the reports up, these folks refuse to accept this as evidence of anything at all, when the fact is, this is the sort of evidence which demands some sort of explanation. The point is it seems to be a waste of time to discuss with another when we cannot even agree as to what would constitute evidence.

I created an entire thread, in your honor. Why do you persist here when we can duke it out on the thread I created, in your honor, and the thread you engaged and later aborted? And since you will likely not engage it still, I'll place it to bed here. You reference Luke and Acts. I demonstrated how Luke, who is likely the same writer as in Acts, is the 'alternative facts' account verses Mark. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, again.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to otseng in post #462]

The problem that I find is, we have those on this site who freely admit to being a convinced Christian well into adulthood, who freely admit they did not engage the mind in order to be convinced that a man rose from the grave, who freely accepted the story of the Exodus without question along with any other claims contained in the Bible. Then, through certain chains of events, these folks come to realize that they did not engage the mind, and they also come to realize that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not engage the mind and do not really know what it is they believe, nor why they believe it, and it is this which causes these folks to change the mind concerning Christianity. Notice, I did not say, "the thinking process has changed" but rather it was a change of mind.

Now that the mind has changed, these folks seem to be just as convinced Christianity must and has to be false, as they were when they were convinced Christianity to be true. Moreover, most of these folks will insist there is no evidence whatsoever in support of what they were once so convinced of, and when one supplies such evidence, they usually do not engage the evidence but simply insist that the evidence which has been supplied is not really evidence in their eyes.

The bottom line is, there is indeed evidence there was an exodus out of Egypt whether it was the Israelites, or the Hyksos. That is a fact. There is evidence and reasons to believe the Hyksos may have been the Israelites. There is also evidence, and reasons to believe the Hyksos were not the Israelites, and this is why we have the debates which is to discuss the evidence we have on both sides. You see, when one is intellectually honest, they are able to acknowledge the evidence from the opposing side, while those who are not intellectually honest refuse to concede there is any evidence or reason involved whatsoever on the side of those opposed to them. But the thing is, when you are addressing one who refuses to acknowledge what evidence actually is, then there really is no reason to continue the debate.

As an example, these folks who were convinced a man rose from the dead for decades of their life, well into adulthood, now want to insist there is no evidence at all surrounding this resurrection they were once so convinced of. When you go on to point out the fact that we have enough evidence to convince even the critical scholars that the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, which means these followers were not making the reports up, these folks refuse to accept this as evidence of anything at all, when the fact is, this is the sort of evidence which demands some sort of explanation. The point is it seems to be a waste of time to discuss with another when we cannot even agree as to what would constitute evidence.

The real problems seems to be one of gullibility. That there are those of us that were once convinced and no longer are does not address nor affect any personal gullibility. Not everyone has the same level of gullibility, so it is not fair to complain when others are not as gullible as a person may see themselves to be.

To Realworldjack:
I didn't notice any provided evidence for the Exodus story from the Bible in your post. Did I miss it? If so, I apologize and ask you provide it. Perhaps leave all your slander out of the post and it will be easier to find. Just a suggestion.

Try to place yourself in our shoes for a moment.
Our shoes: Where is the evidence for the Exodus outside of the Bible?
Your response: "these folks come to realize that they did not engage the mind"
"Now that the mind has changed, these folks seem to be just as convinced Christianity must and has to be false" <---That's a new one!
"these folks will insist there is no evidence whatsoever in support of what they were once so convinced of" <--- Have you noticed the lack of external evidence for the Exodus as told in the Bible?
"while those who are not intellectually honest refuse to concede there is any evidence or reason involved" <--- Poison the well much?
"when you are addressing one who refuses to acknowledge what evidence actually is" <--- How much poison do you have left?
"When you go on to point out the fact that we have enough evidence to convince even the critical scholars that the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death" <--- At best, this is evidence that people believed a claim and leaves out the possibility that these humans were creating just another religion (something humans have been doing long before Christianity was created), not evidence that the claim itself is true (that many decomposing bodies reanimated to life). As you have been informed already, Muhammed did not fly on a winged horse just because some people believed it a long time ago. This sword cuts both ways, you just don't seem to realize it and continue with special pleading and then act bewildered as to why we reject what you simply claim is evidence. Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon from magic plates and glasses? If I can point to people that believed such a thing, will you agree that there is evidence that Joseph Smith did just that? Checking for consistency.

[otseng]

I can list several. But it's not my job to argue for the skeptic's side.

Yes, so can I. But it is pointless.

And I rest my case. I've been presenting my evidence which you have no rational reason to reject. And when asked for evidence for your position, you won't do it. Instead, the only thing you've offered are fallacious arguments and bringing up topics not even remotely related to this topic.

The issue then is not evidence for the Exodus. I'm prepared to continue my line of arguments with evidence, but what we see is it a pointless endeavor. Skeptics will not debate on an evidential level. Rather, they just make unsupported claims and are not interested in considering or presenting evidence.

Since you're not willing to engage in a logical debate, are there any other skeptics who would be willing?

Please present the evidence to back your statements. What is the evidence that contradicts the Biblical account?

The point here was to demonstrate that this interlocutor immediately ducked out.

And who is the one ducking out now?

[POI]

And I rest my case.

Hahaha. I had a feeing you would say something to this effect. You got me. Not! You omitted my prior explanation. Further, I already addressed your attempted line of questioning. Before you can venture off onto question/point #2, you must first demonstrate that the 'Hyksos' were at least 'Israelites.' And you have not done that. Hence, the exchange is at a halt regardless.

I've been presenting my evidence which you have no rational reason to reject.

Yes, there most certainly is. See above and my prior response.

And when asked for evidence for your position, you won't do it.

I've stated my position. 'The Exodus' is only taken seriously because scholarship has to, because Christianity is still the majority prevailing authority. But scholars already know it is not really still up in the air, except for the ones who wish to keep the Bible stories relevant (i.e.) like you. Case/point, all other interlocutors who have exchanged in this thread for 18 months, who I would assume have done their due diligence, completely concede there is nothing outside the claims from the Bible. You found a potential loophole, in the 'Hyksos.' And it fails the first question you asked.

Instead, the only thing you've offered are fallacious arguments and bringing up topics not even remotely related to this topic.

I find that many topics are worthy of my arguments to press against a Biblical claim. I debate these topics. However, this proves not to be one of them. It's cute that you want to bring up the 'Hyksos' and all, but you have not even passed stage one, which is to demonstrate that this group of ancients were indeed 'Israelites.' Without doing, at least this, your argument goes nowhere fast. Sorry.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #465]

I am not going to address everything here at this point because I want to focus on a couple of points, and I do not want the other to get in the way.

Yes, it is intellectually honest to admit I grew up trusting in the authority around me. It is also quite intellectually honest to admit I did not decide to read the Bible for myself until a few years ago.

This is not being intellectually honest in the least. In fact, it is quite the opposite in that you are somehow under the impression that it helps your argument. It is like you've "been there done that and bought the tee-shirt, which makes you an expert" and now you are out to demonstrate to the rest of us the mistakes we've made. The problem is, you are no expert in the least, which is demonstrated by the extreme lack of knowledge you have concerning the Bible and also your lack of knowledge as far as Christianity is concerned. The reason you have such a severe lack of knowledge concerning these things, is exactly because you never read the Bible and took the word of others, which means your understanding has been completely flawed by those you were taking the word of. When you finally decide after decades of your life to actually read the Bible, it is not as though the objections you have concern Christianity in the least, but rather it concerns refuting the reckless theology you were exposed to. One thing I can assure you of is the fact that it would not have taken me decades of my life to come to understand that the theology you were exposed to was "wacked" in that it is not in touch with any sort of reality. But again, I am the type of person who is not going to take the word of others, and I am going to read and study for myself before I actually make such a major life decision that is not only going to affect my life, but also the life of my children.

But the main thing here again is, it has nothing to do with being "intellectually honest" for one to admit they did not read the Bible, and did not use the mind in order to make such a major life decision. I can maybe classify it as being honest, but it is really not what you would call "being intellectually honest". Being intellectually honest means,

"One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted."

Your admission that you were convinced for decades of your life without the use of the mind is not in any way "relevant facts and information" as far as what is being discussed and so it does not fit into the category of being intellectually honest. Being intellectually honest would be one who acknowledges that there would, and or may be facts, evidence, and reasons to hold to a different position than the one this particular person holds.

What I find curious however, is proclaiming to be a hyper-skeptic, later reading the Bible, and then believing.

I never claimed to be "hyper-skeptic, later reading the Bible". I claim to be a skeptical thinker who was not interested in Christianity, nor any other religion at all, and could not have cared less until I was faced with the fact that my children would be exposed to Christianity. However, if you really want to talk about folks who were "hyper-skeptical" of Christianity, to the point they were attempting to speak out against it and then went on to read the Bible and then converted to the same Christianity they were attempting to discredit, I can give you a number of examples. One of which I have already put forth which was Rosaria Butterfield who was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University who was a lesbian, who was writing a paper on the "Rise of the Christian Right in America" who converted to Christianity upon reading the Bible and credits her vast knowledge of language for her conversion. Butterfield lost her job, and many lifelong friends over her conversion.

However, Butterfield is not the only one I could mention because there are a number of others who were completely opposed to Christianity who later converted. Whether you would like to believe it or not, I just so happened to run across another just today. When I am doing chores around the house, I look on the algorithm of youtube to see what might be interesting in order to put my ear buds in to listen in order to pass the time while I do my chores. I just so happen to run across one which included the co-founder of Wikipedia Jerry Sanger who was a lifelong agnostic. It is a fascinating story. Sanger was a philosopher and a claimed agnostic. As a philosopher he talks about how he looks for rational reasons for belief and found no rational reason to believe Christianity.

The thing is, with Sanger being a philosopher means he was a thinker, and it is fascinating to listen to his reasoning process when he was agnostic, and it is evident from listening to him that he was indeed thinking very deeply. One of the things Sanger says is that "as a philosopher you want to have a rational reason for your beliefs, and I found no rational reason to believe Christianity". In other words, Sanger used the reasoning process, and knew why he was opposed to Christianity and could explain his reasoning. So then, Sanger used the thinking process in order to be opposed to Christianity, and it was the thinking process which caused him to convert, which causes him to understand that reason can be used on both sides of the equation.

This got me to thinking that it indeed may be impossible for those who tend to make such major life decisions without the use of the mind to be able to be intellectually honest because since they did not use the mind in order to be convinced, they have nothing in their mind in order to gage against. This may well explain how such elementary arguments now satisfy their minds. You know like, comparing Christianity to the religions of the world, or somehow being under the impression that if they were to demonstrate the Bible to be "wacked" this would cause the whole house of cards to fall. These are all elementary arguments which one would have had to think of right off the bat if there was any thinking at all, which sort of goes on to demonstrate these folks are correct when they admit to not using the mind in order to be a convinced Christian, because it is a fact that anyone thinking at all would have surely resolved these elementary objections.

So then, while you find it "curious" that I am a skeptical thinker who came to belief, the fact that there are any number of extremely intelligent folks who were not simply skeptical, but were actually extremely opposed to Christianity, with the desire, and motivation to speak out against Christianity who later convert certainly demonstrates it is possible to be a skeptical thinker using skeptical skills, and become a convinced Christian, and because they are skeptical thinkers, these folks can understand the arguments on both sides. On the other hand, we have those who freely admit to making an extremely major life discission without the use of the mind, who do not simply want to tell us that they used the mind in order to come to a different conclusion, but they also want to insist there could not be any reason used at all in order to come to the conclusions they were once so convinced of.

See my other thread, in which you aborted.

I am not sure what thread you are speaking of, but I can tell you that you and I have had discussions which have went on for months, and it gets to the point where the same thing is being said over, and over, and you seem to be the type of person who is under the impression that the last word wins. I cannot imagine you ever not getting the last word, even though I cannot imagine any thinking person at all having not already considered the arguments you put forth.

In conclusion, from our many exchanges, you look to be a cross between Lee Stroble

I have never read a word authored by Lee Stroble.

and also a cross between "Aquinas for God"

I have no idea what the above would even be.

in that you are likely, in part, a 'minimal facts' Christian

You continue to want to put a label on me for some reason. I can only imagine this would be, because if you can do so, you can argue against the label instead of the actual arguments I am making. You also have mentioned this "minimal facts" thing now on more than one occasion. I am not sure what that would entail, but what I do know is, when you are in debate concerning a particular subject, it is good to attempt to determine certain things both parties can agree upon and go on to work from there. I also know that it is very difficult, if not impossible to have a beneficial debate, when one, or both parties cannot agree upon what would constitute facts and evidence. If that is what is entailed as far as what you refer to as "minimal facts" then I guess you can apply the label to me. I mean, any thinking person would understand this.

in that the only thing that really matters is Jesus did this/that/other and to heck with if the rest is actually true or not

The above is an example. I highly doubt we are going to agree upon what Jesus may have actually done because you have no regard for the reports contained in the Bible. With this being the case, there is no need in even having such a debate. Therefore, we attempt to determine something we can agree upon, such as if we can know the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up. If we can agree upon this, then we can move on in order to determine what could have possibly caused this to be the case. If we cannot agree upon this, this would mean that one of us is going against all the facts and evidence we have, and believing a most extraordinary tale.

I'm just telling you that all the facts and evidence we have demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that these reports could not have possibly been made up, and therefore, this is the sort of evidence which demands some sort of explanation. With this being said, allow me to demonstrate what intellectual honesty would be. There is no way those on either side can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away from such an endeavor believing there are easy answers to be had on either side. One who can take on such a task, and convince themselves there are easy answers, either has not really done the investigation, or they are not being intellectually honest.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to POI in post #465]

I am not going to address everything here at this point because I want to focus on a couple of points, and I do not want the other to get in the way.

Yes, it is intellectually honest to admit I grew up trusting in the authority around me. It is also quite intellectually honest to admit I did not decide to read the Bible for myself until a few years ago.

This is not being intellectually honest in the least. In fact, it is quite the opposite in that you are somehow under the impression that it helps your argument. It is like you've "been there done that and bought the tee-shirt, which makes you an expert" and now you are out to demonstrate to the rest of us the mistakes we've made. The problem is, you are no expert in the least, which is demonstrated by the extreme lack of knowledge you have concerning the Bible and also your lack of knowledge as far as Christianity is concerned. The reason you have such a severe lack of knowledge concerning these things, is exactly because you never read the Bible and took the word of others, which means your understanding has been completely flawed by those you were taking the word of. When you finally decide after decades of your life to actually read the Bible, it is not as though the objections you have concern Christianity in the least, but rather it concerns refuting the reckless theology you were exposed to. One thing I can assure you of is the fact that it would not have taken me decades of my life to come to understand that the theology you were exposed to was "wacked" in that it is not in touch with any sort of reality. But again, I am the type of person who is not going to take the word of others, and I am going to read and study for myself before I actually make such a major life decision that is not only going to affect my life, but also the life of my children.

But the main thing here again is, it has nothing to do with being "intellectually honest" for one to admit they did not read the Bible, and did not use the mind in order to make such a major life decision. I can maybe classify it as being honest, but it is really not what you would call "being intellectually honest". Being intellectually honest means,

"One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted."

Your admission that you were convinced for decades of your life without the use of the mind is not in any way "relevant facts and information" as far as what is being discussed and so it does not fit into the category of being intellectually honest. Being intellectually honest would be one who acknowledges that there would, and or may be facts, evidence, and reasons to hold to a different position than the one this particular person holds.

What I find curious however, is proclaiming to be a hyper-skeptic, later reading the Bible, and then believing.

I never claimed to be "hyper-skeptic, later reading the Bible". I claim to be a skeptical thinker who was not interested in Christianity, nor any other religion at all, and could not have cared less until I was faced with the fact that my children would be exposed to Christianity. However, if you really want to talk about folks who were "hyper-skeptical" of Christianity, to the point they were attempting to speak out against it and then went on to read the Bible and then converted to the same Christianity they were attempting to discredit, I can give you a number of examples. One of which I have already put forth which was Rosaria Butterfield who was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University who was a lesbian, who was writing a paper on the "Rise of the Christian Right in America" who converted to Christianity upon reading the Bible and credits her vast knowledge of language for her conversion. Butterfield lost her job, and many lifelong friends over her conversion.

However, Butterfield is not the only one I could mention because there are a number of others who were completely opposed to Christianity who later converted. Whether you would like to believe it or not, I just so happened to run across another just today. When I am doing chores around the house, I look on the algorithm of youtube to see what might be interesting in order to put my ear buds in to listen in order to pass the time while I do my chores. I just so happen to run across one which included the co-founder of Wikipedia Jerry Sanger who was a lifelong agnostic. It is a fascinating story. Sanger was a philosopher and a claimed agnostic. As a philosopher he talks about how he looks for rational reasons for belief and found no rational reason to believe Christianity.

The thing is, with Sanger being a philosopher means he was a thinker, and it is fascinating to listen to his reasoning process when he was agnostic, and it is evident from listening to him that he was indeed thinking very deeply. One of the things Sanger says is that "as a philosopher you want to have a rational reason for your beliefs, and I found no rational reason to believe Christianity". In other words, Sanger used the reasoning process, and knew why he was opposed to Christianity and could explain his reasoning. So then, Sanger used the thinking process in order to be opposed to Christianity, and it was the thinking process which caused him to convert, which causes him to understand that reason can be used on both sides of the equation.

This got me to thinking that it indeed may be impossible for those who tend to make such major life decisions without the use of the mind to be able to be intellectually honest because since they did not use the mind in order to be convinced, they have nothing in their mind in order to gage against. This may well explain how such elementary arguments now satisfy their minds. You know like, comparing Christianity to the religions of the world, or somehow being under the impression that if they were to demonstrate the Bible to be "wacked" this would cause the whole house of cards to fall. These are all elementary arguments which one would have had to think of right off the bat if there was any thinking at all, which sort of goes on to demonstrate these folks are correct when they admit to not using the mind in order to be a convinced Christian, because it is a fact that anyone thinking at all would have surely resolved these elementary objections.

So then, while you find it "curious" that I am a skeptical thinker who came to belief, the fact that there are any number of extremely intelligent folks who were not simply skeptical, but were actually extremely opposed to Christianity, with the desire, and motivation to speak out against Christianity who later convert certainly demonstrates it is possible to be a skeptical thinker using skeptical skills, and become a convinced Christian, and because they are skeptical thinkers, these folks can understand the arguments on both sides. On the other hand, we have those who freely admit to making an extremely major life discission without the use of the mind, who do not simply want to tell us that they used the mind in order to come to a different conclusion, but they also want to insist there could not be any reason used at all in order to come to the conclusions they were once so convinced of.

See my other thread, in which you aborted.

I am not sure what thread you are speaking of, but I can tell you that you and I have had discussions which have went on for months, and it gets to the point where the same thing is being said over, and over, and you seem to be the type of person who is under the impression that the last word wins. I cannot imagine you ever not getting the last word, even though I cannot imagine any thinking person at all having not already considered the arguments you put forth.

In conclusion, from our many exchanges, you look to be a cross between Lee Stroble

I have never read a word authored by Lee Stroble.

and also a cross between "Aquinas for God"

I have no idea what the above would even be.

in that you are likely, in part, a 'minimal facts' Christian

You continue to want to put a label on me for some reason. I can only imagine this would be, because if you can do so, you can argue against the label instead of the actual arguments I am making. You also have mentioned this "minimal facts" thing now on more than one occasion. I am not sure what that would entail, but what I do know is, when you are in debate concerning a particular subject, it is good to attempt to determine certain things both parties can agree upon and go on to work from there. I also know that it is very difficult, if not impossible to have a beneficial debate, when one, or both parties cannot agree upon what would constitute facts and evidence. If that is what is entailed as far as what you refer to as "minimal facts" then I guess you can apply the label to me. I mean, any thinking person would understand this.

in that the only thing that really matters is Jesus did this/that/other and to heck with if the rest is actually true or not

The above is an example. I highly doubt we are going to agree upon what Jesus may have actually done because you have no regard for the reports contained in the Bible. With this being the case, there is no need in even having such a debate. Therefore, we attempt to determine something we can agree upon, such as if we can know the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up. If we can agree upon this, then we can move on in order to determine what could have possibly caused this to be the case. If we cannot agree upon this, this would mean that one of us is going against all the facts and evidence we have, and believing a most extraordinary tale.

I'm just telling you that all the facts and evidence we have demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that these reports could not have possibly been made up, and therefore, this is the sort of evidence which demands some sort of explanation. With this being said, allow me to demonstrate what intellectual honesty would be. There is no way those on either side can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away from such an endeavor believing there are easy answers to be had on either side. One who can take on such a task, and convince themselves there are easy answers, either has not really done the investigation, or they are not being intellectually honest.

So many words typed!
Were any of them evidence for the Exodus? I started reading, but your continued ad hominem arguments in place of debate got tiring once again. How much of our time reading your fallacies do you expect from us? Will you ever stop addressing the poster and focus on the topic at hand?

The ad hominem fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself, often by focusing on their character, motives, or other irrelevant personal traits to discredit their position.

It's reasonable and valid to request intermediate species when arguing for evolution just as it is reasonable to request evidence that suggests millions of Jews wandered a desert for 40 years. Surely they made camp fires, no? Surely some died and were buried, no? Perhaps we found some pottery that should be considered? How about Egyptian records noting such a claim? How about settlements in the Sinai to examine? Maybe we found evidence of a new population entering Canaan, with cultural practices that differ from the existing Canaanite culture? How about evidence for a major influx of people into Canaan in the 1200s BC, with a new population averse to pork and idols? Anything like that? How about the presence of Egyptian words in the Hebrew text? That could at least suggest contact and interaction between the Israelites and Egyptians.