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'm not asking for a Christian to come to my aid. I'm asking for any skeptic to engage with me that is willing to answer my questions. This request is open to anyone who rejects the Israelites being in Egypt. We'll wait and see which side is silent.

We already know what side has been silent, for 18 months.

No one needs a special invite to engage. It's also not that you need to ask anyone specific regardless. I've asked for Christian input specifically, quite often, for various topics and sometimes still get atheist/skeptics who respond anyways. In this case, since no Christian has really ever asserted the "Hyksos' (either), including after you brought them up, it seems pretty clear none of them are very confident the 'Hyksos' would be related. Fingers crossed, moving forward though for some kind of change.

[RBD]

Most of what is in the provided links corresponds with the ultimate conclusion that Israelites were not in Egypt during this expressed time.

The point being, if archeology has not found anything by now, and also states this event likely did not happen, then it's likely because archeology has made a logical conclusion that such an expressed massive event, from antiquity, would have produced mounds of findable evidence. And instead, has basically produced basically nada. And all I see from the believing side, is desperate grasps at straws: to spin things, or to make weak attempts to force something to fit, or to ultimately come up with excuses as to why we have not found anything (yet).

The conclusion is it doesn't matter what evidence is produced to support the Bible, it is categorically rejected by skeptics and the claim is made that "basically produced basically nada" even if I spent 30 pages producing evidence for it.

This of course is the unspoken secret, that is just under the surface of all the pseudo-scholarship arguments. Otherwise, they would acknowledge that an absence of external evidence may indeed lead to something not being likely, does not at all mean it is not true. They do not hold the same standard of logic for the Bible, as they do any other ancient or contemporary record.

And of course the the most buried secret is why: Because the Bible is not just a book of historical record, but of judgment of all our works. All the shadowy arguments are only meant to obscure this fact, that some people do not so much as want to even hear of such a thing about their own lives...

I learned long ago all the arguments of so-called contradictions, unbelief in miracles, etc...were just cover for rejecting the commandments and judgments of the LORD God of the Bible.

I'd also like to know why all of archeology has been so inept, to this point, and has rejected what you have discovered?

Nobody is claiming "all of archeology is inept". And it is not me that have made discoveries, rather I've cited all my sources.

And this of course is an example of hidden animus lying beneath all the façade of 'scholarly' debate. When anyone begins to openly misrepresent the other argument (Especially in such an inept and easily disprovable manner), it exposes disdain for truth.

What we find is blind disbelief on the part of zealous opposition to the Bible, not on the part of believers, where nothing disproves any of the Bible.

[RBD]

This kind of discussion is what happens when you permit spiritual, symbolic, metaphorical, and other Interpretive methods into the discussion. I use the literal, grammatical, historical method of interpretation of Scripture. So, when I read Gen 1-3 my first way of interpreting this passage is literal. Literalist also teach that not all passages are meant to be literally interpreted. It simply means that we FIRST interpret the text literally, if that doesn't make any sense, we would look at perhaps the metaphorical. Or the Psalms are often poetic, which is one of the methods employed by Literalist.

As far as the Exodus is concerned, it too would FIRST be interpreted literally, and if that doesn't make sense, we might use another way of interpreting a text. I believe the Exodus is to be taken literal because, as a general rule, I take the Scriptures literally. Take for an example the spiritualized interpretative method. There is no way of showing it to be a true or false interpretation. Of course, I prefer the Literal Method because I want to stand before God and be rewarded based on the literal meaning of a passage and not on some symbolic interpretation, unless the text is obviously not to be taken literally. When Jesus says he is the door, he is not saying he is a real door.

So, I can't tell you how much time I have seen debaters arguing the meaning of a passage when both parties have different Interpretive Methods. You have to first agree on the Interpretive Method. If you primarily hold to a spiritual interpretation, then you already know where a person's objections will come from. Generally, most Dispensationalist use the Literal method, and most Liberal theologians do not.

Much 'spiritual' and 'symbolic' interpretation of the Bible, is just another way for not believing the plain writing of history, doctrine, and prophecy.

Rather than reject the Bible outright, they symbolize it into just more fables with 'lessons' to learn, but not commandments to obey and judgments to keep.

The spiritual teaching and revelation of the Bible is not only literal, but more real than the present natural things. God is Spirit, and the spiritual things were before, and will endure beyond the natural.

[Clownboat]

I'm not asking for a Christian to come to my aid. I'm asking for any skeptic to engage with me that is willing to answer my questions. This request is open to anyone who rejects the Israelites being in Egypt. We'll wait and see which side is silent.

1. Who were the Hyksos? - I don't know.
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt? - I don't know.
3. Why were they able to take the best land? - I don't know.
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long? - I don't know.
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved? - I don't know.
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt? - I don't know.

I provided my answers as I'm curious as to where this may take us.

[Clownboat]

The spiritual teaching and revelation of the Bible is not only literal, but more real than the present natural things.

I reject this claim for being absurd.
That humans can prophecy the future.
That decomposing bodies reanimated and appeared to others.
That a man lived in a fish for days.
That fish and loaves were conjured up.
That a snake and donkey spoke.

These claims are NOT more real than the present nature of things.

God is Spirit, and the spiritual things were before, and will endure beyond the natural.

After your claim above, please don't expect for this to be taken seriously. I for one don't believe you have special information that escapes the rest of us.

[RBD]

Your entire argument is based upon Carl Sagan's coined phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But your attempted argument does not apply to this claim.

Your inconsistency does not apply to an honest argument. You do not apply 'Sagan's rule' consistently for something you don't want to believe, as you would for something you do want to believe, such as for SETI, the big bang, human evolution, etc...

Either the rule is true for all or none. Dishonest duplicity applies it differently based upon personal choice.

Please pick one:

A) You are arguing that we will find evidence someday?
B) You are arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?
C) You are flip-flopping between both A) and B)?

Neither. You are arguing from the disbeliever's demand for external evidence. The objective observer knows that external evidence is not needed to prove the evidence of a written record.

Correction. The believer knows that such a claim would leave tons of external evidence. [/quote]

I'm talking about objective observers. All you talk about is personal believing or not believing, which is why you're not thinking nor arguing like an objective observer.

An objective observer knows evidence could be found, not should be, in order to prove a record is true.

And in regard to your given term --> "internal evidence", you have merely repurposed my OP question "Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence?". Well, we have nada. The video in post 12 alone explains why this is bad news for the Bible believer.

Once again, you're all hung up on your disbelief, and so have no credibility as an objective observer. Nor even as an objective critic. Objective critics may demand more evidence to agree something is true, but they do not conclude something is false simply because that evidence is not forthcoming.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

Hence. I'd say your blind disbelief does not allow for any other option. And so you reject the one of an objective observer. I don't let anti-Christians tell me how to be a Christian, nor anti-believers tell me how to be an objective believer.

and certainly does not conclude the available evidence can't be true...

Your use of the term 'available evidence' needs correct. You instead mean, the claim itself.

That's an irrational conclusion denying the evidence at hand,

What is irrational, is attempting to interchange the term 'available evidence' with the claim itself. We have no evidence for the claim itself. [/quote]
I'll no longer instruct on historical record being evidence of something historical, whether it's written in stone or on paper.

A skeptic is objective, and needs to be convinced by more evidence. They make no conclusions otherwise.

This then means that archeology is irrational in making the conclusion that an "Exodus" likely did not happen.

Archeology is science, where objective observers can remain skeptical in absence of external evidence. Rationalizing something is not true, because no other evidence proves it, is the irrational conclusion of an unobjective observer and pseudo-archeologist.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Science is science, but scientists can be corrupted by personal motivation.

A fault-finder is unobjective, and is already convinced no matter the evidence. Their conclusions are only personal, and any demand for more evidence is only thin cover for pseudo-objectivity.

Your argument here fails miserably as believing archeologists have come to (the exact same conclusion) as skeptic/agnostic/atheist archeologists.

If you mean 'believers' in the Bible not believing the Bible, then that is a failed oxymoron. Nor are they objective archeologists, since they declare something not to be true, based solely upon no other evidence then that of the Bible.

No doubt there were similar 'believing yet unbelieving' archeologists likewise declaring the Bible false, pertaining to it's record of an Assyrian empire.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Many people declaring faith in something, show by their works, that they only give lip service to it. They become the most sought-after allies of open disbelievers.

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

There is no direct evidence against the Bible record, therefore there is no objective, rational, nor skeptical reason for rejecting the Bible evidence as untrue. People can objectively withhold conclusions without more evidence, but no one can conclude the Bible is false but by subjective will alone.

[Clownboat]

I read through post 486.
Was there any evidence for an Exodus as told in the Bible RBD? If so, please present it as I missed it.

[otseng]

I'm not asking for a Christian to come to my aid. I'm asking for any skeptic to engage with me that is willing to answer my questions. This request is open to anyone who rejects the Israelites being in Egypt. We'll wait and see which side is silent.

1. Who were the Hyksos? - I don't know.
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt? - I don't know.
3. Why were they able to take the best land? - I don't know.
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long? - I don't know.
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved? - I don't know.
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt? - I don't know.

I provided my answers as I'm curious as to where this may take us.

I'm curious also where your responses would take you since you say you don't know to all the questions. These questions should not be so hard to answer. It's not like the Hyksos were a mythical group of people. Information on them should easily be found by a simple Google search. So why the consistent balking from skeptics and avoidance of answering the questions?

As to where I'm headed, I've summarized it already:

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.

So, the challenge still stands. Are there any skeptic willing to engage in a logical debate with me? Please start by giving an answer to the first question.

Since no skeptic seems to know what I'm expecting as an answer, pretend these are questions on a history test. You need to provide an answer to the questions, not responses like "I don't know" or "they aren't the Hebrews". Also provide your source to back up your answer.

[POI]

Your entire response here further affirms that you admit there is NO evidence to support this very large claim. ---> That millions of Israelites were enslaved in a particular region for centuries, finally allowed to leave, wandered the desert for decades, and ended up in the "promised" land.

I will now address some of the things you responded to, while I await something tangible to answer the two debate questions.

Your inconsistency does not apply to an honest argument. You do not apply 'Sagan's rule' consistently for something you don't want to believe, as you would for something you do want to believe, such as for SETI, the big bang, human evolution, etc...

Yes, I do. A matter of fact, we just finished exchanging in another thread you created, where I provided evidence for human evolution -> chromosome #2. You agreed and pivoted accordingly.

Dishonest duplicity applies it differently based upon personal choice.

This explains you, in a nutshell.

I'm talking about objective observers. All you talk about is personal believing or not believing, which is why you're not thinking nor arguing like an objective observer.

An objective observer knows evidence could be found, not should be, in order to prove a record is true.

A) You are arguing that we will/might find evidence someday?
B) You are arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

Once again, you're all hung up on your disbelief, and so have no credibility as an objective observer. Nor even as an objective critic. Objective critics may demand more evidence to agree something is true, but they do not conclude something is false simply because that evidence is not forthcoming.

Negative. You and I both agree that the Torah makes a claim. We both also agree there exists no evidence to actually support this claim. That's it.

Archeology is science, where objective observers can remain skeptical in absence of external evidence. Rationalizing something is not true, because no other evidence proves it, is the irrational conclusion of an unobjective observer and pseudo-archeologist.

In essence, your position reads ---> if archeology were to agree that "the Exodus" did happen, it's legit science. If it doesn't, it's not. Your presuppositional position shows in spades.

There is no direct evidence against the Bible record, therefore there is no objective, rational, nor skeptical reason for rejecting the Bible evidence as untrue. People can objectively withhold conclusions without more evidence, but no one can conclude the Bible is false but by subjective will alone.

Then again, you must continue to hold a completely agnostic position regarding claims from the Book of Mormon.

[POI]

I learned long ago all the arguments of so-called contradictions, unbelief in miracles, etc...were just cover for rejecting the commandments and judgments of the LORD God of the Bible.

Thanks for the insight. While peeling back all your onion layers, your philosophy looks to align with the following verse:

(Romans 1:20) For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

In essence, you think we all believe, and that some just deny, (while secretly knowing it's true) -- in favor instead of 'sin' and 'wickedness'. Good to know moving forward....

Thank you kindly for placing all your cards on the table.