The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

[POI]

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[RBD]

The ancient evidence of the Bible itself for Exodus, Assyria, the great flood, the Red Sea crossing on dry ground, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc... is sufficient to believe, so long as there is no evidence disproving it.

Some claims have evidence, some don't.

In courts of law, the rules of evidence is divided between direct and indirect evidence. Eyewitness claims are direct evidence. Secondhand claims are indirect/circumstantial evidence, that can lead to direct evidence.

Exodus is direct evidence of an eyewitness account. In cross examination, for the evidence to be rejected, the eyewitness must be proven inaccurate, or a false witness by contrary direct evidence. Any accuser against the witness, who has no direct evidence proving otherwise, has no effect on the direct evidence offered by an eyewitness account. Without direct evidence to the contrary, anyone accusing the writer of Exodus of being decieved or a false witness, has no standing whether the direct evidence recorded in Exodus is true or not.

Now, the Bible standard for eyewitness accounts is two or three witnesses to establish the fact. Exodus had millions of Egyptian, Hebrew, and other foreign witnesses. None of whom ever recorded anything contrary to the eyewitness account in the book of Exodus. And not only they, but other nations also heard of the Exodus, as well as read about it in the Hebrew account. No person nor nation has come forward to offer any other evidence contradictory to the eyewitness account. Therefore, the direct evidence of the eyewitness of Exodus stands uncontested by any person or nation of the day.

Some might say, "Well, if it never happened, then there would be no need to record anything contrary to it?" This is only true if no record had ever been made of it. Therefore, the question remains why no one ever contested the written account? Even if it wasn't the affair of others to do so, it certainly was made Egypt's affair. And yet, they also never made any record to refute the witness.

Some have made the argument, that surely the Egyptians would have recorded such great events. That in itself is not true, since great powers only recorded their successes and victories, not their failures and defeats, especially not at the hands of slaves.

However, in the context of the eyewitness account of those events, which was made known to other people and nations, then the Egyptians certainly would, could, and most of all should have offered a rebuttal to such scandalous anti-Egyptian propaganda.

The real question therefore is not why didn't the Egyptians record the events (which is understandable for domestic politics and foreign military reasons), but rather why did they not record anything to refute the eyewitness account made known abroad?

Since an eyewitness account is taken as direct evidence, then no contested record of evidence by anyone, including the Egyptian leadership, proves any other accusation against the eyewitness, than those of the day, is nothing but an anti-Hebrew Bible propagandist.

I won't speak to any of the other claims from the Bible, to remain on topic.

But you must, since you now have to accuse the writer of Joshua, who recorded the testimony of the citizens of Jericho, that they themselves heard and believed the Exodus account:

Jos 2:9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

We now have the eyewitness of the events on record, as well as foreigners going on record believing the events.

The thing about a book like the Bible, that is written perfectly whole and complete, is that no one can accuse one part, without also then having to accuse another part, and another...

And since there is no evidence for this very large claim, which would leave tons of evidence, the Bible is disproven,

Accusers of eyewitness accounts, who have no proof to the contrary, have no effect on the direct evidence of the eyewitness.

Your pushback here does not focus solely on "antagonists", but also Bible believers.

Unbelievers in the Bible are not Bible believers.

Believers of the Torah have to admit that 'The Exodus" probably did not happen.

Believers in the Torah are not willing to accuse Moses of even remotely being a false witness. Only unbelievers in the Torah would ever do that.

Jhn 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

Skeptics do not make conclusions based upon no evidence,

Tell this to all the archeologists who conclude 'the Exodus' most likely did not happen.

Skeptics can side on likely this or that all they wish. It's only those saying the Exodus testimony is untrue, who are the unobjective accusers without evidence to prove it.

The ones that insist that it still happened anyways, insist instead based upon empty slogans, special pleading and other fallacious arguments, and blind faith.

Them that believe it did happen, do so based upon the direct evidence of the eyewitness account, which has no evidence to the contrary. Blind disbelievers accuse the eyewitness of falsifying evidence, based upon their own disbelief alone.

[POI]

Folks, keep in mind post 490. I will do my best to respond here. But it matters not what I say or present.

In courts of law, the rules of evidence is divided between direct and indirect evidence. Eyewitness claims are direct evidence. Secondhand claims are indirect/circumstantial evidence, that can lead to direct evidence.

Exodus is direct evidence of an eyewitness account.

You are basing your argument upon a false premise. We simply do not know who wrote "the Exodus" storyline? Sure, we can speculate, but we just don't know.

In cross examination, for the evidence to be rejected, the eyewitness must be proven inaccurate, or a false witness by contrary direct evidence. Any accuser against the witness, who has no direct evidence proving otherwise, has no effect on the direct evidence offered by an eyewitness account. Without direct evidence to the contrary, anyone accusing the writer of Exodus of being decieved or a false witness, has no standing whether the direct evidence recorded in Exodus is true or not.

This is irrelevant. Even if we knew who wrote 'the Exodus' account, there is obviously no way to cross-examine them. Hence, all we have is to search for clues. And wouldn't you know it, without even doing much digging at all, the asserted timeline states the Israelites reached the promised land (Canaan) in about 1400 BCE. But guess what, the Egyptians owned this region for another 200 years. Why would Israelites flee Egypt, roam the countryside for decades, only to end up in more Egypt? Silly! Just as silly as stating that later Jews escaped a German death camp and fled to Auschwitz. I'll let you deal with this little tid bit before addressing the rest.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #479]

Exactly what am I missing here? We agree that a Biblical author records an exodus out of Egypt. We agree we have evidence outside the Bible that there was indeed an exodus of a people out of Egypt. We agree that it cannot be determined if the Hyksos and the Israelites would be one and the same. Of course, you are going to want to insist that this would be unlikely because you seem to be under the impression that it helps your argument, but I am afraid it does not. Exactly what would be the odds in this case? I'm not thinking you would be able to even determine the odds in this case. The bottom line here is the fact that you are forced to admit that there is indeed the possibility that the Hyksos and the Israelites are one and the same, and it does not matter in the least how bad you want to appeal to what you believe the odds to be. But let's not talk about the odds. Let us get focused on the facts.

The funny thing is, I had never even heard of the Hyksos until I began to read this thread. However, in the short amount of time I have had, let us look at some of the facts and evidence I have found. The article I am about to cite is authored by Joshua J. Mark, who says in this article,

there is no reason to identify the Hyksos with the Hebrew slaves from the biblical Book of Exodus.

I mention this to demonstrate this information is coming from one who is not attempting to make the argument that the Hyksos were the same as the Israelites. However, there indeed must be a reason he deems it necessary to make this statement, and one of the reasons I can think of that he may want to make the statement is because there may indeed be reasons to come to the conclusion, and he is wanting to erase those reasons away. But let us go on to see what else Mark has to say.

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt

Umm? Notice here how he refers to the Hyksos as a "Semitic people"? Would the Israelites have been Semitic? Mark goes on,

Most likely, they were traders who were at first welcomed

First off, we can see like you, he likes to play the odds, or like me, he may be just using it at times as a figure of speech not really referring to what the odds may be. At any rate, he is telling us there must be a reason to believe the Hyksos were at first welcomed. Umm? Kinda reminds me of a Biblical account when the family of Joesph was welcomed into Egypt. Let's keep in mind that it was initially only Joseph who was in Egypt, and it was many years later before his family arrived, and this would mean that the family of Joseph could have been very large at the time.

At any rate, Mark goes on to quote a historian by the name Margaret Bunson. Let's look at what Bunson had to say,

The Hyksos did enter Egypt, but they did not appear there suddenly. The Hyksos entered the Nile region gradually over a series of decades until the Egyptians realized the danger they posed in their midst.

Again, it is sounding very familiar to the reports contained in the Bible, in that the Israelites were initially welcomed, until their numbers began to multiply, and the Egyptians began to view the Israelites as a threat. But let us see what else Mark has to say,

The main source of information on the Hyksos in Egypt comes from the 3rd century BCE Egyptian writer Manetho whose work has been lost but was extensively quoted by later writers, notably Flavius Josephus

Mark is correct here, but what he fails to communicate is the fact that Flavius Josephus actually identified the Hyksos as the Hebrews. Moreover, Flavius Josephus defines Hyksos as meaning "captive shepherds". UMM? Were Joseph and his brothers shepherds? I believe they were.

I could continue on, and on, but as you can see, I am reading from an author who insists that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were not the same, but as we can see there is a reason he has to make the distinction and that is because of the similarities. In fact, allow me to end here with another quote from an article which is not Christian in any way,

Josephus Flavius, Jewish historian of the 1st century CE and author of The Antiquities of the Jews, identified the Hyksos with the Hebrews. Most historians today disagree, but there are some striking similarities.

Let us keep in mind that I did not even know the word Hyksos until the other day, and in the little time I have had to study the subject the above is what I have gathered and let us keep in mind that I am using sources who insist the Hyksos and Hebrews were not the same.

I'm just telling you, that you may indeed want to give us different interpretations of what I have presented, but it would certainly be intellectual dishonesty to insist there would be no evidence to suggest that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were the same. So then, in the end we cannot insist one way or the other. One thing is for certain, there is no way one could honestly insist there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons involved in identifying the Hyksos as being the Hebrews. What we can say is, there is reason used on both sides, and the odds would have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

No, it has nothing to do with this topic at all.

My friend, it may not have anything to do with the topic, but I can assure you it has everything to do with us knowing the type of person we are dealing with. I can assure you that if I were to explain to you that I do not have any evidence at all to back what it is I believe, but that I was certain that Jesus lives because, "He lives within my heart" you would rightly point this out, and you would rightly continue to hammer this point home. In reality, this may in fact be the type of person you would not take seriously, and you may in fact ignore what they ever had to say and allow the nonsense to speak for itself.

But the thing is, you proudly proclaim to us that you were a convinced Christian for decades of your life without the use of the mind and then want to go on to insist there would be no facts and evidence in support of what you were once convinced of for decades. I will assure you that this information is relevant to just about any sort of discussion we have. Because you see, after decades of being a convinced Christian, you now want to insist that facts and evidence be given to you in support of what you were so convinced of, and when this evidence is supplied, you simply insist that it is not evidence in your eyes, which causes us to wonder if you even know what evidence is, and it brings us back to the fact that you were at one time convinced of something for decades of your life with no reason to be convinced. If you cannot see how this would be relevant information to almost any debate we have, then I really do not know how to help you out.

I mean, it is just like this thread here. You ask for evidence of the exodus describe in the Bible, and otseng supplies you with such evidence, and as otseng has said, you refuse to even engage with the evidence he presents. Because you see, as we have seen above, there are indeed facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Hyksos and the Hebrews were the same. Of course, these facts and evidence does not demonstrate this to be the case, but when you ask for evidence, this is very different than what you would call proof. You see, you may have reasons to believe the Hyksos and Hebrews were not the same, and you can supply the evidence which backs your case, but this does not necessitate that there would not be facts, evidence, and reasons to hold to a different position. This sort of thinking seems to demonstrate one who is confused concerning what evidence actually is, and this brings us back to the fact that this person proudly announces that he was convinced for decades, that a man rose from the dead, and they were convinced of this for decades, with no facts, evidence, or reason to believe such a thing. GOOD GRIEF!

Listen, I have said over, and over, that the majority of Christians today, do not really know what they believe, nor why they believe it, and since I know this to be the case, it is not shocking at all to hear one claim they were convinced without the use of the mind. What should be shocking (but sadly it is not) is for one to go on to insist that there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to be convinced of what they were once so convinced of. What should be even more shocking (but again sadly it isn't) is the fact that they proclaim the fact that they were convinced a dead man rose for decades of their life without the use of the mind proudly, as if this fact somehow helps them in debate. Is there any wonder why I continue to say, "you cannot make this stuff up?"

And if you really believed this, you would provide actual 'facts and evidence' for the claims of "the Exodus" account, for which you would know you would easily flip me to your view and win the debate.

Here is another example of confusion over evidence verses proof. I can give you evidence, but evidence is not proof and allows one to hold to a different position. Moreover, it is not my job to "easily flip you to my view". The thing is, I really do not have a view. I am simply demonstrating there are facts, evidence, and reasons to hold to a different view than you hold to.

Notice I do not respond to the majority of your long-winded drivel.

Of course I have noticed this. However, unlike you, I do not simply assume one is "aborting". Because you see, I certainly understand these post takes time, and this may be one of the reasons why every point is not addressed. On the other hand, some have convinced themselves that if they have the last word, then it has to be the fact that they must have won the debate. However, below is an example of one of the things you have failed to respond to,

If you are going to 'attack' me, stop writing text-walls at least.

Here is the thing. You are the one who announced to us all that you were convinced that a dead man rose from the grave for decades of your life, when there were no facts, evidence, nor reasons to believe such a thing. As I have said, you seemed to be proud of this, even to the point you credit yourself with intellectual honesty because of it (which btw you failed to respond to that). If you are proud of this fact, then how in the world can you view it as a personal attack, when I am simply reporting exactly what you have said about yourself? How does that make sense in your mind?

Because you see, when you proclaim this proudly, there must be a reason you believed it to be relevant, and I can only imagine it is because you are under the impression that it is intellectual honesty, and it demonstrates that you were able to have a change of mind. Well, if you are the one who brings this into the conversation, and there has to be a reason for this to be the case, then it is perfectly legitimate for me to demonstrate that there may in fact be another side to the story as far as your change of mind, and that it does not necessarily have to involve the use of the mind, since we are well aware of the fact that you have already made major life decisions without the mind engaged.

I did not accuse you of this. I accused another. The other brought up the "Hyksos" and is asking/expecting his interlocutor to do his dirty work for him.

If this is the case, then save it for him, and this could make my responses shorter.

Yes, you have. In our last exchange, you reference 'Bart Ehrman' in such a way.

My friend, I do not hold what Ehrman has to say in any sort of high regard. In fact, I would probably disagree with most of what he has to say. With this being the case, how in the world could I cite him as an authority? Ehrman was at one time a Christian who has come to a different conclusion, and even though he is a critic of Christianity, he is convinced by the evidence we have, that it would be impossible for the early followers to have made the story up, while you insist there are no facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection. This is not an appeal to Ehrman as an authority. Rather, he is correct in that there is facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the story could not have been made up, or he is not. If he is not correct, then you should be able to demonstrate that we cannot know this to be the case, but you are not going to do that because you know the facts and evidence supporting this to be the case is so overwhelming, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ehrman being an authority.

Now back to, "you cannot make this stuff up". I have just demonstrated that my citing of Ehrman had nothing whatsoever to do with my belief that Ehrman is an authority. It would be impossible for me to do so. But the thing is, I simply mention the scholars, and you want to scold me on how this is a fallacy, which I agree with, and the thing is, you continue to appeal to the scholars. I mean, it is like I have to get someone else to read this stuff for me, just to make sure I am reading what I think I am reading, because I cannot believe what I am reading.

As if I need to care what he thinks on a topic.

You do not have to care, but for some strange reason you appeal to the scholarly opinion. I mean, this is exactly why my post are so long. There is a tremendous difference in appealing to the scholarly consensus and claiming that they are the experts, which you rightly identify as a fallacy, but you continue to do just that, as opposed to citing a scholar who claims to be convinced of a certain thing, and pointing out that there must be facts and evidence to convince this scholar this is the case. Can you see the difference? I am not insisting that since this is the position Ehrman holds to that it must be correct. The fact of the matter is all the scholars I have read on this subject tell us that we can know by the facts we have that the early followers did not make the reports up. Again, this is not an appeal to their authority. Either they are correct, or they are in error, and I understand the possibility of their error.

So then, if the scholars are in error, then all you have to do is to demonstrate we cannot know this to be the case, but again you are not going to attempt this because the facts and evidence which you say we do not have are overwhelming that these folks were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death. You have a few other options here, but none of these other options seems to be possible. This is the exact point I've been attempting to make. You insist that the resurrection must be rejected because it would be impossible, but you have no other explanation which would be possible, and so we are left with the impossible, and the impossible, is impossible.

Just present the actual "facts and evidence." You are quite good at stating 'facts and evidence' without actually issuing 'facts and evidence,'

I just gave you facts and evidence which demonstrate a case, and I highly doubt you will attempt to refute it.

The reason I bring up 'the Exodus' is because there is a really good chance 'the Exodus' is entirely made up.

You really love to talk about the "chances" and what I am more concerned about is some sort of facts and evidence which may suggest the story was made up. I am just telling you, there is a whole lot more involved than I think you realize, and if we get into all that is involved, we are going to be here for weeks. Seriously! There would have to be a whole lot involved in order for the "ENTIRE" story to be made up.

This is what I continue to attempt to get across to you, and that is, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. It is not as simple as "dead bodies do not rise" as far as the reports concerning the resurrection, and it is not as simple as "maybe the whole story of the exodus was made up". I mean, I really wish it was that simple, but what I continue to say, and you continue to avoid is, "there is no way in the world that anyone can sit down and examine 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 convinced there are easy answers to be had on either side."

Do you actually see what I am saying? I am admitting that even the Christian cannot come away from such an endeavor believing there are easy answers. This is one of the main reasons the fact that you proudly admit to being a convinced Christian for decades of your life, when there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons to be convinced is so extremely relevant to whatever topic we discuss, and that is because of the fact that you were so convinced there were easy answers when you were a convinced Christian, and now that the mind has changed the answers are just as easy now, and the fact of the matter is, the answers were not easy when you were a Christian, and since you have changed the mind, the answers are still not easy in the least, while you continue to insist that there are indeed easy answers.

Unlike the story of Jesus, where there is a much better chance the entire story is not made up. Meaning, we have reasonable cause to believe the story of Jesus was not pure/complete myth. Meaning, Jesus likely existed, and also likely did some stuff, and was also likely executed.

I think you realize a very important part you left out, and I believe that you made sure to leave it out, and that is the fact that we can pretty much know the followers of Jesus, who were right there on the scene, could not have possibly made the story of the resurrection up. I'm just telling you that this is an extremely strong admission that I do not believe you can avoid. It is one thing to have to admit Jesus may have lived. The fact is, there is really no way anyone can actually fix their fingers to type out "Jesus likely existed", because this is something we can be certain about, and one of the reasons we can be certain about this is the fact that we can know that there is no way the early followers of Jesus who were right there on the scene could have possibly made the reports of the resurrection up, and the fact that you will not even attempt to refute this demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty for even suggesting that "Jesus likely existed" when you know beyond a reasonable doubt that the early followers of Jesus who were right there on the scene could not have possibly made the story of the resurrection up. It is not even possible to know that you cannot refute the fact that the early followers who were right there on the scene, could not have possibly made the story of the resurrection of Jesus up, and cause your fingers to type the words out "Jesus likely existed". It is just not possible.

Where "the Exodus" is concerned, it's instead likely such stated folks were never even in the region the Bible expresses.

And here we go with the "likelihoods" again. Since you continue to assure us what the chances, likelihoods, and odds are in all these things, why don't you explain to us the exact likelihood of the story of the exodus contained in the Bible being a complete fabricated story? I'm thinking you would have no way to calculate the odds for this, and yet you continue to assure us of what the odds would be.

Exactly what "folks" are we talking about? Are you suggesting that the Hebrews were a real people, but they may have never been in the region the Bible expresses? This would mean the Hebrews were a real people, and someone for whatever reason wrote out a whole story concerning a real people, but these real people, were never in the region.

I'm just telling you that I do not even know where to begin here, because there is so much which would have to be involved. The one thing we do know is the fact that the Hebrew people were a real people, and as the historian Karen Armstrong who is not at all a Christian continues to say concerning the Hebrews, "against all odds". Notice, Armstrong talks about the odds as well, but what she is saying is, the Hebrews continue to exist in this world, against all odds.

This is what I am talking about when I say that it would take weeks, upon weeks for us to go through all it would take in order to determine if it would even be possible for the exodus account to be a complete fabrication. We would have to start with the fact that what is contained in the Bible records that the Hebrew people are God's chosen people. We would have to consider the fact that the Bible contains other races, and nations, along with the fact that we have evidence outside the Bible of these other races, and nations. We would then have to consider the fact that many of the other nations, and races which the Bible mentions, along with the fact we have evidence outside of the Bible of these other races and nations, no longer exist, while the Jews who beyond doubt have suffered not only the most persecution of any race of people, we know there have been those, who have attempted to wipe this race from the face of the earth. The fact of the matter is, we can know beyond doubt that this continues to this day in that we can know there are those who are working at this very moment in an attempt to rid the earth of the Hebrew people, whom the Bible refers to as the chosen people of God, while there are a number of other races of people who lived alongside of the Hebrews, who are no longer a people.

Can you see what I am talking about? This is exactly why my posts are so long, as well as yours. I am sure you would want to respond to some of what I say above, and the above is just the tip of the iceberg, all the while you continue to insist there are easy answers. You need to get it out of your mind, that since you did not use the mind that it is impossible to use the mind, because as you can see it is far more to think about than you are willing to admit, which brings us back to the fact that you have already freely admitted to the fact that you were convinced for decades that a dead man rose from the grave for DECADES of your life, when you had no facts, evidence, or reason to believe such a thing. Again, if you cannot see how this is relevant information, then I cannot help you. The one thing I am willing to bet the house on, is if the shoe was on the other foot, you would have no problem at all seeing how this would be extremely relevant information.

This is evident by the fact that, in ~ 18 months, no one has attempted to come to this topic to provide any actual evidence to suggest they did, other than appealing to slogans (or) now trying to introduce another group of folks. Which then lines up with what 'modern scholarship' suggests -- that this entire story may be comprised of myth and/or borrowed events.

This is where I have to get someone else to read this with me to make sure that what I think I am reading, is actually what I am reading, because you rail against someone appealing to the "modern scholarship" and then you go on to do just that. GOOD GRIEF! First, I am really not all that interested in this subject, but I got involved in this thread, not at all to get involved in this subject, but to rather communicate a message to otseng concerning the fact that there are some folks who do not really concern themselves with the evidence. You then decide to engage me, and I am forced at that point to attempt to gather some information concerning the Hyksos, and in a short amount of time, I have been able to demonstrate clearly how the Hyksos are indeed relevant to this conversation, and I have done so by citing scholarship which insists the Hyksos would not be relevant to this conversation. My friend, there are a whole lot of things which makes the Hyksos relevant to this conversation, and the fact that the scholarship brings the Hyksos into the conversation in order to explain to us that they are not relevant demonstrates they are indeed relevant.

This is why one individual wants to make the 'Hyksos' relevant.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! My friend, no one is making the Hyksos relevant. As we have seen, the Hyksos are relevant, and the fact that the scholarship brings the Hyksos into the conversation in order to assure us that the Hyksos are not relevant, would cause any thinking person to understand there must and has to be a reason these scholars even mention the Hyksos if they are not relevant, and what we have discovered is, they are relevant because even the scholarship who insist the Hyksos is not relevant, have to admit the similarities.

Again, and again, and again, it all comes back to one who was convinced for decades that a dead man rose from the grave, with no facts, evidence, and reasons in support. It was all so easy then, and now that the mind has changed, it is all so easy now, to the point no one even has to examine what all would have to be involved in order for the exodus recorded in the Bible to be a complete fabrication. Rather, all one has to do, is continue to insist what they would like the odds, chances, and or likelihoods to be, when they have not even attempted to determine these odds, all the while brushing any sort of evidence which may be opposed to what they would rather believe aside.

I mean, I get it. I get the fact that you really do not want to do the work. Heck, I was not interested in doing the work, but I was forced to, and I realized that it was going to be a whole lot more work than simply attempting to calculate the odds of one thing as opposed to the other, when there is no way to calculate the odds concerning these things, and even if you could, the odds tells us nothing concerning what actually occurred, and yet you continue over, and over, and over, telling us what the odds are, when you have no idea what the odds would actually be.

We cannot 100% rule out virtually any claim from ancient antiquity. We can only instead base our conclusions upon inference and probability. What does your 'gut' tell you?

For the sake of keeping this post from being any longer, I am going to skip down to this comment and end here, and I think we are about to find out why I choose to end with this comment above. First, this comment of yours above ties in extremely well with most of what I have said above. Next, I really do not believe you realize what a "gold mine" of a gift you have just given me. I have been on this site for over a decade now, and I have been involved in many discussions, and more than likely (just a figure of speech) read millions of words. In all my time on this site, I have never, ever witnessed such an astounding slip up.

I'm just telling you, that you are really not going to want to engage with me again after this. Because you see, if you think that I continue on, and on, about your admission of being convinced a dead man rose from the grave for decades of your life, when there would be no facts and evidence in support of what it is you were convinced of, you can bet the house on the fact that I will continue to bring this comment up above, into just about any discussion we have.

This is so neatly packaged that it is like a gift from heaven. You have absolutely demonstrated throughout this conversation, and also throughout the years in our discussions, that you somehow think you are going with the odds, and you have no way to even measure the odds. But what is even more important is the fact that the odds would have nothing whatsoever to do with the story of the exodus being fabricated, nor would the odds have a thing in the world to do with whether there was a resurrection. ZERO! I mean, any thinking person would know the odds have nothing to do with it. I highly doubt that anyone is under the impression that the odds of a resurrection are very good. In fact, I would suggest that most of us understand a resurrection to be impossible. What are the odds of the impossible occurring? Okay, well the odds do not tell us in any way that a resurrection did not occur, nor does it tell us if the exodus recorded in the Bible was fabricated, and here you are telling us that we need to weigh in odds in making such decisions.

When we are seriously dealing with things such as the exodus, and the resurrection, the odds have nothing to do with it, unless of course you are not really interested enough to do the work. You know, with something like big foot. I am not really interested one way or the other, and I am certainly not going to do the work it takes to have a solid conclusion, and therefore I may simply go with the fact that it is not very likely to be true and leave it at that. However, I certainly understand that whatever I believe the odds to be, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether big foot actually exists or not. In other words, no serious thinking person is going to consider the odds as having anything at all to do with it, and not only do you continue to talk about the odds, but you are also actually telling us that this is exactly how you operate. You can be assured that any conclusion I come to as far as what is discussed on this site, my conclusion is not in any way based upon the odds.

However, even as astounding as the above is, it is not as astounding as what we are about to address. You actually throw into the equation, "what does your gut tell you". I mean, you want to talk about a "gift from heaven". Do you really want to talk about a reason to never take someone seriously? Again, it is like I cannot believe my eyes. I mean, let us think about the fact that if I were to attempt to make the argument that I know Jesus lives, because He lives within my heart, this would be based on a feeling, and you would absolutely, and rightly so, blast such nonsense out of the water, and yet here you are talking about going on a "gut feeling". Is this for real?

Okay, so we know that the mind was not engaged when you were a convinced Christian for decades of your life. Well, I am going to take a stab at this, and assume your decision to become, and or to remain to be a Christian was based upon some sort of emotional response. You know, "hooked on a feeling, high on believing" sort of experience. Let's just get to it, "a gut feeling". So then, you did not use the mind and instead went on a feeling.

Okay, this is where it is about to get really good! You now want to convince us that the thinking process has changed, and it was this change in your thinking which caused you to reject Christianity. To be more precise, you want to convince us that you went from not thinking at all, to actually engaging the mind, and it was the engagement of the mind which led you to not only reject Christianity, but also led you to come to know there are no facts and evidence in support of what you were once convinced of. Can you imagine my excitement here?

However, your statement above clearly demonstrates there has been no change in the thinking at all, because you are admitting to the fact that in the end it is all based " on a feeling, high on believing" and it does not matter in the least that you throw the word "inference" in there, because it is an absolute fact that the odds, along with being "hooked on a feeling" has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In other words, any thinking person at all, would completely eliminate feelings from the equation, and so including inference into the equation does not really help you out here, since you are including the odds, along with being "hooked on a feeling, high on believing". This song is going to be stuck in my head for a long time to come my friend.

What you have just demonstrated is, your thinking process is no different, or any better than it was when you were a convinced Christian for decades of your life if you are weighing the odds, and "being hooked on a feeling". You can be sure that you will be hearing this again. Elixer, play "hooked on a feeling". You really cannot make this stuff up!

To end here, I want to think about the fact that we have a Christian who is insisting there are no easy answers on either side of the equation. This means this Christian is including Christians who are under the impression that the answers are easy. This Christian who has done the hard work which it takes to come to a conclusion, understands the arguments on both sides, and also understands the possibility of his own error very well. Because this Christian has done the study, and understands the reasons on both sides, this Christian acknowledges the fact that reason can be used on both sides and does not insist those opposed could not possibly be using reason.

On the other hand, we have another who proudly proclaims they were a convinced Christian for decades of their life without the use of the mind, who wants to complain they are being personally attacked when another simply repeats what this person has proudly proclaimed about themselves, who wants to insist that there would be absolutely no facts evidence and reasons to believe what they were once convinced of, who cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, who is now instructing us that the best way to come to major life decisions is by weighing the odds, and being "hooked on a feeling, high on believing" with a sprinkling of inference, when this sprinkling of inference matters not, when one is adding the odds, along with "being hooked on a feeling, high on believing". Be certain, this song will stay in my head.

[POI]

Exactly what am I missing here? We agree that a Biblical author records an exodus out of Egypt.

Yes. My first debate question asks:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? So far, we have about 22 months of nothingness, and then the owner of this arena dumps the 'Hyksos' over the fence. And now you wish to jump on the bandwagon. Which I find odd, for two reasons:

1) If the "Hyksos" were relevant, I certainly would not have had to wait almost 2 years to receive such a reply, being this topic has had ample exposure.
2) Since you are educated, I find it funny you never heard of them, and the alleged possibility of their relevance, which instead means that maybe they are not nearly as relevant as you may now wish for them to be?

We agree we have evidence outside the Bible that there was indeed an exodus of a people out of Egypt.

The objective of this topic is to test the claimed veracity of the Bible. The 'Hyksos' were apparently expelled out while the said 'Israelites' were released. I guess it would depend on how much leeway one wants to grant, being we are likely talking about a different group of folks, from a differing time, and under a differing set of circumstances. But other than that, the Bible is spot on!

We agree that it cannot be determined if the Hyksos and the Israelites would be one and the same.

Depends one which historians/scholars/other you read.

Of course, you are going to want to insist that this would be unlikely because you seem to be under the impression that it helps your argument, but I am afraid it does not. Exactly what would be the odds in this case? I'm not thinking you would be able to even determine the odds in this case. The bottom line here is the fact that you are forced to admit that there is indeed the possibility that the Hyksos and the Israelites are one and the same, and it does not matter in the least how bad you want to appeal to what you believe the odds to be. But let's not talk about the odds. Let us get focused on the facts.

A basic lookup yields the following result: "were the Hyksos the expressed Israelites from the exodus?"

While the Hyksos, a Semitic people who ruled parts of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, and the Exodus narrative share some parallels, the Hyksos are not generally considered to be the Israelites from the Exodus story, though some scholars suggest the Exodus narrative may have been influenced by the Hyksos expulsion.

I usually do not consider Wiki, but Otseng uses them a lot. So, when in Rome, do as they do... Here we go: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... onents.%22)

The funny thing is, I had never even heard of the Hyksos until I began to read this thread.

Yea, quite funny. Why do you think this is?

As I stated to Otseng. Since he brought up the Hyksos, we have crickets from believers. Likely for one of two reasons:

1. No one has done research because they likely never heard of them.
2. They have heard of them, researched them, and found the so-called connections lacking.

However, in the short amount of time I have had, let us look at some of the facts and evidence I have found.

Yes, as I told Otseng, anyone can argue anything. Especially with all the search tools we have these days. Hence, I can go on an infinite exchange with a flat-earther, a young-earther, etc.... But I digress...

I guess it depends on what one constitutes as evidence.

who says in this article....

Let's fast-forward a lot here. What is YOUR position here?

a) The Hyksos are likely the expressed Israelites?
b) They are likely not?
c) dunno?

If you select a), then we can go from there. If not, then it's pointless. I have many points too....

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

You write a lot! I caught some more insults in there, which makes me quickly loose interest. Did you happen to answer my 2nd debate question?

Otseng admits if 'the Exodus' is not a factual and literal event, as told from the Bible, then the entire Bible might as well be mythical as well. What say-you?

[otseng]

1) If the "Hyksos" were relevant, I certainly would not have had to wait almost 2 years to receive such a reply, being this topic has had ample exposure.

I find it odd you created this thread after I had already presented evidence for the Exodus out of Egypt. So, I doubt you even care about the evidence or even want to debate about it. Rather, you created this thread to bait unknowledgeable Christians and then keep hounding them since they can't back up their belief with any evidence.

2) Since you are educated, I find it funny you never heard of them, and the alleged possibility of their relevance, which instead means that maybe they are not nearly as relevant as you may now wish for them to be?

Why do you ask others about the evidence when I have brought up the evidence and you won't even engage me in a logical debate?

The 'Hyksos' were apparently expelled out while the said 'Israelites' were released. I guess it would depend on how much leeway one wants to grant, being we are likely talking about a different group of folks, from a differing time, and under a differing set of circumstances. But other than that, the Bible is spot on!

And you have the opportunity to present the alternative case with me. Since I've been the only one presenting the evidence, and you have not, the only position that could be spot on is the Biblical position.

While the Hyksos, a Semitic people who ruled parts of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, and the Exodus narrative share some parallels, the Hyksos are not generally considered to be the Israelites from the Exodus story, though some scholars suggest the Exodus narrative may have been influenced by the Hyksos expulsion.

I usually do not consider Wiki, but Otseng uses them a lot. So, when in Rome, do as they do... Here we go: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... onents.%22)

Of course some people don't accept the Hyksos and the Israelites to be the same. The questions are what is the evidence that they base their position on and how are we to determine which position is correct?

Since he brought up the Hyksos, we have crickets from believers. Likely for one of two reasons:

1. No one has done research because they likely never heard of them.
2. They have heard of them, researched them, and found the so-called connections lacking.

Crickets are also from the skeptic side. And why are Christians and non-Christians keep arguing back and forth about lack of evidence and nobody is engaging me in a logical debate when I'm the only presenting the evidence?

Here's the fundamental issue I see that is on both sides. It takes hard work to do research. I've had to spend a lot of money and time to do research on Egyptology. I'd say it would've been equivalent to a semester's class on Egyptology. But few people are willing to put the effort into deep study. Even outside of this forum I've found very few willing to put in the dedication that is required to study any topic that is discussed on this forum.

Let's fast-forward a lot here. What is YOUR position here?

a) The Hyksos are likely the expressed Israelites?
b) They are likely not?
c) dunno?

Why are you asking others questions when you won't even answer my questions?

[POI]

I find it odd you created this thread after I had already presented evidence for the Exodus out of Egypt.

How so? Virtually every topic here, is preceded by another of similar line of questioning. Further, I never followed that thread from beginning to end. Hence, I never knew you mentioned the Hyksos regardless.

So, I doubt you even care about the evidence or even want to debate about it.

Sure I do. Present your case. Since you have done the work, I'm confident you can condense it, from the original 30 pages, as this is not a research class, it's a debate forum.

Rather, you created this thread to bait unknowledgeable Christians and then keep hounding them since they can't back up their belief with any evidence.

Aren't you the one who ends many debate exchanges with, (paraphrased) we'll let the readers decide etc etc etc. Well, your debate must not have been very impactful, as no Christian, in almost 2 years, presented the "Hyksos". Further, I'm not 'baiting' anyone. This topic is out in the open, for anyone to address.

Why do you ask others about the evidence when I have brought up the evidence and you won't even engage me in a logical debate?

I asked you for your best piece of evidence. You brought up the 'Hyksos'. Great, what about them exactly? Present your case. Sum it up.

And you have the opportunity to present the alternative case with me. Since I've been the only one presenting the evidence, and you have not, the only position that could be spot on is the Biblical position.

Know your opponent. Through our exchange, you told me you researched this topic heavily. I would not send such a response to you. I already know you know all the counterpoints, which is why I located a video which mentions some of the most common ones. In spite of those, why do you still hold to the Hyksos? You brought up the 'Hyksos'. So, what about them?

Of course some people don't accept the Hyksos and the Israelites to be the same.

Do you? Seems like you do. If so, why? Further, and a more honest question... Would you if you weren't already a Bible believer? Anyone can argue virtually anything, and even present 'evidence' for virtually anything.

why are Christians and non-Christians keep arguing back and forth about lack of evidence and nobody is engaging me in a logical debate when I'm the only presenting the evidence?

Because no one wants to read through a large 30-page link. This is a debate forum, not a research class. Present your point(s). Let's see if they really jive, in spite of 'scholarship' stating they don't.

Here's the fundamental issue I see that is on both sides. It takes hard work to do research. I've had to spend a lot of money and time to do research on Egyptology. I'd say it would've been equivalent to a semester's class on Egyptology. But few people are willing to put the effort into deep study. Even outside of this forum I've found very few willing to put in the dedication that is required to study any topic that is discussed on this forum.

Again, this is a debate forum and not a research center. Sum up your case and present it here. Why is 'modern scholarship' wrong? Further, when I run a general Google search for "Were the Hyksos the expressed Israelites from the Exodus storyline?", the answer is likely (no). What do you know that Google AI does not? Enquiring minds really want to know?

Why are you asking others questions when you won't even answer my questions?

I want to know if RealJack is grabbing at straws to keep 'the Exodus' storyline relevant? If he is a 'minimal facts' Christian, then maybe it doesn't even matter, (ala question #2 of the OP). I already know your position. If this story is not true, then you are in big trouble. Queue the Hyksos!

[Clownboat]

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 sounds like I owe you an apology. I'm sorry for not knowing more about the Hyksos.

It's not like the Hyksos were a mythical group of people. Information on them should easily be found by a simple Google search.

Once again, I'm sorry for not knowing this information that should be so easily found on the internet. I must admit, there are lots of things that are easily found on the internet that I also don't know. I'm sorry for that as well I guess.

So why the consistent balking from skeptics and avoidance of answering the questions?

I did answer each of your questions honestly. I'm sorry I don't know more about the Hyksos.

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.

I'll take your word for it that it is reasonable to accept the Exodus account. Is there any evidence that it took place? For example, the remains we found in the desert for millions of people having lived there (as told in the story).

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.

As long as the answer is not "I don't know". Being honest about not knowing will be met with a degrading response I have learned.

Since no skeptic seems to know what I'm expecting as an answer, pretend these are questions on a history test.

It appears I failed this history test. Again, I'm sorry for not knowing that which you think I should.

If there was evidence for people living in the Sinai, I might be curious as to know if the Hyksos were responsible for this evidence we have found.
Without having evidence that people lived in the Sinai, I fail to see why I should put effort into determining if the Hyksos are responsible for what we haven't found.

Consider this claim:
The Hyksos are responsible for all the evidence that we don't have for a people living in the Sinai as told in the Exodus story in the Bible.
If I just grant you this claim, will you then be able to provide any physical evidence? Fire pits, pottery, graves, evidence for dwellings? Anything?

You need to provide an answer to the questions, not responses like "I don't know" or "they aren't the Hebrews".

You are asking me to put the cart in front of the horse. 'If' a story didn't take place, why should I wonder who is responsible for what didn't happen?

Personally, I think it is most likely that something took place that spawned the Exodus story, but there is a lot I don't know as you have demonstrated. I don't currently believe that it happened as told in the Bible though, because I believe we would have lots of evidence for such a thing if it had.

[RBD]

You need to read up on evidentiary evidence.

Examples of evidentiary evidence include witness testimony, documents, photographs, and other physical objects that can be used to prove or disprove a claim. In regard to "the Exodus", this originates from the Bible. The Bible is what is in question here.

Evidentiary evidence is direct evidence, which as you confirm, is eyewitness testimony, documents of testimony, photographs, physical objects, etc...

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony. What is in question is the witness' veracity. What's not in question is that the document is written by an eyewitness, Moses:

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Nor is there any question, that the recorded eyewitness testimony is direct evidence of the events he heard and saw from the beginning.

Anyone can reasonably say there is no supporting evidence outside that of the witness' testimony, but no one with evidentiary reason can say there is no evidence at all. Otherwise, the standard rules of evidence are changed, and an eyewitness account is not accepted as direct evidence.

The Bible produces the claims.

The eyewitness produces the document of record in the Bible.

You might want to claim this itself is the "'internal evidence", as it is a single document making the actual claim/statement.

Correct. The direct evidence of eyewitness testimony.

If this is how low you wish to go, in regard to standard(s) of evidence,

?? Are you now reversing yourself on what is evidentiary evidence? An eyewitness account is not direct evidence?

The only low road is redefining evidentiary evidence, to exclude eyewitness testimony in written documents, or accusing the witness of giving false evidence, without having direct evidence to the contrary...

Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

then any/all (claims/statements) from any competing holy text also provides "internal evidence", simply because it makes the claim.

This is only true if it is an eyewitness account. Otherwise, it is indirect evidence, that must be corroborated by direct evidence.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The book of exodus is the direct evidence written by Moses. If someone doesn't want to believe him, then all the evidence in Egypt would not persuade them. The same as in the matter of the Bible's eyewitness evidence of the Assyrian empire. Some continued to willfully disbelieve the Bible, even after the external evidence of the Assyrian empire was found.

[RBD]

For Debate:

1. Outside the miraculous Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

To put the question in perspective, you are asking about a Bible that can show it records prophetic miracles and, therefore, it has no human explanation to account for its source. No human can make hundreds of prophecies and get each one right. For an example, Daniel 9 foretells the time of Christ's death to the very week. Again, there is no human explanation to explain this accuracy. The Bible is self-authenticating as to its origin. So don't let liberals cause you to doubt.

I would add that the miracle of the Bible, is not just that eyewitnesses recorded such things, but rather that all their eyewitness accounts are preserved intact exactly as first written over thousands of years.

That is the work of the true Author, the LORD God Almighty:

Gen 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD?

And not in stone, but recorded over and over again on paper nonetheless. And then finally all the eyewitnesses agree with one another, and in many pages of books.

Ever try whispering one sentence to a dozen people in a circle, on the same day in the presence of one another, and get it perfectly right in the end?

This is why inerrancy between all the eyewitness accounts in the Bible is so important. If one 'jot or tittle' disagrees between them, then it proves the Author cannot be the perfect and holy Eternal One. This is why those who don't want it to be true, put in so much effort to try and find that fault.

Some people began by seeking evidence of error in the Bible, who in the end became some of the most ardent Bible believers and supporters. (Me, for example. )

[RBD]

Without provable conclusions, the 'educated' faith of scholars is no more valid than that of others, that educate themselves in the same thing.

The principle remains the same, that recorded evidence can be believed or not, unless internal or external evidence proves otherwise. In any case, the inscribed record is evidence, whether of historical fact, legend, or mythology...

Some claims in the Book of Mormon lack archaeological, linguistic, or historical evidence, including the existence of "reformed Egyptian" language, the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, and the specific geography and timeline of the Book of Mormon's events.

I've never bothered to look. The Joseph Smith proves he's false by the cover alone. He says he's writing another testament for Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ says He has no other testament than that written by His chosen apostles in the Bible.

Therefore, whatever is in his book may be interesting, false, or even some things true, but it's certainly not an unerring book, since the author lies to himself and others from the outset.

For example, "Reformed Egyptian" Language: The Book of Mormon states that the golden plates were written in "reformed Egyptian," but there's no evidence of such a language ever existing, and Egyptologists have not found any connection between it and known ancient Egyptian dialects.

Or how about the Nephite and Lamanite Civilizations....

How about them? Perhaps it's interesting to some people, but not to me.

My study has kept to doctrine, such as Smith's belief in a created christ of his own, rather then Jesus Christ, and changing the Spirit of the LORD into wind alone, rather than the eternal unseen Person He is.

Based upon your logic, we cannot rule any of these factors out

Until you acknowledge what I write, you don't know enough about it to comment on the logic.