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]

Based upon your logic, we cannot rule any of these factors out. So why do you reject these claims, in spite of no positive evidence to support them either?

Marke: There is no evidence for the alleged tribes mentioned in Mormonism but there is ample evidence of the existence of the Jewish nation for 4,000 years.

Simple logic of fact sends another equivalence fallacy down the tubes. Beleiving in a secondhand witness of a people never seen before nor after, is not
the same as believing in a firsthand eyewitness of a people still seen today.

Keep up the good work.

Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness:

[RBD]

There is no evidence for the alleged tribes mentioned in Mormonism but there is ample evidence of the existence of the Jewish nation for 4,000 years.

I'm not arguing that the "Jewish nation" has not existed for 4,000 years. I'm instead asking for evidence related to the claims from the Bible. (i.e.):

1) 2 million (plus) Jewish folks were enslaved in Egypt at the time the Bible claims
2) These Jewish folks were allowed to leave at the time the Bible claims
3) These Jewish folks wondered the desert for 40 years
4) These Jewish folks ultimately arrived at the actual said location, and also at the time the Bible claims

Without probing any other claims from the Bible, outside the Bible's say so, is there evidence to point to these 4 claims alone? If so, what?



Marke: Just because modern archaeologists cannot tell how many people lived in Egypt 4,000 years ago does not mean the Bible is in error.

Nor can they tell by the bones, who was who. And so we see the inherent fallacy of trying to argue fact without facts.

You're on a roll.

[RBD]

Marke: The fact that there is no evidence to support myths and the fact that there remains little or no evidence to support historical events of 4,000 years ago does not disprove the Bible.[/b]

Here is where rules of evidence comes in, to show the stark difference between the Bible and other books like that of the Mormons.

Eyewitness accounts are direct evidence, that can only be refuted by other evidence proving them false.

Secondhand witnesses are indirect evidence, than can only be confirmed by other evidence proving them true.

The Bible in most cases like Exodus is eyewitness testimony, that has no other evidence disproving them. But the book of Mormon is only secondhand testimony, that has no other supporting evidence.

Therefore, in a court of law and historiography, the Bible must be accepted as true, en lieu of any contradictory evidence, and the book of Mormon can be accepted or rejected by personal belief alone.

People refusing to believe the Bible, do so despite eyewitness accounts of an exiting people. Believing the book of Mormon is only by hearsay of a people, that have never been known to exist. I.e. the book of Mormon is as credible (perhaps even fascinating), as any pagan myth of old.

Also it's a fact that many people are only willing to believe, or at least consider the book of Mormon as true, because the author erroneously says it's another testament of Jesus Christ, and thus founded upon the Bible...It's a piggy-back book of occasional myths, which is akin to the many tall-tales of extra-Biblical traditions about Jesus' childhood, and unrecorded 'miracles'.

Some of Smith's fantastic stuff is as believable as Mariology, to people who want to believe it. But I prefer Zeus showering gold upon Danae, to give birth to the divine hero Perseus. (I like the real myth stuff, rather than the pseudo-Bible spin offs...)

[POI]

What we keep finding are false comparisons, such as that of Exodus and a flat earth.

No. They are more similar than you will ever care to admit. The only reason these two topics are still even given any time of day, is that the Bible still reigns as the majority global authority. Scholars are not really racking their brains with either claim -- (of a claimed "flat earth" or an "Exodus"). Too much investigation/discovery exists to demonstrate the contrary for these two claims -- from the Bible. If these claims were not from the Bible, (which is still a political necessity for many areas of the world), no one would still be debating or taking them seriously.

Exodus has no contrary evidence

Yes, it does. I've started to mention some, and you continue to ignore them. Here's just one example (again)... The expressed 'promised land' was still occupied by the Egyptians. This makes about as much sense as arguing that a group of Jews escaped from a German death camp to seek refuge in Auschwitz.

while the flat earth is proven round. It's the old failed argument of false equivalence, or apples and oranges. No argument about apples can be argued from oranges.

No evidence for a very large claim, which would leave tons of evidence, followed by evidence against the said claims, is why no one truly takes this story seriously any longer. I'm bringing this topic up here to demonstrate that believers have no hope, except by faith alone. The owner of this website admits that this storyline must be true, or the Bible is in trouble.

What can be endless is the myriad false equivalence arguments, that can be made out of empty arguments.

Your slogan is an empty argument. It is also an excuse as to why there is no evidence.

[POI]

Not sure who is talking about the Hyksos, nor what it has to do with Exodus.

Here. Have at it:

My position is the Hyksos is the candidate group for the Israelites in Egypt.

[POI]

Eyewitness accounts are direct evidence, that can only be refuted by other evidence proving them false.

Then the Torah is (less than) the Book of Mormon. We do not know who wrote the Torah, nor if he was deposed? We know who wrote the Book of Mormon and he was deposed.

Secondhand witnesses are indirect evidence, than can only be confirmed by other evidence proving them true.

Later writers referenced the said folks from the stories they read about. This is not secondhand eyewitness anything.

The Bible in most cases like Exodus is eyewitness testimony,

You cannot make this claim as we do not know who wrote the Exodus, as well as not knowing if this author was deposed? You are making a faith claim alone.

But the book of Mormon is only secondhand testimony, that has no other supporting evidence.

The Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith, who was an "eyewitness".

Therefore, in a court of law and historiography, the Bible must be accepted as true,

Nope. The author was never identified, nor was the author deposed in court. Unless you can produce evidence of the court case?

People refusing to believe the Bible, do so despite eyewitness accounts of an exiting people.

No. I do so based upon basic logic. Which is why you must gaslight me, and state what you stated, (in which I quoted), in post 490.

[Clownboat]

I know of contrary evidence to the Hyksos being the Israelites, but it's not my job to argue for the skeptics side.

This cuts both ways.
It is not my job to inform you who the Hyksos were.
It is not my job to inform you if or how they were able to reside in Egypt.
It is not my job to inform you if or how they were able to take the best land if they did.
It is not my job to inform you about if the Egyptians tolerated them and if they did, why did they for so long.
It is not my job to inform you on if the Hyksos were ever enslaved.
It is not my job to inform you about what might have happened to the Hyksos nor how they left Egypt.

There is also the option that a much smaller event took place that later morphed into what we now read in the Exodus story.

This could be the case.

I realize this, which is why I'm hesitant to put in the work to tell you about the Hyksos. Cart before the horse.

The typical view of the wandering in the wilderness is they lived in tents and were constantly on the go. They did not build any settlements or structures during the 40 years. Pottery finds are typically deep within tells. Any pottery left on the surface thousands of years ago is doubtful would have anything left for us to find now. Unless they built elaborate graves, doubtful we'd find anything left if they just simply buried their bodies in the sand.

There is evidence for the Bedouin Tribes that lived in the Sinai. I would expect the same for millions of Jews wandering there for 40 years. Perhaps someday we will find evidence for the Exodus story as told. So far, we don't seem to have any.

If you want an education, then there's no room for you to debate me. I'll just simply teach you my position with no challenge from you. But, if you want a debate, then each side should present and defend their position.

When I answered your questions, I did hope for an education and did not know if debate would even follow as that would have depended on what I had learned. I'll take the blame for looking for an education as this is a debate site.

My position is the Hyksos is the candidate group for the Israelites in Egypt. A skeptic should present an alternative view and explain why that view is better than mine.

My position is that there is not evidence for millions of people wandering the Sinai. I am not of the position that the exodus story is 100% made up. Perhaps it is based off of some event and perhaps even the Hyksos were involve. My position that there is not evidence for millions in the Sinai remains valid.

If it turns out my explanation is more reasonable, then we can go on to questions after they left Egypt, like how many people left and what did they do in the wilderness. If the skeptics explanation that the Hyksos were not Israelites is more reasonable, then it's immaterial to debate what they did in the wilderness.

Wait a minute, we know what the Hyksos did in the wilderness? I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of this. Would it be too much to ask what it is they did in the wilderness?

What is surprising to me is that no skeptic has attempted to answer my first question.

Post 484 - Copy/paste
1. Who were the Hyksos? - I don't know.
(I do observe that the Hyksos are not needed to explain what we are not finding in the Sinai though).

Here's my guess. The skeptics have actually done a search on who were the Hyksos. But since it aligns with them being the Israelites, they do not want answer the question.

Here is a quick search I just completed (I Googled, 'who were the Hyksos').
- The Hyksos were a dynasty of foreign rulers who seized control of Lower Egypt (the northern part) during the Second Intermediate Period (around 1640-1530 BC), before being expelled by Ahmose I.
- Their origins are debated.
- They introduces horse drawn chariots and the compound bow.
- Their capital was in lower Egypt and they adopted many Egyptian traditions.
- They adopted some Egyptian religious practices.
- They were a small group.

That's why I'm attempting to look at the evidence of them actually being in Egypt.

How about we just grant that they were in Egypt. Is this evidence for millions of Israelites wondering the Sinai for 40 years?

Again, I'm not sure remains would even be possible if people were wandering in a desert.

I literally have no desire nor need for the Exodus story to be false, but I do expect to find evidence in the Sinai if millions wandered it for 40 years. Perhaps it just hasn't been found yet?

But if we have evidence of them being in Egypt and evidence of them being in Canaan, so somehow they must've travelled between the two. Why would it be necessary to have a complete archaeological record of every place they've been in order to accept the Biblical account?

I willing to grant that the Hyksos were in Egypt and they might have even been in Canaan for all I know. I'm looking for evidence that millions of Israelites wandered the Sinai for 40 years though. Archeologists have looked for such a thing and so far have found nothing I note.

You are implying then you accept the Hyksos were the Israelites by asking what happened during the desert wandering.

Not even scholars agree to this and I'm not going to pretend to understand this better than them. Therefore, I not only do not mean to imply such a thing, I reject it until there is a reason not to. I do wonder if the Hyksos inspired the Exodus story. Do you find that possible?

Yes, I'll eventually get to archaeological evidence of the Israelites in Egypt.

While archaeological evidence supports the presence of foreign, Semitic populations in Egypt, there is no conclusive evidence of a large group of Israelites, specifically a slave population, being enslaved and then exiting Egypt as described in the Bible.

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).

"we know the Hyksos comprised a small group of West Asian individuals who ruled Northern Egypt, especially the Delta, during the Second Intermediate Period."
https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/#:~:te ... e%20Period.
The Hyksos being a small group that ruled Norther Egypt informs me that they are not the Israelites from the story of the Exodus. Perhaps they influenced the Exodus story?

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.

It seems we know of six of their rulers. I must wonder why all six would not be Semitic and how this is evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible.

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

As a word, Hyksos is simply the Greek version of an Egyptian title, Heka Khasut, meaning “rulers of foreign lands/hill countries.

Thank you for encouraging me to learn more about the Hyksos. I have determined that they are not likely the Israelites from the Exodus story (as told). Perhaps they influenced the story, but I'll reserve judgment on that for now since it cannot be shown that millions of Israelites ever wandered the said area.

[otseng]

You assume that you HAVE to ask 6 questions. You don't. Your first question is a big one. I would agree, it is an important one. When you ask, who are they? We need context for this question. Well, in this context, we are wondering who they are, in relation to any possible Bible account? Hence, common sense would also include their ''race' to the answer in question 1). If they are not the expressed group of folks, it's already game over. No more questions needed.

I'm glad you agree the first question is a big and important question.

I'm not asking for a definition of the Hyksos based on the context of the Bible. I'm asking for a definition from any secular source.

Sure, if the race of the Hyksos is not Semitic, then my argument is already lost. However, do you have any evidence they were not? I've already given you three sources that say that they were.

As I told RealJack, when I simply 'Google' "Were the Hyksos the expressed Israelites from the Exodus account?", I'm met with the answer of "likely not!", and reasons are also given.

Why don't you simply then Google, "Who were the Hyksos?" and then post that? This is all we're trying to get past right now, not if the Hyksos were the Israelites.

You don't like that answer.

Because you're not even answering the first question, but trying to jump to the conclusion without even looking at the evidence and the line of arguments.

Since you won't answer my first question and give a definition of the Hyksos, just give me a response if agree or disagree with my definition of who were the Hyksos.

I did. You just don't like it. I informed you that your answer is too general, and too incomplete. When anyone asks, who are they? This question needs context. See my response above.

I'm asking for a "agree" or "disagree". Where did you provide that? Rather, you gave me a long roundabout avoidance of a simple answer.

If you agree, then we can go on to question two. If you disagree, then you have to provide evidence who the Hyksos were that is different than what I gave.

This could be the case.

If this is the case, then one should ditch the Bible. But I have a sneaking suspicion you are going to be banking on 'ancient antiquity.' Meaning, we cannot really 100% prove or disprove virtually any claim.

No, it's not like everything in the Bible has to be literally true or we ditch the entire Bible. And nobody is claiming we need to 100% prove anything. Rather, what I am claiming is that we need to support our views by presenting evidence and logical reasoning.

A typical view is also that established trade routes were in place to Canaan. Which begs the question, why were these folks so stupid, especially if "God' was on their side?

No idea what you mean. The Israelites established trade routes when they were wandering in the wilderness for 40 years?

Here's my guess. The skeptics have actually done a search on who were the Hyksos. But since it aligns with them being the Israelites, they do not want answer the question.

You are welcome to guess again.

OK, the only other option is skeptics have not done a Google search on who were the Hyksos.

[POI]

I literally have no desire nor need for the Exodus story to be false,

Me neither. For all we know, the natural/physical claims could be somewhat correct? In which case, us skeptics are then left to only argue the supernatural claims within this given storyline, just like some others from the Bible. It's low stakes for skeptics and high stakes for believers. Why? If "the Exodus" is correct, us skeptics can just cross this topic off of the long list of Biblical claims and move on to the next -- for which there are many to question. However, if 'the Exodus' did not happen, then many Christians are in deep doo doo.

I brought this topic up because 'the Exodus', as presented by the torah, might be one of myth entirely. This not only includes the supernatural claims, but also the physical/natural claims. We can investigate natural/physical claims. It will be interesting to see where Otseng goes with his argument. I have a hypothesis, but we will have to wait and see...

[otseng]

Which you have not provided any evidence for yet. The Hyksos were not the expressed Israelites from the story of 'the Exodus.'

This is only the first step of my arguments. We have the existence of the Hyksos in Egypt. The question is who were they? If they contained the Israelites, then we have a necessary element for the Exodus. If they are totally different, then my entire argument falls apart.

Not sure what your argument is, but you're barking up a wrong tree. The Hyksos are better associated with the 'new king' of Egypt, that knew not Joseph. Which means important Egyptian history, which means a stranger to the throne of Egypt.

A Canaanite people ruling Egypt, that begin to oppress the prosperous and peaceful people of Joseph in Goshen... Exodus is the beginning of pay-back time.

Here's my summary position:

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.

As for your position, it seems like what you're saying is the Hyksos and the Israelites were independent groups. Yet, coincidentally they entered Egypt at the same time, settled in the land of Goshen, avoided any resistance from the natives of them moving into the best land, eventually fought against the Egyptians, and then left at the same time. Would that be your view?