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]

Now here is what delusion by blind disbelief is all about. Not only is the evidence of Exodus given by the eyewitness Moses, not evidence, but his recorded writing itself isn't even rated as correspondence.

Explained in my last response -- (post 560).

[POI]

What sort of 'proof' do you need before believing historical records of Jews and Egyptians?

Good question. I honestly do not know.

Very telling:

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.

Excellent work with the cherry picking.

[POI]

How is there evidence for erased evidence

If you watched the video, in post 12, you would not ask that question.

The only expected evidence about Exodus, that ought be found, is any record of the Egyptian king contradicting a lie of Exodus , that was promoted and written by the Hebrews. He would have more political and social incentive to expose such a lie, than the disbelieving bystanders who only wish it were a lie...

I already responded to this too. The Egyptian king was not alive when this tale was written.

[POI]

This is the problem with people who only argue from personal belief

I find this response ironic, being you believe this story storyline without direct or indirect evidence.

It's not about the evidence at hand, but only about what they want to think about it.

And since you have a personal belief, this claim must be true, in spite of no direct or indirect evidence to support it. Which is why you continue to produce Carl Sagan's slogan on repeat.

That's why they continue to argue about who believes or doesn't believe, and not about what the evidence says.

There is no evidence, just a baseless claim, with evidence against it.

I only argue about rules of evidence, and what facts are available to judge the evidence as true or not.

Then you will need to do a much better job in this thread. Thus far, all you have demonstrated is blind faith.

[otseng]

This is all I've been asking from you and I accept this definition. So, the only point I'm making with the first question is the Hyksos were a Semitic people and they were from Canaan. This checks the first box that the Hyksos could be Israelites. At this point, I'm not claiming they actually were Israelites.

Then you continue to miss my point. Let me give you an example. When someone asks, "tell me about so-and-so"? Does context matter? Yes. If a perspective employer asks, verses a perspective blind date candidate, verses a perspective investigator in a criminal case, etc...

Without any context, your answer may suffice.

It should be obvious the context is a debate on if the Hyksos were associated with the Israelites or not. But the context is not important for the first question and it does does not assume if they relate to the Bible or not. I'm simply asking to do search on "Who were the Hyksos?" and the responses would suffice regardless of what is the context.

So far we have three sets of definitions given:

1. Who were the Hyksos?

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt c. 1782 BCE at the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt, thus initiating the era known in Egyptian history as the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c. 1570 BCE).

https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

Hyksos, dynasty of Palestinian origin that ruled northern Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630–c. 1530 bce.
Modern scholarship has identified most of the Hyksos kings’ names as Semitic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hyksos ... an-dynasty

the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin.
The Hyksos period marks the first in which foreign rulers ruled Egypt.
The Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs alongside Egyptian ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

- 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.

"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.

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.

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.

The Hyksos, meaning "foreign rulers" in Egyptian, were a group of Semitic people who established a dynasty in northern Egypt (Avaris) around 1650 BCE. They were known for their military prowess and their unique culture, which included a blend of Egyptian and Near Eastern elements.

These definitions are presented by you, Clownboat, and me and pretty much accepted by all, so asking for clarification of the context is more of an avoidance of furthering debate and just making the thread longer than necessary.

But you are trying to "shoehorn" the Hyksos in there. So, we need details about the Hyksos, like their "race(s)", timeline in question for the claim, etc... This is still before you get to your other questions.

Again, I'm not claiming the Hyksos were the Israelites yet. We'll get to the timelines in the subsequent questions.

The Hyksos left Egypt around the 1550's BCE, while Moses's clan left a century later, or much more. How do we know? (i.e.):

We'll get to them leaving Egypt later. For now, we're looking at them entering Egypt.

So, please address:
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?

[Difflugia]

You skipped the one possibility, and now sidestep it.

The argument that ai "skipped" is your argument from personal incredulity, presented as a rhetorical question.

the stories of the plagues weren't intended to be accurate in historical detail.

If so, then it's not accountable to accuracy, and so can't be accused of contradiction.

Exactly. If I'm right, then the contradiction doesn't matter. If the Bible is inerrant as you have so far claimed, then factual and historical contradiction matter.

Do you then agree with me that the Bible "isn't accountable to accuracy?"

in order to avoid the possibility of cohesion in an accurate account, you dismiss both contradiction and cohesion as any issue at all,

Is that what I'm doing? That seems like both a non sequitur and a straw man. I don't have to avoid the possibility of the Exodus account being accurate, because we can show that it's not. I can dismiss contradiction affecting cohesion because I accept the text is neither historically reliable nor inerrant. If the authors intended the text to be allegorical rather than historical, then your earlier rhetorical question doesn't have the answer you think it does.

by now making it only allegorical or mythical, and not intended to be accurate.

The authors made it that way, not me.

(Some pseudo-believers of the Bible do the same in places, that they also don't personally like...)

And now an argument ad hominem. Are you playing logical fallacy bingo?

You're the one that was arguing a historical contradiction, but now that you deny it was written to be historically accurate at all, so as to sidestep the cohesive possibility, by simply begging off from the charge itself.

What?

The real-life practice of replacing dead livestock with live livestock, does not need to accuse the record of being contradictive, whether by error or on purpose...

And pretending that this "real-life practice" is somehow viable on the scale of an entire nation by shoehorning your own story into the Bible doesn't actually solve your problem, it just creates a different one.

So, it's one thing for the Bible to contradict reality like all supernatural myths, but it's the ones believing the supernatural that contradicts reality. Of course, this argument can only be made by those who reject the eternal things of the spirit, and only believe in the temporal things of nature:

This is another straw man. Nobody's argued yet that it's improbable simply because it involves the supernatural. If the supernatural existed and caused punishing plagues now, a story of plagues in antiquity would be more believable. The story in Exodus still couldn't be inerrant because there are more problems with the narrative than mere improbability, but if supernatural things were known to happen, it could at least be argued that the story is plausible.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.f

In any case, I do applaud your logical sophistry.

Being called a sophist by an inerrancy apologist is kind of like a fish calling me wet.

You first give learned a-supernatural rhetoric, sprinkled nicely with just the right amount of convincing scholarly words, and then conclude it's the ones believing the Bible, that contradict it, not the ones disbelieving the Bible.

The same scholarship is accessible to anyone that cares to find it.

That is unique indeed. I've never been accused of contradicting the Bible, by believing it's true.

That's probably because fundamentalist and evangelicat echo chambers tend to falsely equate their invented theologies with "the Bible." Saying that the Bible is true isn't the same as saying that it's historically accurate or inerrant. Claiming that no two verses may contradict each other when treated as inerrant history is a theological position, not a biblical one. If you've never heard that your theological views contradict the Bible as it's written, then you don't talk to many people outside of your particular, narrow brand of Christianity.

However, once again, that sophistic accusation can only be made by those who do not believe the Bible is recorded fact, but only allegorical myth.

So, like all myths, the Bible cannot really contradict itself, but the only ones 'contradicting it' as not being myth,

That's right.

are the neo-superstitious, prehellenistic, counter-enlightenment, concatenatiously a-scientific, rural rubes, that laughably ( ) believe those supernatural events, that are written exactly as witnessed by other neo-superstitious, prehellenistic, counter-enlightenment, concatenatiously a-scientific, rural Hebrew rubes...

Hold on... straw man... poisoning the well... BINGO!

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

I've never been to a chiropractor or homeopath, so I think I'm good.

In any case, I'm only interested in anyone presenting facts, that would prove the Bible contradicts itself, and is not just being mythically inclined.

We did that. You made up your own story and added it to the Bible in response. Revelation 22:18-19 doesn't apply to Exodus, though, so you're OK, right?

I'm not expecting anything from people, who dismiss all self-contradiction or possible harmonies of cohesion from a Book of myths, that is never intended to be historically accurate and factual in the first place.

Of course not. If you instead actually treated this like a debate, you'd actually have to support your arguments, right?

I only expect someone offering evidence of Bible self-contradiction from the Book itself, or from other provable evidence.

I did, but you countered it with parts of the Book that you made up.

Otherwise, people who do make the charge, can just alternate between it being written as fact, in order to make the charge, and then only written as allegorical myth, in order to dismiss the harmonious cohesion.

The problem with the claim of harmonious cohesion is that it only seems to appear when apologists do all of the harmonizing. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't always squint in exactly the same way you do.

They did fluidly follow one upon another distinctly as written, and they were fabulous. It doesn't make them myths.

You're right. That's not what makes them myths.

Ps 78 is not about the plagues in Egypt, but rather the miracles in the wilderness outside of Egypt.

Psalm 78:42-53a, emphasis mine:

They remembered not his hand,

Nor the day when he redeemed them from the adversary;

How he set his signs in Egypt,

And his wonders in the field of Zoan,

And turned their rivers into blood,

And their streams, so that they could not drink.

He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them;

And frogs, which destroyed them.

He gave also their increase unto the caterpillar,

And their labor unto the locust.

He destroyed their vines with hail,

And their sycomore-trees with frost.

He gave over their cattle also to the hail,

And their flocks to hot thunderbolts.

He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger,

Wrath, and indignation, and trouble,

A band of angels of evil.

He made a path for his anger;

He spared not their soul from death,

But gave their life over to the pestilence,

And smote all the first-born in Egypt,

The chief of their strength in the tents of Ham.

But he led forth his own people like sheep,

And guided them in the wilderness like a flock.

And he led them safely, so that they feared not;

The Bible says Moses was the writer of Exodus:

The Bible says a lot of things. This is Christianity & Apologetics, where you actually have to support your claims.

Ps 105 continues in the tradition written by Moses own eyewitness account.

Sure. The nine plagues, just as Moses eyewitnessed them:

1. Darkness
2. Rivers of blood killing the fish
3. Frogs
4. Flies
5. Lice
6. Hail and fire
7. Destruction of vines, figs, and other trees
8. Locusts
9. Smiting of the first-born.

Or are the flies and lice one plague, like the Hebrew parallelism suggests? That would leave just eight. Or is the death of the fish a separate plague, giving ten?

But only the Bible is written by eyewitnesses in great detail exactly as they happened.

So you keep saying, but not supporting.

And though some even write of fantastical myths about the childhood of Jesus, that does not make the recorded witness untrue...

That's right. The noncanonical stories aren't what make the canon ahistorical.

[POI]

the context is not important for the first question

Yes, it is. Here's your context. These folks, much like the 'Habiru', are both desperately needed "contenders" or "candidates" for the expressed ancient Israelites. But these two groups of folks have basically been ruled out by "modern scholarship". Anyone can do a "Google" search for these scholarly reason(s), for both groups. But of course, some will still argue for this two group's relevance anyways, due to personal vested interest and also the Bible still being one of the global political authorities. Which means "scholarship" must continue taking these challenges seriously. And of course, as I already mentioned, anyone can argue for almost anything. Queue the young-earther, the Evolution-denier, etc..... Yes, because of statements in the Bible, we still have to endure such "debate"...

No one is interested in your attempted 'trap', by getting your interlocutor(s) to answer these 6 questions. You mentioned the Hyksos. Start drawing all the logical connections. Oh wait, you apparently already did so. How did that go for you? As you would say, we'll let the readers decide. And wouldn't you know it, no one is coming to your defense. I asked RealJack, and he still remains agnostic about the Hyksos. Even believers are not convinced, unless they all remain silent?

Please answer your own questions. I'll start in red:

1. Who were the Hyksos? Oh, it's a group of folks in which a very select few still argue are the expressed Israelites.
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long?
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved?
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt?

[Clownboat]

Of course you do. My interest is not in what you believe or not, but only in any evidence of Bible errancy.

The Bible is not inerrant and the earth is not flat.
For me to argue against either of these positions is to give them credit that they don't deserve.
You are no different than a flat earther yelling at us that the earth is flat, then you quote from some flat earth material and call it evidence. That the Bible is inerrant is not worthy of debate.

These recorded events by firsthand witnesses

I hear your claim, by now, you should understand that claims are not evidence.

[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.

The written evidence of the eyewitness Moses speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it en lieu of any other evidence, then that's your choice.

Anyone saying there is no evidence of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, because they say there no eyewitness account written, or they have not read it for themselves. Then they can read it as written, since it remains on earth exactly as written.

However, anyone trying to deny that eyewitness accounts are evidence of anything, then that's a kind of blind disbelieve, that becomes delusional in courts of law and historical review...

2Th 2:10And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I read through post 559.
Was there any evidence for an Exodus as told in the Bible RBD? If so, please present it as I missed it.

[RBD]

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.

I did not agree, and you pivot from the point accordingly.

Is there any possibility of an ET presence in the universe, while there is no evidence of them?

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.

This is true. A record of evidence could be true or false, and can be proven true or false by other evidence.

The evidence given in Exodus by the eyewitness Moses can be true, so long as there is no evidence against it. The same for an ET presence in the universe. You agree?

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.

No other evidence. And, that's not it: The Exodus events and ET presence in the universe can be true, so long as there is no other evidence against them. Agreed?