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]

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

Your entire response here further affirms that you admit you do not acknowledge what others say.

No other evidence than the evidence given by the eyewitness Moses.

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

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

So now you're reduced to silly spitballs.

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

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

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

Another example of not acknowledging what others say.

[RBD]

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

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

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

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

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

Placing your own cards on the table in the name of others, doesn't mean others play them. Romans 1 is only referring to those who did once know God, and forsook Him. Not the heathen that never believed, much less knew Him.

However, the rest of your cards do apply to you and anyone favoring sin and wickedness, rather than the righteousness and love of God:

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, unthankful, unholy…lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

If it's preaching you want, then continue going to Scripture.

[POI]

I did not agree

The video in that thread exchange demonstrates why you must agree, which is why you pivoted accordingly.

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

Sure.

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?

Allow me to fast-forward, for sake in brevity. A claim is made for both an "Exodus", as well as "ET encounter(s)".

Here's the difference. We have evidence against the Bible's claim for an "Exodus." Again, the 'promised land' was still ruled by the Egyptians, which ruins the credibility of the Bible's account.

[POI]

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

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

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

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

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

Placing your own cards on the table in the name of others, doesn't mean others play them. Romans 1 is only referring to those who did once know God, and forsook Him. Not the heathen that never believed, much less knew Him.

However, the rest of your cards do apply to you and anyone favoring sin and wickedness, rather than the righteousness and love of God:

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, unthankful, unholy…lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

If it's preaching you want, then continue going to Scripture.

Hmm? You might want to brush up on your interpretation. I highlighted the part in bold. Which means no one is without excuse.

Regardless, your cards are on the table. Thanks!

Here's more context:

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

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

And for reinforcement:

AI Overview

The Bible asserts that a fundamental knowledge of God exists within all humans, making them "without excuse" for not acknowledging his existence. Romans 1:20, for example, states that God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse". This suggests that people can infer God's existence through observing the natural world

[Clownboat]

Here's the difference. We have evidence against the Bible's claim for an "Exodus." Again, the 'promised land' was still ruled by the Egyptians, which ruins the credibility of the Bible's account.

Why do you think that the failure rate is 100% when it comes to dealing with this question? You have posed it numerous times and I can't recall it being addressed.
If this is true, then your analogy about Jews fleeing to Auschwitz is on point and renders the claim that Jews fled Egyptians by fleeing to Egyptians as nonsensical. Perhaps a case of ignore it and see if it goes away?

[RBD]

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

Not if you continue to talk about you're own opinions, rather than the Bible itself. It's the Bible that's under review, not your personal issues.

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.

Such as here. You and others can vainly speculate and never know anything about the Bible, because you don't go to the Bible itself:

Mar 12:26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Moses wrote Exodus, which Jesus calls the book of Moses.

But, at least now you acknowledge that an eyewitness account is direct evidence given of an event.

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.

It's entirely relevant to Bible evidence, which is the eyewitness accounts written therein.

Even if we knew who wrote 'the Exodus' account, there is obviously no way to cross-examine them.

Not true. The specific account given can be compared to all the other things written by the same writer. As well as with all that's written in the Bible. Once again, inerrancy proves probability of veracity.

It's also true that the character of writing, also shows the character of the writer.

The self-defeating problem some people have, is that of their own limited purpose to only seek fault with a book and the writer. They therefore exclude a large part of comprehensive book review itself. They couldn't even begin to get a passing grade, until they at least review the book. And objectively without all the personal issues they may have about it.

People talk a lot about 'scholarship', and have even learned to used scholarly words, but what they actually say only shows they don't know what they are talking about, because they don't want to know the subject they pretend to talk about.

Rom 16:18 By good words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple.

[POI]

Not if you continue to talk about you're own opinions, rather than the Bible itself.

I'm speaking about YOUR opinion(s) here, as it relates to what I quoted, from you, in post 490.

It's the Bible that's under review, not your personal issues.

Right. And the review of the Biblically claimed veracity fails. This is not opinion. The 'promised land' was still occupied by the Egyptians at the time the Bible expresses Jewish arrival. This is a confirmed failure.

You and others can vainly speculate and never know anything about the Bible, because you don't go to the Bible itself

The Book of Numbers in the Bible is traditionally attributed to Moses, who is also believed to be the author of the other books of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy).

I guess Moses referred to himself as the humblest man on the planet?

I guess Moses recorded his own death?

At minimum, Moses logically had help. Which part(s) did Moses write, if at all, since we know he could not have written them all? And once we figure this out, was this person an "eyewitness" too? And this is while also completely removing the high possibility that the Pentateuch was written 100's of years after these expressed folks would have lived. The case to be made for 'eyewitness testimony' has a severe uphill battle, to say the very least. It's a good thing the Bible promotes faith. Because yer gonna need it...

at least now you acknowledge that an eyewitness account is direct evidence given of an event.

I never denied this. But direct evidence also includes other possible elements too. And the Bible looks to possess none of them.

Not true. The specific account given can be compared to all the other things written by the same writer. As well as with all that's written in the Bible. Once again, inerrancy proves probability of veracity.

Already explained above.

[Clownboat]

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

Not if you continue to talk about you're own opinions, rather than the Bible itself. It's the Bible that's under review, not your personal issues.

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.

Such as here. You and others can vainly speculate and never know anything about the Bible, because you don't go to the Bible itself:

Mar 12:26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Moses wrote Exodus, which Jesus calls the book of Moses.

But, at least now you acknowledge that an eyewitness account is direct evidence given of an event.

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.

It's entirely relevant to Bible evidence, which is the eyewitness accounts written therein.

Even if we knew who wrote 'the Exodus' account, there is obviously no way to cross-examine them.

Not true. The specific account given can be compared to all the other things written by the same writer. As well as with all that's written in the Bible. Once again, inerrancy proves probability of veracity.

It's also true that the character of writing, also shows the character of the writer.

The self-defeating problem some people have, is that of their own limited purpose to only seek fault with a book and the writer. They therefore exclude a large part of comprehensive book review itself. They couldn't even begin to get a passing grade, until they at least review the book. And objectively without all the personal issues they may have about it.

People talk a lot about 'scholarship', and have even learned to used scholarly words, but what they actually say only shows they don't know what they are talking about, because they don't want to know the subject they pretend to talk about.

Rom 16:18 By good words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple.

I read through post 576.
Was there any evidence for an Exodus as told in the Bible RBD? If so, please present it as I missed it.

[RBD]

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?

I don't see where any contradiction is being made, but at least it's getting back towards that purpose.

Your Canaan-Egypt is overstated revisionism. Egypt never 'owned' Canaan. They gained power there after the first battle of Megiddo in the first half of 15th century. They then maintained military-trade routes through the region to Syria and the Hittites. The local native powers remained in control of their own territories. The foothold of Israel under Joshua shows this, since it was the city of Jericho, the Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Jebusites, etc...that they defeated, not the Egyptians.

In any case, if the revisionism were true, then it would only serve to prove the great power of the children of Israel under the rule of their God, to now defeat the Egyptians in open battle many times in a row...

Just as silly as stating that later Jews escaped a German death camp and fled to Auschwitz.

Or rather, escaped the death camp and defeated the Germans and took over Auschwitz. (But then, that's only based upon a skewed version of fleeing Egypt to take over 'Canaan-Egypt'...)

Unless of course, now you want to deny the conquest and rise of Israel in Canaan? They only became slaves again Canaan-Egypt? Then it would be jumping from the oven into the frying pan. Or, perhaps it was the Egyptians that transplanted them there?

Or, are you saying the Hebrews never left the land of Abraham? Any evidence of that between Jacob and Joshua? That's one of the scenario's of contradiction, that I suggested at the outset. Rather than all this nonsense of no archeological evidence in Egypt is archeological evidence not in Egypt...

[POI]

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?

I don't see where any contradiction is being made, but at least it's getting back towards that purpose.

Your Canaan-Egypt is overstated revisionism.

It's a little more than 'overstated revisionism."

Canaan was largely under the control of Egypt. The Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 bce) saw Egypt exercise significant dominance over the region through a system of vassal city-states. While Egypt held sway, the Hittites of Anatolia also contested Egyptian power in Canaan. Further, Egypt's control over Canaan during the Late Bronze Age was substantial, with Egyptian pharaohs like Ramesses II exercising considerable power over the region.

Therefore, 'the Exodus' account, as told from the Bible, can be ignored, as it lacks veracity.