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]

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.

Funny. You earn your moniker with this one.

[POI]

Or, are you saying.....

What I'm saying here, alone, is the timeline does not line up. Even if we were to ignore all the other stuff for now, the 'promised land' alone fails the expressed timeline given by the Biblical account.

[RBD]

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony.

You haven't established this.

Jesus does.

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?

What's not in question is that the document is written by an eyewitness, Moses:

That's absolutely a valid question. This isn't Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma, where the Bible is considered authoritative. Here, what the Bible says is only evidence that the Bible says it.

It's evidence given by eyewitness testimony.

The rest of Moses can be read as well, to make a judgment of His character, which is shown by the character of his writing.

The reason J Smith's character is no good, is because he goes against the Bible, that he is supposed to be adding to, by saying he is writing another testament of Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:7 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The same for Muhammad's false character of contradicting the God of Abraham, for Whom he claims to speak as Allah, by saying that God cannot beget a Son.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

The book of exodus is the direct evidence written by Moses.

In this subforum, scholarship matters. From the New Oxford Annotated Bible, "Introduction to Exodus:"

Like the rest of the Pentateuch, Exodus contains contradictions and redundancies.

In this forum pseudo-scholarship matters most, for them seeking fault, where there is no fault.

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.

And from what I've heard, there's a whole consensual quorum to 'prove' it. I'll be glad to look at more apparent contradictions you've got, which is what I'm here to learn of.

So far, all I've seen elsewhere is superficial and/or interpretive readings, with no attempt to study and prove there are no other possible options...

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the words truly.

Only seeking fault is a self-defeating error caused by limiting one's horizon. When no other possible options can be allowed, then none are sought.

I am an objective observer, that at least seeks those other possible options.

If someone doesn't want to believe him, then all the evidence in Egypt would not persuade them.

All the evidence in Egypt won't convince someone ensnared by Christian dogma.

I'd rather say Bible teaching, since some Christian dogma is as bad as Jewish dogma, and have nothing to do with the Bible, other than to corrupt the doctrine of God and His Christ.

But, since there is no evidence in Egypt against the Exodus, then the point is mute.

However, it's not the same for those only seeking fault. Even after other evidence than the Bible record of the Assyrian empire was found, there are still fault finders accusing the Bible evidentiary record of being false...I.e. not all the evidence of Assyria in Iraq persuaded them, so neither would any evidence of Exodus in Egypt.

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.

My view of the God of the Bible, is that having once shown other evidence in one place, and the purposed fault finders did not repent, then He doesn't even bother in another place.

As they say, not all the gold of Croesus can persuade a single person to change their heart, if they are not of a mind to do so...

[RBD]

Or, are you saying.....

What I'm saying here, alone, is the timeline does not line up. Even if we were to ignore all the other stuff for now, the 'promised land' alone fails the expressed timeline given by the Biblical account.

Your timeline is off, but not by too much.

However, your revised version of entering 'Canaan-Egypt' is way off. And besides, it would only prove the power of the God of the Israelites not only to destroy Sihon of the Amorites, and Og of Bashan on the way to Jordan, as well as take Jericho right after crossing, but then go on to destroy the Egyptians from city to city and valley to valley...

But of course, the Egyptians are never even mentioned in Judges, as an occupying force defeated by Israel in Canaan. Which would have been even greater pro-Israelite propaganda to all their enemies, than just escaping out of Egypt proper.

Or, do you now want to confirm your analogy of escaping one death camp, only to fall into the hands of another, as though the children of Israel were immediately taken slaves in Canaan, and never had an independent nation and power in the middle east?? Are you now also making the book of Judges a myth? Kings and Chronicles? Solomon was a pauper perhaps, and a born-slave of an Egyptian princess?

(You really do need to think these things through before just throwing revised stuff out there. It quickly becomes ad absurdum on steroids...)

[RBD]

For example, Moses’s father‐in‐law is sometimes called Reuel and sometimes Jethro;

And don't forget Hobab.

Obviously, pseudo-scholarship forbids surnames and nicknames. How about Jacob and Israel? Or, Israel and Jesurun? How about Gen. Jackson and Stonewall? Gen. Rommel and Desert Fox?

and the mountain of revelation in Sinai in some passages and Horeb in others.

Right. Mt Horeb is the dominant mountain in the Sinai wilderness, and therefore rightly called mount Sinai.

The narratives of Moses on the mountain in chs 19 and 24 have many overlapping and conflicting details,

Since I don't read any, you'll need to supply the examples, or one.

as does the account of the calamities—called “ten plagues” in postbiblical tradition but not in the Bible—against the Egyptians in 7.8–10.29.

Again, less accusation and more example.

Differences in vocabulary, style, and ideas are also evident.

So, Moses had to monopolar in writing skills? I mean, he was an Egyptian prince. In any case, it's necessary literary skill to adjust the manner and style of writing, in order to best capture the subject matter at hand.

I'd like to see some examples here too, but Moses' writing skills.

One believing 'expert' says much the same thing about differing style, to try and prove Hebrews could not by written by Paul. And then he cites a verse that's supposed to confirm it, but instead confirms Paul could be the writer. Want to see it?

Thus Exodus is best understood as a composite of streams of traditions shaped over many centuries by an unknown number of anonymous storytellers and writers. Eventually those traditions—often labeled J, E, D, and P according to critical biblical scholarship—were skillfully combined into the present canonical book by one or more redactors or editors who accepted these multiple traditions as valid.

Whew! Mouthful. If you wrote this as a stream at once, then I congratulate you. It shows a well-versed knowledge of what some 'experts' best prefer to understand about Exodus, and much of the Bible itself.

Anything other than the simple understanding of one eyewitness writer, as confirmed by Book itself.

1 Cor{14:33} For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


The overlooked point in all this literary critique, is that the writers of the Bible often comment on themselves and one another, and sometimes critically, but always objectively with no hint of subterfuge or grand conspiracy. They would have had no problem speaking of the 'different' writers in the same book, or it's long time in the making, if that were the case.

And of course, once again Jesus the acknowledged master of the Scriptures, even by those who hated Him for it, simply says Exodus is the book of Moses, not of 'anonymous storytellers'... Which of course is pseudo-scholar speak for disbelieving the Book's own :

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No holy redactors and editors...Nor was Daniel, the man of great character third in the kingdom of Darius, lying when he spoke in the first person of the book, that he wrote not only as an eyewitness, but firstly as a biography...

Experts are convinced that Exodus is a composite story, crafted over centuries.

Not this one. Nor the expert Jesus.

Afterall, Moses had plenty of time to write by the mouth of the LORD, with 40 years of journeying in a solitary wilderness... I can also show by Jesus' account, that Moses also wrote Genesis and Job, in addition to Exodus and the books of the law... Want to see it?

[RBD]

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony.

Well, then the answer to the exodus story has been answered and it really did happen, if you speak the truth.
One little request that seems very reasonable. Please show that you do speak the truth in this and then kindly inform me where the claim about the exodus story comes from. Much appreciated!

You mean prove Moses wrote it? Because Jesus says so:

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?

He also confirms Moses wrote Genesis and Job, as well as Exodus and the books of the law. Want to see it?

However, it doesn't necessarily prove the evidence is true. It only proves that Exodus is an eyewitness account, giving testimonial evidence. It could also be called the Exodus biography of Moses. Just like that of Daniel. However, that doesn't necessarily stop anyone from disbelieving either of them.

What it does prove is, that no one can call Exodus a book of various unknown writers, nor that it can't be true. Eyewitness accounts are judicially and historically taken as direct evidence, that certainly can be believed, so long as there is no contradicting evidence.

And so, none of this is about proving the Bible must be believed, since that it not possible with a race of beings, that have power to refuse to believe the truth, even if it slaps us upside the face. All this proves, is that it certainly can be accepted with reasonably educated faith.

It's not necessarily against honestly objective critics, that hold out for other evidence to confirm it. It's only intelligently against fault-finders, that declare the Bible can't be believed, so that only uneducated blind believers fall prey to it's hokey commands and claims of great miracles. (I mean, really, let's not be so gullibly boorish, shall we? Afterall, this isn't the nonrational, counter-enlightenment, prescientific, perverse fundamentalist days of blind antiquity. Or so says, one really, really skeptical elocutionator put it. )

[POI]

Your timeline is off, but not by too much. However, your revised version of entering 'Canaan-Egypt' is way off.

There is no 'revised' version. An exact year cannot be established, due to the confines of ancient antiquity. But we can approximate. And even if we grant vast leniency, the timeline still does not fit with the Biblical narrative:

https://archaeology.org/issues/july-aug ... r%20trophy.

Egypt's rule over Canaan, now part of modern-day Israel and Palestine, is estimated to have begun around 1458 BCE with the defeat of Canaanite chiefdoms by Thutmose III at the Battle of Megiddo and lasted for approximately 350 years. During this period, Egypt exerted direct military and administrative control over Canaan, establishing fortresses and other structures. We know about this rule through Egyptian documents and artifacts found in the region, including victory stelae of pharaohs like Seti I and Ramesses III.

This means Egypt had a tight grip until roughly 1100 BCE.

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

Any timeline you input, the 'promised land' was still Egypt's. Hence, the Bible is wrong. Why?

The Bible suggests the Israelites entered Canaan around 1407-1406 B.C.E.. This date is derived from the Bible's internal chronology, specifically by calculating 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years before entering the promised land. The conquest and settlement of Canaan are described in the Book of Joshua.

And besides, it would only prove the power of the God of the Israelites not only to destroy Sihon of the Amorites, and Og of Bashan on the way to Jordan, as well as take Jericho right after crossing, but then go on to destroy the Egyptians from city to city and valley to valley...

Since we now know the Bible lacks veracity, it 'proves' nothing.

[POI]

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?

Seems we are off to a shaky start. The Hyksos settled into Goshen between (1650-1550 BCE). The Bible states the Israelites were to have settled there between (1800-1700 BCE). A couple of 100 years different may not seem like much, but just imagine if we were this far off with the facts for WW2? The Jews might still be thought to be occupied in Auschwitz right now. Further, since this is the Bible we are talking about, shouldn't it be more accurate than competing secular scholarship, who states the Hyksos were there later?

The same goes for the stated (leaving Eqypt) timeline. They are off. Too far off.

[POI]

You mean prove Moses wrote it? Because Jesus says so...

He also confirms Moses wrote Genesis and Job, as well as Exodus and the books of the law.

I would ask Jesus to explain, but I know he won't. Hence, I will ask you.

Moses described himself as the humblest man who ever lived, and also wrote about his own death?

[otseng]

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.

Well, ultimately the context is this thread - did the Exodus really happen?

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.

Then it should be easy for you to Google those scholars and answer questions 2 and 3.

2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?

And of course, as I already mentioned, anyone can argue for almost anything.

And I'm trying to engage you in a logical debate for what happened. I'm arguing why the Hyksos is the evidence for the Exodus. If they were not candidates for the Israelites, then it should be easy for you to counterargue that with evidence.

No one is interested in your attempted 'trap', by getting your interlocutor(s) to answer these 6 questions.

A trap? No, it's basic questions.

But why do you feel it's a trap? Is it because the answers to these questions backs up my position?

Why won't any skeptic answer these questions? For one, it takes work to examine the evidence and it takes even harder work to defend a position. It's easy for skeptics to just keep attacking and mocking, but balk when asked to try to defend anything.

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.

I already answered this over 15 pages ago:

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