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?

[Clownboat]

Please show that you speak the truth and that you are not here to deceive. Please explain the differences we found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

It explains why they aren't in the Bible.

Are you trying to drag me down to your level to beat me with experience?
I asked you to explain the differences we discovered when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found because you claimed: "preserved intact exactly as first written".
Since there are differences, a claim about them being preserved intact exactly as first written is therefore false.

Why do some scrolls contain significant variations, including additions, omissions, or reordering of entire sections of text for example?

If you're talking about sections of the Bible, then give the examples.

- Goliath could not have both been six cubits and a span and also 4 cubits and a span.
- A passage present in the Masoretic Text is absent in a Qumran manuscript. 4QJudga lacks Judges 6:7–10 (where a prophet delivers a message to Israel)​. Scholars infer these verses may be a later insertion in the Masoretic Text tradition. An editor probably added the prophet’s speech to enhance the narrative, and the older Qumran version did not yet include it.
- The Book of Jeremiah exhibits one of the largest textual differences. The Greek Septuagint version of Jeremiah is about one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic Text and has a different chapter order for the oracles. Dead Sea Scroll findings showed Hebrew copies matching both the shorter and longer forms. This confirms that two distinct editions of Jeremiah circulated in antiquity.
- In summary, the Dead Sea Scrolls have exposed several additions or omissions in the Masoretic Text tradition. Sometimes the Masoretic Text is longer and sometimes the Masoretic Text is shorter. These examples underscore that the biblical text was edited over time. The Dead Sea Scrolls allow us to recover lost pieces and identify later insertions, enriching our understanding of the original form of these books.
***Therefore, your claim of being intact exactly as first written is false. ***

I'm not interested in theological opinions about the Bible by unbelievers. That includes about how to be a Christian.

Just more failure. You asked if anything is too hard for the LORD. I provided 3 examples and you now hide from your failure because you are not interested in theological opinions about the Bible by unbelievers. Yet here you are, on a debate site meant for just that purpose.

The Bible from Genesis to Revelation, with all the books therein, which is the only possible Bible of the God of the Bible, since it's the only inerrant Book.

Derp! I asked which Bible and provided 5 options. You failed to identify which one you meant. The Bible is also not inerrant. I accept that you believe that it is, but it isn't... due to the errors.

Any other books that don't agree, can't possibly be the written words of the God of the Bible.

Now the Bible was written by your God! You claim that Exodus was an eyewitness account written by Moses and that a God wrote it. You are too much.

While I understand some people don't believe in the Spirit nor in spiritual things, nevertheless, they can at least understand the concept of being inspired by a spirit to believe, write, speak, and do things.

And you falsely believe that people don't believe in these things because they desire the Bible to false. Not because spirits have never in the history of humans been shown to be real nor needed to explain things. When you write your replies, I do not believe any spirits are helping you and there certainly is not an all knowing being helping you either.

This doesn't even address the unknown authors of the gospels.

I don't address unknown authors of other gospels, but only the four written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

It is unknown as to who wrote the gospels. It amazes me that you don't know this.

Which is fine by me, since I not only learned much from the Bible by reviewing supposed errors in the Bible for myself, but I still learn much about how the Bible continues unerringly, when reviewing supposed errors from others.

I accept and acknowledge that you hold to the belief that the Bible is unerring. I'm not impressed by your belief and I'm aware of far too many errors and contradictions in the Bible.

Do you know of any evidence that would suggest that millions wandered the Sinai during the time the exodus was to have taken place? I would like to examine it.

[Clownboat]

They attempt to show evidence of contradiction between writings of the prophets of Jehovah, with that of the apostles of Jesus Christ. They fail, but are still free to reject Jesus Christ the promised Son and risen LORD God of Israel.

Perhaps you are not aware, but from just one sentence, if we are to take your words seriously, we must agree:
That humans can prophecy the future.
That Jesus was the son of a God.
That a 3 day old decomposing body of Jesus reanimated to life.

I know you want to believe that you are hard to be taken seriously because I want to disbelieve the Bible. Please try to understand all the baggage you insist I must also agree to that has nothing to do with wanting to disbelieve the Bible.

You claim a God wrote the Bible (and Moses and presumably Paul) and that spirits help humans write things. Why are neither demonstrated in your replies? Instead I get religious platitudes like the ones above that also require believing things not represented in reality. I know you don't realize it, but you are asking a lot.

[RBD]

The extant tablets are physical evidence that somebody wrote down a story.

Which is the rebuke to say the Bible has no evidence,

Nobody said that. It's certainly not the kind of evidence that you want to assert that it is, but it's not nothing, either. You've created a straw man by equivocating on "no evidence."

Some say so here, and I lose track. So, if you're not one of them who says the Bible has no evidence, then you're not included. I try to remember.

Otherwise, it's obvious many books of the Bible are eyewitness accounts, which say so themselves, and so count as direct evidence by judicial law and historical review.

Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The rules of evidence in law and historiography is that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, and secondhand testimony is indirect evidence. The Bible is direct evidence of an eyewitness to a flood over the whole earth,

No, it isn't. Genesis 6-9 is a story about the Flood.

Judging the words of testimony as just story-telling, without showing why, is just unproven personal opinion.

A person in a court can offer eyewitness testimony.

And be counted as direct evidence. No one has to judge by their witness alone, but it is evidence given by testimony in court. That's why it's called giving false evidence, if any other evidence proves it false.

The Bible is full of eyewitness and second hand testimonies of things said and done. Outside of any other evidence confirming or denying their testimony, anyone can choose to accept or reject it as true.

But, no one can rationally say they are no eyewitness accounts, since they themselves say so. And therefore, no one can legally and historically say there is no evidence the Bible is true...

If an eyewitness is deposed, we might treat the written transcript as eyewitness testimony, but that presumes a chain of custody that we trust.

Outside of any evidence to corruption of the testimonies as given, then they can be accepted as unaltered and unadulterated direct testimony.

And of course, their inerrancy speaks for their authenticity.

If the court recorder and attorneys affirm that the transcript is a true and accurate copy of the eyewitness testimony, then we'll treat it as though the eyewitness made the statements directly in court.

Don't get carried away with the analogy. Historical review also acknowledges the direct evidence of historical eyewitness testimony. Review of the testimony and any other evidence found, is the process of the court of history.

But, if you'd like: I RBD as historical recorder and attorney for the Book, do affirm that the transcript is a true and accurate copy of the eyewitness testimony. That should do it...

The Bible has no such chain of custody or even provenance.

You mean other than the record of all the class of ancient scribes, that diligently record as originally written even to this day? Or, the invention of the printing press is not accurate?

In any case, their present state of inerrancy shows their worthiness to be the authorized version of the original inerrant words.

Anyone can choose not believe the words, but no one can question the historical record of their diligent recording, which was made abundant in the age of machines. I mean, being a scribe of Israel is not just a paid job, but firstly an ancient and worthy profession as unto the LORD Himself.

It's easier just to acknowledge what all courts of law and history know: Eyewitness accounts are accepted as direct evidence of something...Whether they are accurate or true is for review after the fact.

The Code of Hammurabi in the strictest sense is evidence that somebody wrote about laws.

Well, yea, I guess so in an analy correct world: Something written is evidence of something written. It certainly proves that something is written alright.

That is consistent with many conclusions, such as that those were actual Babylonian laws,

No, that elliptical argument has nothing to do with the fact, that the inscribed code of Hammurabi is evidence of law in ancient Babylon under King Hammurabi. And if it is written by someone under that law, then it is direct evidence of eyewitness testimony.

The same for the book of the law of Moses, being evidence of law in ancient Israel, beginning at the mountain of Sinai called mount Horeb.

People who reject the book of Exodus is evidence of anything, also reject that the book of the law of Moses is any evidence of law in ancient Israel. But, I doubt they would also reject that the inscribed code of Hammurabi is evidence of law in ancient Babylon.

but it's also consistent with Babylonian law being looser and the Code being a series of examples of how judges should rule.

Perhaps so with the judgment of law of Hammurabi in Babylon, but not with that of the law of Moses in Israel:

Gal 3:10 Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

This is the agreed point, in the context of the lie that the Bible has no evidence, because the Bible is not evidence, thenAnd it is technically, scientifically, and legally evidence.

Sure, if we accept the technical point that even the poorest, most absurd evidence is still evidence.

Neither your disbelief in the testified words, nor your opinion of the evidence of those words, are relevant to them being judicial and historical direct evidence of what they testify. Afterall, since you first don't believe them, then of course you don't think anything of them. I'm surprised you've even allowed them to rate as poor evidence. Except, I suppose, to technically admit they are evidence of something...

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

If we talk about evidence without equivocating, then we have to judge the quality of each piece of evidence and support that judgement.

That's only after the investigation of the evidence, not the acknowledgment of the evidence. And since you supply no proof of error in the words themselves, then your judgment of their 'poor' quality is only personal opinion, and nothing more.

And so long as they remain inerrant among themselves, then they remain true to themselves...And anyone choosing to believe them as true for themselves, do so with the full assurance and knowledge, that they are true in themselves, if not in the opinion of others...

[POI]

Rebutted this in post 579. Egypt never owned Canaan, but only established military trade routes and towns after their 15th century victory atf Megiddo. There was no Egypt-Canaan, like some Roman province.

For which I rebutted in post 580:

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.

Right. That would be a parenthetical insert, and a conclusion added by the writer of Judges. Anything else you want to know about posthumous insertions/additions to an autobiography?

Mose's expressed humility was written in Numbers, not Judges, and is 'supposed' to have been written by Moses. Seems a little strange to categorize oneself as the humblest, doesn't it? (Rhetorical question. See my 3 questions below).

Mose's recorded death was written in Deuteronomy, not Judged, Kind of hard to write after you die. Isn't it? (Rhetorical question. See my 3 questions below).

The first five books of the Bible, also known as the Pentateuch or Torah, are traditionally attributed to Moses. Care to augment anything yet?

The Pentateuch, also known as the Torah or the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, was likely written over a period of time, with the final redaction and canonization occurring during the Babylonian Exile (6th-5th century BCE). While traditional Jewish belief holds that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, modern scholars believe it was compiled and edited over centuries by multiple authors.

1) Which parts were written by who?
2) How do you know?
3) Were all of them "eyewitnesses"?

[POI]

Not true. He wrote something in the dirt once, but He didn't have His apostles record what He wrote.

Great "technicality" RBD! But I think we both know, in what context, I'm referring to.

I don't instruct you anymore in the nature of evidence by eyewitness and secondhand accounts.

That's great. You shouldn't. The Pentateuch was not written by an eyewitness. I've explained why in post 604, and prior.

Alternatively, we know the Book of Mormon was written by Jospeh Smith. Who claims to be a witness to things. Hence, by your standard(s), the Book of Mormon is in the lead. And also, again by your own standard(s), the Orthodox Jews have the same justification to reject the New Testament, as you do for the Book of Mormon.

Also already answered this to you. Once I learn someone is only trying to have a one-sided dialogue, without acknowledging rebuttals, then I move on.

Sure, you 'answered', but you did not give a coherent one. I'm giving you the opportunity to try again.

Why reject the Book of Mormon, while accepting your Bible book?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #596]

You never answered:

Is your position that:

a) we will find 'evidence' someday? Or...
b) we will never find evidence?

We've already established that you have furnished no direct or indirect evidence, in post 604 and prior.

[POI]

It's plainly shown that J Smith contradicts the apostle of Jesus Christ, by saying his book is another testament of Jesus Christ. Which you still fail to acknowledge.

It's plainly seen that the first 5 books were not written by Moses, so we cannot trust "Jesus". And since your given reason for belief, that Moses wrote them, is because Jesus says so, then I guess your entire argument here is kaput. See post 604 for a recap.

[Difflugia]

Don't know of anyone that believes everything, just because it's recorded as evidence of something. Nor should anyone.

That's not to say, that it's not recorded evidence of something. If it's an eyewitness account, then it's direct evidence. If it's second hand testimony, then it's indirect evidence.

What?

If "no opinion qualifies as proof of anything," then what was your goal in claiming that ancient documents "are normally presumed true?"

You'll need to give the source of this quote.

It was in the quote chain you included yourself at the beginning of your response. Here are both quotes I was referencing, anyway:

The Bible is a written record as ancient as any inscription. All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

Everyone is qualified to have an opinion, but no opinion qualifies as proof of anything. Opinion is a matter of faith, not fact.

There you go.

Many books are plainly eyewitness testimony, and they say so.

Many books present themselves as eyewitness testimony. Some of them are and some aren't. Winnie the Pooh and A Princess of Mars both say in their respective introductions that they're eyewitness testimony.

The Bible also confirms Moses is the writer of Exodus,

The Bible claims it. That's not confirmation of anything.

called the book of Moses,

In later Jewish tradition, anyway.

and He certainly was an eyewitness.

It's exactly as certain that he was both Santa Claus and a leprechaun.

It simply means it's the direct evidence of eyewitness testimony, not an opinionated claim.

The angel Nephi claims to have been an eyewitness to events of the Book of Mormon. 1 Nephi 1:1-3:

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days. Yea, I make a record in the a language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. And I know that the record which I make is a true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

Was he?

But so far as me saying such testimony should be presumed true, you'll need to quote me on that, or continue lying in order to personally skew the argument.

Your quote chain at the beginning of your response included the original quote. Did you not notice? Are you trying to play word games with how you said it? Are you just trying to gaslight me?

What's your end game here?

Otherwise, it's obvious many books of the Bible are eyewitness accounts, which say so themselves, and so count as direct evidence by judicial law and historical review.

Without proper provenance, those accounts could have been written by anyone prior to the third century BCE. Find me any judicial case where a found narrative is referred to as eyewitness testimony. Find me any bona fide historian that treats such a found narrative uncritically.

Judging the words of testimony as just story-telling, without showing why, is just unproven personal opinion.

Aside from your incorrectly calling the Bible testimony, you've got it exactly backwards. Without some corroboration, a story is a story. If Moses himself appeared in court and told the court his story, that would be eyewitness testimony. Otherwise, we have a document that some traditions ascribe to Moses, whom at least one overly optimistic apologist calls an eyewitness. That's not nothing, but it's not much.

The Bible is full of eyewitness and second hand testimonies of things said and done.

You're missing a few steps. If I present a story that I claim was written by Santa Claus, nobody calls that Santa's eyewitness testimony. There are ways I could go about convincing a court that it's authentic, but until that's done, it's just my testimony that it's authentic. The actual testimony about the Bible that we have is of Christian tradition on the one hand and modern scholarship on the other, none of which involves eyewitnesses.

Outside of any other evidence confirming or denying their testimony, anyone can choose to accept or reject it as true.

Exactly as we can for any other story.

But, no one can rationally say they are no eyewitness accounts, since they themselves say so.

Who is it that said that to you? Neither Moses nor Santa Claus has ever said anything to me or anyone whose judgement I trust. There are no eyewitness accounts.

And therefore, no one can legally and historically say there is no evidence the Bible is true...

That's right. There are many things that can be called evidence. The most compelling evidence, though, is that of the biblical scholars. The Bible was written, collated, modified, and rewritten over centuries by many authors. Some of it may reflect some historical events, but for the most part, which of those events were recorded accurately, which were distorted, and which were invented are lost to us.

Outside of any evidence to corruption of the testimonies as given, then they can be accepted as unaltered and unadulterated direct testimony.

People certainly do. They're not the historians, the jurists, or even the rational people you were talking about earlier, but many people outside of those categories think that the Bible is unaltered, unadulterated, and, as you call it, testimony.

And of course, their inerrancy speaks for their authenticity.

And thus declared, the authenticity speaks for inerrancy. Yes. I'm aware of the circle.

Don't get carried away with the analogy. Historical review also acknowledges the direct evidence of historical eyewitness testimony. Review of the testimony and any other evidence found, is the process of the court of history.

I asked youi before to find examples of historians that treat ancient documents uncritically as history. Otherwise. I'm pretty sure your claim as you wrote it is false.

But, if you'd like: I RBD as historical recorder and attorney for the Book, do affirm that the transcript is a true and accurate copy of the eyewitness testimony. That should do it...

And now you're making my argument for me. If all we have is your say so, we don't have much. It's not nothing, but it's not much.

The Bible has no such chain of custody or even provenance.

You mean other than the record of all the class of ancient scribes, that diligently record as originally written even to this day? Or, the invention of the printing press is not accurate?

Right. the "record of all the class of ancient scribes" only goes back to roughly the middle ages. Before that, we have manuscripts as early as the Dead Sea Scrolls, but even those are five hundred or so years later than scholars think the originals were written and around a thousand years after traditional apologists do. Centuries without a chain of custody is a long time.

In any case, their present state of inerrancy shows their worthiness to be the authorized version of the original inerrant words.

The present state of inerrancy is that dogmatic inerrantists claim that some forms of the Bible are inerrant.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #516]

The rules of evidence in law and historiography is that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, and secondhand testimony is indirect evidence.

Eyewitness accounts are "testimonial evidence". Physical evidence is objective. Testimonial evidence is subjective.

False. Objective is fact, and subjective is opinion. Eyewitness testimony is objective evidence based upon factual witnesses. Opinion is neither asked for nor given, otherwise, no it's not an eyewitness testimony.

When applied to Bible witnesses, it's calling the Bible nothing but personal opinion and feeling. It's little better than saying all the accounts are either allegorical, mythical, or false.

Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences.

Not necessarily so. A video can be tampered with, and therefore is not counted as more factual than an eyewitness. It's only if they disagree, that arguments can be made for one or the other.

The effort to turn eyewitness testimony into only subjective opinion, is the task of an attorney that has no evidence to the contrary. That's the task of Bible disbelievers, who want the Bible to only be a book of opinion, allegory, myth, or lies. Not evidence given by eyewitness testimony.

The stories are sometimes uncannily accurate, sometimes completely fictional, and often a mixture of the two; and they can change to suit the situation.

And it can be seen in the testimony itself, as well as by other evidence. Which is of course what Bible inerrancy is all about: if you have examples of internal flawed testimony of the any witness in the Bible, then show it.

Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused,

Not if all testimony is only considered subjective opinion and feeling, not accurate evidence of fact.

but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/un ... dence.html

This is intellectual psychobabble, that defeats itself, and has no place in factual testimony. First, accurate is never indistinguishable from inaccurate, except in them that do not believe any eyewitness testimony, without corroboration.

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.


If outside evidence is always necessary to make a testimony accurate, then all testimony is presumed inaccurate, until proven otherwise. It's the witnesses that are on trial as false witnesses, until proven true...Which of course is the tactical goal of attorneys, that have no contrary evidence.

The Bible is also direct evidence of an eyewitness of Exodus, as well as secondhand indirect evidence repeating the eyewitness. The epic of Gilgamesh only has indirect evidence repeated from an eyewitness. The law of evidence is on the side of the evidence given by the Bible, over that of Gilgamesh's epic. Therefore, the objective critic must favor the Bible's eyewitness account of the flood, rather than that of a secondhand testimony.

The earliest surviving written literature is from ancient Mesopotamia. The Epic of Gilgamesh is often cited as the first great composition, although some shorter compositions have survived that are even earlier (notably the “Kesh Temple Hymn” and “The Instructions of Shuruppak”). Apart from its length, the Epic of Gilgamesh may be considered the earliest significant composition because of its enduring impact on literature through the ages.

No doubt. It may indeed be the oldest surviving record, but that does not mean it predates nor disqualifies other accounts not yet recorded, including that of the Bible. Just because someone writes something first, or it's the oldest remaining record, that does not mean it is the most accurate ever written. It is evidence, but not proof.

It is believed to have influenced other ancient literary works, including the Iliad, the Odyssey, Alexander romance literature, and the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), all of which continue to have significant literary impact in their own right.

Maybe so with others, but with the Bible, if it's own recorded evidence is true. Oldest written accounts can influence later writings, but does not have to.

And we know they can't both be true, because one flood covers all the earth, and the other is only regionally great. And most of all, the righteous LORD God of the Bible is the Author of the flood, while an evil god Humbaba is the author of the Gilgamesh flood. And Gilgamesh is the great hero that kills him, so that he would never do it to mankind again... (Some argue that the Bible Nimrod is the historical Gilgamesh the king.)

[POI]

What's your end game here?

The end game is to assert unfounded claims, and then when this fails, revert to his conclusion, for which I quoted in post 490:

"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."