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]

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.

No, they are less similar than you ever want to admit. Believing in evidence offered, that has nothing to contradict it, has nothing to do with believing in evidence offered, that is contradicted by the whole earth.

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.

Seriously? Firstly, Where are you finding people on earth, that still believe the earth is flat??

Secondly, you imply the Bible somehow records a flat earth? Where is that? In fact, the Bible is the first record of a round earth, circular in shape:

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;


You're just playing the stereotype of the pseudo-intellect, trying to make Bible believers appear to be flat-earth country bumpkins. And so, you resort to nonsense about some modern Bible believing movement to make the earth flat.

Debunking that baseless stereotype, is what rebutting spurious Bible error claims is all about. People argue some of the silliest nonsense, to try and keep their stereotype afloat.

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.

Point in case. What people in the world are still believing in a flat earth, and worse yet, what meaningless 'scholars' are even arguing about it?

And of course, anyone knowing the Bible, knows the circular earth is first revealed in the Bible, long before Pythagoras only theorized it.

Other than writing the Scripture of a circular earth, no prophet nor apostle ever writes in the Bible about a flat earth, nor even bothers to argue about it.

[POI]

No, they are less similar than you ever want to admit. Believing in evidence offered, that has nothing to contradict it, has nothing to do with believing in evidence offered, that is contradicted by the whole earth.

Then we can rule out "the Exodus" claim, just like we can rule out the claims for a "flat earth". The Exodus account has no evidence, direct or indirect. It also has evidence against it. It would also be an event which would leave tons of evidence but instead left none. I've explained ad nauseum, in post 604 and prior.

Seriously? Firstly, Where are you finding people on earth, that still believe the earth is flat??

Here --> https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/in ... he-society

I know, wacky, right? And they claim to have 'evidence.'

Secondly, you imply the Bible somehow records a flat earth? Where is that? In fact, the Bible is the first record of a round earth, circular in shape:

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

Yes. Thank you. Ever heard of a circular table? Or a flat disk? A circle can be both. As well as a flat disked earth. See the link above. Now, if the Bible instead stated "sphere" or "ball", then you may have some kind of a point. But you don't.

People argue some of the silliest nonsense

Yes, like assert an "Exodus" literally happened. So far, you explained what direct and indirect evidence would be, while demonstrating you have neither. Which is why you must resort to Carl Sagan's slogan alone, accompanied by blind faith.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #609]

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.

"Once you have mastered the process of the scientific method you become very aware of the need for data or as it is called in the forensic world "evidence". There are two general types of evidence used in both science and law - Physical and Testimonial evidence. Physical evidence is comprised of those forms of data that can be measured or quantified. Examples include fingerprints, accelerants, hair or fibers, etc. These types of evidence can be measured, weighed, and defined by a number of other physical methods. Testimonial evidence is comprised of observations either by the scientist or witnesses. Physical evidence or data is often called "real" evidence or "hard" data. The reason for this distinction is that physical evidence can be measured numerically while testimonial evidence is more subjective in nature. Each individual remembers events in a slightly different way and even observations of things like color depend on the individual's visual ability to discern different hues. Another way to look at the two types of evidence or data is that physical evidence is objective and testimonial evidence is subjective."
https://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm102 ... subjective.

And we know they can't both be true, because one flood covers all the earth, and the other is only regionally great.

Right. And since geologists have never found a flood layer spanning the entire world, the story with the limited flood appears to be more accurate.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #590]

Seems we are in a stalemate...

I asked for your best piece of evidence, since this is a debate arena, and no one should be asked to read through a 30-page link -- (Where's Waldo-style). You lobbed the Hyksos over the fence, which in and of itself, is just another claim, and then proceeded to ask 6 questions. (No one is answering them, skeptics or believers). If you are going to lob the Hyksos over the fence, it is your job to provide some evidence that they are the expressed Israelites, as claimed from the Bible. Start drawing connections between the claims from the Bible and the Hyksos. You have no problem giving a brief synopsis to others. A matter of fact, my last response to you addresses such a summary, for which you happily sent to RBD, without you insisting he first answer any pre-Q's.

The ball is in your court.

Again, this shows skeptics will balk when asked to defend their position. As you are well aware, I'm fully prepared to present my case with evidence, which you admit I've already done in the other thread. The reason I'm going through this exercise is to show it doesn't really matter what evidence is produced, skeptics will categorically reject it. Sure, I could rehash in this thread what I've already covered in the other thread, but until I see anyone willing to have a rational debate with me here, there's no point.

Why won't skeptics answer these two questions?

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

It's because they have no good answer to these questions. If scholars who reject the Exodus account really have good evidence, then it should be easy to counter my arguments.

So, it's not a stalemate situation. It's the skeptics that cannot make the next move, so it's a checkmate situation already after move 1.

[POI]

this shows skeptics will balk when asked to defend their position.

If you look throughout my history here in this arena, you will see I have no problem(s) defending my position(s).

As you are well aware, I'm fully prepared to present my case with evidence,

If this were true, you would have provided your best piece of evidence, when I asked you. Thus far, you chucked another claim over the fence.

which you admit I've already done in the other thread.

Sure. You provided a 30-page link. And since this is a debate arena, and not a research center, it is not applicable to ask that your opponent does research in hopes to find what they are looking for. As stated, I asked you to present your best piece of evidence. So far, you mentioned the Hyksos. Great. What about the Hyksos?

The reason I'm going through this exercise is to show it doesn't really matter what evidence is produced, skeptics will categorically reject it.

This is over-presumptuous. I had no problem being corrected by you about why the 'Israelites' wandered the desert. Heck, I even thanked you.

Sure, I could rehash in this thread what I've already covered in the other thread, but until I see anyone willing to have a rational debate with me here, there's no point.

I tried to engage your 'rehashing' twice, but you ignore it. Here is the last one (i.e.):

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?

The Hyksos settled into Goshen region between (1650-1550 BCE). The Bible states the Israelites were to have settled there between (1800-1700 BCE). A couple of 100 years difference 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.

Why won't skeptics answer these two questions?

Why won't believers offer their best piece of evidence? Well, because the ones who are not with you, which looks like all of them, they have no evidence. And you, on the other hand, have not attempted to offer any either. Still waiting....

It's because they have no good answer to these questions. If scholars who reject the Exodus account really have good evidence, then it should be easy to counter my arguments.

This rationale would also include all the Bible believers, who do not answer either. You are the Lone Ranger here, and I've explained likely why this is the case.

[RBD]

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.

The Bible position is they can't be. Though Jospeh was made ruler in the kingdom, none of latter Hebrews are recorded in the Bible as ruling, especially not cruelly, as is reported. Nor were they invaders, but were invited in.

Perhaps it's an effort to justify Egyptians for 'taking back' their kingdom, and enslaving their former foreign Hebrew 'taskmasters'? It's at times like this, that hidden motivation may be guiding the spurious argument...

[Clownboat]

Secondly, you imply the Bible somehow records a flat earth? Where is that? In fact, the Bible is the first record of a round earth, circular in shape:

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

The claim: The Bible is the first to record that the earth is not flat, that it is circular.
The evidence provided: See this verse from the Bible where it claims that the earth is a circle!

Who would like to inform our fellow debater the difference between a circle (flat) and a sphere (earth)?
(Something about pride and falls comes to mind)

Debunking that baseless stereotype, is what rebutting spurious Bible error claims is all about. People argue some of the silliest nonsense, to try and keep their stereotype afloat.

Circles being spheres is silly nonsense if you ask me. Such is not my claim though, as it is yours.

[RBD]

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,

You don't want to know who write the Torah, because you don't want to believe the Bible, which tells us.

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?

Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver...

Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not...

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place...

Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, are just few named writers and quoted.

nor if he was deposed?

He? Well, then you do know the correct sex of the writers.

Mat 12:34 Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

So, more accurately you don't want to say what you do know...

In any case, the deposition of the historical court is examination of the witnesses by the documents they wrote. And even if some disbelievers could depose the dead writers, they would still not want to believe them:

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

We know who wrote the Book of Mormon and he was deposed.

And found to be a liar about writing another testament of Jesus Christ, where there is no other.

Same as Muhammed is found to be a liar about writing for the God of Abraham, and says that God does not have a born Son.

It's as simple as reading what's written, to know what who and what they are writing...

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.

Later secondhand writers reference the said folks that first wrote the record, by name and/or quote, such as in the Bible from Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, etc...

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".

An eyewitness is someone seeing something for himself. J Smith is a secondhand witness by quoting what an angel told him, not but what he himself witnessed. The same as Muhammed. And by their own self-contradictory witness, their angels are proven fallen.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

[Clownboat]

Then the Torah is (less than) the Book of Mormon. We do not know who wrote the Torah,

You don't want to know who write the Torah, because you don't want to believe the Bible, which tells us.

You don't want to accept the Book of Mormon, because you don't want to believe the Book of Mormon, which tells us the truth of itself.
You don't want to know who wrote the Bhagavad Gita, because you don't want to believe the Bhagavad Gita.

Surely you see the illogic in these positions! Or do you not?

It is true that we can't and don't know for sure who wrote the Torah. Wanting to believe the book to be true or wanting to believe the book to be false doesn't affect this truth statement. I speak the truth and can show that I do upon request.

Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, are just few named writers and quoted.

For the sake of debate, I don't want to get into questioning the authenticity of this statement. For the moment, lets assume the statement is true as made. Can you then point me to their physical writings where they put pen to paper or reed to clay? I would like to examine the written words these authors penned.

When you cannot, will you just pretend that I don't want to believe the Bible or will you accept that Ol' Clownboat is correct and we don't have the actual writings of these claimed authors to know what they wrote?

In any case, the deposition of the historical court is examination of the witnesses by the documents they wrote. And even if some disbelievers could depose the dead writers, they would still not want to believe them:

I don't think you understand what you just presented. You present the amazing hypothetical scenario that we could depose writers from thousands of years ago. That would be so cool, yet you tell yourself that I would not want to believe them. Why wouldn't I? Seriously! How cool would it be to see what they actually have to say! Perhaps it is you that would not want to believe them, but alas, we will never know. You'll just have to trust me that I would love to depose these people and many more from history for that matter.

Would it be logical for me to think that you wouldn't want to depose Robert E Lee, because you want slaves? NO! As that would be a leap that even Evil Knievel wouldn't make.

Same as Muhammed is found to be a liar about writing for the God of Abraham, and says that God does not have a born Son.

Since the Quran is true, because the Quran claims to be true and because the Quran is evidence for the claims it makes, the Quran is correcting the Bible on this matter. You just don't want to accept this because you don't want to believe the Quran (to use your reasoning). When you see the illogic of this, please look inward at your own reasoning.

[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.

The Bible position is they can't be. Though Jospeh was made ruler in the kingdom, none of latter Hebrews are recorded in the Bible as ruling, especially not cruelly, as is reported. Nor were they invaders, but were invited in.

Perhaps it's an effort to justify Egyptians for 'taking back' their kingdom, and enslaving their former foreign Hebrew 'taskmasters'? It's at times like this, that hidden motivation may be guiding the spurious argument...

Well, I'll let Otseng field this one. Or maybe you can tell him, since he responded to you in another post by asking you a follow-up question here.

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?