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]

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

Nah, it's not for your presented reason, for which I doubt Moses wrote them. It's instead for the reason(s) I listed. If Moses even existed and wrote them, great. But reason and logic both say otherwise. I've already explained why. Maybe address those reason(s), instead of asserting your own. I trust I do not have to repeat my reason(s), yet again? I know how you hate going over the same stuff...

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

Knowing the sex of the writer(s) means nothing. Based upon logic, females were mostly not readers and/or writers, especially in this timeframe and region. Further, when you read the Bible, you can see it is full of a male's opinion(s), due to the presented male favoritism.

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

I stand by what I say and think. Further, nothing you have said refutes anything I've said and think. But I'm still here waiting.

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:

But we could verify who, at least wrote them, which we do not know? If we knew who wrote them, then you could at least proceed with your argument that Moses wrote the first 5 books. But instead, logical tells us this claim is very unlikely. Which means we neither have direct or indirect evidence.

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

You missed my point. According to you, the evidence favors the Book of Mormon over the Torah. Why? We have a verified "eyewitness". And yes, you do not have to believe him. But we logically know J. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Which means we have verified 'eyewitness' attestation. And sure, he's a liar for many logical reasons.

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

Then we know Moses did not write the Torah, which makes Jesus incorrect when he says Moses does.

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...

It's already irrelevant to even address anything you say here, as we have no 'direct evidence' to begin with...

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.

Then you missed my point. Please re-read what I stated (i.e.):

The Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith, who was an "eyewitness".

I place 'eyewitness' in quotes for a reason. We know Mr. Smith wrote what is said he wrote, and we also know what Mr. Smith claims to have "witnessed". So, we are already ahead of the claims from the Torah, regarding 'direct evidence.'. Hence, the Book of Mormon has more "veracity". ---- Even though the Book of Mormon still basically has no true veracity, for other reason(s)....

[otseng]

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).

The evidence of your posts speaks otherwise, but I'll let readers assess it for themselves. But, what we can see now is you haven't answered these questions yet:

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

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.

What do you think I'm doing with the Hyksos? This would've gone a whole lot faster if people would simply answer my six questions.

So far, you mentioned the Hyksos. Great. What about the Hyksos?

My point is the Biblical account of the Exodus matches better than any other explanation of the Hyksos. By presenting my six questions, it offers others an opportunity to present a coherent alternative explanation. And from my research, I have not found any. And I'm giving skeptics a chance to present this evidence that I've not been able to find.

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

I do appreciate that.

You are the Lone Ranger here, and I've explained likely why this is the case.

As I've mentioned before, in my over 20 years of debating here, practically all my debates have been by myself.

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?

OK, I'll address the timing.

There are two positions on when the Israelites entered Egypt - the early dating and the late dating.

"There are two main alternatives for the date of the Exodus. An early date in the 15th century around 1450 BCE and a late date in the 13th century around 1270 BCE."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exodus_date.html

The Early Date Theory sees the Exodus occurring in the mid-15th century B.C.E., followed by an invasion of Canaan roughly a generation later.

The Late Date Theory places the Exodus in the 13th century B.C.E., during the reign of Ramesses II (1279–1213 B.C.E.).

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org ... he-exodus/

I believe in the early date where the Israelites entered Egypt in 1876 BC and left Egypt in 1446 BC.

Here are dates according to the Bible...

1Kgs 6:1
1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.

"The conventional dates of Solomon's reign are about 970–931 BCE, normally given in alignment with the dates of David's reign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon

So, given these dates, the year the Israelites came out of Egypt is 1446 BC (970 - 4 + 480).

There is not a consensus on the dating of the Pharaohs at this time, but it could be Amenhotep II or Thutmose III of the 18th Dynasty during the time of the Exodus.

As usual, different resources provide different time frames for Amenhotep II's reign. While the Chronicle of the Pharaohs by Peter A. Clayton gives his reign lasting from 1453 until 1419 BC, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt provides a reign between 1427 until 1400 BC.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm

Thutmose III reigned from 1479 BC to 1425 BC according to the Low Chronology of Ancient Egypt. This has been the conventional Egyptian chronology in academic circles since the 1960s,[9] though in some circles the older dates 1504 BC to 1450 BC are preferred from the High Chronology of Egypt.[10] These dates, just as all the dates of the Eighteenth Dynasty, are open to dispute because of uncertainty about the circumstances surrounding the recording of a Heliacal Rise of Sothis in the reign of Amenhotep I.[11]

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

Bible says they were in Egypt for 430 years.

Exod 12:40
40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years.

So, the date of entering Egypt was 1876 BC (1446 + 430).

During this time would be the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty:
Senusret III - 1878 BC to 1839 BC
Amenemhat III - 1818–1770 BC

Also want to add the caveat that Egyptian dating is not precise.

"It will be clear that much of the chronology of Egypt is uncertain. Groups of Egyptologists and even individual scientists disagree about many details, which has resulted in a variety of dates. Of course, about the most recent years the discrepancies are less than for dates that are further away."
https://www.alexanderancientart.com/chronology-eg.php

[POI]

I'll let readers assess it for themselves.

Yes, this seems to be a very important point you like to bring up, (again and again). Here is what we know so far. Many readers have read your position. A matter of fact, many readers read your position before I even created this topic. Thus far, no readers, which would also include believers, have affirmed coming to your position. Instead, believers, after reading your 'evidence', still prefer to argue why they can present no evidence. Hence, when you make statements, such as:

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.

We now know your statement to be misguided. Not only are skeptics unconvinced by your given fringe position, but so are the believers who frequent this arena.

What do you think I'm doing with the Hyksos?

You provided another claim to support the previous claim.

This would've gone a whole lot faster if people would simply answer my six questions.

No. It would have gone a whole lot faster if you actually provided evidence to support your claim.

My point is the Biblical account of the Exodus matches better than any other explanation of the Hyksos.

Bingo. This is a claim, not evidence. What evidence supports this claim? Remember, I asked you for the best piece of evidence. Not another claim.

By presenting my six questions

By presenting your six questions, rather than provide your best piece of evidence, you instead presented a claim, followed by then asking your interlocutor six questions. Please fulfill my request first.

it offers others an opportunity to present a coherent alternative explanation. And from my research, I have not found any. And I'm giving skeptics a chance to present this evidence that I've not been able to find.

Well, present your evidence, and we can follow accordingly.

As I've mentioned before, in my over 20 years of debating here, practically all my debates have been by myself.

In this thread, let's find out why? So far, RBD is against your position. RealJack remains agnostic to your claim. Radio silence speaks for itself, as for the rest of believers who do not come to your defense. Here are some of the arguments by most modern scholars.

The Hyksos and Israelites were distinct groups, even though some scholars have suggested a connection between them. The Hyksos were a group of Asiatic rulers who came to dominate northern Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, around the 17th-16th centuries BCE. They were not the same as the Israelites, who are traditionally considered to have entered Egypt centuries later, as depicted in the biblical narrative of the Exodus. Here's a more detailed breakdown of why the two groups are not typically considered identical:

1. Chronological Differences: The Hyksos ruled Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, while the biblical narrative of the Exodus and the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt is generally placed within the 18th Dynasty, which came later.

2. Distinct Roles: The Hyksos were rulers of Egypt, while the Israelites, according to the Bible, were initially enslaved in Egypt.

3. Different Names: While the Hyksos are known as "foreign rulers" in Egyptian (Heka-chasut), the Israelites are referred to as "Hebrews" or "Israelites" in the biblical narrative.

4. Different Narratives: The biblical narrative focuses on the Israelites' enslavement, Moses' leadership, and their exodus from Egypt, while the historical narrative of the Hyksos focuses on their rule and subsequent expulsion.

5. Historical Context: The Hyksos were a distinct group of rulers who came from the Near East and settled in the Nile Delta, not the same people who later migrated to Canaan, according to scholars like Jan Assmann.

6. Modern Scholarship: While some scholars like Josephus and Manetho suggested a connection between the Hyksos and the Israelites, modern scholarship generally distinguishes between the two groups.

In summary, while there may be some connections between the Hyksos and the Israelites in terms of their Semitic origins and shared history in the Nile Delta, the two groups are distinct in terms of their roles, timelines, and narratives, according to most scholarly sources.

I believe in the early date where the Israelites entered Egypt in 1876 BC and left Egypt in 1446 BC.

I read your reasoning and source(s) below.

If scholars cannot agree, as to the exact timing in where-abouts of the Hyksos, is the Bible then the deciding factor?

Since you acknowledge the Hyksos's existence and historicity, we must ask, which option seems most likely?:

a) Two distinct groups existed in this region simultaneously.
b) Two distinct groups existed in this region at differing times.
c) Only one group existed, and it was the 'Israelites', as told from the Bible.
d) One group actually existed, the Hyksos, and the other group, the 'Israelites', is likely fictitious.

Since you are big upon letting the audience decide, seems no one is choosing option c).

"It will be clear that much of the chronology of Egypt is uncertain. Groups of Egyptologists and even individual scientists disagree about many details, which has resulted in a variety of dates. Of course, about the most recent years the discrepancies are less than for dates that are further away."

I informed Clownboat that I have a hypothesis, as to where this exchange will ultimately go. Seems this hypothesis may be partially, or completely on point??? In that (paraphrased) --'we cannot ever really know for sure, due to the confines of "ancient antiquity."

As I also told him, the stakes are low for the skeptic but high for the believer. Why?

'The Exodus' has to be a literal event, as told. It has no interpretive wiggle room to be a figurative story. If the Israelites were not in this region, were not enslaved, did not leave, and did not arrive at the said destination, all at the timeframe indicated, then the Bible loses all credibility. If these natural/physical details did actually happen, then all this verifies is that one storyline aligns with the rest of human discovery from ancient antiquity.

The skeptic can still question all the claimed 'supernatural' parts. The skeptic can still also question the many other claims said to have happened, to continue verifying Biblical veracity. Thus, you can see why a sparce few, while knowing there exists no evidence otherwise, are desperate to either link the "Hyksos", or the "Habiru', or maybe others, to this very large claim.

[RBD]

As for your position, it seems like what you're saying is the Hyksos and the Israelites were independent groups. Yet, 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 Bible record of the Hebrews in Egypt is not the historical record of the Hyksos in Egypt:

The Bible timeline: Hebrews in Egypt 1877-1447 B.C. Egyptian timeline: Hyksos in Egypt 1650-1550 B.C.

The Hebrews were invited into Egypt, and prospered peacefully in Goshen until enslaved. Then they were delivered without war, and departed willingly with spoils from Egyptians.

The Hyksos invaded, conquered southern Egypt, oppressively ruled the southern Egyptians, and after a period of boundary warfare and a final series of battles, they were defeated by Ahmose 1, and driven out.

The Hebrews were shepherds worshipping the God of their fathers. The Hyksos were warlike with chariots, sharing gods and customs of between Canaan and Egypt.

The only similarity is they were both Semitic, and the Hyksos were in Egypt during quarter of the time of the Hebrews. No one can possibly equate the Hebrews with the Hyksos, unless the Bible timeline and record of children of Jacob in Egypt is disregarded.

And in such cases of obvious error, a good question is why try? If the Hebrews were the Hyksos, then it would make the southern Egyptians oppressed subjects of foreign invaders, who were finally defeated by the risen hero Pharaoh, and driven out of their ancient kingdom. Good Egyptians, bad Hebrews...

[RBD]

There are also possible reasons why the evidence witnessed to in the Book, is not there in Egypt nor the Sinai wilderness.
1. The plagues of course don't leave records in the water and the dirt. (Some have theorized some evidence of a temporarily wasted land in Egypt at the time, but it's not proven)

Since the Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, did they speak about such plagues to at least corroborate the claim(s) of the Bible here?

Right. The humiliated Pharaoh had a historical 'obligation' to ensure the record was properly preserved. The problem is when people get caught up in theoretical games, at the expense of historical realities.

One more time: Ancient powers only took time and expense to record victories, not defeats. Their objective was not objective historical posterity.

(The Hebrews and latter Jews were the exception to the rule, because of their prophets recording victories and defeats by the authority of their LORD. Many of whom were persecuted for doing so. Some kings tried to destroy the accurate record, such as King Jehoiakim burning Jeremiah's scrolls.)

2. Bone of the period cannot be identified by race. Therefore, it can't be proven and remaining bones are Egyptian or Hebrew or some other foreigner.
Also, the bones of Joseph and Jacob were returned to the land of Abraham, which was by commandment as a matter of faith in their God to bring them to the promised land. There is every reason to believe returning the bones of all the forefathers was as unto the LORD...

You have bigger fish to fry here. This expressed "promised land" was still owned by the Egyptians. Why would they take the bodies to another part of occupied Egypt?

You have spurious fish to fry in a revisionist Egyptian-owned Canaan, instead of acknowledge a realistic argument about patriarchal bones.

They newly-owned Egyptian home of Canaan is debunked in post 579.

4. No Egyptian king would record a humiliating defeat, especially at the hands of slaves.

We have evidence of Egyptians trying to cover up all typed of evidence.

So, they should have recorded their defeat for posterity sake, and then tried to cover up the record for national pride...Right, again. Easier to just not record them, and more politically sound.

5. And since the Exodus events were recorded by eyewitness,

"The Exodus" was written centuries after the claimed event. So no. Sorry buddy.

Already shown Bible record of Moses writing Exodus.

rather than expecting to find evidence, there is good reason not to.

No there isn't. See above, and the video in post 12.

And more importantly, the only evidence we could really expect to find, is a record of the contrary evidence made first by Egyptians, and then by others of the day. I.e. the evidence against Exodus, that anti-Exodus crusaders desperately search for, ought to exist but does not.

The claim was not made, by the Bible, until many centuries later. Hence, no one would logically attempt to refute any claims of the day, because there weren't any.
[/quote]
Unbelief and revision of the Book, is not a relevant to the Book record, nor to realistic arguments from the Book for no evidence.

The possible reasons for no evidence, only further shows that no evidence does not prove no presence. So long as there is no contradictory evidence of the eyewitness account, then it can be accepted as direct evidence of the events.

[RBD]

That's because your definition of evidence excludes the great majority of all evidence in law and historiography, which is eyewitness testimony and historical record. And the Bible is both, especially that of Exodus written by Moses.

No, it's not. "The Exodus" account was written 100's of years after the said event. Hence, an 'eyewitness' could not have written about this event. And there is no other 'evidence'. You spend response after response re-confirming this.

Hence, besides the claims from the Bible, what evidence do we have? Still nada.

My argument is, that only direct evidence contradicting the Bible interests me, and I'm still waiting for any against Exodus.

There is no direct evidence. There is one claim, unsupported by neither direct nor indirect evidence. Later writers mentioning dudes from a prior told story is not indirect evidence. I've explained elsewhere.

And yes, there is evidence against it. I already mentioned this too. But you are so far behind on your responses, I have to repeat myself. The 'promised land' was still owned by Egypt. The story makes no logical sense.

I'm not interested in the absence of such evidence.

This is the only play you have, because you know there is no evidence. Rinse/repeat... A claim of this magnitude would leave tons of evidence. The hot and dry desert would also preserve a lot of this evidence. The Egyptians tried to erase evidence of other's inhabitance and failed miserably.

Nothing new here. Old song and dance.

[RBD]

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.

So then. Unless I see something new from you, then we are done on this topic.

What I really enjoy about accusations of Bible errancy, is what I learn from the Bible that refutes them. Things not come to mind before, are revealed based upon the issue at hand.

A good example is Jesus stating that Exodus is the book of Moses, making him the eyewitness writer and autobiographer. I've read that Scripture many times, and something so simple did not dawn on me, because I was only focused on His rebuke to the unbelieving Sadducees.

Thanks much.

[RBD]

So, please address:
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?

Gen 45:16 And the fame thereof was heard in Pharaoh's house, saying, Joseph's brethren are come: and it pleased Pharaoh well, and his servants.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye; lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan; And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.

Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come. Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.

They were invited and given the good land freely.

The problem with disregarding the Bible record, when trying to make spurious comparisons outside the Bible, is of course, disregarding the Bible record.

3. Why were they able to take the best land?

Take? As in forcibly? Conquered? As in Hyksos?

So, are you then afterall trying to revise the history, and make the Hebrews the unjustified invading conquerors and oppressive rulers of Egyptians, and it's the Egyptians that were the aggrieved innocents, that justifiably retook their ancient lands and drove out the hated usurpers? That would be the natural conclusion. Is that your intended point in the argument?

[POI]

Right. The humiliated Pharaoh had a historical 'obligation' to ensure the record was properly preserved. The problem is when people get caught up in theoretical games, at the expense of historical realities.

One more time: Ancient powers only took time and expense to record victories, not defeats. Their objective was not objective historical posterity.

(The Hebrews and latter Jews were the exception to the rule, because of their prophets recording victories and defeats by the authority of their LORD. Many of whom were persecuted for doing so. Some kings tried to destroy the accurate record, such as King Jehoiakim burning Jeremiah's scrolls.)

My point was missed. Ancient Egyptians recorded a wide variety of events, including royal decrees, taxes, and the names of festivals. Even the Bible states the pharaoh did not acknowledge belief in the Bible God. Later pharaohs still did not either, as none of them ever converted to Judaism. Hence, they would not attribute such 'Bible-stated plagues" to a god they do not believe in regardless. In all of ancient Egypt's writings, and being they were also meticulous record keepers, they never once mentioned any of these so-called plagues anywhere, which killed many of their people? Suspicious much?

You have spurious fish to fry in a revisionist Egyptian-owned Canaan, instead of acknowledge a realistic argument about patriarchal bones. They newly-owned Egyptian home of Canaan is debunked in post 579.

Negative. I debunked your response in post 580. (i.e.):

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.

So, they should have recorded their defeat for posterity sake, and then tried to cover up the record for national pride...Right, again. Easier to just not record them, and more politically sound.

My point was missed again. The enslaved would carve stuff into the walls, or stone, or other, like praises to their own god(s), or many other things and stuff. You would see evidence of attempted cover-up. Please remember, the Bible claims these millions inhabited this space for centuries. But they left no trace of their existence? Nor, do we see traces of their existence attempted to be covered up? Take, for instance, an old jail cell.

Already shown Bible record of Moses writing Exodus.

Nope. 'Because Jesus said so', doesn't cut it. I already explained why, more than once.

The possible reasons for no evidence, only further shows that no evidence does not prove no presence. So long as there is no contradictory evidence of the eyewitness account, then it can be accepted as direct evidence of the events.

More excuses. And we have evidence against it anyways. I explained above and prior. Getting old.... Do you have anything else? If not, then here is where we stand....

Most admit we have no evidence. And one Lone Ranger is trying to argue for another group.

[POI]

Nothing new here. Old song and dance.

Correct. You admit you have no evidence, when there should be tons.