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]

In any case, I'm only interested in anyone presenting facts, that would prove the Bible contradicts itself, and is not just being mythically inclined.

We did that. You made up your own story and added it to the Bible in response. Revelation 22:18-19 doesn't apply to Exodus, though, so you're OK, right?

Possible interpretation of the written words, is called literary analysis. Adding to or taking away from the words of the book, in order to interpret something else, is called literary malfeasance.

Ps 78 is not about the plagues in Egypt, but rather the miracles in the wilderness outside of Egypt.

Psalm 78:42-53a, emphasis mine:

They remembered not his hand,

Nor the day when he redeemed them from the adversary;

How he set his signs in Egypt,

And his wonders in the field of Zoan,

And turned their rivers into blood,...

Thanks, I thought Ps 78 was only about the wilderness.

The Bible says Moses was the writer of Exodus:

The Bible says a lot of things. This is Christianity & Apologetics, where you actually have to support your claims.

This is about Bible inerrancy, where you have to prove your claims of errancy.

Sometimes you stray from any actual error, and only go on about your unbelief in what the Book says. I indulge it now and then, when it's interesting to me what the Bible does say in response.

Only unbelievers in the Bible can say Exodus is not written by Moses, because only unbelievers would say Jesus is wrong to call it the book of Moses.

[RBD]

I read through post 486.
Was there any evidence for an Exodus as told in the Bible RBD? If so, please present it as I missed it.

The written evidence of the eyewitness Moses speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it en lieu of any other evidence, then that's your choice.

Anyone saying there is no evidence of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, because they say there no eyewitness account written, or they have not read it for themselves. Then they can read it as written, since it remains on earth exactly as written.

However, anyone trying to deny that eyewitness accounts are evidence of anything, then that's a kind of blind disbelieve, that becomes delusional in courts of law and historical review...

2Th 2:10And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I read through post 559.
Was there any evidence for an Exodus as told in the Bible RBD? If so, please present it as I missed it.

The evidence argument is run it's course. If you have anything new, I'd be glad to see it.

[RBD]

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

Sure.

No problem. And so Exodus is possible, while there is no evidence in Egypt.

[RBD]

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

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

You're first quote was about them that personally knew God. There is a difference between someone having known something and turning from it, and someone being ignorant of it. One is willfully ignorant of what they once knew, and the other remains blindly ignorant.

That does not mean ignorance is an excuse, whether with law or with the judge holding us all accountable: God.

AI Overview

The Bible asserts that a fundamental knowledge of God exists within all humans, making them "without excuse" for not acknowledging his existence.

You'll find that I care as much about people's interpretations of Scripture, without proof, as I do with people's accusation against Scripture, without proof.

A 'fundamental knowledge of God' is a traditional theological term, that has no Scripture to prove it. It implies an internal knowledge of God, which is to know Him by His Spirit. And the Bible says plainly, that all people do not have this knowledge of God:

Eph 2:12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

This is the reason why God chooses to save the ignorant by preaching the gospel of His Christ:

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 1:20, for example, states that God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse". This suggests that people can infer God's existence through observing the natural world

Only believing there can be a God and Creator, is still not knowing Him, because it's not believing Him, but only agreeing He can be true. Believing a person is not just agreeing with them alone.

James{1:22} But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only.

What ought be most naturally convincing that God is our Creator in His own image, is the simple daily fact taken for granted by all people on earth: We can think, believe, debate, plan, imagine, etc...unlike any other creature on earth. That is the necessary integral part of even being able to observe and imagine the natural world in the first place.

[RBD]

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

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

The book of Exodus is called the book of Moses in the Bible. It's an eyewitness autobiography.

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

I guess Moses recorded his own death?

I don't repeat myself to people who don't acknowledge my response.

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

I never denied this. But direct evidence also includes other possible elements too.

True, but not necessary for it to be direct evidence of it's own. So long as no contrary evidence is given, an eyewitness account can be accepted and judged as fact in law and historical research.

[RBD]

Hence, all we have is to search for clues. And wouldn't you know it, without even doing much digging at all, the asserted timeline states the Israelites reached the promised land (Canaan) in about 1400 BCE. But guess what, the Egyptians owned this region for another 200 years. Why would Israelites flee Egypt, roam the countryside for decades, only to end up in more Egypt?

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

Your Canaan-Egypt is overstated revisionism.

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

It's overstated revisionism, if it means the Hebrews were only walking into another state of slavery. Which in any case has nothing to do with still walking away from the old state of slavery.

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.

This is more in keeping with history of the period. The vassals they did control, had nothing to do with the cities, that the Hebrews conquered. Egypt had nothing to do with their defense, nor made any attempt to restore them.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #644]

Nothing you stated changes anything. Your cards have been clearly laid upon the table. The verse(s) all relate to the same conclusion, via post 490. It means debate here, with you, is basically pointless. No matter what is presented or demonstrated, you will hold to your position regardless.

[POI]

The book of Exodus is called the book of Moses in the Bible. It's an eyewitness autobiography.

All 5 books are attributed to Moses. Not just Exodus. But this is illogical, for the reason(s) I have already laid out.

[POI]

It's overstated revisionism, if it means the Hebrews were only walking into another state of slavery. Which in any case has nothing to do with still walking away from the old state of slavery.

The point is that the timeline does not match up. The Egyptians would not have still completely ruled the 'promised land' for another two centuries.

This is more in keeping with history of the period. The vassals they did control, had nothing to do with the cities, that the Hebrews conquered. Egypt had nothing to do with their defense, nor made any attempt to restore them.

As stated prior, the Egyptians basically had complete control. This makes your prior claim, that they only controlled trade routes, false. Nice pivot though.

[POI]

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

Sure.

No problem. And so Exodus is possible, while there is no evidence in Egypt.

Remember what I stated prior. It completely depends upon the claim. Your analogy is a poor one. Let's compare... You are trying to equate these (2) claims:

A) E.T.'s exist out there somewhere
B) Millions of Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for centuries, plagues happened, they were ultimately freed, they wandered the Sanai for decades, and then entered Canaan.

I'll let the audience pick apart these two claims, to see how they vastly differ.