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?

[otseng]

Your view is fringe, very fringe.

Actually, even Josephus believed the Hyksos were "our people".

"Josephus said that Manetho's Hyksos narrative was a reliable Egyptian account about the Israelite Exodus, and that the Hyksos were 'our people'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... the_Exodus

Which means your argument is not very compelling or convincing.

It also applies to me that I'll let readers decide.

What evidence have you brought forth?

To this point, I haven't brought any evidence. I asked you for your best piece, and you never provided it. Instead, you backed a claim with another claim

As you've noted, you haven't presented any evidence to back up your position. So, this supports my statement, "skeptics will balk when asked to defend their position".

I have been systemically presenting evidence to back up my claim by going through the six questions. Since you have no evidentiary grounds for your position, then your position is just speculation. So, why should your position be more reasonable than mine?

While some scholars have proposed a possible connection between the Hyksos and the Israelites, there is no definitive archaeological or textual evidence to support a direct lineage.

Don't claim there is definitive evidence, but I do claim there is evidence to support that the Hyksos being the Israelites is a reasonable position.

According to you, and the Bible, these folks entered and left at a specific time. -- (The Israelites entered Egypt in 1876 BC and left Egypt in 1446 BC.). What does the evidence state?

I posted:

Tell el-Dab'a is the modern name for the ancient city of Avaris, an archaeological site in the Nile Delta region of Egypt where the capital city of the Hyksos, once stood. Avaris was occupied by Asiatics from the end of the 12th through the 13th Dynasty consisting a mixture of cultures of Near East and Egyptian. Avaris became one of the largest city and capital of the Near East during the 14th Dynasty under the Hyksos King Nehesy, consisting of a large Asiatic population. Avaris, geological was placed within a strategic location becoming a military rival to the Egyptians. The Hyksos stayed militarily rivals to the Egyptians till their defeat and partial abandonment of Avaris at the end of the Second Intermediate Period when Ahmoses I reunified Egypt at the end of the 17th Dynasty and start of the New Kingdoms 18th Dynasty.[1] Avaris still contained a large population of Asiatic until its full abandonment following the construction of Pi-Ramesses under Ramesses II during the 19th Dynasty.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_el-Dab%27a

Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos, started in the 12th Dynasty (1991–1802 BC). This fits with the Israelites entering Egypt in 1876 BC.

"The Twelfth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (Dynasty XII) is a series of rulers reigning from 1991–1802 BC (190 years)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

The Hyksos lost power during the reign of Ahmose I. We don't know the exact dates of his reign, but somewhere between 1570-1514 BC.

"Ahmose I was a pharaoh and founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt in the New Kingdom of Egypt, the era in which ancient Egypt achieved the peak of its power. His reign is usually dated to the mid-16th century BC at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I

It was during this period the Israelites were enslaved. In 1526 BC, Moses was born.

If we are even 100 years off, then it would be equal to thinking the Jews are in concentration camps today.

It's not an apt analogy. It's not possible to nail down specific dates when we're talking about thousands of years ago. When we look at the range of dates, they are compatible. Also, the further we go back in time, the same number of years difference decreases in percentage error.

[otseng]

No, the Bible does not say they were initially enslaved. This is a common misunderstanding of the text.

AI Overview
Learn more
Were the Israelites in Egyptian Slavery for 430 years ...
Yes, according to the Bible, the Israelites were initially enslaved in Egypt

Here's the text:

Genesis
1:7 - And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
1:8 - Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
1:9 - And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we:
1:10 - Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.
1:11 - Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.

Obviously the Israelites were not immediately enslaved when they entered Egypt. They grew in numbers until the "land was filled with them." They were not enslaved during this time. And it must've taken some time for the population to increase to fill the land.

It was only when the number of grew so large that the Egyptians felt they were too powerful that they took action. It was during the reign of Ahmose I (~1570-1514 BC.) that the Hyksos lost power.

Warfare between the Hyksos and the pharaohs of the late Seventeenth Dynasty eventually culminated in the defeat of the Hyksos by Ahmose I, who founded the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt.[16] In the following centuries, the Egyptians would portray the Hyksos as bloodthirsty and oppressive foreign rulers.

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

So, the Israelites were free and not enslaved prior to Ahmose I. And it was 350 years after they entered Egypt that Moses was born (1526 BC).

[otseng]

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?

No, I'm not revising the Biblical account. The Israelites were given the land by Pharaoh.

My question is if the Hyksos were not the Israelites, then how were the Hyksos able to reside in Egypt and take over the best land?

These questions have still not been answered by the skeptics. If the Hyksos were not the Israelites, as believed by many scholars, shouldn't these be easy to answer by presenting contrary evidence? If I do have an answer to this and the skeptics do not, then it follows my position is a more reasonable position to hold.

[POI]

Your view is fringe, very fringe.

Actually, even Josephus believed the Hyksos were "our people".

Again, I'm speaking about your position, as it relates to readers who read your stuff.

It also applies to me that I'll let readers decide.

Two believers weighed in, regarding this particular exchange. Neither side with you. And it logically follows that skeptics won't side with you - for more than one logical reason.

As you've noted, you haven't presented any evidence to back up your position.

To that point, I wasn't really going to until you back up your claim, only to be followed by another claim, only to be followed by 6 questions, after asking that you provide your best piece of evidence.

Since you have no evidentiary grounds for your position, then your position is just speculation. So, why should your position be more reasonable than mine?

What counts as "evidence"? Do not answer yet. See below....

Don't claim there is definitive evidence, but I do claim there is evidence to support that the Hyksos being the Israelites is a reasonable position.

To my response directly above.... Are the words "definitive and reasonable" subjective or objective statements? Still do not answer yet. See below....

What does the evidence state?

Well, when I do a basic google search for "when did the Hyksos first enter into Egypt?", here is the search result:

The Hyksos began entering Egypt around 1782 BCE, establishing a presence in the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt. This event marked the start of the Second Intermediate Period in Egyptian history.

This is almost a 100 year difference, verses your carefully selected finding. As I stated before, anyone can argue almost anything. When we don't get a search result we like, go search for another one. Maybe this is why it took you so long to come up with your alternative theory?

Does the above match the Biblical narrative? No. This is why you must keep searching....

As already stated, timelines are important. The disparity is still huge. Between my very easily found finding, it already conflicts an entire century with yours. Just think about how much stuff can happen in just one century?

It's not possible to nail down specific dates when we're talking about thousands of years ago.

Bingo! Now my hypothesis has been confirmed! You will use the excuse of 'ancient antiquity.' Meaning, there is just no way to know for sure. Well, then I guess I can ignore your dates. But it is curious why Google AI points to my favor...? It must be ignorance, and/or conspiracy, and or bad parsing/sourcing practices by Google's AI engines (Accept the hits, ignore the misses), is all that is being displayed here.

[RBD]

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?

We are talking about millions and millions of folks inhabiting an area for centuries. Archeology has found nothing. Further, that no Egyptian record mention a anything at all about holding Israelites as slaves.

The whole fallacy of 'no archeological evidence' proving 'no presence' is two: 1) It must also apply for Canaan, as well as for Egypt. 2) It's not the domain of archeology in history, to determine if a written record can possiblybe true or not.

1) If the children of Jacob remained in Canaan, and were not in Egypt after Joseph, then where is the archeological evidence for Hebrews in Canaan? Or, any historical record of them being there? Did the Canaanites leave any? The Israelites have a record for Egypt at the time, but not for Canaan.

If 'no archeological evidence' in Egypt means 'no presence' in Egypt, despite there being a written historical record, then it also certainly means no presence in Canaan, where there is no historical record at all.

Anyone doubting the presence of Hebrews in Egypt at the time, based solely upon no archeological evidence, must certainly reject any Hebrew presence in Canaan at the same time. And by extension of the archeological demand, where no archeological evidence is, then there is no Hebrew presence on earth at all...

2. We see then the ad absurdum demand of pseudo-archeology. No archeological evidence only means no archeological presence, not no presence at all. Otherwise, archeology assumes the role of dictating history, such as the Hebrews having no presence on earth at that time, since no archeological evidence allows for it. (Nor did any hunter-gatherer migration of people occur in history, where there is no archeological evidence to prove it.

The Jewish geologies are false, and they did not exist as a people, until the approved timeline of dirt and archeologists say so.

The place of archeology in history, is not to determine what written or pictorial record can possibly be true, but can only help to confirm or deny it.

No trained archeologist would ever assume the role of historical activist, who determines if historical records can possibly be true or not, based solely upon their own archeological finds alone. No more than spurious judge-activists, who say a written law is not law, until they find it can be law...

The demand for archeological evidence to make the historical record of Hebrews in Egypt possibly true, is that of false archeological activists, who only apply their 'exacting' criteria only for the record of Hebrews in Egypt, but not for their own alternative claim of Hebrews remaining in Canaan. Or, perhaps to be consistent, they do deny there were any Hebrews any were on earth...

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #652]

Hey Google! 'What year does the Bible state the Israelites were enslaved?"

AI Overview

According to the Bible, the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt starting around 1876 BC, when they first entered the country, and then for 430 years until their exodus.

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

Emergency! The Hyksos timeline does not match. "Must - make - it - fit"... When pressed for specifics, state (paraphrased) "we cannot really know for sure." But you know we must, alternatively, hold to a specific date from the Torah. Is it possible the Biblical chronology has it wrong too? Hmm?

What hard line in the sand do we draw, when we create threads, such as "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? "

[RBD]

The Bible only makes a claim in Exodus. Hence, besides the claims from the Bible, what evidence do we have? Still nada.

The fallacy with the 'only a claim' argument, is it's Bible claim that is with evidence of testimonial witness. The only claim made without evidence, is that the Bible record is not true.

[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.

No timeline lines up with an Egyptian owned province called Canaan. Ever.

Not until Persia, did the use of satrapies exist in an empire, later followed by Roman provinces...

[RBD]

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.

It's not the year that is revised, but the manner of rule.

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.

Your revision is of the evidence given. Their control was over their trade route cities, not over all of Canaan. The victory records of the Pharaohs are over cities in Canaan, nor over Canaan.

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

This is nonsensical. The promised land was only promised, whoever ruled there, until they conquered it and made it the kingdom Israel.

And if you want to believe the escaping Hebrews then defeated Egyptians in open battle in Canaan, then that's your revised history, not the Bible.

Now if you want to say the children of Israel were immediately enslaved again in Canaan by Egyptians, or that they never left Canaan at all, then we can take a look at it.

[RBD]

You haven't established this.

Jesus does.

Only in the way that Luke Skywalker established the power of the Force.

Unbelief in a Book, is not an argument about the Book, but only personal opinion. You asked who wrote the Book, and you were told the Book's answer.

Since you're not going to believe anything from the Book, then don't ask. Because I'll not bother giving you the Book answer.