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?

[Difflugia]

Really? So, now your argument shifts from no more Egyptian livestock to 'die again', to not enough from the Hebrews to go around for the whole nation. Which once again is only the 'expert' opinion of no evidence, nor any knowledge of the record:

Engaging with your implausible excuses isn't a shifting of my argument. Two different plagues kill all of the Egyptian livestock in the Bible. Your argument is that your invented addition to the story is plausible, in which the Egyptians somehow get more livestock for God to kill again. My response is that it's not. My original argument hasn't changed.

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.

So, you can add to the Bible as long as your heart's in the right place? How do you feel about the Protoevangelium of James or the Acts of Paul and Thecla?

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.

Part of your inerrancy argument is that Moses wrote some of the Bible. He didn't.

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.

Perhaps you'll recall that you're the one that asked for contradictions and I'm the one that "indulged" you in your challenge. In this subforum, the contents of the Bible aren't given preferential treatment over other evidence, academic scholarship in particular, and you need to be reminded of that. That you've indulged those reminders is commendable. I hope you continue.

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.

Unless you're trying to engage in some sort of no true Scotsman fallacy, this is false on its face.

First, according to Gallup, a minority of Christians treat the Bible that way:

More granularly, 30% of Protestants say that the Bible is literally true, compared with 15% of Catholics. Almost two-thirds of Catholics choose the alternative that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but every word should not be taken literally.

As was the case in 2017, belief in a literal Bible is highest among those who are more religious and among those with less formal education. Americans who identify as evangelical or born again are much more likely than others to view the Bible as literally true, although even among this group, the percentage believing in a literal Bible is well less than 50%.

Second, not even all inerrantists believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in general or Exodus in particular. Craig Evans somehow manages to balance being an evangelical apologist with a career as a respected secular scholar. He tends to avoid specific claims that might turn off his apologetic audience, but even so, he carefully reconciles the New Testament references to the "Books of Moses" thus:

The Mosaic covenant, as it is often called, is named after its mediator, Moses. It is also often referred to as the Sinai(tic) covenant because of its institution at Mount Sinai. Hebrews 8:13 refers to this covenant as “old” (KJV) or “obsolete” (NIV, NASB). Second Corinthians 3:14–15 relatedly refers to the veiled reading of the “old covenant” and of “Moses” (NIV). The latter designation is likely a reference to the Pentateuch, which deals with this covenant among others (e.g., Noahic, Abrahamic, new [see Deut 30:6]).

According to Evans, the appellation "Books of Moses" is a reference to some of the subject matter and not the author.

The Reverend Walter J. Houston wrote the introduction to Exodus in The Oxford Bible Commentary:

The view taken in this commentary (broadly that of Van Seters 1994) can only be stated here, that the work consists of two main strands with different styles and interests, which I refer to as J and P. J was created from a variety of source material by an author writing probably in the seventh or sixth century BCE. Some J material is earlier than Deuteronomy, some of it later and clearly dependent on that book; see e.g. EX 23:10–19 contrasted with 13:3–10. P was written by a priestly author in the later sixth or fifth century. It seems to me likely that P was not an independent work later combined with J, but was written from the beginning as an expansion of J.

Houston is an ordained minister of the United Reformed Church.

Unless your definition of a believer excludes all Christians but the least educated fundamentalists, then you're just wrong. If it does, on the other hand, then I guess yes, we knew that.

[POI]

More excuses provided as to why we have no evidence...

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...

1) Hey Google! "Do we have archeological evidence for Hebrews in ancient Canaan?"

Answer:

Yes, there is significant archaeological evidence pointing to the presence of Hebrews in ancient Canaan. While direct evidence like written Hebrew inscriptions is limited, other archaeological findings, including cultural artifacts and settlement patterns, support the existence of early Israelites in the region.

Canaanite Origins: Archaeological evidence suggests that the early Israelites, or Hebrews, had Canaanite origins, inheriting cultural practices like pottery, cult objects, and even the early Canaanite alphabet.

Settlement Patterns:Archaeological excavations have revealed village-like settlements in the highlands of Canaan, with houses built around common courtyards and terraced for farming.

Four-Room House: The presence of four-room houses, a distinctive architectural style, is considered an ethnic marker for Israelites during the Iron Age in Canaan.

Merneptah Stele: The Merneptah Stele, an Egyptian inscription from 1219 BCE, is the earliest extrabiblical record of a people group called "Israel".

Genetic Evidence: Studies of ancient DNA from bodies found at archaeological sites in Canaan have revealed a genetic link between modern Jewish and Arabic-speaking populations and the ancient Canaanites, as reported by the Biblical Archaeology Society.

Lack of Direct Inscriptions: While there is no definitive evidence of ancient Hebrew inscriptions, the indirect evidence from pottery, settlement patterns, and cultural traditions strongly supports the existence of Israelites in Canaan

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

2) Hey Google: "Do we have archeological evidence for Hebrews in ancient Egypt?"

Answer:

While the story of the Israelites in Egypt, including their enslavement and Exodus, is central to the Hebrew Bible, there is no conclusive archaeological evidence to directly support the biblical account. Some scholars argue that the biblical narrative is a myth or legend, while others suggest that the Israelites may have been part of a broader Semitic presence in Egypt during the Late Bronze Age.

Lack of Direct Evidence for the Exodus:

No Egyptian records: There are no ancient Egyptian records detailing the enslavement of Israelites or the Exodus, as the Apologetics Guy argues.

Limited evidence of Semitic presence: While there is evidence of Semitic people in Egypt during the Late Bronze Age, such as at sites like Tell el-Dab'a and Serabit el-Khadim, there is no direct evidence of a Semitic tribe worshipping Yahweh or the specific events described in the Book of Exodus, according to the Haaretz.

Evidence Suggesting a Semitic Presence: Tell el-Dab'a: Excavations at this site have revealed pottery and other artifacts that indicate a foreign, Semitic population, and some scholars believe this site might be the location of the city of Rameses in the
Book of Exodus.

Tomb of Rekhmire: This tomb depicts scenes of brick-making by light-skinned Semitic slaves, which some scholars interpret as evidence of the Israelites' labor in Egypt.

Merneptah Stele: This stele, an inscription from the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah (c. 1208 BCE), mentions "Israel" as a people, providing the earliest extrabiblical record of the Israelites, notes the Biblical Archaeology Society.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... the_Exodus

The Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites. The scholarly consensus is that the Exodus, as described in the Torah, is not historical, even though there may be a historical core behind the Biblical narrative.

Modern archaeologists believe that the Israelites were indigenous to Canaan and were never in ancient Egypt, and if there is any historical basis to the Exodus it can apply only to a small segment of the population of Israelites at large. Nevertheless, it is also commonly argued that some historical event may have inspired these traditions, even if Moses and the Exodus narrative belong to the collective cultural memory rather than history. According to Avraham Faust "most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt."

Egyptologist Jan Assmann suggests that the Exodus narrative combines, among other things, the expulsion of the Hyksos, the religious revolution of Akhenaten, the experiences of the Habiru (gangs of antisocial elements found throughout the ancient Near East), and the large-scale migrations of the Sea Peoples into "a coherent story that is fictional as to its composition but historical as to some of its components.".

[POI]

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.

I've already explained here. Do I need to repeat the reasons the claim from the Bible is not to logically be considered as direct evidence?

[POI]

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...

False. We know that Egypt likely exerted significant influence and control over Canaan until around 1100 BCE through evidence from various sources, including the Amarna letters, the Merneptah Stele, and archaeological findings. These sources indicate a military and administrative presence, as well as the perception of Canaanites as subjects of Egyptian rule, even if direct Egyptian control was not always absolute.

Amarna Letters: These letters, discovered in the 1300s BCE, reveal that many Canaanite city-state rulers addressed the Egyptian pharaohs as "my lord" and appealed for military assistance, indicating a degree of Egyptian influence and control.

Merneptah Stele: This inscription, dating to 1208 BCE, mentions "Israel" and its potential threat to Egyptian interests, suggesting that there was a recognizable entity in Canaan that the Egyptians were concerned about.

Archaeological Evidence: Archaeological findings, such as the presence of Egyptian forts and garrisons in Canaan, and the existence of Egyptian administrative buildings in cities like Jaffa and Aphek, provide further evidence of Egyptian presence and influence.

Sea Peoples: While the Sea Peoples' impact is debated, the decline of Egyptian power in Canaan coincides with their movements, suggesting a weakening of Egyptian control.

In summary, while the exact nature of Egyptian control in Canaan is subject to ongoing debate, these sources collectively point to a period of Egyptian influence and even dominance that extended until around 1100 BCE.

[POI]

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.

The "promised land" in Canaan refers to the territory, not a specific city, that God promised to the descendants of Abraham. This land, also known as the Land of Israel, included areas of modern-day Israel and Palestine. In 1100 BCE, much of the region that is now Israel and Palestine was under the influence of the Canaanite city-states, though direct Egyptian control.

[RBD]

But, since there is no evidence in Egypt against the Exodus,

The archaeological evidence of the early Israelites is that they're displaced Canaanites rather than an external force having traveled across the desert

Ok, so now we have the charge, that the children of Jacob never left Canaan. Which would make Exodus and Judges books of mythical legend.

And so, what is the written or archeological evidence, that the Hebrews were in Canaan all along, when according to Exodus they should have been in Egypt?

Also, what is the written or archeological evidence of Hebrews being called, or being Canaanites? Which of the patriarchs were Canaanites, born of Canaanites? (That does not apply to local Canaanites converting to the law and worship of the God of Israel, after crossing the river Jordan under Joshua, such a Rachab of Jericho.)

Israel Finkelstein wrote the following in The Bible Unearthed:

The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages—all apparently established within the span of a few generations—indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE.

Ok so far. There sure was a dramatic social transformation in Canaan, when the Israelites came home to stay, first by force, and then by lawful settlement.

There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group.

True again. Entering Canaan by a divided river Jordan, would leave no sign of invasion nor infiltration, nor more than exiting a divded Red Sea would leave any sign, after the waters return to their natural course. (That would also include no present sign of the stones set up by the children of Israel in Jordan, to show their passing on dry land.)

And what 'clearly defined' ethnic difference between Semites, is there supposed to be? Is there any written or archeological evidence of some disparaging difference between the Semitic ethic groups in Canaan? (Other than the giant sons of Gath, of course...)

The Bible record never suggests any 'ethnic' difference, but only that of law and worship of their God Yahweh, separated entirely from that of the pagan Semites in Canaan.

So far, there is no hint of evidence pertaining to the Hebrews in Canaan before their rise to power, other than their time with Jacob, before their move to Egypt. And the lack of a violent invasion and infiltration process, that would leave archeological evidence long after, only confirms the nature of their victorious progress recorded in Joshua through a few cities, and into the hills.

Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle.

Any displacement, even without force, of old inhabitants by new settlers, especially with a whole new law and worship of a heretofore unknown God, is by definition a 'revolution' of the old settlement lifestyles.

Once again, nothing here is any evidence of Hebrews being in Canaan, when they ought be in Egypt. And the only thing here is confirmation of Joshua.

The Israelite highlands were settled by Canaanites moving out of the cities, not Israelites escaping Egypt. No Israelites from Egypt, no Exodus.

Seriously? It was just an en masse 'move' from suburbia to hillside retreats? Like a majority of Danes in Denmark, suddenly deciding to forsake their city homes for their country homes, rather than only vacationing there??

Was Moses a fellow Semitic Canaanite, who rose up as a great hill country prophet, with a new law and worship in the name of a new God? And not until his death in one of them thar hills, did his great follower convince all their fellow converted Canaanites to follow him to the hills?

Or, was there ever even a distinct law and worship of Yahweh in Canaan? Along with no distinct people of that law and God called Hebrews, and the children of Israel? Was the law and worship also nothing but a artful and mythical Shangri-La?

Having taken a look at the author referred to, I do not see this kind of revisionist extremism, that you are imputing to him. In fact, his statement "Here were the first Israelites", speaks of a different Semitic people in Canaan, settling and ruling the hill country with their own revolutionary law and worship. And it was the old Canaanites already "in the process of collapse and disintegration", that were too weak to stop them...And we latter see even converted to their religion and families.

Other than a few cities, it's in the hills that the returning Israelites first fought, settled, and ruled, by a progression of local victories, that left no violent nor apocalyptic evidence after a few hundred of years. The collapsed walls of Jericho were later rebuilt, and the burned cities of Ai and Hazor, were immediately cleared and settled...

And so, we have no evidence given whatsoever about Hebrews dwelling in Canaan, especially not as Canaanites, during the time of Exodus. (This excludes later times of Israelite reprobation, when they did mix with the pagan Semites in the land, and could be called fellow Canaanites in spirit and lifestyle...)

All we have is confirmation of the Bible account of a peaceful entry into Canaan, that began a series of victories and resettlement of the corrupted and weak Canaanite Semites. If there had been archeological and/or written records of a devastating invasion and national destruction, then it would have contradicted the book of Joshua.

Not even the great victory of the Egyptians at Megiddo in the 1400's has any remaining evidence, other than the victory stele of Thutmose 3. How much less is expected from the lightening raid and string of victories by the children of Israel, who entered without a D-Day invasion by the Jordan river? I mean, even the river opened up for a peaceful entry...

The author's only error, is revising the evidence to say there perhaps wasn't even an 'infiltration', as though the children of Israel were in Canaan all along. That is a skewed conclusion, that the evidence does not demand, and would certainly need supporting proof of their presence in Canaan, before the revolutionary change of law and rulers in the land. Which would also have to be long before by about 430 years, since Jacob and his sons and offspring and livestock first entered Egypt.

[otseng]

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

I don't think any of the readers who opposed my position has studied this. Who has engaged me with any evidence outside the Bible?

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.

If you want to use AI to search, here's some other responses:

The Hyksos first began to enter Egypt gradually around the end of the 12th Dynasty, which is approximately the late 19th or early 18th century BCE.

The Hyksos, a group of people of likely mixed origins, entered Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, which roughly spans 1782–1570 BCE. They are believed to have gradually migrated into the Nile Delta region over time, possibly around 1800 BCE.

The Hyksos first entered Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1650–1550 BCE), but their initial presence likely began earlier, around 1800–1720 BCE, as they gradually migrated into the Nile Delta from the Levant (modern-day Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon).

The Hyksos first began entering Egypt as immigrants from the Levant and Palestine around the early 18th century BCE (circa 1800 BCE), gradually settling in the eastern Nile Delta during the late Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties

The Hyksos first entered Egypt around the 18th century BCE, with significant evidence suggesting their migration began between 1700 and 1900 BCE.

Even the AI search engines do not have precise agreement on the dating. So it shows nobody really knows the exact date when the Hyksos entered Egypt.

Another thing to note is if they entered Egypt in 1876 BC, it would take them awhile to be large enough in numbers to establish a settlement to leave archaeological remains. The only way we know the exact date is from the chronological date from the Bible. So, the dates from the Bible and archaeology are compatible with each other.

[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.

I already showed from the Bible they were not immediately enslaved. You'll have to show from the Biblical text if you're going to argue they were immediately enslaved.

Also, AI search engines are not like an all-knowing infallible mind in the cloud. What it's doing is aggregating sources from the Internet and summarizing them. So, it's best to go to the actual source document. In this case, the source document would be the Bible.

And let me repeat my questions which have still not been addressed by anybody:

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?

[POI]

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?

Since you seem fond of Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... the_Exodus

The Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites. The scholarly consensus is that the Exodus, as described in the Torah, is not historical, even though there may be a historical core behind the Biblical narrative.

Modern archaeologists believe that the Israelites were indigenous to Canaan and were never in ancient Egypt, and if there is any historical basis to the Exodus it can apply only to a small segment of the population of Israelites at large. Nevertheless, it is also commonly argued that some historical event may have inspired these traditions, even if Moses and the Exodus narrative belong to the collective cultural memory rather than history. According to Avraham Faust "most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt."

Egyptologist Jan Assmann suggests that the Exodus narrative combines, among other things, the expulsion of the Hyksos, the religious revolution of Akhenaten, the experiences of the Habiru (gangs of antisocial elements found throughout the ancient Near East), and the large-scale migrations of the Sea Peoples into "a coherent story that is fictional as to its composition but historical as to some of its components."

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

It's safe to say Torah writers used inspiration from circulating stories, borrowed from circulating stories, and/or maybe even downright fibbed... Did an Exodus happen, as told form the pages of the Bible? Prolly not.

[Difflugia]

Ok, so now we have the charge, that the children of Jacob never left Canaan. Which would make Exodus and Judges books of mythical legend.

And so, what is the written or archeological evidence, that the Hebrews were in Canaan all along, when according to Exodus they should have been in Egypt?

Also, what is the written or archeological evidence of Hebrews being called, or being Canaanites?

This is just the current state of ANE archaeology.

The earliest likely reference to Israel is the Merneptah Stele, dated to the late 13th century BC. William Dever, Beyond the Texts, p. 168:

In summary, the excavated Iron I sites in the central hill country, taken together with survey sites, indicate a precipitous growth from thirty to forty sites in the Late Bronze Age to at least two hundred in Iron I. Most are small villages established de novo, 1–3 acres in extent. That could suggest a population of 100–200 each, or a total of 30,000 or more. The sites are close to each other but distant from the few continuing Canaanite cities (Megiddo, Beth-Shean). That denotes an agro-pastoral lifestyle, a redistributive economy, and a tightly knit social structure. We shall argue here that these people of the central hill country were Merenptah’s “Israelites.”

On pp. 215-218 of the same book, Dever explains that sites that were continuously occupied during the periods known as Iron I (12th-11th century BC) and Iron II (11th-10th century BC) show a gradual shift from features identified as Canaanite to those identified as Israelite. This isn't a sudden shift from one layer to the next, as might be expected from a conquest and recolonization, but of a more gradual shift in culture. I won't reproduce all of the text of those four pages, but here's his list in brief form:

1. A shift to the Israelite "four-room" style of house.
2. A shift in pottery type from Canaanite to Israelite: "All the basic ceramic types can be traced through a long evolution. The gradual changes are almost predictable and have to do mainly with statistical proportions."
3. The "domestic mode of production" as the earlier, centralized Canaanite economic organization gives way to family-oriented Israelite organization.
4. The sites retained distinctively Canaanite cult objects, even as other features became distinctively Israelite: "Only in the exile did the Yahweh-alone movement prevail, when Book religion finally triumphed over nature cults."
5. The Canaanite writing evolved into Hebrew rather than making a sudden shift: "the old Canaanite script in evidence there is adopted directly and expanded into a national script and language in Iron II, one that is beyond doubt Israelite, that is, Hebrew."
6. A progressive decrease in finding pig bones through Iron I into Iron II.
7. A shift in burial customs. Canaanites apparently treated burials of the dead with little ceremony, but Israelite burials "do yield evidence of distinctive cultural traits."

p. 218:

The only reasonable explanations for these and other cultural expressions that evolve throughout the entire Iron Age and are evident in material remains is that we are dealing with a population that is largely homogenous and indigenous. By contrast, the contemporary Iron I–II Philistine culture evolves in a significantly different way despite some evidence of acculturation (above). The implications seem clear.

If the peoples of the southern Levant west of the Jordan in the Iron II period in the era of the monarchy were mostly Israelites—which no authority would dispute—then ipso facto the peoples of Iron I, their immediate predecessors, were as well. That is why the term Proto-Israelite (above) may be useful. The Iron I villagers may not have been citizens of a fully developed Israelite state and culture, which came into being only a century or two later, but they were their authentic progenitors.

The excavated sites were continuously settled, with Canaanites at one end and Israelites at the other, but with no bright line between them.

Which of the patriarchs were Canaanites, born of Canaanites? (That does not apply to local Canaanites converting to the law and worship of the God of Israel, after crossing the river Jordan under Joshua, such a Rachab of Jericho.)

p. 120

All this means is that some of the events narrated in Genesis may have some historical basis, but there is no direct archaeological corroboration. Indeed, the patriarchal stories as they now stand combine so many diverse elements from so many periods that the narratives cannot be dated or placed in any one archaeological phase or historical era. There the matter must rest. Renewed archaeological quests, further speculation, or more minute analysis of the biblical texts are not likely to be productive for the historian. These stories are part of a late literary construct, an attempt to create a prehistory and an identity during the monarchy, one that is beyond our reach. The story is more cultural memory than history.

If the patriarchs were even real people, what is recorded is legendary.

The Bible record never suggests any 'ethnic' difference, but only that of law and worship of their God Yahweh, separated entirely from that of the pagan Semites in Canaan.

According to the Genesis 9:18, Canaanites weren't Semites: "And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham is the father of Canaan."

So far, there is no hint of evidence pertaining to the Hebrews in Canaan before their rise to power, other than their time with Jacob, before their move to Egypt.

Because we were talking about the Exodus in particular and the evidence for or against the migration.

And the lack of a violent invasion and infiltration process, that would leave archeological evidence long after, only confirms the nature of their victorious progress recorded in Joshua through a few cities, and into the hills.

If you say so.

The Israelite highlands were settled by Canaanites moving out of the cities, not Israelites escaping Egypt. No Israelites from Egypt, no Exodus.

Seriously? It was just an en masse 'move' from suburbia to hillside retreats? Like a majority of Danes in Denmark, suddenly deciding to forsake their city homes for their country homes, rather than only vacationing there??

Over a century or so, but yes. The reasons aren't all clear, but they seem to coincide with invasions by the "Sea People," which most archaeologists identify as early Philistines.

p. 131:

The above scenario also assumes that the invading Sea Peoples advanced from the northern to the southern Levantine coast by land, whereas the best evidence we have suggests several, probably successive, waves of settlement, by both land and sea (fig. 3.4). The only thing clear is that one group—the Philistines of both the Ramesses III and the biblical texts—were entrenched along the southern Levantine coast by the early to mid-twelfth century.

Was Moses a fellow Semitic Canaanite, who rose up as a great hill country prophet, with a new law and worship in the name of a new God?

Moses probably wasn't a real guy.

All we have is confirmation of the Bible account of a peaceful entry into Canaan, that began a series of victories and resettlement of the corrupted and weak Canaanite Semites.

If you say so.

[RBD]

Exodus is the written document of eyewitness testimony.

Well, then the answer to the exodus story has been answered and it really did happen, if you speak the truth.
One little request that seems very reasonable. Please show that you do speak the truth in this and then kindly inform me where the claim about the exodus story comes from. Much appreciated!

You mean prove Moses wrote it? Because Jesus says so:

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?

- You failed to show that the Exodus is an eyewitness account (the Bible is not an authority).

Someone's unbelief in a Book does not negate what it says about itself, nor make it untrue.

And if someone doesn't care what a book says about itself, then they have nothing to do with proofreading a book for information about itself.

The Quran is not true because the Quran claims to be true after all.

The author of the Koran contradicts himself about which God he is writing about, and so the Koran cannot all be true, whether some of it is true or not.

The Bible is the Book that remains unerring without internal contradiction between the Author, His words, or outside evidence.