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]

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?

Other than the Hebrews entering Egypt, and settling in Goshen without resistance from Egyptians, no, not at all.

The world's record of Hyksos enters a couple hundred years later, than the Hebrew record in the Bible.

The Hebrews entered by invitation from Pharaoh, and given the good land of Goshen to favor Joseph's father and kindred. They did not fight the Egyptians at any time. (Other than Moses killing one Egyptian master to protect some Hebrew slaves.) Nor did the Hebrews ever rule over the Egyptians. (Other than Joseph as regent for Pharaoh.) They were not defeated and driven out, but departed of their own free will, with supplies from the Egyptians.

The Hyksos were invaders, who continued their border skirmishes with upper Egypt for a hundred years, until they were finally defeated in several battles and driven out. They were recorded as oppressive rulers in their southern kingdom.

Anyone suggesting the Hebrews were the invading Hyksos ruling by oppression over lower Egypt, is making the Egyptians the attacked victims, and the Hebrews the marauding invaders. And it was the Egyptians that finally defeated the Hebrews in the end, and disgorged the evil Hebrews from their rightful southern homelands.

Not a bad bit of revisionist spin by anti-Hebrew pro-Egyptian loyalists...

[RBD]

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?

You probably miswrote here.

The fact of Smith contradicting himself about writing another testament for Jesus Christ, proves he is not trustworthy from the start.

But we logically know J. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.

Actually not true. According to him, he was given golden plates by an angel, that he then translated into English. That angel is a lying angel, who claims to have another testament of Jesus Christ for Smith to translate as another apostle of Jesus Christ:

Gal 1:8But 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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Same for the lying angel inspiring Muhammed, who says the God of Abraham does not beget a Son. Whether anyone chooses to believe him or not, is irrelevant to the fact, that he contradicts himself by claiming to speak for the God of Abraham and another God Allah, at the same time.

Both Smith and Muhammed contradict themselves in the principle claim and argument of their books. The Bible does not contradict itself in the smallest matters...

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Psa 19:9The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

[POI]

No, it's not way off. I've already addressed it as well:

Then I guess, as you'd say, "we'll let the readers decide". Oh, they already have. Thus far, no one sides with you, even though you brought up this position before I did. Years and counting.....

We're discussing dates thousands of years ago with a minority group entering a new land. It's doubtful they'd be able to leave archaeological remains immediately, but it's more reasonable it'd take several decades at least to even remotely find artifacts from them.

Here is an excuse for lack in evidence.

Also, how do they date archaeological artifacts? Dating is normally based on a range, not exact dates. Even C-14 dating is based on a range. So, outside of textual evidence, it's impossible to nail an event to a specific date.

Here is another excuse for lack in evidence.

I haven't found any skeptic that accepts the early dating since they already realize the dates are compatible.

This is a bold claim. Please demonstrate that scholars avoid this timeline simply because there is more compatibility?

Sure, there could exist cultural similarities.

Indistinguishable from one another?

It's the major cities that were attacked by the Israelites. The hill-country sites would've been populated over time.

Until we know the timeline to address, this statement remains a non-starter. There exists a couple of centuries. And as we both know, a lot can happen in ~2 centuries.

Don't see how these are relevant.

Scholars do.

This position leads to the question who exactly were the Israelites?

I already touched in this. According to the Bible, the "Israelites" are the descendants of Jacob, also known as Israel, and his twelve sons. They were the core population of the ancient kingdom of Israel and are also considered the ancestral lineage of the modern Jewish people. Further, while there's a historical figure named Jacob (Yaqub-Har) associated with the Hyksos, he is not the same as the biblical patriarch Jacob. The biblical Jacob is a figure of the Old Testament, while Yaqub-Har was a Hyksos king who ruled in ancient Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period.

If they were not the same people as those described in the Bible, who were they?

Well, they were likely not the expressed "Israelites", and likely neither were the Habiru. Seems logical that the Bible might have used parallel storylines and/or inspiration to concoct their own series of events, for their own people.

If they were not the children of Israel that came out of Egypt, were they natives in Canaan all along? What could distinguish them from the other Canaanites and what would it even mean they were absorbed into the Canaanites?

I've already touched on this, more than once. Numbers... In both the expressed timeline, as well as the sheer numbers of expressed folks to have been involved. These two factors alone raise great concern for the believer, which is likely one of the reasons no believers are coming to your rescue here, regarding the shoehorning of the Hyksos.

If scholars agree there is some historical core to the Exodus account, then what actually happened? Some Israelites went into Egypt and some had always been in Canaan?

Even if this is true, does this 'validate' the Bible's claim(s)? If you wish to water down the Bible THIS far, why should the Bible be taken any more seriously than any other religious claim from antiquity at all? If we are merely able to pull partial-truths and some validity to a set of events, but discard others, then the Bible is really no better than any competing collection of religious text(s), where there exists some truth, some fiction, some strange stuff, some weird stuff, some fabricated stuff, some non-sensical stuff, etc......

Why should Jews practice many of their traditions if it was all based on a lie? How could the tradition of the Passover Seder be so ingrained into their culture if it was a myth?

Tradition, indoctrination/repetition, credulity, being held as the political majority/authority, etc... Same as any competing religion, for their own respective geographical areas.

Why even follow the 10 commandments since the only reason they should follow the commandments was God brought them out of Egypt?

Same answer as above.

Why did they practice the sacrificial system if they were never commanded by God on how to do it while they were in the wilderness?

Countless people, from the past and present, state God commanded or commands them to do this/that/other. How do we know which ones are real, if any at all? And why would such a "God" require any blood sacrifices at all regardless?

The alternative explanations to these would be so ad hoc shows such a position would be unreasonable.

No. Humans alone can do all of this. No God necessary or required.

OK, present your scenario of how the Bible was created by political and religious motivations in the context that the Exodus never happened.

It needs its own topic. I may create one soon.

[RBD]

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.)

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?

They would not record anything contributing to their defeat and humiliation at the hand of slaves, especially not any plagues proving their God was God above their own Egyptian gods....

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.

Right. I forgot about the heathen graffiti 'stuff'. In fact, with the Hebrews calling on the name of the LORD, I never thought of it.

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Act 17:29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And so, once again no evidence is evidence. No evidence for Hebrew heathen graffiti art in Egypt, is evidence they were not there. Right. And that is based upon no evidence that the Hebrews at the time were practicing heathens...The rabbit hole just keeps getting dug deeper and deeper.

Please remember, the Bible claims these millions inhabited this space for centuries. But they left no trace of their existence?

I know. I mean, not even graffiti art. Everyone knows the Hebrews were masters of graffiti art, especially of the graven images sort...

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.

Right. The no evidence of famous Hebraic graffiti art evidence...

[Clownboat]

No, we don't agree, because you speak from unbelief in the words of the Bible, while I only teach them as written.

Then you need to stop treating the Bible as an idol.
Exodus 20:4-5 ERV
Don't worship or serve idols of any kind, because I, the LORD, am your God.

What is happening with you taking the Bible literally is that you make an idol of the Bible and your own literal interpretation if it which you then cling to as yourself, thus putting your own narrow view in opposition to the wider principle of love and acceptance that Jesus taught.

You fail to seem to realize this and then blame me for having unbelief in the words of the Bible. I don't worship this book that you seem to and that is the real difference.

<Snipped some Bible verses>

And so, we see the clear and simple difference between the thinking and speaking of natural humanists, vs those believing and speaking the Scriptures of the Bible.

I agree there is a difference between thinking and speaking humans vs those that idolize the Bible and believe they speak for it.

<Snipped more Bible verses>

These are words of the Bible.

Cool! Are you suggesting I idolize them? Should I quote the Quran or Bhagavad Gita at you? Would that impress you?

He was the Son of God in the flesh on earth, and now is the risen Son of God sitting on the right hand of heaven's throne.

Thank you for spewing your beliefs at me. I hear your claim and I'm happy for you if you want to hold to it. I would ask that you speak the truth, but we both know you would just point to the Bible, something you worship from where I sit. Then you will blame me for not sharing in your worship of this book and we'll be back to square one because you are correct, I respect much of the book, but I don't worship it as if a God authored it.

His body was not decomposing in the tomb,

I'm sorry, but all dead bodies decompose. This process if well understood.

but being preserved by the Spirit of life.

You're making it worse...

Nor did He reanimate His body, as with some heart defibrillator, but rather His living soul and breath reentered into His old dead body, to become a whole new immortal body of living flesh and bone.

.... and worse still.
So now we must also accept that souls are real and that breath can re-enter a dead body which can then become an immortal body of flesh and bone?

So, like I observed before:

I know you don't realize it, but you are asking a lot.

<Snipped even more Bible verses>

In a nutshell. It seems to me that you are dodging an argument that you know you can't win (providing evidence for millions wandering the Sinai) by accusing me of having an emotional reaction to a God/Bible instead of a rational criticism of them.

Have we found any evidence that suggests millions of people wandered the Sinai as told in the Bible? Don't be afraid to provide an honest answer as it would not show the Bible to be necessarily false.

[RBD]

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 plagues, if historical would have been recorded.

They were: Exodus 7-12

You are correct that they may have left out or tried to cover up defeats if that happened, but that has nothing to do with the plagues.

The plagues defeated them. There was no war between Egyptians and Hebrews.

The plagues also showed the LORD God of the Hebrews was greater in power above the gods of Egypt.

Exo 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Exo 9:16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

According to the story, the Nile river, canals, tributaries, ponds and pools all turned to blood. Such an event wasn't recorded though.

Exodus 7-12

[POI]

This is an interesting alternative

'Interesting' = Oh fiddle stix. Houston, we have a problem...

however, the context and other Scriptures forbid it:

No, they don't.

The writer of Matthew also thought the earth was a round/flat disk. No matter how high you go, you cannot see the back side of the earth.

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

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

Look, you asked, and I answered. We have tons of evidence for the earth not being flat. And yet, because some believers translate the Bible as stating the earth is a "flat disk", we still have to endure, or take seriously, groups who argue for them. Why? Because the Bible is still an authority. Which is why there is still serious debate about 'the Exodus.'

Maybe in a couple of centuries or so, when enough of the Bible's claims are known as being debunked, (by common knowledge), will we folks relegate the claims of the Bible as myth, just like the claim(s) of the former Greek god(s), etc....

[Clownboat]

By your unbelief in the Book, you argue against what's written in the Book. By my objective reading of the Book, I only teach what the Book says...

Do you not see this as yet another example where you are dodging an argument you know you cant win (that Moses in fact wrote the first 5 books of the Bible) by accusing POI of having an emotional reaction to the Bible instead of a rational criticism of it?

[Difflugia]

When Jesus called Exodus the book of Moses, He was not following Jewish tradition.

This is your claim. It's time to start supporting your claims.

The angel Nephi claims to have been an eyewitness to events of the Book of Mormon. 1 Nephi 1:1-3:

[...]

Was he?

An angel?

No, an eyewitness. By the way, referring to Nephi as an angel was a typo (I originally included the angel Moroni, but removed that part of my argument). In either case, it doesn't matter. Nephi claimed to be author of at least part of the book and eyewitness to its events. You changed the subject to Joseph Smith, but that's not what I asked about.

The Bible is not a 'found' narrative of unknown authorship.

This is your claim. You need to support this claim.

Find me any bona fide historian that treats such a found narrative uncritically.

All bona fide critical historians accepted all recorded documents as evidence.

Then quote one treating the Bible the way you want us to.

A recorded eyewitness account of a dead man, does not demand the dead man in court, to verify it's his eyewitness account.

Only if it can first be established that the "recording," in whatever form, genuinely issued from the dead man. You're claiming that for Moses, but haven't offered any evidence of that.

So long as the chain of custody is not abridged by contrary evidence, then it is accepted.

The chain of custody requires positive evidence and isn't assumed, despite any lack of contrary evidence.

The scribes of Israel are the chain of custody kept inviolate from the time of testimony.

Then you should be able to provide notarized statements (or their equivalent) from each scribe in the chain, particularly the one that received it from Moses. If you can't, then it isn't what anyone else refers to as a chain of custody.

We see here two things declared by Jesus: It was Moses writing the book of Moses. And the absurdity of demanding the writer speak in person from the dead.

The absurdity is you claiming that it's eyewitness testimony. The writer speaking in person from the dead is what that claim would necessarily entail.

Readers of the Book are not greater evidence than the Book.

No honest scholar's conclusions about a book, are more important than the book's own testimony of itself.

The scribes of Israel did not begin in the middle ages.

Your argument consists entirely of unsupported claims. It's time to start supporting them.

[RBD]

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.

Technically, Hyksos means the rulers of Egypt. So, this is compatible with the Biblical timeline. But Hyksos can also mean the group as a whole, not just the rulers. I refer to the Hyksos as the group of Semitic people that dwelled in the land of Goshen.

No, you're referring to a group of rulers in southern Egypt. Not Hebrews, who never ruled in Goshen. You are also referring to a group of soon-to-be Hyksos invading Egypt, several hundred years after the Hebrews were peacefully invited by Pharaoh himself.

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.

Though the Bible does not explicitly mention being in a war, it does not preclude it.

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.

The record precludes any war between Egyptians and Hebrews. And the lie of them joining other enemies, was only a political excuse to rob and enslave them.

In any case, the Semites invading to become Hyksos of southern Egypt, could not have been Hebrews, whom the lying Pharaoh said they would join, not become...

The Egyptians most likely initiated a war to enslave them.

You can write your own book about it all, but it doesn't change the record of the Book already written.

Otherwise how would they have enslaved them when they had filled the land? Would they have all just willingly be enslaved?

How did the NAZI's enslave all the Jews in Germany? Not all at once, but incrementally. A peaceful people given to law, do not immediately rebel against abuse of the law by the governing rulers. Especially in the Egypt of god Pharaohs...

According to the record, they did resist individually at times, such as with the babes not being killed, but they never rose up en masse to ever fight the Egyptian gvt.

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.

There is no archaeological evidence they oppressively ruled, this is only Manetho's account, which is dubious.

No problem. But your whole effort is a revision of the record to force a Hebrew conquering of southern Egypt and rule for over hundred years, before finally being defeated in battle by the Egyptian patriots.

Is this revision on purpose or not? Do you say the Hebrews were the military invaders, and the Egyptians were only defending themselves? The Hebrews were finally defeated in combat, and were driven out by the victorious Egyptians?

That's the factual conclusion of your revisionism.

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.

We're not too sure how much they worshipped Yahweh. Since the Torah was not even written yet, it was most likely just a simple belief and practices.

And so now, you make the Hebrews in Egypt, the Hyksos rulers sharing gods...And you say so, because the Torah was not yet written? But now the Torah is written, and does not say so...But the opposite:

Exo 2:23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.

Not Hyksos rulers in Egypt sharing their gods.

As I said, you can continue to write your own revised history, but it doesn't change nor agree with the record at hand. And, your efforts to change the Bible history, are as purposed as other efforts to deny it altogether. Is it because you believe the Hebrews were the offenders, and the Egyptians were the aggrieved party? The Egyptians finally got rid of the 'Hebrew' invaders by defeating them once for all in open battle?

That's the factual conclusion of your revised history.

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.

Actually, the commonalities are uncanny:

Both the Israelites and the Hyksos overlap in:
1) Who they were - Semitic people
2) Where they came from - Canaan
3) Where they went to - land of Goshen
4) How they were able to take over the land - peacefully inhabited it
5) When they occupied lower Egypt - 12th dynasty to 19th dynasty
6) They both grew in number to threaten the Egyptians

So, first you revise Hebrew history in Egypt to look like Hyksos, and now you revise Hyksos history in Egypt to look like Hebrews.

So, the Hyksos did not fight the Egyptians and defeat them to rule southern Egypt? They were not finally defeated and driven out of Egypt once for all?

Were the plagues helping the Egyptians? Were there any plagues at all?

And in such cases of obvious error, a good question is why try?

Because I believe in the historicity of the Bible. I also believe if an event is historical, there should exist some evidence outside the Bible to corroborate it.

And so, another unbelieving-believer, agreeing with the unbelieving-unbelievers, who say no other evidence is evidence the Bible is false.

You're trying to 'rescue' the unbelievable Bible record, by changing it, to give it a flavor of historical fact for the unbelievers to accepts something more realistic?

And if evidence is found, then it upholds the reliability of the Bible.

What is the alternative? Simply believe in the Bible by faith and there's no extra-Biblical evidence?

Right. It's called a believing believer in the Bible. So long as there is no contrary evidence, then anyone can rightly believe it. It's the same reasonable response to all unbelievers, who choose not to believe the record.

If this is just about your effort to believe the Bible, by changing it to another history to fit a different people you can believe in, then it's an interesting enterprise, that has nothing to do with faith in the Author of the Bible.

However, revising His to the point where the Hebrews are the offenders, and the Egyptians are the victims of foreign aggression. And it's the Hebrews that get defeated and driven out of Egypt, rather than being freed from their unrighteous taskmasters to leave of their own power and free will... Well, that's not just an interesting mistake. That's a slanderous accusation against the innocent, and justification of the wicked, that even the unbelieving-unbelievers don't attempt...

As they say, no help is better than bad help:

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Why don't you just say openly what you're doing, and then people can take it from there: You agree the Bible record of Exodus is not believable as it is, without other outside evidence to confirm it. Therefore, you offer an alternative history of Hebrews becoming Hyksos rulers in Egypt about the same time.

Then you can try and change the history again, where the Hebrew Hyksos are not actually defeated in the end, and driven out of Egypt by Egyptian patriots. Perhaps they simply got tired of ruling in a foreign land, and got homesick for Canaan, and simply went their way without a struggle? And it was just coincidence that there were several natural, if not weird, disasters about the time of their departure?