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

This isn't what I'm addressing. You stated that eyewitness testimony is 'direct' evidence. Well, we know J. Smith wrote what he says he wrote. Alternatively, we do not know who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. Hence, by your own given standard, the Book of Mormon merits more direct evidence over the Torah.

In regard to trustworthiness, I already spoke to this too. The Orthodox Jews think the Torah does not address 'Jesus'. Hence, whether the Jew argues it's a mistake, a lie, or other, the Orthodox Jew too does not deem the "NT" trustworthy either.

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:

But J. Smith is the one who actually wrote down this claim to paper. Which-in-turn, anyone can now read from the Book of Mormon, as authored by Mr. Smith.

[POI]

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....

Again, the ancient Egyptians do not acknowledge the Hebrew 'god'. Which means they would not associate such plagues to any Bible God. Instead, being that the Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, and they recorded all sorts of stuff, their writers would have certainly mentioned something about any/all the plague(s)/etc. killing any/all their citizens. Definitely news worthy....

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.

I know you haven't, which will now surely generate some more excuses, to protect your beloved Bible book. See below....

And so, once again no evidence is evidence.

Sure. I guess the Egyptians did a (complete remodel), everywhere, after all the millions left.

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.

LOL! Seems you are getting a little flustered here. I don't blame you. All this common sense must be eating you alive. All we continue to read, are excuses as to why millions of slaves, kept for centuries, vanished without a trace.

[otseng]

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.....

Yes, I'll let readers decide. Though no one on this forum is also arguing for my position, I've already pointed out Josephus said the Hyksos was their own people.

Please demonstrate that scholars avoid this timeline simply because there is more compatibility?

Then why do they accept the late dating? Does the late dating even make sense?

Indistinguishable from one another?

What evidence are you specifically referring to that is indistinguishable?

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.

Yes, I agree with this.

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.

I don't claim Yaqub-Har was the Biblical Jacob. I don't think anybody claims that. But, it does reinforce the Hyksos were Semitic.

Seems logical that the Bible might have used parallel storylines and/or inspiration to concoct their own series of events, for their own people.

That's what I'm asking. If it was just a parallel story, then what is the true story of the Israelites?

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.

As for the numbers involved, what we do know is the Hyksos were in great enough numbers to rule Egypt in the Second Intermediate period. It would probably take a sizeable population to do this. If it was only a few thousand people, it'd be unlikely this could have occurred. We don't know exactly the population of Egypt during that time, but it's estimated between 2.5 to 4.5 million people. So, most likely the Hyksos at this time was a significant portion of this, perhaps on the order of a million people.

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?

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?

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

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?

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

These would be just speculation and ad hoc answers.

If the Torah is not based on actual events, but is just a myth, then the entire corpus of the Jews is based on a lie.

If the entire Rabbinic literature has no basis, then on what basis should Jews keep their laws? Why eat kosher? Why observe the Sabbath? Why attend Yom Kippur services?

The whole point of the Passover Seder is to remember Egypt. Does it even make sense to practice something and remember a fictional event for thousands of years?

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 10 commandments is based on God bringing them out of Egypt:

Genesis
20:1 - And God spoke all these words, saying,
20:2 - I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

If God did not bring them out of Egypt, then there's no basis for following the commandments, or even following God at all.

If the Exodus did not happen, then the writer(s) of the Torah obviously would have known that. But why spend so much time and detail writing this story that could easily be falsified? Why go out on a limb to base their traditions and laws on something that never happened? It'd be easier and less risky to just list laws and traditions without having to make it conditional on such events to have taken place.

[otseng]

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

How have I changed the record of the Bible? At most, the only thing I'm changing is peoples' interpretation of the Bible. One example of this is correcting peoples' common misconception that the Israelites were immediately enslaved when they entered Egypt.

How did the NAZI's enslave all the Jews in Germany?

Do we have evidence the Egyptians built concentration camps to house the Jews?
Also, at the height of the concentration camps, the Germans were in a war.

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...

I wouldn't exactly describe the Israelites as peaceful people and not to take action when wronged.

See Genesis 34:

34:1 - And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bore unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
34:2 - And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

34:25 - And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
34:26 - And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.
34:27 - The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

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.

Do you say the Hebrews were the military invaders, and the Egyptians were only defending themselves?

No, I'm not revising anything. As the Bible states, the Israelites entered Egypt peacefully. It was only after hundreds of years later when the Egyptians felt threatened by the large numbers of Hebrews did they attack and enslave them.

The Hebrews were finally defeated in combat, and were driven out by the victorious Egyptians?

This is revisionism of the Egyptians. The Egyptians always spin things so that they are the victor, or at least not the losers.

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.

First off, this passage does not mention the Hebrews worshipping God. Yes, they cried out, but not necessarily praying to Yahweh.

And we know from the rest of the Bible, the Israelites had a propensity to worship other gods, even after they had the Torah.

As I said, you can continue to write your own revised history, but it doesn't change nor agree with the record at hand.

Actually, I'm not changing the main points of the Bible. The Hebrews peacefully entered Egypt. After hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence with the Egyptians, the Egyptians felt threatened by them and enslaved them. Moses was sent to deliver the Israelites from bondage. Plagues were sent. The Israelites plundered the Egyptians, left Egypt, and conquered Canaan.

What exactly am I changing?

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

What I'm showing is the overlap between the Biblical account, Egyptian account, and archaeology. Some contradict each other, so we need to piece together what is the real story. For example, Manetho's account of the Hyksos does not match archaeology.

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?

This is an example of differing accounts between the Biblical narrative and Egyptian narrative. I don't believe the Egyptian narrative is correct. The Israelites instead plundered the Egyptians.

And, your efforts to change the Bible history, are as purposed as other efforts to deny it altogether.

No, I'm reinforcing the Biblical history, not denying it.

Is it because you believe the Hebrews were the offenders, and the Egyptians were the aggrieved party?

No.

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.

As you're experiencing, this is not a persuasive argument with the skeptics. Simply saying you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right is not a convincing argument.

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.

What am I doing? I'm providing evidence outside the Bible that what the Bible says is reliable and true.

[POI]

Then why do they accept the late dating? Does the late dating even make sense?

You made a claim that scholars only reject your given timeline because it is "compatible". Can you prove this?

What evidence are you specifically referring to that is indistinguishable?

I'm asking if these similarities would still be distinguishable. Could they be, even though similarities exist?

Yes, I agree with this.

I don't claim Yaqub-Har was the Biblical Jacob. I don't think anybody claims that. But, it does reinforce the Hyksos were Semitic.

Which means virtually nothing, as we already agreed to the broad context of what constitutes as being "semitic".

That's what I'm asking. If it was just a parallel story, then what is the true story of the Israelites?

It's hard to say, but the Hyksos and the Habiru have their own distinctive stories.

As for the numbers involved, what we do know is the Hyksos were in great enough numbers to rule Egypt in the Second Intermediate period. It would probably take a sizeable population to do this. If it was only a few thousand people, it'd be unlikely this could have occurred. We don't know exactly the population of Egypt during that time, but it's estimated between 2.5 to 4.5 million people. So, most likely the Hyksos at this time was a significant portion of this, perhaps on the order of a million people.

Where are you getting these number(s) exactly?

These would be just speculation and ad hoc answers.

I disagree. These are the logical answers.

If the Torah is not based on actual events, but is just a myth, then the entire corpus of the Jews is based on a lie.

And?

If the entire Rabbinic literature has no basis, then on what basis should Jews keep their laws? Why eat kosher? Why observe the Sabbath? Why attend Yom Kippur services? The whole point of the Passover Seder is to remember Egypt. Does it even make sense to practice something and remember a fictional event for thousands of years?

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

If the Exodus did not happen, then the writer(s) of the Torah obviously would have known that. But why spend so much time and detail writing this story that could easily be falsified? Why go out on a limb to base their traditions and laws on something that never happened? It'd be easier and less risky to just list laws and traditions without having to make it conditional on such events to have taken place.

Ask Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, etc etc etc..... They are all falsifiable. But as I already told you, anyone can argue almost anything.

I asked a specific question. Why would a God need blood sacrifices?

[Clownboat]

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

You once again demonstrate that we have NOTHING, but claims. You continue to present the claims to us, and continue to fail to provide any actual evidence for the claims.
You fail to answer my question as far as where these claims come from because answering that questions proves my argument. Therefore, the only defense you have is to claim that the claims are evidence. Claims are not evidence though. If you don't believe me, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I'm willing to sell you for a really good price.

Allow me to demonstrate:
RBD: The Bible is evidence that the exodus happened as told.
Clownboat: I hear you, now where do the claims for the exodus story come from?
RBD: I will not answer your on point and honest question because it will show the futility of my argument. Therefore, I will dodge this question in order to hold my illogical position that claims are evidence that the said claim is true.
Clownboat:

[RBD]

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

Yes you are, if you say the Hebrews were independent foreign Pharaohs in southern Egypt. And they were finally defeated and driven from Egypt.

Once again, why are you portraying the Hebrews as foreign usurpers in the southern land of Egypt, who needed to be defeated and driven out in order to reunify the Old Kingdom?

[RBD]

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.

Luk 24:25 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Jesus' testimony of Moses also shows he wrote Job as well as Genesis: Moses was the only one to prophecy of the Messiah, before the prophets beginning with David in Psalms. Other than Deuteronomy, the only other two prophecies before Psalms was in Genesis 3 and Job 19.

[RBD]

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.

They never did. Canaan was never an Egyptian-ruled province of Egypt. Your revision of their power and influence over Canaan after their victory at Megiddo, is false.

You've also revised your manner of argument. You began with how 'unreal' it would be for Hebrews to jump out of the slave camp in Egypt, only to walk into the slave oven of Auschwitz-Egypt.

Now, you are using your revised history to say Judges could not have happened, because Canaan was a controlled 'province' of Egypt for the next several hundred years, as though no one else had any power in their enslaved provincial satellite at the time.

[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.

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.

E.T.'s may exist out there somewhere, and the millions of Israelites do have a written record of existing in Egypt.

Therefore, the vast difference between the two is the written evidence of the latter, while there remains no evidence of the former.

However, by the principle that no evidence disproving something, does not disprove anything, then we cannot rule out the existence of E.T.'s, especially not the existence of a written record.

The spurious argument otherwise, is only to try and rule out the latter, but not the former, in order to appear to be consistent to a principle, that is being personally violated.