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]

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.

See post 707

If the Hyksos were not the Israelites, as believed by many scholars, shouldn't these be easy to answer by presenting contrary evidence?

It's not skepticism about the Hyksos, but rejection of your portraying the Hebrews as Hyksos independent rulers in Egypt. It's a matter of keeping the record of the Hebrews in Exodus.

The Hebrews never ruled independently in Egypt, much less fought battles with them.

[RBD]

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.

Your denial of the obvious, does not make it go away. Without a purposed effort to find fault, the normal conclusion is the Egyptians had to replenish their livestock, in order to have some more livestock to kill...

In any case, your effort to salvage an argument against the obvious, by saying there could not have been enough Hebrew stock to go around, also fails by the Bible record of Hebrews outnumbering Egyptians.

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?

An obvious reading is not adding to it, but giving the common sense of it.

Neh 8:8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

How do you feel about the Protoevangelium of James or the Acts of Paul and Thecla?

Wow. Some people have obviously read more pseudo-Bible junk than me. Does Thecla have something to do with Tesla?

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.

I think I've already quoted to you, that Jesus calls Exodus the book of Moses, but here it is again:

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?

Exodus is not just the written eyewitness account of Moses, but it's an autobiographical book of Moses...

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.

Of course, and I appreciate it. But I do not indulge unbelievable denials of obvious solutions. Maybe a couple of times at most.

In this subforum, the contents of the Bible aren't given preferential treatment over other evidence, academic scholarship in particular,

No, but the Bible does demand recognition as written and preserved evidence. And when the 'other' evidence is no evidence, then the evidence at hand has to be given preferential treatment, because there is no other evidence at hand...

And so far as academic scholarship based upon ignoring the Bible evidence, then that's just a lot of nothing added to nothing, to make it look like something.

Rom 16:18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

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

I'm here to look at supposed Bible errors, not to care about unbelieving-believers erring from the Bible.

Mar 12:23 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

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.

Some of the greatest doctors of the sciences were Christians believing the Bible. In fact, they often led the way in scientific discovery, such as Isaac Newton.

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

Then he needs to stick with secular scholarship, rather than trying to mix it with the Bible record:

Pro 25:4Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer.

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.

Ah yes, the good ol' differing 'styles' gambit. As though one writer must only be monolithic in style.

It's simpler just to believe the Bible record about itself.

Scholarship for the sake of scholarship becomes a snare, when just reading and reporting what a Book says, becomes too simple:

2 Cor 1:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Such as how such great scholars learn how the book of Moses, and Moses being read, does not necessarily mean the book being read is written by Moses...

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

So, when Moses is being read in the old testament book of Moses, it's not necessarily Moses' writing, that is being read. No, instead it must be written by some no name, that nobody knows, but can only postulate about, so long as it's not Moses...And why not? Well, because we can't have any direct evidence of Exodus written by an eyewitness.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Most people come to what they want to come to, and some people never come to what they refuse to come to...

Jhn 1:5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

J. Houston is an ordained minister of the United Reformed Church.

Well, that certainly settles it.

Rev 17:5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
.. and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Even the apostle John had to admire the scholastic skill it must take, to make something so simple as reading the writing of Moses, into something so ignorant as to declare we have no clue who wrote the book of Moses. And at the same time call themselves Bible scholars...

Jesus says we need less unbelievable scholars and more believing children:

Mar 10:14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luk 10:21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Unless your definition of a believer excludes all Christians but the least educated fundamentalists, then you're just wrong.

Right. Ye old uneducated dunderhead maneuver.

Rom 16:19 I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

Jhn 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

What I find is how deficient people show themselves in simple grammatical logic, when trying to find fault with a Book, that they say is only written for 'unthinking' rubes. Especially when their default course in a failed argument, is to go to the ye old uneducated dunderhead maneuver...

"Oh yeah?? Well, you're just stupid, that's all!"

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


What the Bible does best with the adversary, is to make someone ditch simple understanding, in order to cling to an argument, that just keeps blinding itself to the obvious.

Job 5:13 He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.

[POI]

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

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

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:

More flawed thinking. An anonymous author, which in this case is the author of "Luke", wrote about Jesus, who apparently spoke about Moses. Luke did not write "Luke", Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Torah, and Jesus did not write anything to paper at all. Jesus was born way after Moses was dead, if Moses even ever existed at all? Further, the Pentateuch was compiled over centuries. Its completion is dated 100's of years after Moses would have died. Further, many places in the Pentateuch refer to Moses in the 3rd person.

[POI]

Canaan was never an Egyptian-ruled province of Egypt.

Egyptian rule over Canaan began to crumble around 1200 BCE, coinciding with a pan-Mediterranean Late Bronze Age collapse. This collapse was characterized by seaborne invasions, droughts, and the downfall of other major powers like the Hittites and Mycenaeans. Egyptian dominance in Canaan, which had been established after a victory at Megiddo, started to decline in the north and gradually southward, eventually leading to the complete withdrawal of Egyptian control.

According to the Bible, the "Israelites" likely took around seven years to conquer Canaan -- once they were said to enter the land. This conquest was followed by an additional twenty years until Joshua's final address and death

The Israelites are believed to have begun their occupation and conquest of Canaan, later known as Palestine, around the late 13th century BCE. While some archaeological evidence suggests disturbances in the region between 1250 and 1150 BCE. However, the Bible places the entry into Canaan closer to 1407-1406 BCE based on its chronology.

The problem is the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, according to the Book of Joshua, took less than a decade. However, Egyptian rule over Canaan did not end suddenly. It was a gradual process that started around 1200 BC and lasted for about a century, ending close to the end of the 12th century BC. This decline was likely influenced by factors like political turmoil in Egypt itself and the pan-Mediterranean Late Bronze Age collapse, which saw the decline of other major powers like the Hittites and Mycenaeans.

Therefore, the Bible's timeline and the Bible's claim to events are both suspect, to say the very least.

[POI]

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.

More circles... It depends on the claim. You have also provided a very bad analogy. Right away, we know humans exist. The question here is which humans occupied what space, and when? Alternatively, we do not know if ET's exist, let alone any particular species/race/other (and/or) any specific stated location?

We have not even explored most of the universe, which would include almost an infinite number of unexplored galaxies, systems, and planets. Alternatively, we have explored a vast majority of the claimed area for which the claim of millions of Israelites was said to have been enslaved for centuries.

We also have evidence against the claim(s) of the Bible. And yet again, it takes a great deal of faith to argue that such a vast amount of people, which were said to occupy a finite space for centuries, vanished without a trace.

Which begs a question you still have not answered. Are you:

a) arguing that we just have not found any evidence yet, but will some day? Or...
b) arguing that we will never find any evidence?

[Clownboat]

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.

Once again, another example where the claim is being pretended to be the evidence.
Claims are not evidence.

claim
/klām/
verb
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. <----- (Like we see above).

[otseng]

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

No, I cannot prove this. But the late dating is what is popularly accepted by others. However, I have looked into their arguments and they seem weak to me. So I have to wonder why the late dating is then so widely accepted. My speculation is one reason is that they won't accept anything that matches the Biblical account.

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?

If we don't know what exactly you're referring to, how can we make a judgment if they are distinguishable or not?

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.

I you don't have any idea what their true story is, then on what basis can you say the Biblical story is false, esp given I have extra-Biblical evidence to corroborate it?

Where are you getting these number(s) exactly?

ChatGPT of course.

These would be just speculation and ad hoc answers.

I disagree. These are the logical answers.

Logical answers would be based on evidence to support them. Without evidence, it's speculation.

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?

Because it would make no sense. At a minimum, they'd have to believe it was all true, even if it was not true. Why would they willingly base their belief, traditions, practices, and customs on what they know to be false?

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.

I don't think it's really answering anything. Anyone can make this claim about any belief.

The Seder is integral to Jewish faith and identity: as explained in the Haggadah, if not for divine intervention and the Exodus, the Jewish people would still be slaves in Egypt. Therefore, the Seder is an occasion for praise and thanksgiving and for re-dedication to the idea of liberation. Furthermore, the words and rituals of the Seder are a primary vehicle for the transmission of the Jewish faith from grandparent to child, and from one generation to the next.

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

Again, the whole point of this important tradition is rooted in the Exodus. And this tradition has been in place of thousands of years. What other culture has a single tradition that has been carried on for so long? If it was a lie, what could explain its staying power? Wouldn't they have figured it out a long time ago and then the reason to do it would have vanished? So, the Passover Seder is indirect evidence the Exodus was a historical event.

As I've pointed out, practically all the traditions of the Jews trace back to the Exodus - Torah, 10 commandments, sacrificial system. So, what could explain this durability over millennia? Esp since they don't teach it to be mythical, but to be historical.

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.

Yes, and many people have falsified them.

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

Death is required to atone for sin. The sacrificial system was also a type of what Jesus did for us, by him giving his life on the cross for us to atone for our sins.

Romans 5:8-10 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

FYI, I'll be out of the country for the next few weeks, so I'll continue the debate when I get back.

[RBD]

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.

I guess I need to keep goiing through the formality of addressing responses, that have nothing to do with proving Bible errancy.

Of course, there's archeological evidence for Hebrews in Canaan, after their arrival from Egypt, not before when Biblically they ought to have been in Egypt.

There is no ancient written nor archeological record from the Bible nor Canaan, showing the children of Israel in the land before the 1300's.

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.

Once again, they had their origins in the land of Canaan by Abraham's migration. There is no evidence they had integrated with the local Canaanites, until after they returned from Egypt.

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.

And, they soon began to defy the LORD's commandment not to marry the Canaanites, nor adopt their idolatry...

Deu 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

Deu 7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

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.

While they began to establish themselves as a lasting power in Canaan.

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.".[/i]

Right, and there are plenty of revised histories meshed into a fantastical kaleidoscope of other events. Such as Plato's proposition, that Atlantis may be a distant tale of the Minoan naval Empire's downfall, by the tsunamis of Thera's volcanic explosion...

We can also have fun with linking Lucifer's downfalls and the casting of his rebellious angels into hell, with Zeus' defeat and chaining of the Titans in Tartarus...Or, the more well-known favorite for of muddying Bible waters, through the epic of Gilgamesh's revisionist legend of the Bible's earth-encompassing flood.

In any case, the ruling and militarily defeated Hyksos, were not the enslaved Hebrews, who were delivered by supernatural power over nature in Egypt.

[otseng]

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.

Just because the Bible doesn't explicitly mention something does not mean I'm revising it. What does the Bible say happened in those years between they entered Egypt and they were enslaved by the Egyptians?

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?

I wouldn't necessarily call the Hebrews "usurpers". They Egyptians might've viewed them this way, but it seems like that they gained in power peacefully.

If the Hyksos were not the Israelites, as believed by many scholars, shouldn't these be easy to answer by presenting contrary evidence?

It's not skepticism about the Hyksos, but rejection of your portraying the Hebrews as Hyksos independent rulers in Egypt. It's a matter of keeping the record of the Hebrews in Exodus.

The Hebrews never ruled independently in Egypt, much less fought battles with them.

Does the Bible say the Hebrews never ruled Egypt? As you say, if there's no evidence to disprove my position, then my position is a valid position.

FYI, I'll be out of the country for the next few weeks, so I'll continue the debate when I get back.

[RBD]

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.

Not as a Persian satrapy, nor Roman-style province, nor as an Assyrian-style enslavement of the inhabitants.

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.

Concession acknowledged.

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.

Not the independent powers, such as the tribes of Israel in scattered locations.

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.

These people are interesting, and could have been early Achaeans, but nothing conclusive. Homer speaks of their raids along the coast of Asia Minor, during their siege of Troy. Post-Iliad legends refer to the possibility of Achaeans returning to Greece, and gaining a foothold, or alliance in southern Egypt. Egyptian history certainly was intertwined with the early pre-Hellenic Achaeans, including legendary figures and cities of the day having contact with one another.

In any case, the Egyptian rule in Canaan was never all-encompassing as a satrapy or province, nor did they enslave whole groups of people, such as the Hebrews jumping out of slavery in Egypt right back into Egyptian slavery in Canaan...