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]

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 Mormon golden plates do not exist, and were never known to exist prior to Smith. There is no evidence his 'translation' into the Book of Mormon is from any eyewitness account.

But, if anyone wishes to believe Smith's words are from an eyewitness account, then it is that eyewitness, who is contradicting (him)self in claiming to write another testament for Jesus Christ.

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.

Already given the Bible's testimony on who wrote the book of Moses, and Old Testament books when reading Moses: Moses.

When we read Moses, we read what Moses wrote. When we read Chaucer, we read what Chaucer wrote. When we read Plato, we read what Plato wrote...

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 preserved transcribed texts are the evidence of the ancient chain of custody.

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.

If you want 'notaries' from ancient and modern scribes, go get them.

However, they do presently have professional training and certification to be acknowledged as an official ritual scribe of the ancient words. The first female soferet was in 2007.

[RBD]

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.

We know what he wrote, but we do not know what he said he wrote from, because the golden plates with the eyewitness account do not exist, nor are ever known to have existed, other than by Smith's claim.

So, at best he is a secondhand witness of someone else's eyewitness account, or a liar writing something for the first time from his own imagination.

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.

It doesn't matter what people want to personally believe or disbelieve about the Bible. So long as it all remains unerringly together, it is one Book that can be wholly believed...

When it comes to inerrancy, I only argue from what the Bible says, not about mine nor anyone's beliefs. The argument must be grammatically proven, not faith or unbelief based.

The unerring Book says what Moses wrote in the Old Testament. Whether anyone believes it or not is irrelevant. Only verifiable evidence within or outside the Book contradicting it, can prove otherwise. 'Literary' opinions about the writings themselves are also irrelevant.

Claiming proof of unknown writer without evidence, in order to prove who the writer was not, is literary nonsense. Personal literary opinion about something, is not evidence of who wrote it.

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.

True. A secondhand witness to an unprovable eyewitness inscription at best. Otherwise, a liar writing from his own imagination.

[RBD]

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.

So, your 'interpretation' therefore, is that the Hebrews independently ruled as Pharaohs of southern Egypt, were then defeated in military battles and driven from Egypt? Otherwise, they were not the Hyksos.

It's coming to the point where you'll need to answer the simple question.

One example of this is correcting peoples' common misconception that the Israelites were immediately enslaved when they entered Egypt.

False.

Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Exo 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

They had 30 years to grow and prosper under the first Pharaoh, and were then immediately enslaved to serve the Egyptians with affliction, for the whole remaining 400 years.

The Bible record does not allow for any revisionist history of Hebrews ever being rulers in southern Egypt by force, and fighting military battles with the Egyptians during their 430 years in Egypt.

There is no record in the Bible stating the Hebrews in Egypt, ever ruled or fought battles with the Egyptians.

They were not the Hyksos of southern Egypt. Your revisionism is your own imagination, not Bible history.

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.

I certainly would agree. And since this is the history of the Hyksos in Egypt, you acknowledge the necessary revisionism for the Hebrews to be the Hyksos, is your own alone, that the Egyptians would gladly accept...

You first contradict the Bible record of the Hebrews being afflicted servants for 400 years in Egypt, and then acknowledge any historical record of a foreign people ruling southern Egypt with military battles, would be revisionist history of the Hebrews in Egypt.

And that revisionism is something you say only the Egyptians would want to promote. And so, once again, why are you trying to revise the 400 years Hebrew servitude in Egypt, until released by plagues from their God, into an independent Hyksos rule in the south, until defeated in military battle?

[RBD]

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.

Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

After 30 years. No attack, just enslave.

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?[/quote]

Just the part about not serving the Egyptians with affliction for 400 of 430 years. Other than that, you're back on track with the Bible record.

The enslaved Hebrews were not the ruling Hyksos.

You see, that's the great thing about the Bible: the proper answer is always plainly given in one place or another, and sometimes who reconstructed histories, doctrines, and prophecies are debunked by one simple Scripture alone:

Dan 2:32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass; His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

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.

What you are showing is real willingness to reject simple Scripture, and reconstruct something imaginary, in order to please the unbelievers, without needing to faithfully believe the Scriptural record, when there is no other evidence to confirm it...

Gal 1:10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

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.

It's the difference between the historical record of the Hyksos in southern Egypt, and the Bible record of the Hebrews in Goshen.

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.

Exactly. But I'm not trying to persuade unbelievers, but only teach the Bible record. And confirming that the Bible evidence can be believed, if there is no other evidence to contradict it.

Simply saying you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right is not a convincing argument.

The Bible simply proves you wrong about the Hebrews not being afflicted slaves for 400 of 430 years.

Saying you're right to do so, in order to placate the unbelievers, is not a Bible argument, but only a skeptic-pleasing charade.

[RBD]

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:

Your conversations with yourself are as unreal as your comprehension of what others say.

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

[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:

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.

I finally understand now where some disbelievers are coming from.

They aren't disbelieving the Bible written by known writers, but are rather rejecting some other book written by some unknown writers. That makes perfect sense. That's why they don't argue anything from the Bible, but only other things from unknown writers...

[RBD]

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.

The Egyptian power around the Levant was never a dominion of a Canaanite province or satrapy...

Your Bible record of Hebrew entrance into Canaan is correct: About 1407 B.C.

[RBD]

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.

Not a bad accounting of the Israelite entrance and settlement of Canaan. Your Bible record of Hebrew entrance into Canaan is correct: About 1407 B.C.

Other than your inferred revision of Egyptian power around the Levant, as having dominion in a Canaanite province or satrapy, I like it...

[RBD]

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.

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?

It's accurate, since it's not about knowing humans exist, but rather about believing E.T's can possibly exist, based upon no evidence to the contrary.

So can the Exodus record possibly be true, with no evidence to the contrary.

[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.

Just because the Bible doesn't explicitly mention something does not mean I'm revising it.

Ok. I'll take this as an admission to teaching the Hebrews were finally defeated in Egypt and driven out, rather than were finally liberated from slavery.

The question is why portray the Hebrews as the defeated people driven out by victorious Egyptians?

What does the Bible say happened in those years between they entered Egypt and they were enslaved by the Egyptians?

That during those first 30 years in Egypt, they grew in number and prospered:

Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Exo 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

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. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we: 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.