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]

Arguing against 3rd person autobiographies, is as meaningless as arguing against something with no evidence against it...

I would like to grant this (POI may not though) in hopes you can answer an honest and on point question:
Do you think we will ever find any evidence that millions of people wandered the Sinai for decades as told in the exodus story we find in the Bible?

Already answered this enough times with you.

Dishonest evolutionists argue human evolutionary theory, as though it were biological evolutionary fact. Human evolutionary theory spuriously rides the back of biological evolutionary science. Dittoes with the Big Bang theory falsely piggy-backing universal expansion science.

For the sake of debate, lets assume that people that accept evolution actually are dishonest.

All people who choose to believe in human evolutionary theory, are not dishonest.

Only the frauds, that teach it as though it were established scientific fact, like biologic evolution. Dittoes for the frauds teaching the Big Bang theory, as though it were scientific fact, like universal expansion.

When you learn to stick to what people say, rather than infer your own ideas into it, you'll learn to refer to what people say accurately, rather then infer your own bad spin on it...Of course, some things are less a matter of leaning, and more a matter of making bad spin.

[RBD]

Of course, there's archeological evidence for Hebrews in Canaan

And yet, none at all, for when they were claimed to have been in "other-Egypt", kept as slaves, by the millions in numbers, for hundreds of years.

True. Thanks for confirming there is no evidence of Hebrews being in Canaan, when they were in Egypt. Nor is there any evidence for Hebrews not being in Egypt, when they were in Egypt...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #727]

Sure, the Christian apologist can always come up with (ad hoc / post hoc) excuses for why their beloved Bible has not actually failed them, when common sense instead dictates that their Bible book does fail them. This is what Christian apologetics is all about. This is why Christian apologetics is so necessary. It acts as a protective shield. This is also why folks, like Otseng & company, now argue that the Bible does not have to be flawless. They now recognize it is not, which means they pivot, or switch gears, and trek forth with a new set of rules and arguments. But in this case, he acts as the Lone Ranger, by shoehorning in the 'Hyksos.'

Matthew 4:8 clearly speaks from the perspective of an author who deemed the earth as flat. We all know this. Which is why you must scramble to perform damage-control, ala 'Christian apologetics.'

And Bible antagonists can always ignore anything that shows the Bible does not err.

[RBD]

Arguing against 3rd person autobiographies, is as meaningless as arguing against something with no evidence against it...

Not so fast. Again, many areas in the Pentateuch speak of Moses in the 3rd person.

Yes, 3rd person autobiographies are that fast and simple.

[Difflugia]

One more time:

The shaping of power in Canaan after the Hebrew arrival from Egypt, has nothing to do with any pre-Exodus proof of Hebrews in Canaan, when they were Biblically in Egypt.

That's why I didn't make that argument. The argument is that according to archaeological evidence, the transition from Canaanite culture to Israelite culture is continuous and seamless. There was no "Hebrew arrival from Egypt," because the Canaanites themselves became the "Hebrews."

Nor does later Israelite disobedient intermarriages with the natives, have anything to do with proving Hebrews originated as Canaanites.

If you think that a conquest and subsequent intermarriage explains the archaeological data, you'll need something a little more concrete to support that. Your waving hand must be getting pretty tired by now.

The Bible record never suggests any 'ethnic' difference

the sons of Shem were not the sons of Ham

Since you're appealing to the Bible, one of these must be false from a biblical perspective. Pick one.

All that is offered, is evidence of the recorded local change of events, after their time in Egypt.

You've clearly misundertood the archaeological data and conclusions. If you think your assertion is true, you'll have to explain it in light of the data.

And so, a Canaanite prophet named Moses

Moses probably wasn't a real guy.

That usually happens in absurd revisionism

QFT.

Not even a legendary name for a Canaanite prophet of the Canaanite god called Yahweh?

Probably not. Since the Moses narrative seeks to separate the Israelites from the Canaanites, he was probably made up after the cultural identities had diverged enough for that to be a motive. The time between Merneptah and the scholarly date of the earliest biblical Moses stories is at least 400 years. Even if we assume that the Moses cycle was exclusively oral for a century or more, that's still a long time in which to create an exclusively Israelite legend.

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.

This is also broadly true of the Moses stories, but earlier, you said this of the Bible:

Many books are plainly eyewitness testimony, and they say so. The Bible also confirms Moses is the writer of Exodus, called the book of Moses, and He certainly was an eyewitness.

Since that's also true of Nephi and the Book of Mormon, you'll have to explain why we should uncritically accept the biblical narrative, but not that of the Book of Mormon. While you're thinking, you might want to look up the concept of special pleading.

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

Then we run out of chain around 250 BC.

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

Why? I don't think they exist, so why would I go on a goose chase trying to find 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.

So, is 2007 the terminus ad quem for the composition of the Moses cycle?

[POI]

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.

Tada!!!! You see how this works? The Torah makes a claim. And now re-read my first debate question and see exactly why the claims from J. Smith and 'Moses' are absolutely parallel, in that, besides the claim from the book itself, what evidence actually confirms the claim?

Only verifiable evidence within or outside the Book contradicting it, can prove otherwise.

Well, outside the claim itself, you confirm we have nothing, regarding the claim of millions being enslaved in a designated space for centuries. And we also have evidence again the claim. So, I guess it's a wrap. This dusty old book can be logically discarded.

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

No different than a claim regarding millions of Israelites being enslaved for centuries, and then, ultimately being released to wander the desert for decades.

[POI]

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...

You obviously do not understand. Please try again.

[POI]

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.

The Bible gives the Israelites about ~30 years to take power of Canaan. If they arrived around 1400 BCE or so, then they should have obtained power by 1370 BCE, at the latest. However, history states that Canaan was still well controlled by the Egyptians for another almost 2 centuries. Hence, the Bible is off, way off. As I informed Otseng, a lot can happen in 2 centuries. The Bible is wrong.

[POI]

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.

You are doubling down with your false analogy. The two claims are apples and oranges. "The Exodus" does not question whether or not humans exist at all. Alternatively, the false comparison questions whether or not any intelligent life, outside earth, exists at all. Not only that, but 'the Exodus' claim has been well-explored, while the claims to E.T. life have not. I've explained why ad nauseam.

[POI]

Of course, there's archeological evidence for Hebrews in Canaan

And yet, none at all, for when they were claimed to have been in "other-Egypt", kept as slaves, by the millions in numbers, for hundreds of years.

True. Thanks for confirming there is no evidence of Hebrews being in Canaan, when they were in Egypt. Nor is there any evidence for Hebrews not being in Egypt, when they were in Egypt...

You either misunderstood, or, are being deliberately deceptive. We have no evidence for the Bible's claims for millions of Israelites being enslaved for centuries in "Egypt". Alternatively, we have evidence for Israelites inhabiting Canaan. I guess the Egyptians were really really good at erasing all the evidence, and the Israelites were also really really good at erasing all the evidence. But not so much, when they arrived in Canaan.