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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Placing this topic back on top.... There has been Christian responses, but no substance. Below are the two debate questions again:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? [So far, the silence is deafening. We are attempting to discuss a claim which would involve/include millions, over 100's of year.]

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? [Well, likely not, since we have "minimal facts" Christians, and/or others who may also chalk up "the Exodus" claim to intentional myth, and/or others who chose to remain 'agnostic' since there is no evidence in support of the claim (which essentially means -- it may be true until you can prove it's false, because the claim is in the Bible so we at least have to consider it), and maybe some others... -- But the Christian can still just say it cannot be proven false simply because there is no evidence to support the claim.]

Yes. I am not one who demands the Bible be proven before its' claims are to be considered.In that respect, the argument 'How can you trust any other book?'seems a fair point. The Bible claims stand until seriously debunked, or here the burden of proof does fall on the skeptic.

If one do denial, then Genesis is untrue. Tyre fails as prophecy, I am convinced the prophecy of Daniel dates not from Babylon but 300 years later, when 'prophecy' was in fact history. There is decent evidence for both those claims. I think the nativities are as disprovavble as Genesis. And the resurrection almost as bad. This is far from all but rather as evolution depends on one solidly validated speciation (whales) the rest follow into the bookshelves, while Bible claims falling into the well drag the rest down with them...

[1213]

...bring to my attention some Semitic slaves with Hebrew - sounding names, but they might as well have been Canaanite...

Interesting way to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit to your beliefs.

[TRANSPONDER]

...bring to my attention some Semitic slaves with Hebrew - sounding names, but they might as well have been Canaanite...

Interesting way to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit to your beliefs.

Usual way to cherry pick ambiguous evidence and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your beliefs. Let me provide context. I recall that this papyrus is around 1500 BC when the Canaanites were arriving in the delta. These were not Israelites, they were Canaanites and whatever they worshipped in Canaan, the Hyksos worshipped Set and were quite Egyptian in their Delta dynasty customs.

Now, in the debate with Otseng these semitic slaves came up, as well as a Canaaite kind of floor plan ('proto -hebrew' Canaanite is of course long since discounted as anything to do with Hebrews in Egypt). If the Hyksos are Canaanite and do not know or worship God, then there is no reason to see semitic slaves or floor plans as anything to do with Israel.

Interestingly, Otseng also drew my attention to a Hyksos statue showing a robe in red, black and white stripes as I recall. This was presented (hopefully ) as Joseph's coat of many colours. But also a wall painting from a tomb shows Semites arriving with women, children goats and pointy beards in Egypt and these are claimed as Israelites arriving in the Delta, and there is no reason they would be Israelites rather than Canaanites. But the point is, they wear red and white striped robes. If it is a cultural style, then the statue of a god, king or ordinary bod is of no particular identity because of the striped robe.

In short, there is Nothing I have seen that really provides a Hebrew context to make those slave -names Hebrew, in particular. You have nothing but Biblefaith as a case.

[1213]

...These were not Israelites, they were Canaanites and whatever they worshipped in Canaan,

Israelites came from Canaan, so they can also be called Canaanites.

...the Hyksos worshipped Set and were quite Egyptian in their Delta dynasty customs...

By what Bible tells, Israelites have worshiped wrong gods.

However, I don't know are Hyksos the same as Israelites, I think it is possible they are not.

[POI]

2nd request.... There has been Christian responses, but no substance. Below are the two debate questions again:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? [So far, the silence is deafening. We are attempting to discuss a claim which would involve/include millions, over 100's of year.]

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? [Well, likely not, since we have "minimal facts" Christians, and/or others who may also chalk up "the Exodus" claim to intentional myth, and/or others who chose to remain 'agnostic' since there is no evidence in support of the claim (which essentially means -- it may be true until you can prove it's false, because the claim is in the Bible so we at least have to consider it), and maybe some others... -- But the Christian can still just say it cannot be proven false simply because there is no evidence to support the claim.]

[TRANSPONDER]

...These were not Israelites, they were Canaanites and whatever they worshipped in Canaan,

Israelites came from Canaan, so they can also be called Canaanites.

...the Hyksos worshipped Set and were quite Egyptian in their Delta dynasty customs...

By what Bible tells, Israelites have worshiped wrong gods.

However, I don't know are Hyksos the same as Israelites, I think it is possible they are not.

It's debatable, I agree In the debate Otseng argued that the Hyksos could include Israelites or Hebrews, presumably as an identifiable demographic. (1)

But that has a lot of problems. Apart from the Hyksos looking totally Canaanite and not a scrap of YHWH worship, but being a cultural group within the Canaanite community in the delta, how would you have them enslaved as brickmakers? Why would Hebrews living amongst the Hyksos have to cow the Pharaoh (who held upper Egypt) in order to leave? The Canaanites could come and go as they pleased. How would they even be identified as a separate people, let alone Egypt was fighting to prevent the Hyksos conquering them None of that matches with the Bible. For what it's worth Hebrews coming out of Egypt would be morel likely to make a Golden Amun or Osiris than a calf, which sounds rather Canaanite. I think the Bull was a regular ritual object of theirs.

Then if the Egyptians are going to send their chariots after the Hebrews being led out of Goshen (the Delta) they'd have to beat the Hyksos to even gain the Sinai border. No, in any and all respects, The Hyksos are not the Hebrews nor in any way that makes Exodus work (2), could they even incorporate the Hebrews. Let alone that we get no mention of them until a couple of hundred years later.

(1) incidentally, looking again at that wallpainting, my memory misled me; the robes are colourful, but not really vertical stripes, except possibly in one case. But then the Canaanites would have all worn colored coats.

(2) but again, with the idea of pursuing the Hebrews having beaten the Hyksos, which in history has the Egyptians pursuing them, too, it again looks darn like the Hebrew Exodus is the Hyksos expulsion. Given a bit of Spin.

[POI]

3rd request.... There has been Christian responses, but no substance. Below are the two debate questions again:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? [So far, the silence is deafening. We are attempting to discuss a claim which would involve/include millions, over 100's of year.]

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? [Well, likely not, since we have "minimal facts" Christians, and/or others who may also chalk up "the Exodus" claim to intentional myth, and/or others who chose to remain 'agnostic' since there is no evidence in support of the claim (which essentially means -- it may be true until you can prove it's false, because the claim is in the Bible so we at least have to consider it), and maybe some others... -- But the Christian can still just say it cannot be proven false simply because there is no evidence to support the claim.]

[TRANSPONDER]

Again it comes down to faithbased denial of the evidence.

And of course not knowing the evidence. There is little or no discussion of the historical evidence about the Exodus, whenever it supposedly happened. Just for one point, Joseph as being pivotal in bringing his family into Egypt (and increasing into an Israelite population of tribes, it seems) being a favourite of Pharaoh, rides around in a Chariot. So unless he is a favourite of a Hyksos Pharaoh, it has to be after the expulsion of the Hyksos which is when the Egyptian army adopted Chariots, rather as Germany started using tanks after the British introduced then in WWI. So, effectively (unless one dismisses that as an error) Joseph has to be during or after the Hyksos time, and certainly the enslavement must be after that time, so the exodus being after the Hyksos expulsion cannot be the Hyksos expulsion.

But there is evidence that the Hebrews thought it was. Josephus writing of the Hyksos uses the epithet 'Shepherd kings' to suppose they were the Israelites. It seems likely that he was using an account of the Hyksos by Manetho and rather improbably equates the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose as being Moses leading the people out of Egypt.

So how did the Exodus get into the Bible before Josephus? Given the Babylonian material in the first 2 chapters, and the claim that it dates typologically to 600 B.C, Hebrew writers in Babylon used records of that kind to confuse or adapt the records of the Hyksos expulsion with the how the Israelites appeared. Instead of coming out of the hills after the Bronze age collapse, they claim to have gone to Egypt, been enslaved in Egypt and left Egypt and invaded Canaan.

After all, the festival of Sukkhot (freedom from Egypt) must date from the time of the resettlement after the Exile, so the story of the Exodus must already have been in existence. But where did they get the idea it was the Hyksos expulsion if it couldn't have been. As I said, It looks like a misreading or adaptation of Babylonian records.

After all, they did it in taking the story of Sargon of Akkad (Sargon in the bulrushes) and using it as the Moses story.

Still a lot of room for debate but I just look for the debate even happening, rather than the Bible story being recited from Pulpit and apologetics internet sites, with nobody questioning it.

[The Nice Centurion]

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?

Sadly we are short of Evidence. All unearthed evidence of exodus has always been revealed to be as bogus as that of mormon scientist and incestous Pedophilian Hugh Nibley for the way Lehi went.

Example: One TV documentary wanted to prove that Moses existed.

Discovered were three egyptian pillars, of which two showed a guy with a stick. They said it just has to be Charlton Heston.

They did not show the image on the third pillar. Why? It proved that the stick-guy was referee of a local chariot race, not Moses.

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?

For all three abrahamitic religions the exodus is far too precious to be abandoned ever.
They maximally accept to play it down; As in: it wasnt THAT BIG or it was a SEA QUAKE that parted the ocean, not a miracle.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is how it goes. The Bible apologists want to either claim a miracle or a natural event like a low tide, shallows, or an earthquake. But, if the whole thing looks to be an invented tale (doesn't fit history; looks like reworked Babylonian sources), there is no reason to try to find apologetics excuses.