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?

[Clownboat]

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history? If so, what else was not an actual event in history, as told from the Bible?

Sorry, you have not convinced me yet.

I would like to point out that you have yet to be convinced that snakes and donkeys don't talk, or that humans cannot live in the belly of a fish, or that hundreds of dead saints got out of their graves and walked Jerusalem.

You not be convinced is so very unimpressive. Surely you see this?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yet again, our pal seems to think it's all bout Him,. Whether he's convinced or not (and as you pointed out he believes what is on all reason false) is not the point, but who can make the best case.

Tam argues a few morepoint. Like disregarding negative evidence. It isn't that there is no record of the hebrew tribes as an enslaved demographic removing from Egypt (and the counter is that Hapshetsut and Akhenaton were wiped from history by later Pharaohs - but we still learned a LOT about them, it is not even that, but the situation does not admit of an Exodus. Egypt governed Sinai and Canaan. Israel simply could not go swanning around Sinai and invade Canaan without Egypt's governors intervening. The only conditions that would admit of an Exodus might be the Armarna period, when not only did Egypt's control over Canaan weaken but a new city of mud bricks was built quite likely with slave labour or as near as makes no difference (1). Also Canaanite client states wrote asking for help against depredations of what they called 'Habiru', whoopee. There's a problem that the whole Akhenaten rule only lasted a dozen or so years, not 40, but knock a nought off and that'll do.

Since the Hyksos really won't do, the Armarna period would. One can even make a case that Ramesses son referred to Israel now being in Canaan. I suppose the conquest going on small scale while Ramesses was battling with the Hittites for control of Canaan can be fitted in. That is the only credible time for an Exodus, and I suppose the Philistines not existing yet can be put down to the account being written centuries later, so an anachronism crept in.

Bottom line, it isn't Amenophis ! or II that is the possible Pharaoh but Akhenaten.

(1) that Akhenaten believed in One God probably is best not mentioned here when Moses has not yet demonstrated the power of God.

[POI]

For Debate:

1). Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what? So far, according to tam, no.

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? So far, this one is confusing. Tam seems to state she thinks the Exodus did happen? But then also maybe alludes to the notion that if it did not happen, her faith would not waiver?

Let's explore below....

Or they told a different story with a different viewpoint.

(Keep in mind that those Egyptians who believed in the God of Israel left with Israel. Keep in mind also that people are capable of rewriting things to suit themselves. I don't necessarily mean on paper, but in their heads.)

Seems from some of the comments on this thread and even just from a quick google that there may be some outside accounts that cover events similar to these ones.

So far, your answer to debate Q 1) is no.

Hundreds of years or forty?

So far, your answer to debate Q 1) is still no.

But again, if the location is incorrect, what could they hope to find? And how do they know to whom those thousands of artifacts belong in the first place?

So far, your answer to debate Q 1) is still no.

I believe Tanager responded to this point. They weren't lost; they were simply not permitted to leave the wilderness and enter the promised land.

Outside of the claim, do we have evidence for this claim? You probably have the same answer, no.

If Pharaohs were in the habit of wiping out history, then you have a possible explanation why this account (and others) are not recorded by Egypt (at least not recorded with the same details as is in the bible).

Maybe you did not watch the video? It explains in more detail. But regardless, at this point, your answer to the debate question is still no.

Moses as the author is just tradition; not fact.

What else is 'tradition', not fact? Cough cough, "The Exodus" account?

(I see that you were looking more for people whose faith was based on sola scriptura; which mine is not.

This response is still confusing? Does it matter if "the Exodus" actually happened, or not?

I fully accept that the Exodus from Egypt happened.

And not because of any evidence to support the claim, but instead because "of the things my Lord has taught concerning those times". What the heck does this mean? God speaks to you and tells you what really happened?

[POI]

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history? If so, what else was not an actual event in history, as told from the Bible?

Sorry, you have not convinced me yet.

I'll tell you what is NOT convincing. Offering nothing to the first debate question. Here it is again:

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

So far, you told me to read a book. Maybe instead, reference some point(s) from such said book, for which provides evidence to support the Exodus claim.

[1213]

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history? If so, what else was not an actual event in history, as told from the Bible?

Sorry, you have not convinced me yet.

I'll tell you what is NOT convincing. Offering nothing to the first debate question. Here it is again:

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

So far, you told me to read a book. Maybe instead, reference some point(s) from such said book, for which provides evidence to support the Exodus claim.

My offer is, your idea is not the truth, until you prove it so. Obviously anyone can believe what you say, but demanding everyone to accept your opinion, because you have strong faith in it, is just not enough reason to make it the truth. If your logic in this would be valid, one could as well say: "if no one can prove Bible God non existent, then He must exist". And I am sure atheists would not accept that. Why do you expect anyone to take your claims any differently?

[POI]

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history? If so, what else was not an actual event in history, as told from the Bible?

Sorry, you have not convinced me yet.

I'll tell you what is NOT convincing. Offering nothing to the first debate question. Here it is again:

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

So far, you told me to read a book. Maybe instead, reference some point(s) from such said book, for which provides evidence to support the Exodus claim.

My offer is, your idea is not the truth, until you prove it so. Obviously anyone can believe what you say, but demanding everyone to accept your opinion, because you have strong faith in it, is just not enough reason to make it the truth. If your logic in this would be valid, one could as well say: "if no one can prove Bible God non existent, then He must exist". And I am sure atheists would not accept that. Why do you expect anyone to take your claims any differently?

I am not telling everyone to believe me because I have faith in it. I'm stating a lack in evidence very highly suggests "The Exodus" did not happen. And you have offered NOTHING to support this very large claim from the Bible. Were you ever planning on providing evidence to support this very large claim? Again, this claim would leave behind mounds of evidence. And yet, no one here has offered any.

[TRANSPONDER]

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history? If so, what else was not an actual event in history, as told from the Bible?

Sorry, you have not convinced me yet.

I'll tell you what is NOT convincing. Offering nothing to the first debate question. Here it is again:

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

So far, you told me to read a book. Maybe instead, reference some point(s) from such said book, for which provides evidence to support the Exodus claim.

My offer is, your idea is not the truth, until you prove it so. Obviously anyone can believe what you say, but demanding everyone to accept your opinion, because you have strong faith in it, is just not enough reason to make it the truth. If your logic in this would be valid, one could as well say: "if no one can prove Bible God non existent, then He must exist". And I am sure atheists would not accept that. Why do you expect anyone to take your claims any differently?

You are of course relying on the Bible as evidence, and the Exodus was credited for a long time, until learning more about the history raised questions. This is the thing. It is NOT that you reject any doubts and questions and claim what is in the Bible is fact. It is whether doubts and questions raise legitimate suspicion that the Exodus never happened. Your rejection of everything and claiming the Bible as the default (as it is until genuine doubt is raised) does not give you the win or make your case, even though you clearly think it does.

[1213]

...It is whether doubts and questions raise legitimate suspicion that the Exodus never happened. ..

I think it is legitimate to question and suspect everything, for example because 1 Thess. 5:21-22. But, I think one should then also question his own ideas.

Test all things, hold fast to the good. Keep back from every appearance of evil.
1 Thess. 5:21-22

[1213]

...Again, this claim would leave behind mounds of evidence....

I think that is an illogical claim that shows one doesn't understand the event at all. But, please tell, what do you think should be seen, if the event really happened?

[TRANSPONDER]

...It is whether doubts and questions raise legitimate suspicion that the Exodus never happened. ..

I think it is legitimate to question and suspect everything, for example because 1 Thess. 5:21-22. But, I think one should then also question his own ideas.

Test all things, hold fast to the good. Keep back from every appearance of evil.
1 Thess. 5:21-22

Apart from the religious slant, it's fair advice. Everything is open to question. You ask what evidence there would be of the Exodus. Well, Wyatt had supposed he'd found all kinds of evidence, but it is dubious to wrong and even falsified. So we are rather more in the prayer situation - not being able to provide clear evidence of it but rather excusing why there isn't and claiming it is still a fact.

The Exodus is like that. But, while I get that there might be no evidence left of the Exodus even if it happened, the problem is with the story and whether it fits. I already argued that the evidence of Egyptian history really rules out a conquest until the end of the 18th dynasty as Egypt was in control of the area until Egyptian control failed in the Amarna period and the complaints of the the Canaanite states about Habiru depredations could fit. Even then, there are problems,

The attempt to make the Hyksos the Hebrews fails. The semitic - Canaanite element does not amount to Hebrews never mind with a tribal structure and a god. The Hyksos worshipped Set in a very Egyptian way.

I have already gone hoarse with shouting into a train tunnel that the reference to the Philistines makes the story written later, after the Bronze age collapse, and the borrowing from 'Sargon in the bulrushes' not to mention the borrowings from Mesopotamian myth for Creation and the flood, as well as the tower of Babel (The Esagila ziggurat) suggests that the Exodus was part of an origin myth written using Babylonian records.

So there is really no evidence for the Exodus and a good few reasons why it should be questioned. I haven't even got on to the weird improbability of a whole enslaved demographic suddenly being 'Given the complex rules of Leviticus and the rest, or the mobile Temple of the Tabernacle with its' complex rituals. Again, this looks more like backdating the rules of Hebrew Law and practice of the old (destroyed) Temple which Ezekiel so eloquently fantasized of rebuilding, to the story of a desert perambulation. And my own pet theory - the Exodus is the Hyksos, in a garbled version, with King Ahmose ejecting the Hyksos turned in Moses leading out the hebrews. Old Babylonian myths and stories freely used to create an origin - story for the Exiled Judeans.

Against that, where is the evidence for an Exodus? Nothing that could be equally Not Exodus, like the wall paintings of semites arriving in Egypt or slaves making bricks. That doesn't make them Hebrews and doesn't even fit the narrative. The Negative Evidence is not so much to be unfound in the Sinai, but in Egyptian history.

Cue - science denial.