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?

[POI]

Instead of this being evidence for expulsion, it's actually evidence of the Hyksos being enslaved. It was common practice for soldiers to acquire slaves as spoils of battles.

1. Keeping four slaves total is close enough?
2. Where did all the rest of the Hyksos go?

Would it make any sense for only this soldier to get slaves and all the other Hyksos to be expelled? No.

Exceptions to rules happen. It's not that hard to explain. I've also already explained why the Hyksos were expelled, while the Nubians/others were not.

This is yet another example of where AI gets it wrong. AI is not able to recognize the mention of expulsion in the document was not written by the soldier, but by a translator.

Even IF this were the case, why does the translator get it completely wrong?

The only source presented of the Hyksos being expelled is from Manetho. And we have evidence that Manetho's account of the reason for the movement of the Hyksos are unreliable.

I've already conceded that we can discard Manetho's account here. My question remains. Why does mainstream scholarship conclude a Hyksos expulsion? Scholarship does not make conclusions based upon whims, hunched, desires, or suspicions, do they? Surely the conclusion is not merely predicated upon Manetho alone, is it? What (possible ulterior motive) would compel scholarship to conclude a mass Hyksos expulsion rather than a mass Hyksos enslavement? And by expulsion, I mean most left, and some may have stayed, but were not enslaved like the Nubians/others.

I've presented two archaeological evidence they were not expelled. Now, we have additional textual evidence from Ahmose, son of Ebana, they were enslaved. So, evidence is stacked towards them not being expelled.

And just like you, I can argue these 'sources' to no end.

[otseng]

Instead of this being evidence for expulsion, it's actually evidence of the Hyksos being enslaved. It was common practice for soldiers to acquire slaves as spoils of battles.

1. Keeping four slaves total is close enough?
2. Where did all the rest of the Hyksos go?

The rest were enslaved also. Ahmose, son of Ebana, was not the only soldier in the battle. The other soldiers as well would've gotten slaves as spoils of war.

Would it make any sense for only this soldier to get slaves and all the other Hyksos to be expelled? No.

Exceptions to rules happen. It's not that hard to explain. I've also already explained why the Hyksos were expelled, while the Nubians/others were not.

Too many ad hoc responses are being claimed to support your position:
- One soldier got slaves, but all the rest of the soldiers did not get slaves.
- Egyptians loved Hyksos pottery so they kept making them.
- Egyptians liked the Hyksos deities, so they incorporated them.

This is yet another example of where AI gets it wrong. AI is not able to recognize the mention of expulsion in the document was not written by the soldier, but by a translator.

Even IF this were the case, why does the translator get it completely wrong?

Because everyone has bought into the Manetho account. It was only within the past few decades that Manetho's version has been disproven.

The only source presented of the Hyksos being expelled is from Manetho. And we have evidence that Manetho's account of the reason for the movement of the Hyksos are unreliable.

I've already conceded that we can discard Manetho's account here. My question remains. Why does mainstream scholarship conclude a Hyksos expulsion? Scholarship does not make conclusions based upon whims, hunched, desires, or suspicions, do they?

There's a few possible reasons modern scholars claim they were expelled:
1. Scholars are not knowledgeable about the recent Tell el-Dab'a excavation
2. If they do know it, they ignore and dismiss it.
3. They rely on AI and don't go to the actual source.

Surely the conclusion is not merely predicated upon Manetho alone, is it?

You tell me. What other evidence is there that the Hyksos were expelled?

What (possible ulterior motive) would compel scholarship to conclude a mass Hyksos expulsion rather than a mass Hyksos enslavement?

More evidence for me that skeptics automatically reject whatever is claimed by the Bible.

And just like you, I can argue these 'sources' to no end.

Yes, I can continue to present sources to back up my position. But we've already looked at all your sources and find they don't support the expulsion of the Hyksos.

There's an interesting phrase in the Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut:

"For I have raised up what was dismembered beginning from the time when the Asiatics were in the midst of the Delta, in Avaris, with vagrants in their midst, toppling what had been made."
https://web.archive.org/web/20070403234 ... midos.html

What does "with vagrants in their midst" mean? It seems to imply there's a group of renegades in the midst of the Asiatics in Avaris. And that implies those outside of that group within the Asiatics are not vagrants. So, Hatshepsut seems to not have looked at all of the Asiatics negatively, but only a small group of them.

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #822]

I could certainly continue to address what you said, line-by-line. Rather than keep doing this, I'd rather get to the 'heart' of the matter. See the parts in red.

As already stated, Google AI, ChatGPT, "Alexa", "Seri", etc, are the go-to locations to request answers to many curious questions. Sure, we can always keep searching if we do not get the answers we like. And sure, almost all topics have 'evidence' for both sides of a debate, whether it be about a young earth vs. old earth, local vs. global vs. no flood, flat earth vs. spherical earth, etc etc etc............

Many internet searches render limited results/findings. Meaning, any/all sources may not be publicly published for general usage. Case/point, I'm debating another about evolutionary biology, as the interlocutor is an evolution denier. Results are far more limited, verses what might instead be found deep within academia itself. Meaning, I may not be able to perform an extensive internet search and may instead actually have better success attending a class lecture and/or addressing textbooks/other which are not for the general public. Not all peer review is easily publicly accessible. The same holds true for many topics. The search results are limited.

Seems you are suggesting there is no information to support the conclusion of "a Hyksos expulsion", merely because they are not 'google-able' enough for you? Are you suggesting scholarship denies Hyksos enslavement without any viable reason(s)? Maybe they are pulling this conclusion virtually out of thin air? And if so, what would be their motivation for doing so exactly? Meaning, even IF the Hyksos were enslaved, it would mean very little to a Bible skeptic. It goes right back to what I stated many responses ago. In that the Bible tells a tale of partial truth, but does not mean the 'other stuff' is still true, like a 'river of blood', etc etc etc...... Case/point, most of academia acknowledges the existence of Jesus, and so on, without believing his rotting body actually rose from a grave. Seems academia would have no real incentive to blindly state the Hyksos were expelled, as there is still much to question beyond the mundane. So why would they deliberately mislead regarding a 'Hyksos expulsion"?

Are such Bible scholars, which would include the ones who are believers, just so grossly misinformed as to what the Bible proposes, other?.?.?.?

(https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-is ... the-hyksos)
(https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/enigm ... say-635601)

[RBD]

In any case, unless you have something new on this topic, then I'll move on.

Move on from what exactly? From the beginning, this entire exchange has demonstrated that you have no rational basis for your position. Lacking evidence for a claim very much depends on the claim itself.

From the tiresome self-repetition.

This is one of the reasons why faith is so heavily touted as both necessary and required, as being convinced cannot instead be done so based upon evidence.

Faith is necessary to believe the Author of the Bible is who He says He is. Simple reason is all that's needed to acknowledge He can be believed, since His Book is unerring.

Blind faith and blind disbelief are only for those who don't care whether the Book is erring or unerring.

[RBD]

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

It's way more than this, and you know it.

Making the simple more complex, is called muddying the waters to conclude something else.

[RBD]

By your unbelief in the Book, you argue against what's written in the Book. By my objective reading of the Book, I only teach what the Book says...

Do you not see this as yet another example where you are dodging an argument you know you cant win

I don't dodge arguments from people arguing about a Book, that they don't believe nor care what the Book says. I only show they are arguing about a book, that they don't allow to speak for itself.

The dodging part is on people talking about a book, that they don't believe nor care what it says of itself, and also think they are making an argument from the book.

How can anyone be arguing about Plato's Republic, when they don't believe nor care what Plato says, but only what others say about his Republic, who also don't care to argue from what it says?

Anyway, the Bible says Moses wrote the book of Moses, as well as prophecying of the coming Messiah in two other books.
[/quote]
Your problem is that the Bible is not an authority. [/quote]
Seriously? The author of a book is not the authority of his own book?? What authority about a book is there, than the author's own words? Who is that authority on the book, that is greater than the author himself? What some reader has to say about the author's words, is more authoritative than the author's own words? Is this some sort of critic's self-importance run wild??

Or, are you speak of the Bible having authority over other people and the world? I've never said that, because it's not the issue. The only intelligent conclusion, is that an unerring book means the author it unerring. And if unerring, then the authority of the author can be accepted as true.

Whether anyone accepts the Bible's authority for themselves, is irrelevant to whether it can be accepted as authoritatively true by inerrancy.

I'm only interested in anything proven internally errant or factually untrue. I don't care whether someone wants to believe and accept it as true.

You pretend that it is, but that only informs us that you think the Bible is authoritative, not that it actually is.

The Bible is the authority of what the Bible says. In order to make an objectively informed choice about accepting it, it must be objectively read to do so.

Whether anyone personally wants it to be authoritative, is irrelevant.

Do you think we will ever find any evidence for millions of people wandering the Sinai as told in the Bible story?

So long as there's no evidence proving the record untrue, then it doesn't matter. I can still believe it. The track record however is 1 for the Bible. Many didn't believe it's record of the Assyrian empire, until the evidence was found. Some then believed, and some then just moved on to something else to find fault with. But those who believed before the evidence was unearthed, didn't need it to be, and simply continued on believing.

My faith in the Bible is based upon it's inerrancy. Therefore, my faith is not based on whether evidence is unearthed in the future, so long as there remains no evidence against it. Nor do I need some scientific study showing how the Red Sea could be parted, with many people passing through, before it returns to it's original watercourse.

However, I can make the case from the Bible itself, that all such evidence will come to light in the day of the Lord, when He comes to set all things straight:

1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

When He comes again to rule over all the earth, and His resurrected saints are reigning with Him, then I'm sure He can unearth all the evidence that is there. If there is none, then it's not needed anyway to believe His record.

Only evidence disproving the record can rightly compel disbelief in it.

[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.

I literally prophesied your response!
RBD will say: "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."

Your comprehension of fullfed prophecy is just as bad.

Unwillingness to continue trying to sort out someone's inability to understand the argument at hand, and saying so, is an answer. Just not the answer you want to hear...

When you want to get back to claiming any internal errancy in the Bible, or disproven records, then we can continue with something that matters to me.

[RBD]

Yes, the exodus really happened, exactly as recorded in second book of The Law, which bears its name.

People can search the world over for evidence of what they believe or didn't believe happened ~3500 years ago. Most are looking for an excuse not to believe "The Book" that serves not only as the most accurate historical record we have of that time period, but also provides us with The Law and the prophecies which provide true freedom and accurately foretell future events, sometimes hundreds and even thousands of years in advance.

This is more abundantly true, when people try to convince themselves and others, that it can't possibly be true as recorded, because they haven't seen the 3500 year old evidence for themselves.

That's not honest skepticism, but willful disbelief. As well as trying to proselytize others to their disbelief.

[POI]

Blind faith and blind disbelief are only for those who don't care whether the Book is erring or unerring.

One of the reasons I no longer believe is because the book so heavily demonstrates to be erring. Which is why some, who remain believers, pivot await from the concept of "Sola Scriptura" to continue remaining believers.

But yea, continue to fight the good fight, (i.e.) - 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" where this very large claim, which would leave tons of evidence, is concerned.

[otseng]

Seems you are suggesting there is no information to support the conclusion of "a Hyksos expulsion", merely because they are not 'google-able' enough for you?

Are you suggesting there is other evidence the Hyksos were expelled, but Google is not able to access that evidence?

What I am stating is that we should support our position with evidence and rational arguments. Given the evidence that we have looked at, it is more reasonable the Hyksos were not expelled, but were enslaved.

Are you suggesting scholarship denies Hyksos enslavement without any viable reason(s)?

The only evidence presented for the Hyksos being expelled is Manetho's account. However, all other archaeological and textual evidence presented are against this and shows they were enslaved.

Meaning, even IF the Hyksos were enslaved, it would mean very little to a Bible skeptic.

Of course, because skeptics automatically reject anything that supports the Bible.

Are such Bible scholars, which would include the ones who are believers, just so grossly misinformed as to what the Bible proposes, other?

Doesn't matter what they believe. What matters is evidence and rational arguments. What do they base their beliefs on?