Spurious archeological argument against Exodus

[RBD]

How can someone argue there is archeological evidence against Exodus, when there is no archeological evidence against Exodus? Nor is any such evidence given, and it's even acknowledged in their argument against Exodus, that there is none?

1. No archeological evidence only means there is no archeological presence. It does not mean there was nothing present. If that were the case, then most of the world's history would be denied on earth, since most history is known by written record, not by the presence of archeological remains.

By the archeological-centric argument, not only did the children of Jacob not migrate from Canaan to Egypt, and back again, but there also have been no hunter-gatherer migrations anywhere, where no archeological evidence is found. Or for that matter, nothing happened on earth, if there is no archeological presence for it.

This ad absurdum demand for archeological presence, in order to accept any historical record, is pseudo-archeological centrism to the exclusion of the greater field of literary history. However, no standard archeologist ever claims, that an archeological record is the only legitimate evidence of history. Archeology is not the sole evidence of history, and archeologists are not the sole archons of historical fact.

2. Any archeological centrist that claims the children of Jacob did not leave Canaan for Egypt, based upon no archeological evidence alone, must therefore also give archeological evidence for the Hebrews remaining in Canaan. If archeological evidence is necessary for Hebrews to have been in Egypt, where there is a written record, then all the more so, there must be archeological evidence for Hebrews remaining in Canaan, where there is no written record.

3. Archeological centrism does not just exclude literary history from the argument, but also declares written records are no evidence at all. They not only narrowly redefine archeology as the only historical record, but they also exclusively redefine historical evidence to be archeological remains alone.

That is how they are say there is 'no evidence' for Exodus, and that is it only a 'claim' made without evidence. I.e. in the exclusive world of archeological centrism; Where there is no archeological evidence, there is no evidence at all...

In the real world of legal and historical evidence, a written record is accepted as evidence of something. And an eyewitness account is accepted as direct evidence. Normal historical archeology can only confirm or deny the recorded evidence is true or not, but only personal archeological centrism would dare say there is no evidence, until an archeological archon of history says so.

Conclusion: The only unsubstantiated claim without evidence pertaining to Exodus, is the claim, that it's not true. That is only a personal claim of unbelief, without any historical evidence, whether written or archeological.

It's only the book of Exodus that has the evidence of a written record, and so is not just a claim alone. And, aside from the isolated field of archeological-centrism, without any other evidence to the contrary, Exodus remains an evidentiary record of historical significance.

It doesn't mean anyone has to believe it, just like any other written record of history, but it does mean the account must be accepted as evidence in world history.

[Difflugia]

How can someone argue there is archeological evidence against Exodus, when there is no archeological evidence against Exodus?

I'll assume that this is the debate question.

Nor is any such evidence given, and it's even acknowledged in their argument against Exodus, that there is none?

The lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus is the primary archaeological evidence against the Exodus. That's what we acknowledge.

Though you've repeatedly claimed that a lack of evidence for the Exodus doesn't qualify as evidence against the Exodus, you're wrong.

Additionally, there are other archaeological data that seem to contradict the Exodus account. There is evidence, for example, of when individual Canaanite city-states fell (or ceased to be inhabited) and these contradict the narrative of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. The archaeological evidence of the Israelite settlement of the hill country is that the Israelites were themselves displaced Canaanites, rather than an ethnologically distinct, military incursion.

In the real world of legal and historical evidence, a written record is accepted as evidence of something. And an eyewitness account is accepted as direct evidence.

• The evidence that the Bible provides for a historical Exodus is insufficient to overcome the archaeological evidence against such an Exodus.
• The Bible doesn't provide eyewitness evidence of anything, let alone the Exodus.

If you want to win this debate, you should take it to TD&D. There, the Bible is accepted as historically accurate even when it's so obviously not.

[RBD]

How can someone argue there is archeological evidence against Exodus, when there is no archeological evidence against Exodus?

I'll assume that this is the debate question.

Only rhetorical.

Additionally, there are other archaeological data that seem to contradict the Exodus account. There is evidence, for example, of when individual Canaanite city-states fell (or ceased to be inhabited) and these contradict the narrative of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

How so. I'd like to see it.

The archaeological evidence of the Israelite settlement of the hill country is that the Israelites were themselves displaced Canaanites, rather than an ethnologically distinct, military incursion.

If it's more of this stuff, then it's already been responded to enough.

[RBD]

How can someone argue there is archeological evidence against Exodus, when there is no archeological evidence against Exodus? Nor is any such evidence given, and it's even acknowledged in their argument against Exodus, that there is none?

If there is any legitimate argument demanding other evidence to confirm something is true, then it's not of the Egyptians leaving a record of their own defeat by Hebrew slaves, but rather it would be Egyptian leaders not leaving a record denouncing such a record against them.

The Bible records, that the LORD's very purpose in delivering His people from the Egyptians in such a spectacular manner is twofold: To teach the Egyptians that their gods are no gods. And to get a name of honor among other nations for the God of the Hebrews.

The Bible record of Exodus was written down, and certainly known by other nations and peoples, and yet no Egyptian nor ally nor any other nation of the time, have ever recorded any rebuttal to the Egyptian humiliating defeat. Especially since this was at a time of Egyptian efforts to expand into empire.

Such disastrous propaganda against a national expanding power of the time, is worse than simply not recording the defeat in the first place. It's one thing like all powers of the day, for the Egyptian leaders not to make a lasting record of their own defeat, but not to give any answer to a published record of that defeat, which other nations knew about?

That's harmful political negligence, rather than just wise silence.

The lack of evidence of anyone rebutting the recorded events of Exodus, especially the Egyptians, is much more proof that it did happen as written, rather than it didn't happen at all. How do we know? Because even if people don't want to believe the events of Exodus occurred, and so neither a confirmation nor rebuttal was necessary, the physical evidence of the written record itself at the time, proves it ought to have been answered, if it were untrue.

Other people and nations than that of the Israelites, heard and knew of the Exodus record and believed it, which in itself means the Egyptians could not just remain silent and ignore it, if it were false.

And the vaulted honor given to Egyptians for their 'meticulous' and abundant record keeping, does not permit any argument, that there was no such thing as inter-nation ministry of intelligence and propaganda. Especially since the further knowledge of Exodus expanded with the national power of Israel from Dan to Beesheba and then from the river of Egypt to Damascus itself.

That's when their historical record would be most carefully reviewed by allies and enemies alike: What would the Egyptian princess say to Solomon about his nation's anti-Egyptian propaganda? Or, Hiram king of Tyre's faithful and respected alliance with David?

Jos 2:9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt;