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]

[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.

I sure got a kick out of reading what you wrote, that the Bible author was referring to a mountain on the moon.

Just face it... The Bible made a huge oopsie... The author thought the world was flat.

[POI]

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

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

[Clownboat]

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.

Your problem is that the Bible is not an authority. You pretend that it is, but that only informs us that you think the Bible is authoritative, not that it actually is.
Books are books. You seemingly picking one to worship as if it is an idol does not make it special.

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

[Clownboat]

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."

Thank you for showing my words to be true and that you have zero defense for your own.

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

[Clownboat]

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.

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?

[RBD]

I sure got a kick out of reading what you wrote, that the Bible author was referring to a mountain on the moon.

Just face it... The Bible made a huge oopsie... The author thought the world was flat.

I never said some efforts to interpret the Bible weren't out there. They're just not necessary to confirm the Author doesn't err from the truth.

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

[POI]

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. This is why the owner of this arena is so desperate to try and tie another ancient tribe to the claims from the Bible. Aside from there being no evidence to support this massive claim, with just one passage from the Bible, you must also concede the Bible is in error for another reason.

In conclusion, the Bible signed a large check for which it certainly cannot cash. 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.

Anywho, thanks anyways for your time.

[otseng]

OK, back to debating. BTW, during the trip happened to be in St Peter's Square when Pope Leo was announced.

No, I cannot prove this.

Then it's speculation. However, as I've stated to both you and Clownboat, the stakes are low for the skeptic and high for the believer.

The context of this is between the early or late dating of the Exodus. Though most scholars believe in a late dating, I don't think the evidence really fits that. I've already presented the evidence for the early date. What evidence has been presented for a late date?

Hence, it makes little sense for the secular scholar to hand-wave away one set of dating, merely because it may more-so coincide with the physical claims from an ancient book.

It's the ancient book that asserts the Exodus took place. If they believe it took place, then why not accept that same book when it mentions when it took place? What doesn't make sense is they believe in that ancient book that an Exodus did take place but reject the dating from both the textual evidence and archaeological evidence.

Either dating set, (earlier 1400's BCE vs later 11-1200's BCE), presents it's own set of unique problems regardless. But until we can establish which one is actually right, it's almost pointless to address.

What problems are you referring to with the early dating?

I answered this at the very beginning of our exchange... Just because I do not know the real answer, does not mean I still cannot rule out some of the wrong ones.

Sure, but you cannot rule an answer out just because you don't like it or that you or other people don't believe in it. And as I've been asking for since the beginning, please present your evidence for your case. If you have actually done so, I've missed it, so please provide a link to it.

ChatGPT also states:

"So, while there could have been overlapping cultural and historical contexts, especially in the broader Semitic world of the ancient Near East, they are not generally considered to be the same group in historical scholarship."

So, I guess we are done here?

And on what textual or archaeological evidence do they base it on? And again, how do they address my 6 questions?

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long?
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved?
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt?

I'll soon summarize my answer and I'll let you summarize yours.

When referencing any selected source, we must consider the following:

- Does the source possess any possible bias?
- Does the source possess any religious and/or political motivation?

Since the answer for the two above is (yes), when it comes to the Bible, it becomes suspect. As I stated prior, the stakes are very low for secular scholarship, regarding this large claim.

Of course we have to consider possible bias. We also have to even consider possible errors and misunderstandings.

It is true the stakes are high for believers since the story of the Exodus is fundamental to the Torah, Old Testament, and even the New Testament. But whether stakes are high or low doesn't have any bearing on whether it's true or false. What matters is the evidence to determine if it's true or false.

Because it would make no sense. At a minimum, they'd have to believe it was all true, even if it was not true. Why would they willingly base their belief, traditions, practices, and customs on what they know to be false?

The same can be asked of any/all competing set of core beliefs.

Can you give a comparable example?

Conclusion.... We all possess cognitive dissonance in some arena(s). Case/point, I should be a vegetarian, but I'm not. I should also be 100% against any and all abortion, but I'm not.

Sure, we can possess cognitive dissonance. But that implies an actual truth exists. And if there is an actual truth, then there should be some evidence to support that.

Well, it depends on who you ask now, doesn't it... I mean, even ChatGPT states the Hyksos are not the "Israelites", and yet, here you are still fighting the fight. Why? Because anyone can argue for almost anything.

ChatGPT is not the final arbiter of truth. If it was, why even debate anything on this forum at all? And what fight has there really been? I've been the one presenting evidence and what evidence have you presented?

Death is required to atone for sin.

Why?

Out of scope for this topic.

[POI]

What evidence has been presented for a late date?

None. Just like with the "early date". Why? Because you need to first establish a direct link between the expressed 'Israelites' and the Hyksos.

It's the ancient book that asserts the Exodus took place.

Yes, and nowhere else. Nowhere else is there a claim of millions roaming the desert for centuries. Which leads us right back to the OP.

If they believe it took place, then why not accept that same book when it mentions when it took place? What doesn't make sense is they believe in that ancient book that an Exodus did take place but reject the dating from both the textual evidence and archaeological evidence.

Other sources believe millions roamed the said desert for decades?

What problems are you referring to with the early dating?

We've been over this ad nauseam. The timeline doesn't match. The timeline is vast enough to allow for practically the entire history of the "United States." There is a centuries long gap between when the roaming was asserted to be over, to when high levels of 'Israelite' settlement then began in Canaan. And this is even before we address how the 'Israelites' actual got to Canaan to begin with.

And on what textual or archaeological evidence do they base it on?

I asked for your source, and you stated ChatGPT. Since the same 'source' declines a direct link between the 'Hyksos' with the Biblical account of the 'Israelites', seems your further action(s) have substantiated my case, in that anyone can argue for just about anything. Which is why I brought up the Flat Earth society. When anyone gets an answer they do not like, they can keep 'searching' until they get the desired result. Which is why it took you so dang long to come up with your alternative results.

And again, how do they address my 6 questions?

It does not matter, as the timeline is too vast to begin with...

Of course we have to consider possible bias. We also have to even consider possible errors and misunderstandings.

Then it is quite reasonable to dismiss "the Exodus", as told from the Bible.

It is true the stakes are high for believers since the story of the Exodus is fundamental to the Torah, Old Testament, and even the New Testament. But whether stakes are high or low doesn't have any bearing on whether it's true or false. What matters is the evidence to determine if it's true or false.

Here is my point. EVEN IF we were somehow able to link the "Hyksos" directly with the said 'Israelites', we would still have to question all the supernatural claims within that storyline. It's like the old 'Spiderman' analogy. Just because some facts coincide with the said story, does not then mean such a superhero actually exist(s). Alternatively, this looks like one storyline, in where even the mundane said physical and natural parts may not be true either. Which is quite demining for the believer. Which is why it is paramount for some believers. like yourself, to link the two tribes together. But the timeline, alone, raises red flags. Which is why no other Christians are coming to your defense. And instead, are using a different 'defense'.

Can you give a comparable example?

Mormons and Scientologists come to mind, off the top of my head.

ChatGPT is not the final arbiter of truth. If it was, why even debate anything on this forum at all? And what fight has there really been? I've been the one presenting evidence and what evidence have you presented?

Right. When ChatGPT fails, we can always get whatever answer we want or desire, if we search long enough With the advancements in AI, answers will come quicker, and more accurately. Maybe we are the last of a dying breed?

[otseng]

What evidence has been presented for a late date?

None. Just like with the "early date".

I already presented my evidence for the early date. See:
viewtopic.php?p=1169850#p1169850

And if you have no evidence to present, what exactly is your point?

Because you need to first establish a direct link between the expressed 'Israelites' and the Hyksos.

Don't know what you mean by "direct link". I've already presented evidence that shows the similarities between the Israelites and the Hyksos. And there has been no other plausible alternative explanation for the Hyksos that has been offered. So, it's entirely logical and reasonable to accept they were the same.

Yes, and nowhere else. Nowhere else is there a claim of millions roaming the desert for centuries.

The Bible as well doesn't say "millions" were roaming the desert either. It's only an inference. But even if it was millions, it's not unreasonable given the Hyksos were so populous they were able to rule Egypt.

We've been over this ad nauseam. The timeline doesn't match.

Yes, we've been over this multiple time. I've covered the timeline already here:
viewtopic.php?p=1169956#p1169956

I asked for your source, and you stated ChatGPT.

OK, here are some sources on the population estimates during that time:

The size of the population has been estimated as having risen from 1 to 1.5 million in the 3rd millennium bce to perhaps twice that number in the late 2nd millennium and 1st millennium bce.

https://www.britannica.com/place/ancient-Egypt

1800 BC (height of the Middle Kingdom)

Agricultural efforts by Middle Kingdom kings significantly increased the amount of cultivable land and density of occupation in the Faiyum and in the Delta, together with a slight rise in population density in all areas.

Total population of Egypt = c. 2 million.

1250 BC (reign of Ramesses II, New Kingdom)

Significant increase in cultivable land in the Delta (to about 10,000 sq. km, or 3,861 sq. miles) and rise in population density in all areas.

Total population of Egypt = c. 2.9 million.

https://brewminate.com/estimating-popul ... ent-egypt/

Egyptologists tend to dodge the issue of population numbers, as there are no statistics available and all such numbers are based on more or less educated guesswork:
♣ Edward S. Ellis put the New Kingdom population at 5 millions.
♣ The author of the Royal Ontario Museum website gives an estimate of between 1.5 and 5 million Egyptians during the Pyramid Age, a rather non-committing number for a nicely vague and long time period.
♣ Dominic Rathbone estimates that Roman Egypt had a population of 3 to 5 millions, and Bagnall and Frier concur.
♣ According to the Harris papyrus somewhat in excess of 100,000 people belonged to the temple estates during the reign of Ramses III. James Henry Breasted thought that they had been less than 2% of the population, which would give an upper limit of 5,000,000 towards the end of the New Kingdom.
♣ In 1880 CE the total land under cultivation was estimated to amount to 25,000 square kilometres, and one may suppose that the cultivated area in antiquity did not exceed this amount. If a person needed half a hectare of irrigated land for survival the maximum number of inhabitants would have been five million. Based on Achaemenid tributes levied on Egypt (650 talents) and Mesopotamia (1,150 talents), the supposition that the per capita tribute was equal, and the fact that according to archaeological surveys the Mesopotamian population counted four to five million, the Late Period Egyptian population was significantly smaller than the seven million suggested by some ancient authors. Aperghis gives the number of three and a half million. (G. G. Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration , Cambridge University Press 2004, ISBN 0521837073, pp.56f.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20110310184 ... index.html

In Ancient Egypt Population Estimates: Slaves and Citizens, Mark Janzen cites the works of Karl Butzer and David O’Connor. Butzer’s (1976) estimate is around 2.5 to 3 million for the New Kingdom while O’Connor’s (1983) is higher at 2.9 to 4.5 million.

https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... nd-1446-bc

So, the population size of the Israelites during this time could fit within these population estimates.

And again, how do they address my 6 questions?

It does not matter, as the timeline is too vast to begin with...

It matters because if there is no viable alternative explanation, then the only explanation that does fit the evidence is the most reasonable to accept.

Of course we have to consider possible bias. We also have to even consider possible errors and misunderstandings.

Then it is quite reasonable to dismiss "the Exodus", as told from the Bible.

We can look at the example of the Manetho account where it was clearly in contrast to the Biblical account. 50 years ago it would've been hard to prove the Bible was right and Manetho was wrong. But from the excavation at Tell el-Dab'a, we now have proof Manetho's account was wrong and it aligns with what the Bible states. More on this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1170148#p1170148

Here is my point. EVEN IF we were somehow able to link the "Hyksos" directly with the said 'Israelites', we would still have to question all the supernatural claims within that storyline.

I haven't even made any supernatural claims, so don't see your point.

Yes, later the Bible does make supernatural claims (10 plagues, crossing the Red Sea, God speaking to Moses, etc), but just because something happens that does not have a naturalistic cause does not mean the claim is false.

Can you give a comparable example?

Mormons and Scientologists come to mind, off the top of my head.

I don't see how they are similar. We have over a 3000 year tradition of the Passover Seder that is practiced by Jews every year all around the world. Moses is believed to be an actual person that delivered them out of slavery. There's even a relief of Moses in the US Capital alongside 22 other lawgivers throughout history. And note Moses is singled out to be the only one facing head on. Both of these are examples of where it would make no sense if it was based on a mythical event and person.

When ChatGPT fails, we can always get whatever answer we want or desire, if we search long enough

Then if you search long enough, you should be able to answer my six questions.