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]

Please note: "No evidence of something, other than a story in an old book, means that we must believe it until there is conclusive proof that it didn't happen."

...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.

Are you saying you do not think any evidence would be locatable? If so, why would you believe the claim merely because a tale was written in an old book?

But, please tell, what do you think should be seen, if the event really happened?

Post 75

[TRANSPONDER]

I have banged away often enough at reversed burden of proof, but that's really what this is. No evidence of something other than a story in an old book means that we must believe it until there is conclusive proof that it didn't happen.

This isn't apparent because the Exodus can look equivalent to ancient histories, which often look dodgy enough, true But I think there is enough problematical with the story to raise doubts. Biblical archaeology (including history fitted to the Bible (1) tries to Find evidence that Look a bit Like. Everything from the mud levels in Ur (that didn't extend beyond the city) presented as the Flood to Canaanite script called (tail wagging the dog) 'Proto Hebrew' is made to look like Hebrews in Egypt, just because, like the Phoenecians, the Israelites adopted Canaanite script. The Biblical Bias slants the evidence unreasonably and excuses, denial and dismissal replaces fair assessment on the matter.

That in my view, means that 'Biblical archaeology' should be regarded like Flat earthism or YE Creationism - alternative science cults, not real science at all. Of course the door is open (I'm still rethinking the 'Babes and sucklings' apologetic) but the burden of proof is not reversed - "We must believe the unvalidated Bible claim because of possible evidence that might pop up later".That is not how it works. I have never treated the Bible differently from any other book - it is valid until there is good reason to doubt it, in whole or in part. There is good reason now (or so I argue) to doubt the Exodus, even without plainly wrong Bible material. The burden of proof (disproof or valid doubt) has been discharged and the burden of proof is now on the Believer to show why the Exodus -story works.

"I believe" or "you don't understand" or "We must have Faith" is not a valid answer, of course.

(1) as they say, Bible in one hand, spade in the other. p.s aside Rom Wyatt, who is NOT a valid archaeologist, there is the curious case of the Caesarea list and whether Nazareth existed in the 1st c. For some reason a Biblicist (I think the one that found those fantastic images on the shroud) seemed to get involved in a dig at Caesarea, where he had no business to be digging especially unsupervised. The Bible apologetic is that he found a fragment of inscription validating Nazareth as being inhabited. But now the fragment has gone missing. This I can tell you is not just unpardonably irregular but near impossible. Important archaeologal finds do not just go missing. I would stick my neck out and say this story is a Biblical sham, and all involved unless they quickly damage limit should be disgraced and rejected as acceptable archaeologists.

[POI]

No evidence of something other than a story in an old book means that we must believe it until there is conclusive proof that it didn't happen.

Saving this as a sticky. See the top of post 111.

[TRANSPONDER]

No evidence of something other than a story in an old book means that we must believe it until there is conclusive proof that it didn't happen.

Saving this as a sticky. See the top of post 111.

Sticky? Is that a good thing? The question of teasing fact out of old writings is an interesting one. The matter of mythology is one aspect. Was Arthur real? Was Robin Hood? On the other hand credible histories of the classical period are full of frankly miracle elements. In between we have Spin like the Battle of Kadesh, but doubtless a real thing, or the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem, but who is telling the truth, the Assyrians or the Bible?

We have on one hand tosh like Wyatt's Moses site or Daaniken's Maya gods from outer space (now debunked since the Mayan history can now be read) and the fascination of how the old legend of Troy and Atlantis now looks like it has a real basis in Hittite power struggles with the Mykeneans and Atlantis makes sense as a record of Santorini before the volcano went off.

The thing is, it is not Believe or not, (as the Biblicists know as they appeal to 'Metaphor' when needed), but we have to look at the whole thing, and debate it. 'I believe it and dismiss what science says' is not the way it should be done.

[POI]

No evidence of something other than a story in an old book means that we must believe it until there is conclusive proof that it didn't happen.

Saving this as a sticky. See the top of post 111.

Sticky? Is that a good thing?

Yes. It means I'm sticking it on the top of every response received by a theist. Especially when their position is to do what you stated.

The question of teasing fact out of old writings is an interesting one. The matter of mythology is one aspect. Was Arthur real? Was Robin Hood? On the other hand credible histories of the classical period are full of frankly miracle elements. In between we have Spin like the Battle of Kadesh, but doubtless a real thing, or the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem, but who is telling the truth, the Assyrians or the Bible?

We have on one hand tosh like Wyatt's Moses site or Daaniken's Maya gods from outer space (now debunked since the Mayan history can now be read) and the fascination of how the old legend of Troy and Atlantis now looks like it has a real basis in Hittite power struggles with the Mykeneans and Atlantis makes sense as a record of Santorini before the volcano went off.

The thing is, it is not Believe or not, (as the Biblicists know as they appeal to 'Metaphor' when needed), but we have to look at the whole thing, and debate it. 'I believe it and dismiss what science says' is not the way it should be done.

At the end of the day, it's reasonable to conclude that 'The Exodus' would have left behind much stuff to examine. Theists have not really responded much, if at all, to the video in posts 12 and 75. Well, maybe to only further argue that we have no evidence.

[1213]

Are you saying you do not think any evidence would be locatable?

I say there should be evidence that fits to the story and reality. For example we have no reason to assume to find traces of heavy trucks, because there was none. It seems to me that you expect that we should find evidence that is not fitting to the story.

But, please tell, what do you think should be seen, if the event really happened?

Post 75

- Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but no mention of keeping Israelite slaves, no plagues, no Moses, or no Exodus?
-> Egyptians would write from their perspective and with their words. So, obviously their story would not look the same. And about the Exodus, if many of the people died, who would have been left to write about the matters? And would they tell the story, if it would make Jews look like heroes? I don't think so. There is no intelligent reason to assume we should find the things you expect. And if we would find, it would make the story look not believable.

But, I think for exampke famine stela is about the event before the Exodus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_Stela

- Thousands of artifacts, preserved by the hot and dry desert, but nothing related to the slaves which inhabited this area for hundreds of years -- (they left no signs at all)?
-> What do you expect slaves would leave behind? A golden city, filled with latest electronics? What signs we have of other slaves?

- No mass graves/bones with Israeli DNA?
-> Why should there be? Could it even be distinguished form other people from that era?

- Any path taken, from Egypt to "Canaan", shows no signs of a 40 year migration, where thousands would have died over the course of 40 years?
-> I think it is not reasonable to assume to find much from a desert, especially after thousands of years.

- During this era, Egypt stretched to what is currently modern-day Turkey. Their 40-year migration to "Canaan" would have landed them into more Egypt?
-> Is there any intelligent reason to believe that?

- Millions wandered this path for 40 years, while others did it in under 2 weeks?
-> What evidence we have for the million wanderers?

- Why follow a book with little/no evidence, with evidence against it?
-> I have seen no real evidence against it, only desperate opinions from those who are against Bible God.

[POI]

Please note, all we have is the claim. It would be absurd to believe the claim without evidence to back up the claim. It would also be absurd to presume the claim is true until proven false.

I say there should be evidence that fits to the story and reality.

Do we have any? If so, what exactly? So far, you told me to read a book, with NO follow up. So, all we have is the claim. If this is all we need, then make sure you buy every claim ever placed before you.

Please remember the claim includes millions of Jews occupying an area for a long time. And yet, leave no trace?

EDIT: Also see post 119

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #116]

But at the end of the day, all you can say is 'There is no evidence'. At best this means we have only the claim. I do get the point that the event might have happened leaving no trace. But the problem is that the entire Hebrew demographic, non integrated in Egyptian society so they could be made a slave -nation, doesn't make a lot of sense, and is rather anachronistic. I have referred before to the attempt to erase some Egyptian rulers from the record, but the evidence still came to light. If Egyptians were keeping an entire nation in lockdown, it would require supervision and control There would be records. We have records of Nubian, Libyan and Syrian slaves (war prisoners, generally) so where are the Hebrews? Let's face it, the Bible apologists have turned backward somersaults trying to find the Hebrews in the Canaanites or the Hyksos and of course, there is Wyatt's Moses camp. It seems they know there Ought be be Something. But the fact remains, the Merneptah stele (19th dynasty) is the first time we have any evidence at all of Hebrew nation, enslaved, or enslaving others.

This means there is no evidence, but the Biblical claim There are problems with the Text, too, as there is with the Bible, pretty much all the way through. But that's a different matter.

[POI]

[Replying to 1213 in post #116]

But at the end of the day, all you can say is 'There is no evidence'. At best this means we have only the claim. I do get the point that the event might have happened leaving no trace. But the problem is that the entire Hebrew demographic, non integrated in Egyptian society so they could be made a slave -nation, doesn't make a lot of sense, and is rather anachronistic. I have referred before to the attempt to erase some Egyptian rulers from the record, but the evidence still came to light. If Egyptians were keeping an entire nation in lockdown, it would require supervision and control There would be records. We have records of Nubian, Libyan and Syrian slaves (war prisoners, generally) so where are the Hebrews? Let's face it, the Bible apologists have turned backward somersaults trying to find the Hebrews in the Canaanites or the Hyksos and of course, there is Wyatt's Moses camp. It seems they know there Ought be be Something. But the fact remains, the Merneptah stele (19th dynasty) is the first time we have any evidence at all of Hebrew nation, enslaved, or enslaving others.

This means there is no evidence, but the Biblical claim There are problems with the Text, too, as there is with the Bible, pretty much all the way through. But that's a different matter.

Correct. I bothered not to respond to any of 1213's pushback, as it is actually 'back-a$$wards" to offer evidence against the claim. I wonder if (s)he did watch the 9 minute video from post 75? I have a sneaking suspicion (s)he did?

You raise excellent points. We could 'steelman' the theist's pushback even more. "Let's not believe any claim from antiquity, even if the claim came from more than one source location." Okay, but I guess it depends on what the claim IS? And in this case, we have a claim that millions of Jews occupied a space, and were enslaved, for 100's of years. Could we a least find 'evidence' to support this claim? I'd think so, especially when there is/was a deep and vested interest to do so. I guess the apologist can say, "we haven't found any yet, or, we haven't looked in the right spot, or other." I guess that is their play here.... It's weak sauce and further demonstrates 'Bible-faith" at best, and "gullible-credulity" at worst.

[TRANSPONDER]

You raise excellent points, too. I think that bias accusations we get can be passed over. The Bible- believers are at least just as biased, so it comes down to the case, rather than the finger - pointing the Christian apologists like to do. As I have said before now, I once credited the Exodus. Sure, I thought 'natural' explanations for the Red sea parting or plagues and even manna were more likely than actual miracles, and this is the 'Local Flood clunk - it may make the Bible story work, but it means the miracle aspect isn't true. No god needed.

So maybe the Hebrews did all leave Egypt and fought their way into Canaan. So what? As soon as we find 'natural' explanations, the religious claims dissipate.

So there is no reason why I want to get rid of the Exodus. The accusation of skeptic bias (apart from the logical default) is unworthy and makes the one who does it look bad, not the Bible critic. (1)

And this critic finds problems. They gradually emerged in a discussion some years ago on my Other forum. And it started with this problem that it cannot have happened until the Philistine cities were founded. At best, it could be a later record referring to that area later to be Philistia in hindsight.

But how much hindsight? Was it written after they were fighting Philistia? Or Assyria? Or Babylon?

And my word, wouldn't a Babylonian Exilic authorship work. The would explain why the story of Moses is so like the story of Sargon of Akkad. It would explain why Genesis has an Ark and Flood and the tower of Babel in it. I gradually began to suspect that the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose had been changed into the escape from Egypt under Moses, but that is not a hypothesis other Bible critics seem to have picked up. You heered it here fust.

The good point i did hear is that Egypt from after the Hyksos expulsion decided to police the Canaan area as well as Sinai. That sorta made it hard to suppose that once over the Red Sea the Hebrews were out of Egyptian control They weren't. As I mention, the only time it lapsed was during the time of Akhenaten. And that is really the only feasible time an Exodus could happen. But of course, there really isn't evidence of any such thing happening in his time or his father's time. Not that it wouldn't make a nice tale. Amenophis III being tough but browbeated into releasing the Hebrews. And just at that time he turned towards the one god in the sky. The sun, but that'll do in place of the human with a anteater's head. Sure, Akhenaten may have thought the god he talked to was in the sun, but it's fits with a sudden proof of the power of the One God. And his time was when (the Amarna correspondence shows) he didn't bother to control the Levant and Someone was attacking all the Canaanite cities.

Yes, it'd fit very well. And is really the only time the Exodus would.

(1) I suspect Good Old Projection - their case is pretty much supported by Faith. So their case against us is that we don't have Faith, thus 'bias'.