The Exodus: History or Story

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar
ReasonableDoubt
What you don't accept is the history.

Don't be silly. Of course I do.

Originally posted by Jenyar
There are scientists who believe in the Bible, and there are archeologists who are convinced. If what you say were absolutely true, this would not have been possible.

Excuse me. You surely don't believe this, do you?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Some links: ... Evidence of Exodus

I'm familiar with the link. It's remarkably bad, and you might want to think twice before uncritically embracing it. In what way, for example, does a 1210 BCE reference to Israel serve as evidence for a Biblical Exodus?

Originally posted by Jenyar
I don't doubt that you don't believe. I just doubt the reasons for which you don't believe.

My guess is that you've never considered those reasons. For example, the reason I don't believe in the Biblical Exodus is that there is zero evidence for it. If you feel that you've come across something probative, please feel free to present and defend it.

 

[Jenyar]

That's quite a logical reason. "There is no evidence of Exodus so it never happend". How does that prove Exodus never happened?
Something tells me that even if evidence for Exodus were found (that satisfies your sceptiscm) you would still not believe in the validity of the Bible. That is your premise, confirmed by a lack of evidence.

I don't know enough about the historical evidence (or lack of it) for the exodus - other than the Biblical one, so all I can effectively do is quote websites and research. A 1210 BCE reference to Israel simpy confirms the existence of Israel and Egypt's knowledge of it. They might have been just one of a few groups of people who were enslaved by Egypt, and all were very likely considered rather insignificant in the eyes of their captors.

Exodus an account of how God led the Israelites out of slavery. It is unlikely that a whole nation would use a fictional event as a reference point for their belief. There is no evidence that the event was fabricated to brainwash people into thinking they were saved out of slavery in Egypt. It that were the case, surely they would have benefited more by attributing their release from slavery to a certain person or their own strength. By attributing it to God, it must mean that they did not see how it could have happened otherwise. In any event, they weren't very happy about their freedom anyway, since they had much more to eat in Egypt than in the desert.

If the Israelites weren't freed from Egypt, wouldn't they have still been there? I'm out on a limb here, but I'm sure you have considered this question and might be able to enlighten me further.

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by Jenyar
That's quite a logical reason. "There is no evidence of Exodus so it never happend". How does that prove Exodus never happened?

It doesn't, but that's what he stated. He stated "the reason I don't believe in the Biblical Exodus is that there is zero evidence for it." Not that it's proven false, but that there's no validation of it, so it's likelihood is small. The easiest way to counter this would be to provide some hard evidence to the contrary, that there was a mass movement out of Egypt in that time period. This may be possible. But then you'd have to show that this was also a divine inspired event, which would be much harder to do.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar
That's quite a logical reason. "There is no evidence of Exodus so it never happend". How does that prove Exodus never happened?

Who are you quoting, Jenyar? I, for one, would never make such an argument, and I consider it a bit disingenuous of you to fabricate such silliness and then falsely attribute it to me.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I don't know enough about the historical evidence (or lack of it) for the exodus - other than the Biblical one, so all I can effectively do is quote websites and research.

If you do not "know enough about the historical evidence (or lack of it) for the exodus", you probably should not claim it is an historical fact. Certainly you have zero basis for pointing to me and asserting: "What you don't accept is the history".

Originally posted by Jenyar
Exodus an account of how God led the Israelites out of slavery. It is unlikely that a whole nation would use a fictional event as a reference point for their belief. There is no evidence that the event was fabricated to brainwash people into thinking they were saved out of slavery in Egypt. It that were the case, surely they would have benefited more by attributing their release from slavery to a certain person or their own strength. By attributing it to God, it must mean that they did not see how it could have happened otherwise. In any event, they weren't very happy about their freedom anyway, since they had much more to eat in Egypt than in the desert..

It is not at all unlikely. Primitive peoples did it all the time.

Originally posted by Jenyar
If the Israelites weren't freed from Egypt, wouldn't they have still been there? I'm out on a limb here, but I'm sure you have considered this question and might be able to enlighten me further.

No, with that statement, you clearly fell out of the tree. Read, for example,

• The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
• What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel
  
• Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E.
  

The following is taken from Egypt, Cannan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford:

"... the standard scholarly approach to the history of Israel during the United Monarchy amounts to nothing more than a bad attack of academic 'wishful thinking'. For example: The event is suppose to take place in Egypt, yet Egyptian sources know it not. On the morrow of the Exodus Israel numbered approximately 2.5 million (extrapolated from Num. 1:46); yet the entire population of Egypt at that time was only 3 to 4.5 million! The effect on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society. But the problem goes beyond an absence of information ... we can now genuinely speak of unanimity of the evidence. Whoever supplied the geographic information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overloards: his toponyms reflect the renewed interest in the eastern frontier evidence for this period by fort building and canalization. He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramessses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1075 to 725 B.C., ...

 

[Lord_Tigersloth]

Does it not all just come down to faith?

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

I don't believe in the Biblical Exodus is that there is zero evidence for it.

There is plenty of evidence for the Biblical Exodus. However, you won't find a sign saying "The Israelites passed here." Thus, you need to look for other forms of evidence.

Some of the evidence is known as contextual plausibility. The story in Exodus names many of the cities that existed during those times. These have been identified by archeology today.

Archeological evidence has been found to justify their southern passage into the Sinai. The northern route was much shorter, so why not take it? Simple. It was because there was an Egyptian fortress (Deir el-Balah) between Egypt and the land of the Israelites. It controlled the route between the two lands.

According to a satellite image analyst, George Stephen, the route of the Exodus can still be seen today through the use of infrared technology. This technology is used today to identify old trails, even though the trails are thousands of years old.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Live4Him
There is plenty of evidence for the Biblical Exodus.

Don't assert it. Produce it.

Originally posted by Live4Him
Some of the evidence is known as contextual plausibility.

Known by whom?

Originally posted by Live4Him
The story in Exodus names many of the cities that existed during those times. These have been identified by archeology today.

Oh, my. Real cities! Who would have thought that folklore and myth would be nested in the real world? Come to think of it, Kansas exists and is known for its farms and tornadic activity. Poor toto ...

Reread what D. Redford says about your 'cities'.

Originally posted by Live4Him
Archeological evidence has been found to justify their southern passage into the Sinai.

To "justify"? What a joke!

Originally posted by Live4Him
According to a satellite image analyst, George Stephen, the route of the Exodus can still be seen ...

Well, I can't wait till uncle George tells the archaeologists where to dig.

 

[Live4Him]

ConsequentAtheist,

Some of the evidence is known as contextual plausibility.
Known by whom?

Scholars.


Oh, my. Real cities!

Yep, and real cities produce real artifacts. And real artifact confirm historical records. It is through real cities (i.e. tells) that archeologists can determine an area's history through artifacts like a iron knife vs. a bronze knife.


To "justify"? What a joke!

Of course! If the Israelites moved in the most direct route from Egypt to Israel, then they would have been back in captivity very quickly.


Well, I can't wait till uncle George tells the archaeologists where to dig.

They already know where the cities are located. And finding artifacts on a trail is as likely as finding a needle in 10 haystacks. There is hundreds of miles, and only a handful of artifacts to be found. Even in the cities (obviously occupied much longer than a trail in the desert) only yield a few artifacts.

 

[wesmorris]

wouldn't you imagine that it's highly to somewhat embelished historical fact? isn't that what's most logical?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Live4Him = Lie4Him

Live4Him:
There is plenty of evidence for the Biblical Exodus.
ConsequentAtheist:
Don't assert it. Produce it.
Live4Him:
[ predictably, nothing - CA ]

I find it interseting that someone so full of crap and so empty of content should choose the username: "Live4Him'.

Live4Him:
Some of the evidence is known as contextual plausibility.
ConsequentAtheist:
Known by whom?
Live4Him:
Scholars.

Which Syro-Palestinian and/or Egyptian archaeologists assert "contextual plausibility" as evidence? Or, perhaps in the spirit of pious fraud, "Live4Him" justifies "Lie4Him".

ConsequentAtheist:
Oh, my. Real cities!
Live4Him:
Yep, and real cities produce real artifacts. And real artifact confirm historical records. It is through real cities (i.e. tells) that archeologists can determine an area's history through artifacts like a iron knife vs. a bronze knife.

Thank you for sharing. Now that we all know that artifacts can be probative, show me the artifacts that serve as evidence for the Biblical Evidence. Your diversions are getting tiresome.

Live4Him:
Archeological evidence has been found to justify their southern passage into the Sinai.
ConsequentAtheist:
To "justify"? What a joke!
Live4Him:
Of course! If the Israelites moved in the most direct route from Egypt to Israel, then they would have been back in captivity very quickly.

That a piece of fiction on some level makes sense in no way renders it nonfiction. It certainly does not constitute archaeological evidence.

Live4Him:
According to a satellite image analyst, George Stephen, the route of the Exodus can still be seen ...
ConsequentAtheist:
Well, I can't wait till uncle George tells the archaeologists where to dig.
Live4Him:
They already know where the cities are located. And finding artifacts on a trail is as likely as finding a needle in 10 haystacks. There is hundreds of miles, and only a handful of artifacts to be found. Even in the cities (obviously occupied much longer than a trail in the desert) only yield a few artifacts.

I see. YHWH sends a bunch a plagues to devastate Egypt, wipes out its military and infrastructure, and sends a couple of million folk plus livestock to wind their way through the country. Uncle George knows the route, but there are "only a handful of artifacts to be found" and, apparently, none to be presented. Do you actually believe this silliness?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Live4Him
There is plenty of evidence for the Biblical Exodus.

Produce it.