The Exodus

[HitchSlap]

I don't know about scholarly accounts but I would have thought the fact that Josephus, and maybe other historians, wrote about it, it is such an important part of the Jewish faith and Jesus spoke of it, must count for something.

Nope.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When a story doesn't have any evidential support, and thus doesn't comport with reality, it's generally better explained as myth.

The lack of evidence you speak of is in it's own way a myth, or at the very best, opinion. Some of us have all the evidence we need. Can we show you that evidence? No, no more than I can show you enough evidence man went to the moon if you chose not to believe it.

Anyway, I'll take that to mean your comment is not credible. See I don't see it as myth and I know many others don't but since I have nothing to back my thinking it may well be generally held to be a fact, I won't make the claim, simply because it wouldn't be the truth...to do so may bring my credibility into question..

 

[JacksBratt]

Did the Exodus really happen? I've read article both pro and con, and shades in between. Are there any good scholarly articles that support the Biblical account, or at least show its reasonably possible?

You may be interested to watch a very good documentary on this subject. The producer is a Christian. He was reluctant to do the project in case he didn't find any evidence for this biblical event. He was concerned as to what would happen to his faith if he found no evidence.

The first part of the documentary shows just that. All the records he checks, the archeological digs he visits, the people (experts) that he talks to all show no evidence. Then he meets a knowledgeable man who asks him some questions. This man is an atheist by the way. However, the questions he asks turn the producer to a new line of research.

I think you will not only be impressed with the way it unfolds and details that are discovered.

It is called "Patterns of Evidence The Exodus" by Tim Mahoney and Steve Law.

I believe that it is on Netflix and if not can probably be watched on other sources of movies and such.

 

[Strong in Him]

Nope.

So you're ignoring the Biblical account, Jewish historians and the Jewish (and Muslim because they also believe the OT) faith and then say there is no evidence?

Ok.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you're ignoring the Biblical account, Jewish historians and the Jewish (and Muslim because they also believe the OT) faith and then say there is no evidence?

Ok.

The OT is the claim. Jews, christians and muslims who believe the OT, are just believing and repeating the claims of the OT
Repeating or believing a claim, is not evidence of truth of the claim.

 

[Strong in Him]

The OT is the claim. Jews, christians and muslims who believe the OT, are just believing and repeating the claims of the OT
Repeating or believing a claim, is not evidence of truth of the claim.

The OT is one document which records the event; Josephus is another.
The authorship of the first 5 books of the OT is attributed to Moses, (apart from the account of his death.) Moses was there at the time, as was Joshua. The prophets, and Jesus, spoke of the exodus and the nation's time in the wilderness and Luke, a Gentile historian, quoted OT writings. As I said, Josephus, a Jewish historian, also writes about the exodus.

What reason do you have to dismiss the claim - and the writings of eye witnesses and historians?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The OT is one document which records the event;

No. The OT is a claim. Just because someone wrote down a story, doesn't mean it is an accurate story.

The authorship of the first 5 books of the OT is attributed to Moses, (apart from the account of his death.) Moses was there at the time, as was Joshua. The prophets, and Jesus, spoke of the exodus and the nation's time in the wilderness and Luke, a Gentile historian, quoted OT writings. As I said, Josephus, a Jewish historian, also writes about the exodus.

All this is religion.
And a jew is aware of the stories of the OT.

What reason do you have to dismiss the claim - and the writings of eye witnesses and historians?

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
None of the stuff in either the new or old testament were written by "eye witnesses", by the way.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're ignoring the Biblical account, Jewish historians and the Jewish (and Muslim because they also believe the OT) faith and then say there is no evidence?

Ok.

Some of these guys live in a country (the United States) where there are Christian holidays, hymns, churches, songs, hymns, carols, bumper stickers, Bibles, hospitals, and organizations -- and what do they do?

Demand evidence that God exists!

Luke 7:22a Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard;

But demand evidence that gravity exists from them, and what will they say?

"Drop something and watch its effect."

Some even arc & spark that they're out there in the field doing actual work under a hot sun digging up fossils and whatnot, and completely overlook who labored to build these buildings -- some with Scripture references carved on to them.

They moan about the "Christian industry" making millions of dollars, while demanding evidence of God.

LOL

Science at its best.

Acts 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

 

[cloudyday2]

A key to this "mystery" are the Amalekites.

These elite desert warriors attacked the Jews as soon as they came out of Egypt, and were a thorn in their side right up until the very last one (Haman) was killed in Esther's time.

And God removed the memory of them from off the face of the earth.

I didn't know that. I wonder how the archaeologists would recognize the Amalekite artifacts if they found them? What were they looking for in the bones, pottery, etc.?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. The OT is a claim. Just because someone wrote down a story, doesn't mean it is an accurate story.

The OT is documentation. Just because the Book it comes from is the Bible doesn't make it any less a documentation than say, Darwin's notes or the story of evolution. If you disagree...why?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There isn't conclusive proof for the exodus archaeologically no, but there isn't any such proof for much of secular history of the period either.

We assume that Dorians invaded Greece after the Bronze Age collapse as we see Doric dialects established in classical times where Aeolic dialects were before.
We assume Aramaic and Chaldean expansion into Mesopotamia as the previous states disappear or are much diminished in scope and again we see language change.
We assume the Hittites fell to Phrygians as they appear in historic Hatti even though we have no record of their movements.
We debate Etruscan arrival in Italy vis-a-vis native development based on their different language and middle-eastern cattle and Roman tradition.

With the Israelites, we have a firm tradition of an Exodus taking place. Everyone agrees that the Pentateuch existed by 600 BC whether you think it was written then or not, so we have an ancient tradition.
We have Canaanite speaking peoples in Canaan and then after the Bronze Age collapse we have the states of Israel and Judah, speaking Hebrew. The languages are related, but quite different. The peoples themselves also considered themselves to be different by descent.
Based on the examples above and probability, the arrival of different peoples to either replace or radically alter the original languages of the area must be considered and as there is an Exodus tradition, this is even more probable. Even scholars that favour indigenous Israelites arising from the Canaanites, acknowledge that there was a foreign component (for instance the Kenite Hypothesis or 12 tribes Aetiological myth theory).
Therefore, either some Exodus-like event or population movement into Canaan at the time is likely to have occurred by standard archaeological practice and probability, even if we cannot conclusively say they came from Egypt nor have definitive proof of their expansion or movements or the origin of these people. As I mentioned in my previous posts, even Egyptology has not excluded that it might have happened (although Egyptologists tend to support more the idea of Edomite or Sinaitic Shasu populations as responsible for demographic change in Canaan rather than an Exodus based on the paucity of sources in Egypt itself).

It is impossible to give absolute evidence for most of the history of the period due to fragmentary records, incomplete survival of evidence etc. which is why history employs probability. We cannot prove nor definitely exclude the Exodus narrative, but we do know that a marked language shift occurred in Palestine at the time and that the tetragrammaton migrates from its first references in Sinai amongst the Shasu of YHW to appear as the national God of the Israelites. This should at least give you pause to consider it possible, if nothing else.
(If we adopt other Chronologies then the traditional one, which may plausibly also be right, then there is much higher probability as I referenced in my above posts for an exodus)

The people who say there is NO evidence should reconsider such absolute statements as they are not inline with the Archaeological establishment they claim to derive this from. Such distant history is never that clear cut.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The OT is documentation. Just because the Book it comes from is the Bible doesn't make it any less a documentation than say, Darwin's notes or the story of evolution. If you disagree...why?

Darwin's books are just as much claims as the OT.
They are claims written on paper.

The difference is that Darwin's claims can be verified in reality.
There exists evidence to support Darwin's claims outside of his or other people's books.

 

[HitchSlap]

So you're ignoring the Biblical account, Jewish historians and the Jewish (and Muslim because they also believe the OT) faith and then say there is no evidence?

Ok.

Yes.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Darwin's books are just as much claims as the OT.
They are claims written on paper.

Fair enough.

The difference is that Darwin's claims can be verified in reality.
There exists evidence to support Darwin's claims outside of his or other people's books.

Verify Darwin's claims..

 

[DogmaHunter]

Verify Darwin's claims..

200 years of advances in biology did just that.

 

[HitchSlap]

Fair enough.



Verify Darwin's claims..

Pick up a biology textbook.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes.

Ignoring just means that you're choosing not to take notice of; it doesn't mean you've disproved it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

200 years of advances in biology did just that.

Thanks just the same

 

[Kenny'sID]

Pick up a biology textbook.

Done that. The answers all seem to be the same in this area "Go look at this and be convinced just as we have"

Thanks anyway.

So far, Exodus appears to be no less provable than a lot of what your average Atheist might consider provable history or at least viable evidence that history existed..

 

[HitchSlap]

Done that. The answers all seem to be the same in this area "Go look at this and be convinced just as we have"

Thanks anyway.

So far, Exodus appears to be no less provable than a lot of what your average Atheist might consider provable history or at least viable evidence that history existed..

You would be wrong, then.