The Exodus (Did it happen)

[JudgeRightly]

I think I said on numerous occasions that I am a novice at best when it comes to religion. I read the Bible as a book from front to back, took me a little over a week.I have only the basics when it comes to Biblically events.I accepted that the Exodus was a fact from reading the Bible, researching Moses brought me back to the Exodus. Google Exodus and see what you find, more material that it did not happen than it did. Why are most religious scholars and secular archaeologists agree that the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible and does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel? So far to date I have seen no grounds to confirm.

Because "most scholars" reject the Bible, and if they can prove it wrong in such an important story, then they can (rightly) discredit the entire Bible, and therefore God.

As for the scholars who don't reject God, they've been persuaded (wrongly) that the Bible is just a story book, and is not to be taken literally, and that God created the universe in millions or billions of years, and not just six days, so their rejection of the exodus as fact is a natural result of that.

Which is why it's important to not rely on what scholars say, but to rely on what the evidence shows and says.

Ipuwer's Papyrus detailing the fall of Egypt because of God's plan to extract His people is one of the many solid pieces of evidence that the Exodus DID IN FACT happen, regardless of what some group of scholars say.

That, combined with all the other pieces of evidence provided on that list page I gave you, is far more than enough evidence to show that the Exodus did in fact happen.

Because God's standard is "by the mouth of two or three witnesses a matter shall be established." That list has far more than just two or three.

[Bee1]

Ipuwer's Papyrus was not about the exodus, it was about Asians immigrants coming to Egypt. Ipuwer's Papyrus does not name a pharaoh or even mention the word Hebrew,Israelite or Moses.

Because "most scholars" reject the Bible, and if they can prove it wrong in such an important story, then they can (rightly) discredit the entire Bible, and therefore God.

As for the scholars who don't reject God, they've been persuaded (wrongly) that the Bible is just a story book, and is not to be taken literally, and that God created the universe in millions or billions of years, and not just six days, so their rejection of the exodus as fact is a natural result of that.

Which is why it's important to not rely on what scholars say, but to rely on what the evidence shows and says.

Ipuwer's Papyrus detailing the fall of Egypt because of God's plan to extract His people is one of the many solid pieces of evidence that the Exodus DID IN FACT happen, regardless of what some group of scholars say.

That, combined with all the other pieces of evidence provided on that list page I gave you, is far more than enough evidence to show that the Exodus did in fact happen.

Because God's standard is "by the mouth of two or three witnesses a matter shall be established." That list has far more than just two or three.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

[JudgeRightly]

Ipuwer's Papyrus was not about the exodus, it was about Asians immigrants coming to Egypt. Ipuwer's Papyrus does not name a pharaoh or even mention the word Hebrew,Israelite or Moses.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

It mentions the ten plagues.

http://kgov.com/evidence-for-the-exodus#ipuwer

[Bee1]

It mentions bloody river. Ipuwer's Papyrus is a poem and most likely works of royal propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus


Ipuwer and the Book of Exodus
Ipuwer has been often put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the Biblical account, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" and its frequent references to servants running away, but these arguments ignore the many points on which Ipuwer contradicts Exodus, such as the fact that its Asiatics are arriving in Egypt rather than leaving, and the likelihood that the "river is blood" phrase may refer to the red sediment colouring the Nile during disastrous floods, or may simply be a poetic image of turmoil.[10] The archeological evidence does not support the story of the Exodus, and most histories no longer consider it relevant to the story of the emergence of Israel.[11][12]

[Zeke]

Psalms 78 reveals its allegory not secular history, another reason Paul mentions it in Galatians 4:24,and to be left behind Hebrews 6:1-5, tradition needs it to be historical so they can push the literal blood sacrifice Psalms 40:6, the jest of scripture is its a spiritual pattern told in typology, foreshadows, dramatized portrayals, Galatians 3:1-5, concerning the kingdom Luke 17:20-21KJV, Acts 17:24, 1Cor 3:16, pretty clear most Christians ignore that making them just like the theologians in the Jesus motif Matthew 23:13, the entrance into that kingdom being always at hand since man became a living soul.
It's wrote in riddles Proverbs 1:6 about our conscience states, from Adam to Adam 1Cor 15:44-45, Exodus, Moses, ancient stories that hide it's pearls when read literally Matthew 11:11, or give life when spiritually read 2Cor 3:6,5:16.

[JudgeRightly]

It mentions bloody river. Ipuwer's Papyrus is a poem and most likely works of royal propaganda.

I think you weren't listening as Bob and Fred read through the papyrus and compared it to all of the miracles God did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus

Ipuwer and the Book of Exodus
Ipuwer has been often put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the Biblical account, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" and its frequent references to servants running away, but these arguments ignore the many points on which Ipuwer contradicts Exodus, such as the fact that its Asiatics are arriving in Egypt rather than leaving, and the likelihood that the "river is blood" phrase may refer to the red sediment colouring the Nile during disastrous floods, or may simply be a poetic image of turmoil.[10] The archeological evidence does not support the story of the Exodus, and most histories no longer consider it relevant to the story of the emergence of Israel.[11][12]

Hey, Bee1, do you remember what Paul said in Romans 3:4?

He said let God be true and every man a liar.

http://kgov.com/evidence-for-the-exodus

[Bee1]

I think you weren't listening as Bob and Fred read through the papyrus and compared it to all of the miracles God did.


Hey, Bee1, do you remember what Paul said in Romans 3:4?

He said let God be true and every man a liar.

http://kgov.com/evidence-for-the-exodus

I could not agree more, but where do a God's truth ends and men lies start?


Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

[JudgeRightly]

I could not agree more, but where do a God's truth ends and men lies start?


Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

The evidence says the exodus happened. (see the kgov link in my previous post.

The Bible (and therefore God) says that the Exodus happened.

Man says the exodus did not happen, because it did not happen in the time frame they assert it should have happened.

Man's lies start when they reject the truth of God's word, which is shortly followed by rejecting the evidence.

[Lon]

If 2/3 of the total Egyptian population up and leaves to go wander the wildness, someone, somewhere would have noticed and recorded that fact. Why would some religious academia question the Exodus?
If you use the Bible, Ramses was the pharaoh of the Exodus but in 1Kings 6
Soloman' temple was built 480 years after Exodus thus making the Exodus before Ramses. That just one discrepancy, how two million people live in the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace. What did the Israelites do with the dead? True the Egyptians never record their defeats but what about other indigenous people who live in Egypt at that time, surely someone besides the Egyptians seen the Exodus.I gave the Exodus as a given as far as biblical truths now that seems not to be the case. Yes there were Hebrews in Egypt and many were slaves but the numbers reported in the Bible there should have been a Hebrew culture in Egypt. I don't know. I am learning as I go.


Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

Part of "higher criticism" is simply guessing and rationalizing. It is skepticism without restraint. A truly open and scholarly mind does not speculate and then publish such an unprofessional unsubstantiated speculation off of guesswork.

For me: True, there is currently little evidence 'from Egypt' regarding an internment of Israelites in Egypt. Why would they? They weren't Egyptians nor highly regarded. A lack of evidence on that point, doesn't mean much. Writing in stone normally took a mandate. People didn't record willy nilly and only the scholarly, employed by kings, would have recorded much of anything. Papyrus didn't last, etc. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, higher criticism 'scholars' decided Daniel couldn't have been written by Daniel because it was too accurate. It was nothing but skepticism and incredulity expression guised as 'scholastics' but was anything but and people were foolish to readily accept such nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

Skepticism is rarely a friend to truth. Time and patience serve incredibly better. Frankly, it is not reasonable to doubt a whole culture and national heritage, religious or not. Imho, it is most often dishonest attack always politically and/or religiously motivated and entirely forgettable and unfounded nonsense from those with no vested interest. They are always disinterested skeptics with a less than stellar or honest agenda. Literally, there is no 'good' reason for it.

[Hawkins]

What I can ask is rather an easier question. Did Nanjing massacre happen in WWII? According to the Chinese, there are 300,000 killed but denied by the Japanese.

Does anyone have the evidence that this did occur?


If humans can't backup a recent event with evidence, how can they back up something happened more than 2000 years ago?


My personal answer to the question is, humans don't know what history is. That's the situation.

[Bee1]

Part of "higher criticism" is simply guessing and rationalizing. It is skepticism without restraint. A truly open and scholarly mind does not speculate and then publish such an unprofessional unsubstantiated speculation off of guesswork.

For me: True, there is currently little evidence 'from Egypt' regarding an internment of Israelites in Egypt. Why would they? They weren't Egyptians nor highly regarded. A lack of evidence on that point, doesn't mean much. Writing in stone normally took a mandate. People didn't record willy nilly and only the scholarly, employed by kings, would have recorded much of anything. Papyrus didn't last, etc. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, higher criticism 'scholars' decided Daniel couldn't have been written by Daniel because it was too accurate. It was nothing but skepticism and incredulity expression guised as 'scholastics' but was anything but and people were foolish to readily accept such nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

Skepticism is rarely a friend to truth. Time and patience serve incredibly better. Frankly, it is not reasonable to doubt a whole culture and national heritage, religious or not. Imho, it is most often dishonest attack always politically and/or religiously motivated and entirely forgettable and unfounded nonsense from those with no vested interest. They are always disinterested skeptics with a less than stellar or honest agenda. Literally, there is no 'good' reason for it.

Only the victors write history yes. At one time part of Egypt was rule by Hyksos (Semitics) Fifteenth Dynasty, surely if Israelites were in Egypt then they would have left some trace. Other Canaanite cultures were present at that time and left evidence. Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV, was first to practice monotheism.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

[JudgeRightly]

Only the victors write history yes. At one time part of Egypt was rule by Hyksos (Semitics) Fifteenth Dynasty, surely if Israelites were in Egypt then they would have left some trace. Other Canaanite cultures were present at that time and left evidence. Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV, was first to practice monotheism.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

You keep posting as if you haven't been shown the evidence of a semitic people living in Egypt.

Go to that kgov link i have provided you and thoroughly read through it, go to the links provided (if they're broken, let me know and I'll let the owner know so he can fix them), and try to comprehend what it's saying.

[Nikita]

.

As for the scholars who don't reject God, they've been persuaded (wrongly) that the Bible is just a story book, and is not to be taken literally, and that God created the universe in millions or billions of years, and not just six days, so their rejection of the exodus as fact is a natural result of that.

Which is why it's important to not rely on what scholars say, but to rely on what the evidence shows and says.

That is so not true. I am in university studying theology for a certificate. I have never heard any of my professors say the bible is a story book!!

Although taking any book in a fundamental litteral way is not a good idea neither. Actually many scholars are of the concept that every part of the bible needs to be taken in its context and purpose. A poem is a poem and not a literal truth. Like the creation story. It portraits the power of God as the one who created. It does not meant ot was done in 6 litteral days and it does not meant it was Not done on 6 litteral days. Its purpose os not to tell is the days.


As for Exodus there are manu theories. One i like is that there are ppl who have touched the works of moses at a later date, maybe in Ezekiel time.... Some clarification were put in it we know for a fact. We don't know by whom and it's just théories. But if this theory is right then what could of happened is that a clarification was introduced in error. Thinking it must be this Pharoah or this date. Interesting and none of it makes me believe less in God.

My brother a none believer, attempted to take enuma elish as proof that the bible is copied from a bunch of legends.... But it may be that it was one story and several people tried to put it in writing...

We have am amazing God who used humans to tell his story. Not perfect. We dont worship the book. Nothing os perfect but God. But it does show us his redemption of a ppl who constantly leave him.

Did it happen. I think it did. I have no doubt it did. Archeology is a science that is not super accurate. Not finding something is nkt proof of it not happening.

[Lon]

Only the victors write history yes. At one time part of Egypt was rule by Hyksos (Semitics) Fifteenth Dynasty, surely if Israelites were in Egypt then they would have left some trace. Other Canaanite cultures were present at that time and left evidence. Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV, was first to practice monotheism.

I've had enough Biblical history and archeological courses to know the difference. It is almost exclusively, the 'higher critic' who really is nothing of the sort and these have been sorely debunked through history and forgotten (again, the Dead Sea scrolls proved most of all of them foolish and ignorant parading as academics). There is no 'surely.' You either look for that evidence, or you 'assume' there is none. It is incredibly foolish, in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 'fake Daniel' speculation, to do the SAME EXACT THING all over again. It just doesn't make any logical or academic sense. Anybody that is reading what Biblical scholars and Jewish scholars are talking about, will know that the 'skeptic' circle is ad hoc and unprofessional BECAUSE these aren't paying attention to the discussion and making it up for laypeople

[Lon]

That is so not true. I am in university studying theology for a certificate. I have never heard any of my professors say the bible is a story book!!

Although taking any book in a fundamental litteral way is not a good idea neither. Actually many scholars are of the concept that every part of the bible needs to be taken in its context and purpose. A poem is a poem and not a literal truth. Like the creation story. It portraits the power of God as the one who created. It does not meant ot was done in 6 litteral days and it does not meant it was Not done on 6 litteral days. Its purpose os not to tell is the days.


As for Exodus there are manu theories. One i like is that there are ppl who have touched the works of moses at a later date, maybe in Ezekiel time.... Some clarification were put in it we know for a fact. We don't know by whom and it's just théories. But if this theory is right then what could of happened is that a clarification was introduced in error. Thinking it must be this Pharoah or this date. Interesting and none of it makes me believe less in God.

Not true. It is false and was proven false with findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is absolutely nothing to back up the poor academic theory that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. EITHER Moses wrote of his own death, or Joshua took up the task of finishing Moses' 5 books, directed by God. In no spiritual sense, can an academic second-guess God. We 'may' speculate, but when such speculation does damage to God's intent, we are negligent in our Spiritual duty. We are NOT smarter than God. It troubles me when any have such audacity, no matter who that professor happens to be.

]My brother a none believer, attempted to take enuma elish as proof that the bible is copied from a bunch of legends.... But it may be that it was one story and several people tried to put it in writing...

The Epic of Gilgamesh isn't proof of anything but that there are some universal observations/happenings in common and that there are differences between cultures. The Epic is very different from the Bible account. No true scholar will miss that. I've seen a number of shoddy supposed 'scholarly' works that have tried to press otherwise. It is frankly, sad and poor academics. The differences are huge. Your brother, you are correct, makes a poor attempt to prove otherwise. There is agenda behind such efforts.

We have am amazing God who used humans to tell his story. Not perfect. We dont worship the book. Nothing os perfect but God. But it does show us his redemption of a ppl who constantly leave him.

Where do you get this (these ideas) from? Is it just a logical assumption? The Bible has several claims that are incredibly important for any who claim the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior: Matthew 4:4 2 Timothy 3:16 etc. No believer, subservient to his/her God, would dare to second guess Him. I take my cues from Christ and His apostles and not the other way around. Doing such is imperializing 'my' thoughts and not reading my bible as much or as often as I ought, being His servant.

Did it happen. I think it did. I have no doubt it did. Archeology is a science that is not super accurate. Not finding something is nkt proof of it not happening.

Very true. It took a couple of centuries to put to rest the 'higher' criticism of the 15th -19th centuries that were blatantly wrong and sadly, even partly exist and influence skeptic superstition even today. We really need people who can think instead of appeal to dead 'scholars' who were wrong centuries ago.