The Exodus (Did it happen)

[jamie]

he identifies Moses with Osarsiph, an Egyptian priest, indicating that, even though Egyptian monuments do not record the fact, the Jews were in Egypt and Moses was their leader.

Jews in Egypt? So were the other tribes.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Moses was not a Jew and he never lived in Judea.

Semantics. Yes Moses didnt come from the line of Judah and thus wasn't a 'Jew' in that sense. Neither was Abraham, Issac or Jacob. But he was a Hebrew and a descendant of Abraham. And therefore in that context he was a Jew. Hebrew and Jew have been synonymous terms since antiquity.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Jews in Egypt? So were the other tribes.

Whats that got to do with the price of fish? :think:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Did you pay for it. I have Netflix on everything.

I watched it when it was on Netflix.
Date Added: 11th September 2015
Date Removed: 10th September 2017

It is no longer available on Netflix, so you might have to pay to rent it from another service.
It is well worth it.

 

[Bee1]

The Isralites are a Semitic people and so are the Hyksos who rule Lower Eygpt in 18 century BCE.They both orginate from Canaan.

 

[chair]

The depiction of the Exodus in the Bible should not be taken 100% literally. As had been noted, 2 million people leaving Egypt would have left some impression. The land of Canaan wouldn't support that many people back then.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The depiction of the Exodus in the Bible should not be taken 100% literally. As had been noted, 2 million people leaving Egypt would have left some impression. The land of Canaan wouldn't support that many people back then.

You are forgetting how fertile the land of promise was back then.

Numbers 13:23 23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.​

 

[Bee1]

Also Manetho describe an expulsion Hyksos Semities and lepers with happen centuries before supposely Exodus, and Manetho never mention the word israelite or Jew.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The depiction of the Exodus in the Bible should not be taken 100% literally.

Have you ever heard of Ipuwer? The Exodus seemed pretty real to him...

As had been noted, 2 million people leaving Egypt would have left some impression. The land of Canaan wouldn't support that many people back then.

Denying the exodus happened because there is a lack of evidence is a faulty denial.

Lack of evidence for 2 million people wandering the wilderness, etc, is not evidence against the Exodus. It's not evidence at all.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Also Manetho describe an expulsion Hyksos Semities and lepers with happen centuries before supposely Exodus, and Manetho never mention the word israelite or Jew.

Hey, Bee1, Just curious, where are you at in the evidence for the exodus series?

 

[Bee1]

OK, i listen to all 8 parts and first thses guys Bob Enyart and Fred Williams are bias. i beleive Catholic. And as I said before if you move the the Exodus back to th 15 century BCE, you have a Biblical problem. Also I "think" Rameses 11 was king during Exodus. Bob and Fred go on and on about Ipuwer, the Ipuwer manuscript proves to be to old plus it describes Asiatics are arriving in Egypt rather than leaving? Ipuwer never mention Israelites or Hebrew, he does not name Pharoh. And this;
Gardiner agrees with Velikovsky’s chronology in the sense that the Ipuwer papyrus text tells us about both a civil war and of an Asiatic occupation of the Delta. The two periods in which this might be possible are the dark age that separated the sixth from the eleventh dynasty, and the other is the Hyksos period. Gardiner inclines towards the theory of the invasion of Hyksos to explain the events in which this papyrus alludes.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Also Manetho describe an expulsion Hyksos Semities and lepers with happen centuries before supposely Exodus, and Manetho never mention the word israelite or Jew.

OK, i listen to all 8 parts and first thses guys Bob Enyart and Fred Williams are bias. i beleive Catholic. And as I said before if you move the the Exodus back to th 15 century BCE, you have a Biblical problem. Also I "think" Rameses 11 was king during Exodus. Bob and Fred go on and on about Ipuwer, the Ipuwer manuscript proves to be to old plus it describes Asiatics are arriving in Egypt rather than leaving? Ipuwer never mention Israelites or Hebrew, he does not name Pharoh. And this;
Gardiner agrees with Velikovsky’s chronology in the sense that the Ipuwer papyrus text tells us about both a civil war and of an Asiatic occupation of the Delta. The two periods in which this might be possible are the dark age that separated the sixth from the eleventh dynasty, and the other is the Hyksos period. Gardiner inclines towards the theory of the invasion of Hyksos to explain the events in which this papyrus alludes.

So, if I'm getting the gist of your argument right, it's basicallly this:

"The Exodus didn't happen in such and such century, therefore it couldn't have happened at all."

Is that about right?

Consider this:

Assume the Bible (and therefore God) is true, and every man (such as the scholars who deny the Exodus happened in whatever century) is a liar (or at least a fool).

Does the evidence presented line up with what the Bible says? (Forget the so-called scholars for a moment.)

If so, then the scholars are wrong, and the Exodus did happen in the century it happened in, and not in the one they say it that it did not happen in.

They're technically correct that it didn't happen in the century they examine, but then to say that it didn't happen at all because it didn't happen in the century they're examining? Talk about faulty logic...

If it happened two centuries (iirc) prior to when they say it didn't happen, then OF COURSE it didn't happen when they say it didn't happen, because it happened two centuries before the century they say it didn't happen in. Duh.

 

[Bee1]

So, if I'm getting the gist of your argument right, it's basicallly this:

"The Exodus didn't happen in such and such century, therefore it couldn't have happened at all."

Is that about right?

Consider this:

Assume the Bible (and therefore God) is true, and every man (such as the scholars who deny the Exodus happened in whatever century) is a liar (or at least a fool).

Does the evidence presented line up with what the Bible says? (Forget the so-called scholars for a moment.)

If so, then the scholars are wrong, and the Exodus did happen in the century it happened in, and not in the one they say it that it did not happen in.

They're technically correct that it didn't happen in the century they examine, but then to say that it didn't happen at all because it didn't happen in the century they're examining? Talk about faulty logic...

If it happened two centuries (iirc) prior to when they say it didn't happen, then OF COURSE it didn't happen when they say it didn't happen, because it happened two centuries before the century they say it didn't happen in. Duh.

I understand Christians and believers in 1 true God dilemma, if you move the Exodus to maybe when Egypt over took from the Hyksos in the 1600 BCE ,you may have something but if you do that then the Bible is wrong and we can't have that so what do you do. I personal believe that a large group of Israelites left Eygpt for Canaan. Once there they unite with a Canaanite clan and then they developed into a kingdom. Also another theory that they tried to put out there is that Israel was a kingdom in 1600 BCE. Hey, this is all news to me, I gave the Exodus as a given truth biblical and a factual. I am somewhat awed at all flak that is cause in the Bible. That is why I say anything man touch he alters in some way. If the Hebrew scholars would not ,in all of their infinite wisdom, tamper with God's word there would not have been any conflicts period, about anything printed in Bible. God don't make mistakes so the Jews have painted themselves in a corner and force to admit it never happen or the Bible is wrong! Either way they are fu*k.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

 

[chair]

... The land of Canaan wouldn't support that many people back then.

I'll be more precise: I've spoken to an archaeologist about this. One can estimate the number of people who lived in the land in the early Iron Age, based on the number of cities and settlements and their size. It comes nowhere near the number in the Biblical narrative.

I personally don't view that as a big issue, though I know that for some this can upset their religious world.

 

[Bee1]

I'll be more precise: I've spoken to an archaeologist about this. One can estimate the number of people who lived in the land in the early Iron Age, based on the number of cities and settlements and their size. It comes nowhere near the number in the Biblical narrative.

I personally don't view that as a big issue, though I know that for some this can upset their religious world.

To you and me probably means little,but if you are of Jewish faith, this is a disaster. The Jews have always pride in themselves about their heritage and lineage in fact it was what set them apart from other cultures. But if look at the bigger picture if the Exodus was exaggerated what else could also be off or untrue. All the question about stories in the Bible (creation, the flood) sounding similar to Ancient Sumer . The Hebrews have been exposed to it since their inception. Hebrews( Semitic) originated from Canaan who strongly held pagan beliefs, spend 400 years in Egypt, also a student of ancient Sumer philosophy, leave Egypt establish a kingdom then get enslaved by the Babylonians who are deeply steep in Ancient Near East philosophy return home write OT and say it all original and pre-ordain from God or should I say El, an ancient Canaanite word for one of their gods, also borrowed.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

 

[chair]

...I am somewhat awed at all flak that is cause in the Bible. That is why I say anything man touch he alters in some way. If the Hebrew scholars would not ,in all of their infinite wisdom, tamper with God's word there would not have been any conflicts period, about anything printed in Bible. God don't make mistakes so the Jews have painted themselves in a corner and force to admit it never happen or the Bible is wrong! Either way they are fu*k.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

The mistake was in thinking that the Bible is "God's word" in the first place. It is odd to hear you blame the "Jews" for this- without them you wouldn't have a Bible. And Christians accepted the "scriptures", as you know.

Also- your use of the "F word" here is a no-no, even if you camouflage it. Expect to hear from the moderators when they wake up.

 

[chair]

To you and me probably means little,but if you are of Jewish faith, this is a disaster. The Jews have always pride in themselves about their heritage and lineage in fact it was what set them apart from other cultures. But if look at the bigger picture if the Exodus was exaggerated what else could also be off or untrue. All the question about stories in the Bible (creation, the flood) sounding similar to Ancient Sumer . The Hebrews have been exposed to it since their inception. Hebrews( Semitic) originated from Canaan who strongly held pagan beliefs, spend 400 years in Egypt, also a student of ancient Sumer philosophy, leave Egypt establish a kingdom then get enslaved by the Babylonians who are deeply steep in Ancient Near East philosophy return home write OT and say it all original and pre-ordain from God or should I say El, an ancient Canaanite word for one of their gods, also borrowed.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

Calm down. This isn't a disaster- and if it was, it would be one for Christians as well ( remember " All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching...". The Bible is our holy ancient written traditions, and it remains such even if the details aren't always accurate. It isn't a history book. And it never claims to be written by God, or to be "God's Word".

 

[jamie]

Semantics. Yes Moses didnt come from the line of Judah and thus wasn't a 'Jew' in that sense.

"Jew" is a biblical word used in the KJV.

"Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to make war; and they besieged Ahaz but could not overcome him.

Israel made war with the king of the Jews.

Pekah was an Israelite, but not a Jew.

 

[Bee1]

The mistake was in thinking that the Bible is "God's word" in the first place. It is odd to hear you blame the "Jews" for this- without them you wouldn't have a Bible. And Christians accepted the "scriptures", as you know.

Also- your use of the "F word" here is a no-no, even if you camouflage it. Expect to hear from the moderators when they wake up.

The bible is not God's word?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

 

[Bee1]

Calm down. This isn't a disaster- and if it was, it would be one for Christians as well ( remember " All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching...". The Bible is our holy ancient written traditions, and it remains such even if the details aren't always accurate. It isn't a history book. And it never claims to be written by God, or to be "God's Word".

Ok I agree Christianity is not doomed but where do you start in fact let's me clear my head on something. How and why did the Israelites be in Egypt in such numbers. As slaves from what conquest?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk