Did Exodus Really Happen? Most likely NOT

Krazysh0t

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Those were not the examples and I am a she.

Please elaborate on what you mean here. And sorry, I just use the word he when I don't know someone's gender. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

This is going to fast for me I need a break.
We are not going to solve anything, lol

I am just stating that after years of studying this I think the evidence point to an Exodus, that's my opinion

bbl

Krazysh0t


Is is OK to call your father (or anyone else) father?

NO

Matthew 23:9

And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

YES

Exodus 20:12

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 5:16

Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Ephesians 6:2

Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise

2 Kings 2:12

And Elisha saw [it], and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

2 Kings 6:21

And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite [them]? shall I smite [them]?

1 John 2:13-14

I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

Just a moment of word comparison will sort this out very easy. You can use blue letter bible, gives you the original meanings in Greek and Hebrew.

In the case of Jesus saying "call no man your father" he was referring to the Pharisees and Sanhedrin loving to be called farther as a notification of their greatness and social standing. Jesus is attacking the official word there, position like calling a priest "father" not anything like calling your dad father.

It also has to do with the way these officials passed themselves off as "fathers" of the nation to the point were the held sway over everything. Jesus is just pointing out to the people that God is their father, not these dipsticks.

As far as Elisha calling Elijah father its used in a teacher student relationship there. Just a show of respect from one prophet to another and not some violation of disrespect to the Almighty. Besides this, these two men were under bound to each other and under a separate dispensational standing than what Jesus was referring to and so nothing like some violation of a prime directive was being used here. And you can bet it was nothing like what the Sanhedrin demanded of their charges. The use of the word father to describe themselves, the Sanhedrin, was held to be totally bogus to Jesus.

As far as what John was talking about, he is simply using the word father/sons as a note to the relationship between the two. Very simple use of the word and does not connote anything of spiritual significance that would challenge gods authority as father. Not even close to what Jesus was talking about in his references to the Sanhedrin.

At one point the leaders attack Jesus about Abraham being their father. To this Jesus says trumps them by saying that HE was Abrahams father on a higher level. To this response they wanted to kill Him but settled on calling Him a bastard of uncertain origin. What we see here is the depth of corruption this paternal fatherhood thing had become. Jesus had to attack it but it has nothing to do with calling your dad father.

Stormdancer777

Krazysh0t

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Those were not the examples and I am a she.

Please elaborate on what you mean here. And sorry, I just use the word he when I don't know someone's gender. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

This is going to fast for me I need a break.
We are not going to solve anything, lol

I am just stating that after years of studying this I think the evidence point to an Exodus, that's my opinion

bbl

Oh common storm! You're and old hand. Pull up those sleeves and carry on.

reply to post by Logarock


Ok, maybe that contradiction wasn't the best one (I did just click randomly). I'll chalk it up to bad translations. Here is one I actually reviewed before giving to you.

How long does God's anger last?

Keep in mind, I have to just find one good contradiction to prove my point. You need to refute every single one for your claim of the bible being a decent source of information to hold up.

Logarock

Stormdancer777

Krazysh0t

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Those were not the examples and I am a she.

Please elaborate on what you mean here. And sorry, I just use the word he when I don't know someone's gender. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

This is going to fast for me I need a break.
We are not going to solve anything, lol

I am just stating that after years of studying this I think the evidence point to an Exodus, that's my opinion

bbl

Oh common storm! You're and old hand. Pull up those sleeves and carry on.

I'm stressed out, lol

I have to take a break,

opopanax

Logarock
Hardly any of these so called contradictions are even germane to the issue at hand and otherwise a stretch.

The issue, as I see it, is the overall credibility of a source that apparently contains internal contradictions. A similar issue arises from the interpretation of certain parts of the text as being metaphorical, allegorical, or symbolic. If some passages aren't meant to be taken literally, how can one be sure which of the others are meant to be taken literally?

It is all supposed to be taken literally. Even the meanings of the allegorical and symbolic were to be applied literally.

We all use allegory and symbolic speech everyday. One may say "wow that guy has his head up his azz". It will take a child a few times or longer to figure this out if they hear it on a regular basis.

So im just like... a piece of dirt?

No one talks to kitty anymore?

WtF?

reply to post by Logarock


Sorry but what you are describing is a metaphor and metaphors aren't taken literally, ever.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Those aren't contradictions. But really, this thread has gotten WAY off topic. If you want an explanation you might be better served by PMing me.

This thread is about the validity of the exodus account, not the validity of the entire bible. Interesting Exodus discussion has gotten severely buried by now.

In an attempt to get back on topic....

It is perfectly reasonable for a non-believer to not take into account some of what the bible says about the exodus account as a reason there is lacking archeological evidence. For example, the issue of the shoes and clothes not wearing out for the wanderers. That's a good reason for there not being artifacts littering the desert, but since it is the result of a miracle I understand a person not accepting it. What I do find confusing, however, is when someone claims to believe in God and sees a miracle as folklore and doesn't accept it as at least a possible explanation for why there aren't a thousand artifacts littering the Arabian desert.

But really, aside from that, there are many valid reasons for why there isn't a ton of evidence of the wandering. Even if artifacts were left, they'd be sitting in an area that was in proximity to the site of many ancient battles. Traveling armies were running all through the place. People pick stuff up. People destroy things. And sometimes things are buried and simply not yet found.

As for evidence in Egypt proper, the idea that Egyptians were excellent note takers is NOT valid evidence. It's based on an assumption that is based on a small sampling of ancient texts and stone carvings. You can't say "THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED" as an argument when so much in Egypt hasn't been found. There is no way of knowing that the account of the Egyptian army falling in the red sea is simply on a text that hasn't been discovered. And you can't say with certainty that it'd be recorded at all when it's known fact that the Egyptians loved to ignore failings, going so far as to remove histories from their records at times.

Also, there are certainly Pharaohs around the time of the Exodus that left Egypt at the height of its power, which is not consistent with the escape of slaves and the nature of the plagues, BUT that is not the case with all "Pharaoh of the Exodus" candidates. The exact date of the Exodus is unknown and only approximate. You move in a certain direction a hundred years or so and things are very different. Akhenaten, for example, left his kingdom in a terrible state and his rule is marked by plagues. Then take a look at another "Pharaoh of the Exodus" candidate, Thutmose III. His successor, Amenhotep II was not his first born and there's this little diddy from bible archeology.

The renowned conqueror Thutmose III led 17 military campaigns into the Levant, but his son—in stark contrast—led only two or three. While many scholars have attempted to determine the exact number, there exists a virtual dearth of discussion about this sharp decline.

This is all circumstantial evidence. But claiming a lack of evidence as proof is also circumstantial. So there you go.

Akragon
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Actually for the most part its pretty obvious... though perhaps im just used to reading scripture...

Like... adam and eve... obviously its a "dubious" story... a talking snake or donkey? Really?

Well Creationists tend to disagree with you here.

It really depends on who the "speaker" is... and in some cases who the writer or narrator is... or is supposed to be...

Does it now? I would think that a text of history (even of a supernatural nature) shouldn't depend on who is speaking, but if it was true or not.

I wasn't actually saying God cloned Eve, it was just a general statement... perhaps in the "ancient alien" theory it might apply though...

The story of Adam and Eve is just that.... a story...

At no point in the earths history were there just One woman, and one man... it makes no sense

edit on 8-11-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Of course it doesn't make sense, because it isn't true. Look, you can't just pick and choose what stories from the bible are true or not. If you discount all the supernatural elements in the bible as untrue, many stories that are claimed to be true, fall apart. They develop HUGE plotholes. Let's go full circle (and consequently back on topic) and talk about the Exodus here.

In Exodus, you have Moses talking to God in a burning bush. He turns his scepter into a snake in front of the pharaoh. Since the plagues could be argued as natural occurrences (albeit rare ones), we'll skip that one. Moses parts the Red Sea. Moses ascends a mountain, talks to God again and comes down with some commandments (which are eerily similar to the code of Hammurabi).

For my example, let's talk about parting the Red Sea. If you discount the supernatural here, how do Moses and the escaped slaves cross successfully without boats while eluding and escaping the pursuing Egyptians? The story falls apart here. There is no other explanation on how they got across except that he literally parted the Red Sea. If you do accept the supernatural here, why is ok to accept the supernatural here, but NOT for the creation myth? Again it doesn't make sense.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock

 

Sorry but what you are describing is a metaphor and metaphors aren't taken literally, ever.

The implied meaning is.

AHerald
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Those aren't contradictions. But really, this thread has gotten WAY off topic. If you want an explanation you might be better served by PMing me.

This thread is about the validity of the exodus account, not the validity of the entire bible. Interesting Exodus discussion has gotten severely buried by now.

The discussion arose from the idea that you cannot take the bible as a primary or secondary source of information and I was demonstrating why. Since the Exodus account is directly obtained from reading the bible, the discussion we were having about the contradictions was partially pertinent. I do admit, we did get a little side tracked about it and will let it die though.

In an attempt to get back on topic....

It is perfectly reasonable for a non-believer to not take into account some of what the bible says about the exodus account as a reason there is lacking archeological evidence. For example, the issue of the shoes and clothes not wearing out for the wanderers. That's a good reason for there not being artifacts littering the desert, but since it is the result of a miracle I understand a person not accepting it. What I do find confusing, however, is when someone claims to believe in God and sees a miracle as folklore and doesn't accept it as at least a possible explanation for why there aren't a thousand artifacts littering the Arabian desert.

So your answer to why there are no artifacts testifying to this mass exodus of people is because God magiked them away? That seems pretty silly to me, I mean why wasn't this mentioned in the bible? The Exodus talks about every other little thing that happened to the Jews, why not God magiking away the evidence of the Exodus?

But really, aside from that, there are many valid reasons for why there isn't a ton of evidence of the wandering. Even if artifacts were left, they'd be sitting in an area that was in proximity to the site of many ancient battles. Traveling armies were running all through the place. People pick stuff up. People destroy things. And sometimes things are buried and simply not yet found.

Not likely. Just because armies may have marched through the area doesn't mean they would have picked up EVERY piece of evidence of this move through the desert. Besides there should be evidence for things like campfires, holes dug to support temporary structures, burials, and more things that aren't valuable to people passing through the area. We should be able to find one campsite and be able to move to the next, just off of this stuff alone. We are talking about 600,000+ people here. It should be pretty easy to find these things.

As for evidence in Egypt proper, the idea that Egyptians were excellent note takers is NOT valid evidence. It's based on an assumption that is based on a small sampling of ancient texts and stone carvings. You can't say "THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED" as an argument when so much in Egypt hasn't been found. There is no way of knowing that the account of the Egyptian army falling in the red sea is simply on a text that hasn't been discovered. And you can't say with certainty that it'd be recorded at all when it's known fact that the Egyptians loved to ignore failings, going so far as to remove histories from their records at times.

So 600,000 slaves up and leave the country and the country in question shows no economic hardship or records this? Going by the emancipation in this country, there should have been a MASSIVE recession after losing 600,000 slaves all at once. Yet there is no mention of this. Of course that is provided the Egyptians even used the Jews as slaves, which there is also no record of. In fact records are indicating that freemen during growing offseasons built the pyramids (the things that the slaves are attributed to having been used to build)

Also, there are certainly Pharaohs around the time of the Exodus that left Egypt at the height of its power, which is not consistent with the escape of slaves and the nature of the plagues, BUT that is not the case with all "Pharaoh of the Exodus" candidates. The exact date of the Exodus is unknown and only approximate. You move in a certain direction a hundred years or so and things are very different. Akhenaten, for example, left his kingdom in a terrible state and his rule is marked by plagues. Then take a look at another "Pharaoh of the Exodus" candidate, Thutmose III. His successor, Amenhotep II was not his first born and there's this little diddy from bible archeology.

The renowned conqueror Thutmose III led 17 military campaigns into the Levant, but his son—in stark contrast—led only two or three. While many scholars have attempted to determine the exact number, there exists a virtual dearth of discussion about this sharp decline.

This is all circumstantial evidence. But claiming a lack of evidence as proof is also circumstantial. So there you go.

The bolded sentence is all that needs to be said about this last point. However, I don't see the lack of the other evidence as circumstantial. We are talking about the migration of a population the size of a medium sized city. A group of people that large doesn't just up and move about without leaving some sort of markings on the land.

Logarock

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock

 

Sorry but what you are describing is a metaphor and metaphors aren't taken literally, ever.

The implied meaning is.

I can't believe you are forcing me to do this, but here:

dictionary.reference.com...

lit·er·al [lit-er-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2.
following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3.
true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4.
being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5.
(of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

There is no way you can take the implied meaning of something literally. That is counter to what the word literal means.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Egyptian scribes, as part of official policy, were well known for destroying information and history to cover one thing or another. We certainly cant expect them to faithfully record a negative interaction with a God that made their entire belief structure look like pure apis bull crap..

I mean Horus never rose up out of the desert in his ship to take on this Hebrew god. The Kings mighty army, the greatest in the world were smashed up. Ra couldn't do squat. And the death of every first born....who wants to remember that when the living god king has his won son killed. Yea, they are going to erase all that and ascribe any unpleasantness to the explanation that their own gods were angry with them.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Well Creationists tend to disagree with you here.

Are they not free to do so?

Does it now? I would think that a text of history (even of a supernatural nature) shouldn't depend on who is speaking, but if it was true or not.

Well considering its not all a "text of history"... and only one person was considered "the truth"...

Of course it doesn't make sense, because it isn't true.

I didn't say it was... I only offered an explanation to said passages...

Look, you can't just pick and choose what stories from the bible are true or not.

yes I can... I don't subscribe to the "All or Nothing" theory... thanks though

If you discount all the supernatural elements in the bible as untrue, many stories that are claimed to be true, fall apart. They develop HUGE plotholes. Let's go full circle (and consequently back on topic) and talk about the Exodus here.

In Exodus, you have Moses talking to God in a burning bush. He turns his scepter into a snake in front of the pharaoh. Since the plagues could be argued as natural occurrences (albeit rare ones), we'll skip that one. Moses parts the Red Sea. Moses ascends a mountain, talks to God again and comes down with some commandments (which are eerily similar to the code of Hammurabi).

For my example, let's talk about parting the Red Sea. If you discount the supernatural here, how do Moses and the escaped slaves cross successfully without boats while eluding and escaping the pursuing Egyptians? The story falls apart here. There is no other explanation on how they got across except that he literally parted the Red Sea. If you do accept the supernatural here, why is ok to accept the supernatural here, but NOT for the creation myth? Again it doesn't make sense.

And we're talking about the OT here...

Apparently you don't realize I don't take any of it as anything more then a great story... I guess you missed that part...

Why not though, everyone else is ignoring me

reply to post by AHerald


I enjoy your post keep um coming

reply to post by Logarock

I mean Horus never rose up out of the desert in his ship to take on this Hebrew god.

He did however turn sticks into snakes...

Ex. 7:12
For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

Akragon
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Are they not free to do so?

Well see that is the problem. The bible is so subjective, that anyone can pick and choose what they want to believe and what they don't want to believe. This is fine as a book of religion (I guess...), but as a source of history not so much.

Well considering its not all a "text of history"... and only one person was considered "the truth"...

It's not? Could have fooled me. I was always under the impression that it is a religious book documenting first the history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God then the history of some wise man.

I didn't say it was... I only offered an explanation to said passages...

Fair enough

yes I can... I don't subscribe to the "All or Nothing" theory... thanks though

Well I guess you can do that when dealing with a book with little to no historical evidence corroborating it. But I guess following along those lines, I could just as easily do the same with the works of Zacharia Sitchen. "Well I like the Ancient Alien theory, but I don't like that whole Niburu thing, so Niburu is fake but AA's are true." It may drive you up a wall, but the all or none theory is EXACTLY how you should approach the bible. It is claimed to be the word of God afterall. Not sure why you'd think God would lie to you in his holy book (which would be the case if you disbelieve parts of the bible). Though considering his past acts, I would guess lying would be right up his alley too.

But this raises the question, if He lied to you in the OT, what makes you think He isn't lying to you in the NT?

And we're talking about the OT here...

Apparently you don't realize I don't take any of it as anything more then a great story... I guess you missed that part...

Why not though, everyone else is ignoring me

edit on 8-11-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Hey, I apologize for originally missing your post, but there are quite a few religious people responding to me. I try to get everyone I can, but I can miss some too, please don't suggest that I'm ignoring you.

Logarock
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Egyptian scribes, as part of official policy, were well known for destroying information and history to cover one thing or another. We certainly cant expect them to faithfully record a negative interaction with a God that made their entire belief structure look like pure apis bull crap..

I mean Horus never rose up out of the desert in his ship to take on this Hebrew god. The Kings mighty army, the greatest in the world were smashed up. Ra couldn't do squat. And the death of every first born....who wants to remember that when the living god king has his won son killed. Yea, they are going to erase all that and ascribe any unpleasantness to the explanation that their own gods were angry with them.

That would be fine if you look at the evidence in a vacuum. Though there is more then just a lack of Egyptians documenting the plagues that raises the question if this happened. First the Jews were supposed to be slaves, where is the documentation of a large economic downturn after 600,000+ slaves up and disappeared (regardless if the Egyptians acknowledged the Hebrew God and the plagues, they'd definitely notice a population decrease of that magnitude even down to the peasant level).

What about the documentation to even corroborate that the Jews were slaves to begin with? Certainly the Egyptians would have documented their slave population even before all this went down. What about all the evidence to suggest that the pyramids weren't built by slaves but by freemen laboring during planting offseasons?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


You know yourself being well educated, that those contradictions are
only in the details and really are meaningless, compared to the volume of
work that corroborates itself transcription after transcription. And they
have no bearing at all, at any time, on the truth of what ever given
story or lesson of history you read.

For instance, one of the greatest truths the hum,an could ever learn,
is found in the Bible and is never contradicted. Just a short example,
suited for this venue would be 1st Tmothy 6: 10

" For the love of money, is the root of all evil "

The message is clear and concise. And brings the absolute inarguable
truth to bare and I'm sorry, but we need to realise it to this day.
Not knit pic as knit witz a great example of ancient literature.
Because, as I have thought about the above passage quite a lot.
I've realised something. That the passage is also a key that can
unlock the chains of power and equality among all men. No not by
magic.

You simply have to realise the scope of the truth it involves.
The fact that most humans fail to see this simple truth and realise
we don't need this system of currency. That only consolidates
power to generations of wicked tyrants. As per it's true purpose.
Is as I see it, the greatest and most powerful secret, " The wicked "
possess. And yet it is truly their Achilles heel. Imagine the world of
Evil that disappears if we just stop using the money system they
employed ?
I digress and apologise for doing so.

reply to post by Logarock


Thanks for the link rock.