Haran

Sauron, you are merely a rapier of rhetoric, sir, and cannot even make a flesh wound. My debates have never gone anywhere with you because you do not debate in the realm of truth, only rhetoric. I will no longer debate you. I know that frustrates you...sorry.

Buck Laser

My understanding of the Exodus has been that it was an event that people only began to appreciate and understand long after it happened. There are several oral (and perhaps written) traditions woven together in the Exodus account, suggesting that it emerged as a written document only after a long period of development. My own studies in the development of the Hebrew faith took place many years ago, and newer, more persuasive ideas may have emerged recently. But it is my understanding that the "Hebrews" only came to a sense of self-awareness or identification during the years in the wilderness. I think it reasonable to assume that as a group indentification coalesced, a number of traditions also came together, only to be reconciled with each other many centuries later. Furthermore, from the very beginning, there was a sense of contentiousness innate to the Hebrew faith that suggests that they perhaps never had a great sense of solidarity.

So my response to the question of whether or not there would be archeological artifacts of the Exodus would be that any evidence we may find of human presence during the Exodus period (which as I recall is subject to considerable debate) would be considered evidence of the exodus.

It should be clear from my comments that I am not a biblical literalist, but one who sees the biblical tradition as one that came together over a long period of time, and is still a valid object of historical inquiry. That's to say that there are no "givens" that anyone is force to accept as a sine qua non of biblical study.

Doug Shaver

Because he almost certainly thinks the world would be a better place if everybody believed it. (If he posts a clear and unambiguous assertion to the contrary, I'll gladly admit my error.)

My concern is not with the particular proposition, but with the method by which he justifies believing it. An ancient book says X happened, and nobody has conclusive proof that nothing like X happened, and that is all the reason anybody should need for believing that X certainly happened.

That kind of thinking is A Bad Thing, in my judgment.

Diogenes the Cynic

Hran, the strongest evidence against the Biblical Exodus is probably the complete lack of any archaeological indication that the Israelites were ever present at all (much less enslaved) in Egypt. The chances that Egypt could have eradicated all trace of their presence after 400 years is roughly analogous to the odds that the US could eradicate all traces of the fact that it engaged in the chattel slavery of Africans for 400 years.

In addition to that, we also have the complete lack of any Egyption linguistic influence on the Hebrew language. Hebrew arose from Canaanite. It actually arose AFTER the alleged time of the Exodus) without any sign of Egyptian influence at all. What language did the Israelites speak in Egypt? What language did Moses receive the commandments in? Hebrew didn't exist yet. Were the tablets in Canaanite? Egyptian?

Then there's the absence of any evidence in the Sinai. Kadesh-barnea is especially damning, regardless of your protestations about it. Additionally there is the evidence in Palestine itself which shows the Israelites emerging from the Canaanites in the southern highlands, remaining a constant presence (they never left) and never gaining any significant political or military power (no conquest of Canaan) until well after the Bible claims they did.

It's more than an absence of evidence, it's a question of the story not comporting at all with the evidence we do have.

Lugubert

Trying to pose as a linguist, I loved that quote.

Not only in what language, but in what script? And who could read them? And why and how was that reading/writing knowledge lost for ages? That's a question I often asked myself many years before discarding the Christian faith.

Haran

You should not speculate on my beliefs...that kind of thinking is a bad thing, in my judgement.

Haran

Look at the three, four, or five people who seem to be attempting to convince me of their views.... Should I speculate as to motives, or should you simply debate?

Haran

I love the negative spin in these posts... I won't address them all because they make so many poor assumptions, but I will address this one.

Prove to me that they excavated the Kadesh-Barnea.

Diogenes the Cynic

Do you have an alternate theory for the location of Kadesh-barnea other than where the Bible says it was?

Two million people camping ANYWHERE in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years would leave massive evidence which would be impossible to miss. Where is it?

John Kesler

Farrell Till has a series of articles dealing with the logistical impossibilities of the wilderness narrative. Go here and scroll to "Tall Tales of Wilderness Wanderings." Among the problems discussed are where roughly 3 million Israelites obtained enough wood for sacrifices and water for their needs and the needs of their animals. If an inerrantist posits that the Israelites bartered for such commodities with the riches that were "spoiled" from the Egyptians, or if the inerrantist suggests that God performed miracles to make sure that Israel had everything it needed (compare Deut. 29:5; Exodus 17; Numbers 20 et al), then out the window goes the excuse that because the Israelites were so strapped for resources, they had to slaughter the children of those whom they conquered as a form of "mercy killing." If God intervened to provide adequate resources for Israel, then he could have done so for the children of conquered people.