bfniii

that issue has been discussed in several other posts

bfniii

post #92



the hebrews might have been in egypt during the time of the hyksos. if there is a lack of history from that period available to us, then you might be overstating how "well-supported" the issue is.



i have been trying to get this point across to spin. it is entirely likely we just haven't found it yet. it is also quite possible that we may never find any such evidence, but that doesn't make the story untrue. we know very little about the exodus (path taken, sites of camps, which chronology). given the lack of information, it's no wonder evidence isn't overflowing.



that is certainly one possibility.



the question is what the original authors meant by the term. the term was flexible and had more than one meaning. i have trouble understanding why this issue is so hard to understand. we have similar occurrences in our own language. besides, i haven't denied any of the possibilities.

Sven

Then point me to the one where you give references for your claims. Otherwise, my point still stands.

I don't see how referring back to post #92 is relevant - this has been discussed extensively after this post and simply pretending that #92 is all there is to it is dishonest.

"Might" does not help you. Make your case (against virtually all scholars, Christians and others), or drop the point.

A lack of history from this period is entirely irrelevant since the time of the Hebrews was already determined to be several hundreds of years later. And please don't bother to reply to this, there are enough other posters who already explained this in great detail - take it up with them.

But so far, you've not provided an argument why we should have not found it, although we found lots of other traces of small encampments of other people.
Again: please don't bother to reply to this, there are enough other posters who already explained this in great detail - take it up with them.

[snip]

Which quite thoroughly refutes your attempt to make a connection to the time of the Hyksos. And which you - for some reason - don't have to address.

This was beaten to death in later posts which your replies have not yet reached. So please take your answer there and don't bother to reply to this.

bfniii

i disagree that it was dishonest. the reason why is because i have addressed why we may never find evidence of the exodus and what we do know from archaeology at this point. i will try to refrain from non-analogous wise cracks.

bfniii

i love it. some person just pops in to make a negative comment without even attempting to address all the points that i make. show a post that has no content and then (here's the key) show how it doesn't have any content, all without making any ad hominems.

bfniii

i disagree. let me make my point a different way: what would be evidence to you?



of course it's gradual. the alleged conquest didn't happen in one day.



there hasn't been one impossibility advanced so far. there are several difficulties mentioned, but that's totally different and i have not ignored one of them.



as i stated, i have discussed these issues at length. i have not once just stated "i disagree" without making some prior point.



in what way?

FatherMithras

So you can't read? I already did this near the beginning and middle of this freaking thread, and explained it here. The claims are unsubstantiated and are simply made up afterwords based on ad hoc explanations. I already went into detail abotu how no evidence suggests a sea of reeds or a chariot battle, or an exodus! Jesus tap dancing Christ, you might wanna READ my posts before you jump on ONE of them.

Gullwind

Nice dodge. Rather than point out the evidence you cited, you reverse the question. Okay, what the heck.

How about Egyptian texts referring to Hebrew slaves? How about extra-Egyptian records mentioning the events of the plagues? How about archaeological evidence supporting large numbers of people living for an extended time in the Sinai? How about findings supporting a military conquest of Canaan?

Sure, its possible that somehow we have missed finding all this evidence, but is that really likely? Expeditions have been raised specifically to find evidence supporting the exodus, and they failed. As I said before, when the state of evidence changes, I will re-evaluate my position. Until then, I feel justified in doubting the events happened.

Straw man. No one said it did. Archaeologically speaking, the conquest as described in the bible would be very rapid, and would leave evidence from very near the same time. The evidence found thus far shows "gradual" as in several hundred years.

Not being impossible does not equate to being probable.

The reasons for not accepting your solutions have also been discussed at length. Simply repeating your points does not constitute a rebuttal.

Let me rephrase. You have to ignore much of the generally accepted scholarship on the subject. You have demonstrated that you have no problem with this, but you have had little success justifying that position.

spin

Can we decided not to respond to bfniii? I mean, there is no dialogue with him. He doesn't answer questions in any reasoned sense. He doesn't use scholarship. He doesn't even respect the text of the bible, being willing to reneg common significances when they don't suit him, without his having any philological expertise. He will continue to move the goal posts so that he can't be pinned down. He will hedge his responses so he can't be pinned down. He will refer back to ill-formed responses as though they have not been responded to. What is to be gained in trying to reason with him? We are out of the realm of BC&H and into the realm of handholding. He's got another 75 posts to get through before he reads this one.


spin

cajela

OK, but I want to argue with you about the people carrying 27 tons of water and no underwear. Everybody know they didn't wear underwear. What a saving! Surely that must add heaps of space for extra water. :Cheeky: