Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

okay, perhaps that's correct. chariots considered, the sea itself might have been more than enough to trap them, geographically speaking. the point i was mostly intending to dispute was the difference between actually being trapped, and pharaoh merely thinking they were trapped.

---

אָרַח

But Exodus is quite clear on the nature of that "trap". The Israelites are instructed to go back, so that the Pharoah (wrongly) thinks that they dare not attempt to cross the wilderness and are "trapped" within Egyptian territory. There's simply no need to go beyond the text and talk about the battle site - or any particular location - at all.

PaulK writes: But Exodus is quite clear on the nature of that "trap". The Israelites are instructed to go back, so that the Pharoah (wrongly) thinks that they dare not attempt to cross the wilderness and are "trapped" within Egyptian territory. There's simply no need to go beyond the text and talk about the battle site - or any particular location - at all.

okay, yes, that's probably correct.

as i understand it, buzsaw isn't allowed to post until he gets actual evidence. or, at least, that's how he tells it. so he's responded to me in a PM, which i will now post here:

Buzsaw writes: Hi Arac... I am not allowed to post in the Exodus thread without additional evidence so I'm messaging you about this statement: quote: now, far be it from me to support buzsaw, but if you're looking for geological features, they should such that there would be no escape route. of course, i think he's looking entirely in the wrong place. One problem which you may not be considering is that the location that places were named after the assumption of the traditional Mt Sinai. Their location was determined on the credibility of the location of Mt Sinai. The Nuweiba cite topography along with the corroborating evidence and the statement in the NT about Mt Sinai being in Arabia fits the ticket much more efficiently than the traditional Mt Sinai. My understanding is that the penninsula itself was named on the assumption of the location of Mt Sinai.

this is not actually what i was talking about. the issues is that יַם-סוּף is read traditionally as "the red sea" we know today, but i'm not aware of any particular reason to think it actually means the red sea. even most literalist/fundamentalist readings make it the gulf of suez (or, iirc, for wyatt fans, the gulf of aqaba) which is much smaller than the red sea. but even this is quite out of the way for fleeing israelites. you'd be looking much further north, and to a body of water that almost certainly no longer exists.

I'm pleased that someone besides me, at least understands that they were deliberately entrapped by God so as to do in the Egyptian army for good. God wanted to make sure that they wouldn't be a problem to Moses et al later on. Buz

i think it's a little ambiguous. i do think god intentionally trapped them in a literal sense, but that this had more to do with the pursuing egyptians than with the geography.

---

אָרַח

What about the claims of this website:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Example:

quote:

---

Merneptah Stele

One of the most important discoveries that relate to the time of the Exodus is the Merneptah stele which dates to about 1210 BC. Merneptah, the king of Egypt, boasts that he has destroyed his enemies in Canaan. He states: Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; (ANET 1969, 378).The word "Israel" here is written in Egyptian with the determinative for people rather than land (ANET 1969, 378 note 18). This implies that Israel did not have a king or kingdom at this time. This would be the time of the judges. The text also implies that Israel was as strong as the other cities mentioned, and not just a small tribe. The south to north order of the three city-states may provide a general location for Israel. There is an interesting place named in Joshua 15:9 and 18:15, "well of waters of Nephtoah," that may be the Hebrew name of Merneptah. The well which is probably anachronistically named after Merneptah would be near Jerusalem. The Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi III contains "The Journal of a Frontier Official" which mentions this well. It says:Year 3, 1st Month of the 3rd Season, Day 17. The Chief of Bowmen of the Wells of Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat--life, prosperity, health!--which is (on) the mountain range, arrived for a (judicial) investigation in the fortress which is in Sile (ANET 1969, 258).Yurco has recently re-analyzed the Karnak battle reliefs, and has concluded that they should be ascribed to Merneptah and not Ramses II (1990, 21-38). There are four scenes which Yurco correlates with the Merneptah stele. One scene is the battle against the city of Ashkelon which is specifically named. Yurco argues that the other two city scenes are Gezer and Yanoam. He concludes that the open country scene must be Israel. Rainey rejects this view because it shows them with chariots and infantry (1990, 56-60). Lawrence Stager suggests that the small horses pulling the chariot belong to pharaoh's army as in the Ashkelon scene (1985, 58). Rainey thinks the Shasu are Israelites, but others identify the Shasu as Edomites (Stager 1985, 60). Both scholars Yurco and Rainey agree that these battle scenes are from Merneptah's reign (Yurco 1991, 61; Rainey 1992, 73-4; Hess 1993, 134). Before the discovery of the Merneptah stele scholars placed the date of the exodus and entry into Canaan much later. They are now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. Israel was big and strong enough to challenge Egypt in battle. This stele puts a terminus ante quem date of 1210 BC for the exodus (McCarter 1992, 132).

---

Does some of these claims count as evidence?

Does some of these claims count as evidence?

Evidence for what? Exodus?

They are now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. Israel was big and strong enough to challenge Egypt in battle.

Why?

quote:

---

While the other defeated Egyptian enemies listed besides Israel in this document such as Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam were given the determinative for a city-state—"a throw stick plus three mountains designating a foreign country"—the hieroglyphs that refer to Israel instead employ the determinative sign used for foreign peoples: a throw stick plus a man and a woman over three vertical plural lines. This sign is typically used by the Egyptians to signify nomadic tribes without a fixed city-state, thus implying that ysrỉꜣr "Israel" was the demonym for a seminomadic or rural population at the time the stele was created

---

Source

There are also some alternative translations of this stele.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Also there is no indication that Israel was big or strong or a nation. Canaan and the other folk mentioned (and it is actually just a couple lines at the end, almost an after thought) are all just little city states ruled by a minor war lord.

In addition it is not from the same time as the Exodus.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

Why?

---

I don't know, I'm not a scholar who can at least attempt to answer that. I prefer to defer to the scholars and experts on the matter.

Regarding this from Buzsaw in his PM to you:

Buzsaw writes: I am not allowed to post in the Exodus thread without additional evidence...

This is untrue. I said nothing about additional evidence. Here is a quote from my last post to Buzsaw in this thread in Message 472:

Admin writes: I requested that you collect your evidence into a single post because you kept claiming you had described a lot of evidence. To repeat this claim yet again while continuing to ignore my request is not very good form. Your pattern has become this: post evidence that no one accepts and everyone questions, then stop responding to arguments and just claim you've already posted the evidence. The strong possibility that your Coffee House thread proposal would follow a similar course is a good part of the reason AdminPD declined to promote it. Please refrain from posting to this thread again unless it is to describe your evidence.

When Buzsaw is prepared to comply with my request that he gather the evidence he's claimed he already presented in this thread into a single post then he is free to resume participation. Until that time I would prefer that he no longer post to this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Show me the scholars that believe that

Israel was big and strong enough to challenge Egypt in battle.

Your link does not show any source that has presented this. I tend to question what is posted an apologist sites. Show me the evidence. The stele says no such thing.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

In Message 175 I listed what I considered supportive evidence for the Exodus event. Some, if not all on the list have been rejected as non-evidential by both Admin and other counterparts.

Thus, when Admin called for another list, I assumed that what Admin really wanted was something acceptable to him and/or other counterparts in this debate which would needs be additional evidence.

Message 175 list:

quote:

---

Duck 1. The Biblical record of the Exodus said that when they reached the sea they were entrapped with the pursuing Egyptians pursuing via the only route in, implying a wadi in a narrow passage through rugged terrain.

Duck 2. While at the sea shore there needed to be a large enough beach to accommodate a large number of people and animals. Nuweiba beach and it's surrounding terrain fits the ticket.

Duck 3. The alleged crossing was the most shallow part of the sea where they were entrapped.

Duck 4. Photographed forms in the shapes of wheels and axles off the beach on the sea bottom.

Duck 5. A split rock where water flowed from meeting the description of the record.

Duck 6. The record says they were in the land of Midian after the crossing...

Duck 7 ..where Mt Sinai was according to the record.

Duck 8. The top of the mountain was miraculously burnt by an act of God. Acclaimed Mt Sinai has a blackened top.

Duck 9. Moses encounters the father of his wives in the land of Midian, according to the record.

Duck 10. A blacked top mountain acclaimed by explorers not to be volcanic, meeting the location of the record.

Duck 11. Rock inscriptions of bulls horses or cows indicative to occupation at some time by people at the base of the mountain.

Duck 12. A large plain at the foot of the mountain suitable for a sojourn for the large assembly and where they worshiped the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the commandment stones. etc.

---

There has been debate about the entrapment which amounted to arguing about the Biblical description of the circumstances which the befell them. Arachophilia and Jar have dialogged further on that account. Jar brought up images of the shore area near the traditional Mt Sinai. It would have been easier to escape that region than Nuweiba, especially given the Egyptians had chariots to reckon with.

Objections were aired about the shallows at Nuweiba. I offered possible scenarios on that, including the erosive energy of the released walls of water rushing back upon the relatively soft sandbar, which was essentially a delta formed from the canyon at some time (imo, by the Noaic flood) but nevertheless a canyon delta which would not likely have produced a hardened delta, If the Noaic flood formed it, the forming of it was relatively recent to that time If not recently formed, it would still be more easily eroded than the rocky shores of that region.

Nuweiba, so far as I can ascertain, is the most doable topographical area of the Red Sea for a crossing. No reasonable area of the main body of the Red sea having any corroborative evidence exists.

As to the blackened mountain, there was some question about what gave the mountain the dark appearance. The fact remains that there is a dark topped mountain in the right secession of ducts corroborating my acclaimed evidences.

The inscriptions were debatable as well.. The fact remains that they, likewise, were of hoofed animals indicative of some activity in the region and positioned at the right corroborative location.

The land of Midian is debatable, but again, the corroborating evidence favors Arabia.

Lennart Moller's reputation and credentials seem to indicate that he was not an impostor. There was too much at stake for him to risk his academic credibility. I maintain that secularist researchers do not have a vested interest in researching Nuweiba since it involves the supernatural.

I consider the Mollar research as the core evidence to build upon with the corroborative support.

The split rock has the appearance of a sudden severance compatible with the Exodus account. Jar produced images of creek bed smooth round rocks in his feeble attempt to debunk the water-flow area below the split rock. I countered that a shattered rock would not produce smooth rounded rocks at the base of the crack. There is a leveled bed of fractured pieces leveled so as to indicate a water-flow at the base of the crack. Likely the flow did not last long enough to round off or smoothen the shattered pieces which exist there.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Buzsaw writes: Objections were aired about the shallows at Nuweiba. I offered possible scenarios on that....

You haven't offered any explanation as to why God would require shallows.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

To sum up more accurately:

It was shown that Buz's "Biblical description" of the site was nothing of the sort. This is only "debatable" in Buz's idiosyncratic usage, which is merely a refusal to accept the truth.

It was shown that the claim of a shallow crossing at Nuweiba was a falsehood, spread by the supporters of Ron Wyatt - in fact this had been covered thoroughly in earlier discussions, so Buz had no reason to repeat it. And I need hardly point out that a purely hypothetical sandbar is NOT evidence.

It has not been shown that Nuweiba is the best site at all, indeed there has been little discussion of alternatives.

The dark-topped mountain (to call it blackened begs the question) has not been shown to
be of any great significance. Without strong corroborating evidence, it is worthless.

There is nothing whatsoever linking the petroglyphs to the Exodus, therefore they are not evidence of the Exodus. This is not debatable either.

There has been no evidence presented that the Biblical Mount Sinai is in Midian. This point is therefore not evidence, either.

Moller's credibility IS hurt by his book - as has been shown here. Not that he has any reputation in archaeology to lose anyway. This point merely shows why argument by authority is considered a fallacy.

The final point about the rock is also silly. We have the usual ignorance of the Bible - there is no mention of the rock splitting at all. We also have an ignorance of geology - water flow would round the angular fragments, thus the presence of these fragments shows evidence against water flowing there. And without evidence of water flow, we have no connection to the Exodus. A split rock alone is not evidence.

Hi Buz,

Thank you for collecting the evidence you've presented thus far in this thread into a single message, Message 506. We're going to call this your reference message. From here on in when you claim that you've already presented evidence, this is the message in which people must be able to find that evidence. If the evidence isn't in this message then that means you haven't presented the evidence yet. For instance, you say, "Objections were aired about the shallows at Nuweiba. I offered possible scenarios on that...", but the scenarios are not in this message. Therefore you must describe these scenarios if requested, instead of claiming you've already presented them.

PaulK replied in message Message 508 and briefly touched on a number of issues. To help move the discussion forward I would like to focus discussion on a single issue at a time, the first being the burnt top of Mount Sinai. You do not describe any evidence in your reference message Message 506 that the mountain you claim is Mount Sinai has a burnt top. Please present this evidence.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

gona try and compare your evidence with another story

Duck 1. The Biblical record of the Exodus said that when they reached the sea they were entrapped with the pursuing Egyptians pursuing via the only route in, implying a wadi in a narrow passage through rugged terrain.

The legend of King Matjaž says that after saying im such a good king i could beat god in battle god opened the heavens and sent his army and King Matjaž cried mountain Peca open up and hide me implying the mountain Peca witch has lots of holes to hide in.

Duck 2. While at the sea shore there needed to be a large enough beach to accommodate a large number of people and animals. Nuweiba beach and it's surrounding terrain fits the ticket.

Wile the mountin had to be large enough for King Matjaž and his army to hide under mount peca fits the bill perfectly

Duck 3. The alleged crossing was the most shallow part of the sea where they were entrapped.

The mountain is riddled with caves they could have hidden in it from any side

Duck 4. Photographed forms in the shapes of wheels and axles off the beach on the sea bottom

You can clearly see the shape of a mans face on mount peca and you can find lots of weapons and stuff lying around mount peca (or anywhere in Slovenia )

Duck 5. A split rock where water flowed from meeting the description of the record.

A formation of stalagmites and stalactites that have verry close resemblance of king matjaž and his beard which hasto grow around a table 7 times before he awakes again can be see under mount peca

Duck 6. The record says they were in the land of Midian after the crossing...

The legend says that he was in front of mount peca at the time.

Duck 7 ..where Mt Sinai was according to the record.

And mount peca is still there today

Duck 8. The top of the mountain was miraculously burnt by an act of God. Acclaimed Mt Sinai has a blackened top.

Mount peca has some strange properties and lots of voodo mumbo jumbos and lots go to certian places there for healing and stuff

Duck 9. Moses encounters the father of his wives in the land of Midian, according to the record.

King matjaž was awakened for a brief moment by a stranger so the legend says but he went back to sleep until his beard grows long enough that it can go around a table 7 times so the legend says.

Duck 10. A blacked top mountain acclaimed by explorers not to be volcanic, meeting the location of the record.

Mount peca is not volcanic either

Duck 11. Rock inscriptions of bulls horses or cows indicative to occupation at some time by people at the base of the mountain.

Actual swords and armor and tools and stuff have been found around the mountain

Duck 12. A large plain at the foot of the mountain suitable for a sojourn for the large assembly and where they worshiped the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the commandment stones. etc.

Lots of caves under the mountain are suttible for hiding a large army.

All this means that the Legend of King Matjaž is true and the fact that there is no other record except the legend of him anywhere is just more proof of his exsistance cause who would write about a king that beaten everyone else in battle that notion is just absurd.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning