Brian and Buz: The Exodus Debate

But, when we go back 3500 years ago how do we know what was written about the past is relative to what actually did happen?We only have very limited information about ancient events, the biblical account of the Exodus as we have it is separated from the alleged event by as much as 1300 years and as little as a thousand. So, whoever wrote the Book of Exodus as we have it was free to write almost anything they wanted at the time as they were writing for a believing audience. It is only when critical scholarship began to examine the claims of the Book of Exodus that it was noticed that many, if not all, of the claims didn't happen.The time frame for the beginning of biblical criticism proper would be rougly after the Renaissance, when humanist and deist scholars highlighted the impossibilities of the account. Since then, apart from a breif period of optimism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the accuracy of the Exodus has steadily been proven untenable.I am really not sure what you are saying here, are you saying that something written about the past must have existing evidence from the past to support it? Products of the human mind in regard to the writing of history is a fact. The historian collects all his sources, sifts through them, includes some, excludes others nased on what the historian percieves as being plausible. All these processes take place in the human mind, therefore all histories are products of the human mind. There is no such thing as an objective history of anything. Yes. The puropse of the thread is to determine if the biblical account is plausible. I only have a slight problem with the first statement, but only because i'm not 100% sure what it means.Brian.

Well, the thing is Buz, to carry out an historical investigation we can only include things that we know either existed or still exist. No one has devised a way to examine a higher existence than what we experience, and to do an historical investigation the evidence has to be available for examination by all, the higher existence you refer to isn't accessible to all. Yes, but you are now leaving the realms of history writing and entering into philosophy, they are two different disciplines with essentially different approaches to the evidence. Philosophy thrives on uncertainty, history thrives on plausibility based on observable evidence.I took history and philosophy classes at uni Buz, and philosophy bends the mind purely because it doesn't really rule out any possibilities. History is different because you really need to demonstrate the plausibility of an event based on available evidence. Buz, you have just left the realms of historical investigation.For thousands of years people have been trying to prove or disprove the existence of god (s), neither has been acheived, and I don't think there's any way to prove either stance. If you wish to include an entity that may or may not exist in an historical investigation then you have lost the debate before it starts because God is beyond the scope of historical research.Think about it. The Sea of Reeds parts and a historian asks you how could that have happened, and you say "God parted the waters", the historian would then ask for evidence that this entity exists. You would have no other choice but to start trotting out the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The first cause argument, the design argument, the argument from conscience etc., the historian would then say "the philosophy department is down the corridor a bit".This is an investigation into the historical plausibility of the Exodus account, it is based on observable information, the X factor is not an answer. Are you saying that without the existence of God that the account of the Exodus, as written in the Hebrew Bible, is impossible? If you are going to use the "Godditit" routine everytime you come up against a difficulty then, again, you are not carrying out an historical investigation.The treatment of the Exodus as a history should not be treated any different from that of any other 'historical' event in any other text.Brian.

If we don't have significant corroborating evidence to verify, we can't, but if a reasonable amount of significant corroborating evidence is observed, we can be fairly confident that what is written is viable. 1. We have plenty of info. My job is to show a resonable amount of significant corroborating evidence to make it believable.2. All you seem to have of any significance for rebuttal is the timeframe. I'll say it again. The Egyptians were known to stretch out or otherwise juggle timeframes significantly from what I've read for one reason or another to suit whatever any given Pharoah's desire happened to be. There is also some less significant problems with Biblical dates. So on and on go the dating arguments.3. Imo, there's plenty of corroborating very solid evidence far more significant than timeframes, even if you go on those alone. These are visible whereas the date evidence is useless until something concrete is determined. We need to talk about these things that we can actually observe to determine why they happen to be there all in line, one corroborating the other's validity so far as the Biblical historical account goes. Once we have these itemized in our observable evidence data then we can debate these observable evidences as to whether they do indeed corroborate one another. It was scripture and scripture alone which led Wyatt to this site in the first place and not just some fishing expedition. Then to find these observable corroborating evidences exactly where scripture led him is certainly a significant cashe of evidence supportive of the Biblical account. Granted I could have said better, but what I ment to say is that written history should be verified by evidence that It happened as written. That, of course, is what the debate is about. If sufficient evidence is there, then one can asertain what happened in the past.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

1. The linguist scholars translated it as Red Sea in all the translations I'm aware of.2. The Bible clearly implies that Aqaba is part of the Red Sea, no matter what you want to call it. Why would Aqaba, which was part of the Red Sea be called a sea of reeds when there's no reeds in it? Back then it wasn't called Aqaba. It was considered one and the same as the Red Sea. See I Kings 9:26 for documentation. There Solomon's ships are written about on the Red Sea in the land of Edom which is the location of the Gulf of Aqaba.The wee hours are here in the Eastern US. Talk to you later, God willing.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I am sure that if you look at any modern day Bible you will either read "sea of reeds" or "Reed Sea" in the body of the text, or if the body of the text has "Red Sea" there will be a footnote indicated that informs you that it should read "Sea of Reeds".It is universally accepted that yam suph was a mistranslation, and here are some Bibles that support this:New International Version:Exodus 13:18 So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea.Footnote: Exodus 13:18 Hebrew Yam Suph; that is, Sea of Reeds Contemporary English Version: So he led them around through the desert and toward the Red Sea. Footnote: Red Sea: Hebrew yam suph " Sea of Reeds," one of the marshes or fresh water lakes, near the eastern part of the Nile Delta. This identification is based on Exodus 13.17--14.9, which lists the towns on the route of the Israelites before crossing the sea. In the Greek translation of the Scriptures made about 200 B.C., the " Sea of Reeds" was named " Red Sea." The problem was that the English translations were based on the Greek mistranslations and the error became embedded. It wasn't until 1962 that the Jewish Publication Society declared that Sea of reeds should be used instead of Red Sea. This is why we need to read each reference to "Red Sea" in context.
Of course if the sea of reeds has been mistranslated as Red Sea then these are going to be mixed up with the references to the real Red Sea, so we need to take the whole account into consideration. The Sea of Reeds transaltion was welcomed by Christian fundamentalist scholars because it solved a very real problem, namely that the Red Sea is too far away from Egypt to be the sea of the Exodus, plus the Red Sea does not fit in with the information given about the route taken by the Exodus group in the Bible. So, the Sea of Reeds is beneficial for Bible inerrancy. Because Sea of Reeds was erroneously translated as Red Sea, therefore the Red Sea was considered to be where the crossing was, but it created huge problems that the correct translation solves.That Aqaba has no reeds is a good reason to reject Wyatt's claim. He obviously wasn't that well educated regarding the Bible or archaeology and headed straight for the Red Sea, whereas he would have been better heading for the local library. So, why look for the crossing there when the Bible makes it clear that the crossing was in Egypt? Yes, Solomon's reference is to the Red Sea, because it is taken in context.Look at this passage:They left Pi Hahiroth and passed through the sea into the desert, and when they had traveled for three days in the Desert of Etham, they camped at Marah.They left Marah and went to Elim, where there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees, and they camped there.They left Elim and camped by the Red Sea. Notice that they pass through the sea, it doesn't say that they passed through the Red Sea. Then they travelled for 3 days, camped, travelled again, camped, travelled, and ONLY then did they arrive at the Red Sea. Now, if the same Hebrew words were used in both verses, why does one simply say "sea" and the other says "Red Sea"? How can they cross the Red Sea and then 5 days later arrive at the Red Sea?It doesn't work.Anyway, we are getting ahead of ourselves.If we both keep each other right about the use of sources then we can proceed on to the first issue.In my opinion it is best to work in sequential order and focus on one issue at a time, thus avoiding jumping all over the place and the clouding of the waters.With this in mind, it makes sense to begin with the evidence that we have Hebrews in Egypt during the time the Bible claims there were, which accoriding to 1 Kings 6:1, would be the mid 15th century BCE.Do you agree that this is the best place to begin?Brian.

No I don't for the reasons given above. This is about whether the discoveries pioneered by Wyatt and researched subsequently by others is what is described in the Biblical record which led him to discover what he found. These discoveries are the only visible/observable aspects of the debate. As I have reiterated over and over, the dating not verifiable and for that matter neither is the foreign settlement in Egypt as verifiable as the Exodus evidence. The debate is not about whether Israel was in Egypt perse. That has been debated in the past here and elsewhere on the internet with constituents of both hypotheses not budging on biased opinions. If one of us can reasonably substantiate our hypothesis on the route and interpretation of the visible evidence, the questionable dates and interpretation of the settlement in Egypt can be corroborated one way or the other and in fact become rather insignificant for the purpose of this debate.Imo, we need to first debate this reed sea/red sea matter. After all, if you can fully substantiate your argument on that, the debate is over. LOL! If you fail to do that, then we can debate the viability of the route and the reasons the scriptires led Wyatt to where the chariot debris was discovered.So if you can agree, I would like to proceed with my responses to your allegations about the sea.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

No, Buz it isn’t just about Wyatt’s ”discoveries’, this is about the historical viability of the events described in the Book of Exodus, of which Wyatt’s material may be used if you so wish, but the debate is not limited to those. Feel free to use Wyatt’s materials as we work our way through, but the debate is not solely a discussion of Wyatt’s evidence. Indeed they are not. There are many other sources that are, in my opinion, much more credible than Wyatt’s ”discoveries’. (The Anastasi Papyri for example)This is one of the problems with people who think that Wyatt provided solid evidence to support the Exodus, they think that there is nothing else to support it. This is mainly because Wyatt was unfamiliar with the evidence presented by academic scholars, he couldn’t critique these theories because he was patently unaware of them.So, no, this debate is not only about Wyatt’s discoveries, this debate is about the historicity of the Exodus account.Buz, proving one part of a story accurate in now way means that the entire story is accurate. Each incident has to be investigated on its own for accuracy, having a chariot wheel in the Red Sea does not mean that there were Israelites in Egypt, or even that there was an historical Moses. Buz, on any college or university history course I almost guarantee you that chronology is highlighted as the backbone of history. If you do not have a chronological framework then your research is pointless. These events need to be dated in order to see how they fit in with what we already know about the time period that they were supposed to occur in, how else can you look for evidence if you do not know from which period you are supposed to examine?As we are examining the historicity of the Exodus as given in the Bible, then we have a date in the Bible with which to work. 1 Kings 6:1 says it was 480 years before the 4th year of Solomon that the Exodus occurred. When correlated with the information from Babylonian Kings lists we thus have a date for the Exodus of 1446 BCE. This is the timeframe suggested by the Bible, the very source that you claim led Wyatt to Aqabah.If there is no evidence of Israelites in Egypt then how can you entertain the possibility that the Israelites left Egypt? It doesn’t make sense. Why look for evidence of a groups activity if you do not even know if the group existed or not? If you do not know if the group existed or not then the event under investigation may not have anything to do with who you think it did.So, logically, we need evidence of a group of Israelites in Egypt that could subsequently be the group that left Egypt. This shouldn’t be difficult Buz, we are looking for a group of two and a half million, much much more than the number of Egyptians that were there, so if the group isn’t verifiable then it is highly suspect that these numbers are accurate or that the claim is false. Buz, the Wyatt discoveries have also been discussed here and on the Internet, so what is the difference?I had hoped to look at the Book of Exodus, and then look at what we know from archaeology and comparative anthropology to discover if the events, all of the events, in the Book of Exodus are plausible. This is the aim of the discussion; it isn’t solely about Wyatt, although I know his work will feature a great deal. But, there is other evidence that has to be considered, as history never happens in a vacuum. So, correct me if I am wrong, you want to look for evidence that the Exodus account is plausible, then look for evidence of an Israelite settlement in Egypt, and if it cannot be found it doesn’t really matter because the exodus is plausible?Buz, for the Exodus to even get off the ground you need a group in Egypt in the first place. If you don’t have this then you run the risk of allocating a possible historical event (one of the many mentioned in Exodus) to a group that didn’t exist, and thus you rob another nation of their history.This is one of the main arguments against the forcing of archaeological destruction levels in Palestine on to the Joshua account. If the Joshua group didn’t exist, then another nation is being robbed of their past, they are not being allocated the history that they took part in.We are investigating the historicity of the Exodus account, we need to start at the beginning of that book, not away at chapter 13.If you wish to concede that you have no evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the mid 15th century, then we can move on to the next alleged historical event in the Book of Exodus.Let me know your decision.Brian.Edited by Brian, : Posting from work, cannot save to hard drive, updated draft post

You may have forgotten, but the first Exodus discussion/debate at EvC was when Buzsaw opened a thread about Moeller's Exodus Video of the Exodus in which the highlight was the chariot debris at the Nuweiba sand bar in the Gulf of Aqaba. Granted that doesn't mean that's where we need to work from, but given the extraordinary evidence is exactly where the Biblical record has it imo, it's the best place to begin. Why? Because there has to be some other explanation for chariots where the Bible indicates they should be if indeed the Exodus story is false.To begin with, you've already given your opinion on the location of the crossing and now you want me to leave off on a response while you go on to your other pet aspect which is the dating which we both agree that the Egyptians skewed to enhance their image in history. Imo, no matter what you come up with on dating, you still need to come produce another alibi for the chariot parts at the Nuweiba beach, the location of Mt. Sinai being in Arabia and other significant evidence supporting the Biblical record. I haven't followed all that's been covered on the Exodus. Has the Tempest Stele been discussed regarding the correleation of it to the Biblical scriptures concerning the Hyksos foreigners in Egypt? It appears to be something significant other than the Biblical record as to the presence of the Israelites in Egypt, who of course would not have been called Israelites.The following website has an interesting account of it in that regard. To read it, go to the following link and click Tempest Stele which is one of the highlighted links on it. I would be interested in your comments on it.The Israelite Exodus from Egypt - 27k He may have done more homework on these than you are aware of. That he doesn't mention them doesn't mean he wasn't aware of them. It would simply mean he may have rejected them as useful for his approach to researching the Exodus. He studied a lot and I'm sure he read up on all he could both pro and con on the Exodus. Fine, but imo, we need to begin with something more workable than the dating which could bog us down accomplishing little. Verifying dating, after all is a lot about whether certain events can be reasonably substantiated. 1. What ever did I say to make you think one part is all that is needed?2. One chariot wheel? Have you yet to view the video of Moeller's research and photos? Nor is the Egyptian account empirically verified. See above about the Tempest Stele. ......And of course, no college or university history course will factor in alternative evidence which supports anything supernatural. LOL. The Tempest Stele seems to lend support to that date. I believe the noted early historian, Josephus does as well. Correct me if mistaken. If you think you can verify that no evidence exists, you then still have your would cut out to debunk the observable corroborating evidence for the Biblical Exodus. And of course, they won't be called Israelites by Egyptians. They would be regarded as Caananites, likely the Hyksos. The Bible indicates that they had other peoples in their company as well. The Israelites who had humane guidelines regarding their foreign servants brought these folks along with them to Egypt and likely accumulated additional ones in their sojourn in Egypt. The Bible aludes to the foreigners among them. Fair enough, except that all of the events don't have the same amount of evidence for support. With these you work to corroborate with supportive data. That can work both ways. If you fail to refute significant aspects of the evidence there's a likelihood that some of your sources are flawed. And if you can't explain away significant visible evidence for what is written which you are denying concerning the nation's history you become the robber. Concede already? Me, Buzsaw? LOL. It's not going to be that easy for you, my friend. It appears we both have our work cut out, but dating has a lot to do with the factors to be debated and for that reason, imo it's not the place to begin. We need to assemble the data and see which dates are more compatible to the most plausible interpretation of the data observed, imo. Edited by Buzsaw, : To correct a name spelling.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

There are many other explanations, but just because the Bible records chariots being lost in the Reed Sea doesn't automatically link the two. Yes, in my OP, but we nned to focus on one aspect at a time or the debate is haphazard. I didn't say that the Egyptians skewed anything to do with dating. I said they enhanced their records, which every nation did. yes, which really should be done when we arrive at these events. But surely in any investigation you start at the beginning.Anyway, I am not going to bother with the rest of your post, as it is getting us no where.So we can get this debate moving, because it is stagnating, I will go along with what ever you decide to look at first.If I can suggest something it would be that you present just ONE aspect of the debate in order to focus discussion. For example, we could look at the Exodus route first, and then the chariot evidence, and not both at the same time.Brian.

Well you seemed to indicate that you wanted to debate the presence of the Israelites in Egypt so how about your take on the Tempest Stele relative to that?

But you indicated that you didn't.I am happy for you to decide where we are to begin. I just know that we should be starting with Israelites in Egypt because eventually we are going to have to deal with that issue. You see, you can argue all you want that the chariot wheels belong to the exodus event, but to substantiate this you will really need to show that there were Israelites in Egypt to take part in the Exodus. I was just trying to save time and effort. if you cannot prove that there were Israelites in Egypt then everything else is circumstantial and very weak.But, let me know where you wish to start, and if you would like me to present my arguments first or if you are prepared to write the first post on the issue you would like us to begin with.I am happy to go with your decision.Brian.

As I stated, the other corroborating evidence would lend credence to who those foreign Caananites were in Egypt. I've essentially already begun debating on this aspect of the account and waiting for some responses. For example, I've asked for your comments on the Tempest Stele in that regard and unless I missed it, still waiting. This relates directly to this mystery as to who the Hyskos really were. I've also stated that the Israelites would not have been called Israelites but Caananites or possibly another name such as Hyskos and received no response to that to my recollection. By the same token if you cannot prove that they weren't there I believe you will be hard pressed to refute all the other corroborating evidence that implicates their presence in Egypt, such as the chariots photographed in the sea, the real location of Mt. Sinai, et al.My apologies for the long delays in responses. It's a real busy time for other necessities but will do the best I can. Thanks for being patient.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

And the other ”corroborating’ evidence would only be valid if you could prove that there were Israelites in Egypt. If you don’t have Israelites in Egypt then the ”corroborating’ evidence cannot belong to them, thus it must belong to someone else. As I said, I am waiting to find out where you wish to begin the debate before I construct a post. I didn’t see any point in going into anything in detail if I was going to be told that you wish to start at the Red Sea episode. See above.Just let me know where you wish to begin and I will answer all your points. I don’t want to make a substantial post only for it to be unrelated to where you wish to begin.Let me know where you wish to begin and I will construct the opening post for that issue. I really don’t want to focus on multiple issues at the same time as this causes confusion. I’d rather work on one issue at a time until its conclusion. You cannot be serious Buz! How can I prove a negative? You are the one claiming that there was a huge group of Israelites in Egypt, the onus is on you to provide evidence that will support your claim. The burden of proof is always on the person who asserts a positive. I think it will be rather easy myself, but we shall have to wait and see. It is not a problem I am in no hurry.I am busy as well. I just got a 3-month contract at a local high school, plus my tutoring at uni starts next week, so I don’t exactly have a lot of free time at the moment.But, these issues, such as the Hyksos, are so mainstream that I dont really require much time to reply to them.Brian.

What do you mean, waiting? My understanding is that we start with whether the foreigners in Egypt were the Israelites, other Caananites or both. Why do you need to make another long message regarding your views. Why not begin your part of the debate by responding to the points I've made and questions I've posed? I believe it works best to take one or two points at a time and debate them rather than trying to cover a number of items at a time. I've told you that I want to discuss the Tempest Stele as per my link regarding who the foreigners in Egypt were. Would you like for me to bring up quotes from it for debate and discussion? You don't need to prove a negative, Brian. All you need to do is prove that the foreign residents of Egypt such as the Hyskos were some Caananites other than the Israelites. How so, when identification of the Hyksos were is paramount to whether the Israelites were in Egypt?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

What do you mean, waiting? My understanding is that we start with whether the foreigners in Egypt were the Israelites, other Caananites or both.From question 20:Brian: With this in mind, it makes sense to begin with the evidence that we have Hebrews in Egypt during the time the Bible claims there were, which accoriding to 1 Kings 6:1, would be the mid 15th century BCE.

​

Do you agree that this is the best place to begin?
In post 21 you said: No I don't for the reasons given above.So, you said you didn’t want to start at the same place as I do.
You were even more explicit later in the post when you said: Imo, we need to first debate this reed sea/red sea matter. You wanted to debate the Red Sea matter first.Now you never agreed to begin with the Israelites in Egypt, so I said I am not bothered where we begin, I just want to get started on something.Starting with Israelites in Egypt is the logical place to start, it is where any historian would begin. It helps to focus the debate. Plus, I may have other material that I wish to present. A good tactic for debate Buz is not to let your opponent see all your cards at the one time, you should always keep an ace up your sleeve. I will If that is where you wish to start. Your comments about the Red Sea led me to believe you wanted to start there. That is why I didn’t comment on the tempest stele and other points. I agree, as long as the one or two points refer to the same event. Well, if you wish to begin with the Israelites in Egypt, then I would like you to construct a post that outlines your evidence and why you believe it supports the biblical account. Now, if it is the tempest stele, I would expect an explanation of why you find this convincing. But Buz it is you who are claiming that the Hyksos MAY be the Israelites, the burden is on you to support this claim. Why do you think the Hyksos may have been the Israelites? This is the type of question you should be addressing in your hypothesis. Probably because the Hyksos/Israelite hypothesis was falsified over 80 years ago. If you study the Hyksos Buz, and look at the Exodus text, you will discover that the Hyksos were a group that were in an exact opposite position to that of the Israelites. But, I am sure we will cover this when we get there.I probably threw things off with my Red Sea comments, I apologise for this.Can we now agree then that the debate should begin with the evidence for Israelites in Egypt and you are going to present ALL (or as much as you can) evidence in a post that I will respond to?Brian.