Why do so many accept that Genesis is fictional, but believe Exodus is historical?

[Spartan]

There is absolute nothing in the archaeological record to indicate that a large number of Hebrews was ever in Egypt, that those people were slaves, or that a large number of people traveled across Sinai and invaded Canaan. Nothing. Period.

Yes, there is evidence for the Exodus.

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

 

[Spartan]

An interesting quote about Noah's Ark:

"The remains of the Ark (of Noah) can be seen to this day in the Arabian mountains." - Theophilus.

Theophilus was the 2nd century Bishop of Antioch. Source: Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, by David Bercot, referencing Volume 2, page 117 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, there is evidence for the Exodus.

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

Nope.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Simply, there is a TON of objective evidence to support that Genesis 1-3 cannot be historical, while there is no evidence one way or the other regarding the Exodus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simply, there is a TON of objective evidence to support that Genesis 1-3 cannot be historical, while there is no evidence one way or the other regarding the Exodus.

There's archaeological evidence against a historical Exodus.

 

[pearl]

There's archaeological evidence against a historical Exodus.

I heard a Rabbi state that Exodus was not considered history until the twelfth chapter, until then all was pre-history.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I heard a Rabbi state that Exodus was not considered history until the twelfth chapter, until then all was pre-history.

That's the first time I've heard that interpretation, but even that doesn't line up with the evidence.

From what I've read, the idea that an outside group - the Israelites - came in and displaced another indigenous group - the Canaanites - is incompatible with the archaeological record, which shows continuous, incremental change and not an abrupt change in the type and style of artifacts we would expect if the Exodus actually happened as described.

One hypothesis I've heard is that the Israelites emerged from the indigenous Canaanite population, then retconned their origin story.

 

[Spartan]

There's archaeological evidence against a historical Exodus.

There's archaeological evidence FOR the Exodus. Here's part of it.

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

 

[pearl]

One hypothesis I've heard is that the Israelites emerged from the indigenous Canaanite population, then retconned their origin story.

It seems quite conceivable that purpose of Gen was to explain the origin of the twelve sons of the Israelite people, God's providential preparation of the Israelite people. Gen is first in order but not the first written.

 

[Sand Dancer]

There's archaeological evidence FOR the Exodus. Here's part of it.

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

"Bible and Scientific Studies" sounds like an oxymoron.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There's archaeological evidence against a historical Exodus.

Nor is there archaeological evidence supporting it.

Which is what I said. Neither for nor against.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nor is there archaeological evidence supporting it.

Which is what I said. Neither for nor against.

I think you misread me. I said that there is evidence against.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The holy scriptures gives us detailed accounts including names,dates ,places etc.. There is no way they made all of that up.You have family trees with all of their names and dates when they were born.You can see all of the family members and who they derived from over the years.It is specific.That would be one heck of a task to put together such a masterpiece as the holy scriptures over a long period of time like that and fake it.It is very real but many do not understand or do not want to believe.

2.5 million people wandering in the desert for 40 years would have left evidence. If you read the Bible, all but two of them died in the wilderness before Israel entered the land. Where are the bodies? Show us the graves.

 

[Wandering Monk]

meanwhile, floor of the red sea is found to be littered with ancient egyptian war chariots...

But of course these things never happened, sure, right.

Hmmmmm

Ron Wyatt again. Why did he not bring up bits that we can check out in the lab?

Pure bovine scatology.

 

[Shad]

There may have been a historical Moses figure. Manetho and other 'pagan' writers speak of him, but they all seem to pretty well agree he was an Egyptian Priest and law giver. They also say the Egyptians of their time remembered him among themselves.

Manetho was just repeating the myth as if true. The source for that part is from Josephus that repeated the same myths in his own work.

 

[Wandering Monk]

An interesting quote about Noah's Ark:

"The remains of the Ark (of Noah) can be seen to this day in the Arabian mountains." - Theophilus.

Theophilus was the 2nd century Bishop of Antioch. Source: Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, by David Bercot, referencing Volume 2, page 117 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Great story. No evidence. People believed something they saw was Noah's ark. So what?

 

[Shad]

There's archaeological evidence FOR the Exodus. Here's part of it.

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

The Steele says nothing about an Exodus nor indicate a state which Israel would have to be instead of nomads which would be Hebrews.

Rohl's views are rejected by mainstream archaeology so the Exceration texts are not evidence of an Exodus.

Khu-sebek. Your source is making the old mistake of identifying the Hapiru as Hebrews. Hapiru is a social group not a tribe or national identity.

Sinhe is a dead-end even in your source by their own views.

Pithom and Rameses is a deadend as the only source backing the article is a laymen that is an editor by profession. Shanks is grasping at straws and is out of his depth. More so his meal ticket is a layman's magazine which only promotes Exodus as historical

Jacob-El is making the old mistake of identifying the Hyksos as Hebrews. This idea has been not accepted for decades in the mainstream. The Exodus claims as fails due to the identification mistake.

Sinai point uses Jospheus who is not a credible source

Jericho is a deadend as the leading archaeologist that excavated the site refuted the Biblical destruction myth via a lack of evidence of that destruction while finding evidence of multiple destruction centuries removed from the bible story. Repeats the same mistake with Hyksos identification.

Your source cant not even get it's first points right... It use outdated and refuted ideas that have been viewed as such for decades. You didn't check your source. You just accepted it as it told you what you wanted to hear. Heck it uses Kent Hovind as a source....

 

[Audie]

Here’s the core story in Exodus - is there any reason to believe a single word of it?

----

Over a relatively short period of time, Egypt is hit by a number of disasters. Not just one city, but essentially all of Egypt. The Nile and other sources of water turn to blood. Frogs, lice, and flies swarm everywhere. The livestock die, everyone is covered in boils. Flaming hail destroys the crops as well as any unlucky Egyptians who were out and about, and then whatever reserves are left get eaten by a massive swarm of locusts. Then, everything goes black for three days. The entire country, cloaked in darkness for three whole days. Nobody has any food - the fishing trade has been ruined by the river of blood, the livestock are dead from disease, the crops have been burned or devoured. Many have died. They can’t really do anything about this since it’s pitch black. Throughout all this the large population of slaves is seemingly untouched by the disasters, and the Egyptians now become enamored of them and heap them with presents.

Then all the first born in the country die - again, not these slaves - which is a whole lot of people. Not just that, but it’s the ones that were in many cases being prepared to be the head of the household. The slaves leave along with many others, and this isn’t a handful of people. Being extremely generous with the estimates for the overall population of Egypt and extremely conservative with the estimates of the exodus it’s still about a quarter of the population that up and walks out. A huge caravan, probably a hundred miles long, winds its way out of Egypt - across a sea that suddenly parts for them. The Egyptian army follows, and all are swallowed by the Red Sea and killed.

----

So the Egyptians have lost their army, their firstborn, their livestock, and a quarter of their population on top of all the deaths. Everyone far and wide would be aware of this level of disaster, not to mention the entire country being covered in darkness for three days. And yet - somehow - this is only recorded in the Bible and this horrifically shattered country continues to expand in prosperity as if nothing happened.

Obviously the ideal thing to find would be something that was a contemporary source telling the story from the other side, but I’m not suggesting that the bar is set that high. We could also look at the archaeology and find evidence of the firestorm, or of the massive population drop. We could find references from other local cultures claiming credit for their gods. We could find an otherwise unexplained period in Egypt’s history where they seemed to suffer some large setback. We could find the remains of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. And so on.

Instead, the best that can be offered up is that there are signs of Egyptian influence on the Israelites. Well, yes. That’s not exactly surprising, Egypt was a pretty big deal and they were neighbors. In fact it’s incredibly likely that groups from Egypt merged with the existing population in Canaan and brought some cultural influence with them. This doesn’t actually lend additional credibility to the Egyptian captivity, the plagues, or the exodus itself.

The Israelites weren’t slaves in Egypt, and the plagues never happened. The whole story is news to the Egyptians, who continued to flourish and grow - read a history of Egypt, and look for anywhere you can shoehorn in such a horrible series of events during the correct era.

And yet… this is taken as historical by even those who don’t believe the Old Testament is all literally true. Why?

we know the freakin' story.

maybe it needs to be literal or where to you stop
admitting the bible is what it is?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think you misread me. I said that there is evidence against.

There is some evidence that can be interpreted to be that Israelites slowly blended with Canaanites rather than conquered them militarily. However, this is not conclusive evidence. Nor is there ANY evidence that Israelites were not slaves in Egypt or did not come out of that slavery.

On a personal level, I am not concerned with the historicity of the Exodus. For me the point of the story is that it tells me who I am as a Jew. But that's another topic entirely.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Nor is there ANY evidence that Israelites were not slaves in Egypt or did not come out of that slavery.

No evidence that it did not happen? How would that work exactly?