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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

... and would also imply that a literal interpretation of Exodus is false.

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

Yes, there is. I went over this already. The evidence that the Israelites emerged from the indigenous people who had always been there is evidence that they didn't arrive from someplace else.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

What do you mean how does it work? If there were evidence, it would be upon you to supply it. But you can't because there isn't any.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

... and would also imply that a literal interpretation of Exodus is false.



Yes, there is. I went over this already. The evidence that the Israelites emerged from the indigenous people who had always been there is evidence that they didn't arrive from someplace else.

I'm sorry, but even this theory does not negate the idea that there were Israelites who came out of slavery. It is one hypothesis.

 

[Audie]

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

Pure bovine scatology.

That guy made Indian Jones look like
he could not find a garage sale.

 

[Wandering Monk]

What do you mean how does it work? If there were evidence, it would be upon you to supply it. But you can't because there isn't any.

So it is up to me to prove something did NOT happen?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So it is up to me to prove something did NOT happen?

No, the hypothesis is that something else DID happen. It is up to the person making that claim to prove it.

I am making no historical claim. I have stated that the historicity of the Exodus is irrelevant -- that the value of the story is that it tells Jews who we are as a People. (IMHO) I have stated that there is no conclusive evidence either for or against the Exodus actually happening. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, but even this theory does not negate the idea that there were Israelites who came out of slavery. It is one hypothesis.

It negates the idea that the Israelites *as a people* came out of slavery.

The Exodus is not the story of a small group of Jewish slaves who escaped captivity and fled to Israel where they rejoined with their bretheren. It's the story of the entire Jewish people leaving en masse, displacing the entire Canaanite population, and founding a new civilization. THAT narrative is contradicted by any evidence that the Israelite people were indigenous to the area and emerged as a people without ever leaving.

 

[Audie]

[

It negates the idea that the Israelites *as a people* came out of slavery.

The Exodus is not the story of a small group of Jewish slaves who escaped captivity and fled to Israel where they rejoined with their bretheren. It's the story of the entire Jewish people leaving en masse, displacing the entire Canaanite population, and founding a new civilization. THAT narrative is contradicted by any evidence that the Israelite people were indigenous to the area and emerged as a people without ever leaving.

Everyone likes to think their "race" is special, pure,
and not like adulterated with other races.

But such is only actually true of Han Chinese.

 

[Spartan]

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....

Sorry, but I'll stick with the info I presented, and the Biblical accounts.

 

[Spartan]

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

So I'm happy your secure in your bias.

 

[Spartan]

"Bible and Scientific Studies" sounds like an oxymoron.

It always does the the Biblically and historically challenged.

 

[Audie]

It always does the the Biblically and historically challenged.

When arguing for utter gibberish it is best
to adopt a tone of snarky superiority.

 

[Shad]

Sorry, but I'll stick with the info I presented, and the Biblical accounts.

You can fact check everything I said. You won't as you have your argument from authority and confirmation bias. Have fun with that.

Hyksos
Who were the Hyksos?

Or read the work of Manfred Bietak that refuted the claim easily via evidence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

No, the hypothesis is that something else DID happen. It is up to the person making that claim to prove it.

I am making no historical claim. I have stated that the historicity of the Exodus is irrelevant -- that the value of the story is that it tells Jews who we are as a People. (IMHO) I have stated that there is no conclusive evidence either for or against the Exodus actually happening. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

Zeus created the universe. Prove it didn't happen.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It always does the the Biblically and historically challenged.

Well, of course the kings and wars are historical, but not anything to do with deities.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It negates the idea that the Israelites *as a people* came out of slavery.

The Exodus is not the story of a small group of Jewish slaves who escaped captivity and fled to Israel where they rejoined with their bretheren. It's the story of the entire Jewish people leaving en masse, displacing the entire Canaanite population, and founding a new civilization. THAT narrative is contradicted by any evidence that the Israelite people were indigenous to the area and emerged as a people without ever leaving.

It negates that the story happened as told, but it doesn't negate that the Israelites came out of Israel as a people. I watched the same documentary, and the theory is that a remnant came out of Egypt and supplied the Canaanites with the story of deliverance. Even in the sacred texts, a mixed multitude came out with them, which became part of Israel. We have always allowed for converts.The alternative story that they came solely from Canaan is just ridiculous -- it could not have possibly have evolved into the out of Egypt story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It negates that the story happened as told, but it doesn't negate that the Israelites came out of Israel as a people.

It negates that they came out of Egypt as a people.

Even in the sacred texts, a mixed multitude came out with them, which became part of Israel. We have always allowed for converts.

Anyone who arrived in Israel and then converted to Judaism would not have been part of an exodus of Jews enslaved in Egypt who migrated to Israel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It negates that they came out of Egypt as a people.


Anyone who arrived in Israel and then converted to Judaism would not have been part of an exodus of Jews enslaved in Egypt who migrated to Israel.

You are sooo wrong. It does not negate the Exodus narrative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are sooo wrong. It does not negate the Exodus narrative.

If Jewish slaves didn't migrate en masse from Egypt to Israel, then Jewish slaves didn't migrate en masse to Israel... no?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If Jewish slaves didn't migrate en masse from Egypt to Israel, then Jewish slaves didn't migrate en masse to Israel... no?

It doesn't take a zillion Jews migrating for the essence of the story to be intact.