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

[Baron Fulmen]

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?

 

[Awoon1]

Because "Beliefs" don't have to be factual or historical. Just argumentative.

 

[gsa]

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

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

I suspect there's more popular support for reading Exodus as an historical account today because it references historical places and events in a more direct way. That said, I don't think that there is any doubt the stories in Genesis have some historical basis, based on oral traditions later written down and compiled and edited. But they are almost certainly not literally true, and I think it highly doubtful either the authors or compilers thought they were. The heavy use of allegory and repetition would suggest they didn't.

 

[Baron Fulmen]

I suspect there's more popular support for reading Exodus as an historical account today because it references historical places and events in a more direct way.

That's fair - but those historical references are contradicted by historians and archaeologists in the same way that the creation account in Genesis is contradicted by scientists. Yet the same people who listen to experts on the latter completely accept Exodus in many cases.

That said, I don't think that there is any doubt the stories in Genesis have some historical basis, based on oral traditions later written down and compiled and edited.

I'm tempted to ask, but I probably shouldn't derail this thread so soon.

 

[gsa]

That's fair - but those historical references are contradicted by historians and archaeologists in the same way that the creation account in Genesis is contradicted by scientists. Yet the same people who listen to experts on the latter completely accept Exodus in many cases.



I'm tempted to ask, but I probably shouldn't derail this thread so soon.

Well regarding point 1, I don't know why they selectively accept the findings. Regarding point 2, I would not be surprised if there were "cities of the plain," for example, that were destroyed in a natural catastrophe. I doubt that there were angels visiting, or that God actually did it, etc.

 

[Ultimatum]

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?

It resembles selective hearing, doesn't it! How one could follow a book filled with supernatural fairytales and take it for the truth is a hard thing to grasp! It even implies magic to be real. And don't get me started on what a sadistic deity he actually is..

 

[Prophet]

I generally assume everything before chapter 19 in Exodus is full-on fabrication, and from that point forward one can't go wrong by reading with extreme suspicion. I suspect the story of Mt. Sinai was at least partially true as the text of Exodus 19 itself looks like a fairly obvious ruse in which any possible witnesses could be justifiably be murdered.

And the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothesand be ready by the third day, because on that day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not approach the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death.They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ Only when the ram’s horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain.”

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's fair - but those historical references are contradicted by historians and archaeologists in the same way that the creation account in Genesis is contradicted by scientists. Yet the same people who listen to experts on the latter completely accept Exodus in many cases.



I'm tempted to ask, but I probably shouldn't derail this thread so soon.

When speaking of events happening thousands of years ago, there is often a lot to work out to understand where and who they are speaking of. Also, what part of Genesis is contradicited by science?

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

As a Kemetic, I'm obviously 100% in agreement with you @Baron Fulmen

The fact that Exodus can't even name the Pharaoh speaks volumes. Moses, who supposedly grew up in the royal court, would of been well aware of the Pharaoh's name, he would of known all FIVE of Pharaoh's names (3 are titles, one is given at birth, the other when they become Pharaoh).

I also find it interesting that (to my knowledge) they don't make any mention that Moses would of been able to write and read hieroglyphs and was most definitely well-versed in the Ancient Egyptian religion. He would of been a polytheist for most of his life.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

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.

 

[Nada]

It's all true.

 

[sojourner]

It's all true.

Well, then. There it is. A question that has occupied the best bible scholars on the planet for hundreds of years has been summarily solved in 5 seconds here on the forum by bible Student. What were those silly scholars thinking?!

 

[Baron Fulmen]

It's all true.

Do you have any thoughts on how this catastrophe happened but left no record other than the Old Testament account, and why it doesn't match up with the historical and archaeological evidence?

 

[Nada]

Do you have any thoughts on how this catastrophe happened but left no record other than the Old Testament account, and why it doesn't match up with the historical and archaeological evidence?

There were records of it in Egypt but when Moses did what he did, the Pharaoh had all records, and statues, with his name removed from their history, as was done with other figures.The reason it does not match up with historical and archeological evidence is because of the wrong dating due to insufficient and bad dating techniques.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I heard a point that helped to put the story in perspective for me: based on the number of people described in the Bible as being part of the Exodus, if just the men stood shoulder to shoulder, they would have formed a line long enough to reach from one side of the Sinai Peninsula to the other.

Just on this fact alone, I think it's ludicrous to believe that:

- this group could stay lost on the Sinai for 40 years.
- they could have lived in the Sinai for 40 years without leaving any archaeological trace whatsoever.

Forget accepting it as literal fact; I can't even accept that the Exodus has a historical core underneath the miracle claims.

 

[Baron Fulmen]

There were records of it in Egypt but when Moses did what he did, the Pharaoh had all records, and statues, with his name removed from their history, as was done with other figures.

The reason we know they tried that with other people is because they failed. More to the point though, how would they keep anyone else from knowing about this MASSIVE event, and why don't we see any downturn in the Egyptian empire?

The reason it does not match up with historical and archeological evidence is because of the wrong dating due to insufficient and bad dating techniques.

But it didn't leave any evidence at all! It's not a dating issue.

And I took so long to write this someone else has probably beaten me to it.

 

[Baron Fulmen]

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.

If there's no evidence that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and no evidence that the plagues happened, I would argue that it's unlikely that this guy you mention was close enough to being Moses to really matter for these purposes. That's not to say he couldn't be the inspiration for some part of the Moses character, and that could be a really interesting topic, but at some point it's like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

 

[Nada]

The reason we know they tried that with other people is because they failed. More to the point though, how would they keep anyone else from knowing about this MASSIVE event, and why don't we see any downturn in the Egyptian empire?



But it didn't leave any evidence at all! It's not a dating issue.

And I took so long to write this someone else has probably beaten me to it.

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.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

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.

When you say "detailed accounts" are you referring to the Exodus mythology or the entire Bible in general? - because no, when it comes to the Exodus story, it's not a detailed account. And Egypt had some of the most beautiful and famous cities in antiquity. Using one of their names and sticking it in mythology isn't hard.

I repeat, they couldn't even identify the Pharaoh for Gods' sake. And like people above have mentioned, other examples of attempts to "wipe their existence from history" has evidence. There is no evidence for Moses or his Israelites in Egypt - just mythology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The holy scriptures gives us detailed accounts including names,dates ,places etc.. There is no way they made all of that up.

The fact that Kansas is a real place that gets actual tornadoes doesn't mean that the Wizard of Oz actually happened.

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.

Specificity is only impressive if we can verify that it's correct. Can we confirm that the Bible got all those family trees and whatnot right?

Keep in mind that there are plenty of claims out there with lots of specific details that you probably reject.