Christians: Please explain the Exodus

[Minimalist]

Yeah....Danny is a success story around here.

ShaMan the problem with me explaining my beliefs is that all my evidence is from he Bible.

And therein lies your problem. You believe much. You know little.

[Cyberman]

That's the point, isn't it? Everything - literally everything - concerning these god claims comes from the pages of atrociously-written mythology. Take away the bible and you take away the god. There are genuine and verifiable references in there, to be sure; but nothing that could not have been known at the time. On the other hand, there are references in there which not only have been shown to be flat out wrong, but were known to be wrong at the time (though not necessarily by the people who wrote, edited and compiled the damn thing). Flat Earth, anyone?

Spiderman lives and works in New York. Hell, even The da Vinci Code mentions Paris landmarks - does that mean everything in that 'book' really happened?

[JesusHChrist]

And then the theist has the gall to make claims about realms "beyond our senses", when all they themselves know about their alleged god was derived via sight (reading the Bible) or hearing (listening to someone prattle on about their "revelations") or touch (if braille is their thing).

Meanwhile, no new senses are involved in these great voyages of discovery.

Their entire source of knowledge comes from a book.

[Minimalist]

Their entire source of knowledge comes from a shitty book.

Fixed that for you.

[Aractus]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/09/...es_sahara/
There are whole cities that have been lost to time in the desert of that region. the only thing left are the foundations and even so are only known to us by satalite. (Where are the graves? Where is the pottery?)


So if a whole city/several cities 1000 to 1500 years after the fact can completley disappear then what chance does a a campsite have after 3500 years?

That's a different region but at least you've answered your own question now that yes they do in fact discover traces in the desert of ancient civilisations.

The key difference here is that that city has been located, in an area much much larger than the Sinai peninsula, and unlike the Sinai peninsula they haven't been looking for 200 years. If they had they would have excavated the city by now.

This doesn't have anything to do with the Biblical account. I want to know how it is possible that the Jews visited all these real locations mentioned in the Bible and left no trace whatsoever. Even if I agree that Egypt wouldn't talk about the Jews escaping them, that doesn't change the fact that there's no mention of them ever being in Egypt - "Israel is absent - as a possible foe of Egypt, as a friend, or as an enslaved nation." Your explanation only covers their escape and not their arrival into Egypt or their enslavement.

---

where is the 2 to 3 million number comming from? Exodus records 600,000 men. Numbers recodes just over that at the foot of mt where moses received the commandments.

That 600,000 number only counts the men aged about 20-60 (estimate based on their ability to participate in combat). The number doesn't include women or children and this is made explicit in Exodus 12:37 "The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children".

But even 600,000 is a huge number of people - some evidence of their stay in Sinai would be found.

---

If a group of people were camping in the middle of the desert only a few days ago I think it would be difficult to spot. If is like footprints in snow hey dissappear quickly. So trying to find out if people were camping in a desert 1000s of years ago I expect would be hard to do.

(Emphasis added).

It's quite reasonable to think that. However, top archaeologists tell us (as I posted in the OP):

"modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the very meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. Indeed, the archaeological record from the Sinai peninsula discloses evidence for pastoral activity in such eras as the third millennium BCE and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods."

"The conclusion - that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible - seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert (Numbers 33) and where some archaeological indication - if present - would almost certainly be found."

(Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001)

Thus, I'd expect if you're going to make that argument that you could at least reference some other archaeologists who believe or argue that it's unlikely that evidence in the Sinai peninsular if present would be found.

---

I don't know, 2-3 million is alot of people to me seeing that here are only 1.8million in the entire country.

Indeed, which is a problem I had when I was a Christian. Yet the number is given multiple times:

Exodus 12:37 - And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
Exodus 38:26 - a beka a head (that is, half a shekel, by the shekel of the sanctuary), for everyone who was listed in the records, from twenty years old and upwards, for 603,550 men.
Numbers 1:46 (Note that Numbers 1 first lists out all the tribes): all those listed were 603,550.
Numbers 2:32 - These are the people of Israel as listed by their fathers' houses. All those listed in the camps by their companies were 603,550.
Numbers 11:21 - But Moses said, “The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand on foot, and you have said, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat for a whole month!’
Numbers 26:51 - This was the list of the people of Israel, 601,730.

---

Well I truely believe I have an eyewitness account

Of the exodus? Most scholars do not believe that. If Moses wrote it then why did he include his own death? How did he include the future invasions into Canaan that he couldn't have been a part of since he had died?

---

I view the entire Bible as literally true, I therefore believe the exodus as literial true.

Right, that's fair enough - that's your belief and you're perfectly entitled to it.

My question though is why should I believe against the gradient of clear scientific evidence?

A question for you - do you appreciate science and do you think it's important?

---

The consensus of experts in the field of ancient middle-eastern archaeology agree there is no evidence for the Exodus as told in the Bible. None.

No, the consensus is that the exodus didn't happen. I haven't seen any consensus that says there is "no evidence" quite the contrary there is evidence, and archaeologists generally believe the evidence contradicts the biblical accounts to such an extent that an exodus is not possible.

[RobbyPants]

I never realised I was in the bronze age, I know science has come alone way but anything under human control is never perfect.

Then why do you believe what is written in the Bible?

[C4RM5]

RobbyPants, I believe that the writers of the Bible were influenced by God in what to put down.

[FatAndFaithless]

Why do you believe that?

[C4RM5]

As it is described as God's word, I believe the writers were influenced by him

[FatAndFaithless]

So you believe the Bible is God's word...because the Bible says so? Do...are you serious when you say you don't see a problem with that reasoning?