The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur
Debate Rounds (5)
For this debate, I wish to debate with a fundamentalist religious individual, be it Orthodox Jew or Evangelical Christian, on the topic of the Exodus narrative as found in the Torah. This is the third time attempting to create this debate properly in 12 hours thanks to trolls and people who refuse to read directions.
A historical Exodus, as defined, contains the following elements:
1) The existence of Moses as a historical character
2) The Enslavement of the Hebrews as a historical period in history
3) The historical occurrence of the ten plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea
4) The actual emigration from Egypt by the Israeli people was historical
For this debate, Con must argue that these 4 elements are historical and factual.
Pro must argue that these elements are not historical or factual.
To keep things flowing, we will deal with specific issues in specific rounds.
Round one is acceptance
Round two is only argument pertaining to issues 1 and 2 in the section above No rebuttals.
Round three is only arguments pertaining to 3 and 4 no rebuttals.
Round four is exclusively rebuttals, no new arguments
Round five is concluding statements and counter-rebuttals. Counter rebuttals can only pertain to what was in round four. There can be NO counter-counter rebuttals from what Pro said in round five.
A few ground rules:
i) Use Yahweh or Elohim as they are used in the original text for source clarification.
ii) No personal attacks. Period. This includes discussion of one's salvation or eternal destination. Personal religious affiliation is a non-issue. Referring to each other as "Conservative" or "Liberal" as a descriptor is acceptable, but not as an insult.
iii) All interactions should be in accord with the teachings of James 3
Discuss accepting this debate with me in the comments. Not discussing acceptance and accepting anyways is an automatic forfeit.
Ok, so, starting out, this round will be a little shorter than the next and specifically deal with
A) The existence of Moses as a historical character
B) The enslavement of the Hebrews as a historical period in history
The existence of Moses as a historical character
Starting with A, we will deal with two things
1) Moses' unlikely name and origins
2) Moses' absence from historical records
1) Moses' unlikely name and origin
1a) Moses' name
Moses' name in the Hebrew language is "מֹשֶׁ֣ה" which is transliterated as m!3;·šeh. Why is Moses named Moses? According to Exodus 2:10, he was named that because he was "drawn up" out of the water. What does that have to do with anything? Well, the Hebrew word for "to draw" is מָשָׁה. Do you notice the similarity there? Moses is named because of the similarity of his name to a Hebrew verb. But you need to stop and ask... who was naming him? And Egyptian princess.
Does this not seem unlikely to you? That an Egyptian princess would name a slave child she has adopted after a word used in the slave language? Would she not be more likely to name him after the Egyptian word for "to draw?" And if the Hebrew slave language was so well used in Egypt, wouldn't we find a single Hebrew inscription during that time period? No. No matter how you look at it, it's extremely unlikely that an Egyptian princess was well versed in Hebrew, named her adopted child in that language, and there is no evidence of the Hebrew language in Egypt during that time.
1b) Moses' origins
This baby was born in secret and floated down a river in a basket of rushes and bitumen. Luckily, this child was picked up and adopted by someone near the water, and the story became associated with drawing water. His name?
Sargon of Akkad. Awkward.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is correct. The story of Moses' origins is a rip-off of a much older narrative tale of Sargon of the Akkadian Empire. I have provided the legend of Sargon in the sources so you can look it up yourself. It appears that the entire Moses origin story is created out of the imagination of a storyteller.
2) Moses' Absence from Historical Records
As it turns out, the Old Testament gives us a pretty strong date for the Exodus. 1 Kings 6:1 says Solomon's Temple was finished 480 years after the Exodus, and this helps square the Biblical date around 1450 BCE. As it turns out, we have many records from this period, yet none of them mention the Hebrews at all, much less Moses. If he was such a big deal, destroying the Egyptian Empire, you'd think there would be a single record of him.
Mythical origins and unknown in Egyptian records. It seems safe to say Moses was not a historical character and simply did not exist.
B) The Enslavement of the Hebrew people is not a historical period
This one is going to be quick and easy: there are no references to Joseph, Moses, or millions of Semitic slaves in general at any point in the 15th century. Not one reference. Does it seem reasonable that over a long period of time not a single mention would show up? No. It doesn't. As with Moses, this one is dead out of the box. It is in no way historical.
In the next round, we'll get into more complicated stuff, but this is it for now.
Well, despite saying he would follow the rules after having broken the rules, my opponent decided my rules were "nonsense" and proceeded to break more without any positive arguments, only rebuttals on a google doc.
I think it's safe to call this one a forfeit on your part. You had the choice not to accept. If you don't like these rules, make your own, they've worked quite well for me in the past.
You have successfully broken almost every single rule after being given a second chance. You simply said you skimmed over the rules. They are not "rigged" in my favor, and the fact you were writing a rebuttal at around 2 shows you didn't read the rules.
Your name calling is immature
Your lack of skill with debate is not surprising based on your immaturity
And this qualifies, very much so, as a forfeit for not following the rules
jkgraves735 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yomama12 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I am extemely tied in this debate. On one hand, harrytruman broke many, if all, of the rules and then continued to rant about, breaking the conduct to jk's favor. On the other, jk forfeited. In my opinion, this debatye is a tie. My thoughts: harry, make sure you read the rules before you accept a debate. Jk, don't worry about people that rant about the rules, and keep it cool. The voters will most likely vote for you based on the conduct (except for the forfeiture, you did good)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.