The Instigator
jkgraves735
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 293 times Debate No: 91018
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

jkgraves735

Pro

Greetings,

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.
harrytruman

Con

Actualy, the Exodus did occur and there is substancial evidence for it, first of all, there were 3 million whitnesses of this, thus the Exodus is confirmed.
Debate Round No. 1
jkgraves735

Pro

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

and

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.


Sources:
http://biblehub.com...
http://www.ancient.eu...
harrytruman

Con

Well that's a real bummer, I just noticed the reason no one accepted the terms you proposed, your rules are nonsense, and the proof I have I already gave in round one, I can't repeat them again! Regardless, I provided a full response to disprove all your arguments, happy reading.

https://docs.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jkgraves735

Pro

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.
harrytruman

Con

No, I didn't see very many rules by skimming over it, but when I read it in writing my rebuttal, I noticed that your rules are ridiculous and rigged in your favor. Also, this doesn't constitute a forfeit because I disproved your whole argument, you didn't respond to anything that I posted, so- YOU forfeited. Also, why is everyone so stupid as to think that google docs are bad conduct- idiots, get a brain guys. Anyway, I wish I never accepted this challenge because you really aren't interested in a debate, only rules and idiocy, if you want to have a DEBATE on this subject, I would be more than happy to accept.
Debate Round No. 3
jkgraves735

Pro

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
harrytruman

Con

Yeah I never called names and I am not surprised with you failing to respond to my arguments, anyway, I never violated any rules except ridiculous ones that you made up to rig the debate. Regardless- I still destroyed your arguments and that's all that the voters look at so-.
Debate Round No. 4
jkgraves735

Pro

jkgraves735 forfeited this round.
harrytruman

Con

Harrytruman wins by knockout!
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jkgraves735 6 months ago
jkgraves735
Look, bud, it doesn't allow me to rebut your arguments either until round 4. And that's on purpose. That is to facilitate positive debate instead of endless counter rebuttals. We were all given equal amounts of rebuttal and positive argumentation time. If you simply "skimmed" over the debate rules and didn't see them before you accepted, that is your fault. This is a format often used by public debates.
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
nope, italics don't work here.
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
<em>yes<em>
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
,em>yes<em>
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
Here is what I was talking about:

"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."

As you can see, your formatting doesn't allow me to disprove your argument until round 4, which no one really reads until and won't know what specifically I am talking about.
Posted by mortallyimpossiblepenguin 6 months ago
mortallyimpossiblepenguin
You said yourself that you'd had problems with people not debating by your rules and you said you'd had to challenge a number of people.
Posted by jkgraves735 6 months ago
jkgraves735
Can you tell me exactly how it is rigged? Specifics? I've had several debates with this format without problem in my multiple years using this site.
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
That's exactly what I said- thank you for backing me up, a large chunk of people on this site would just go with him.
Posted by mortallyimpossiblepenguin 6 months ago
mortallyimpossiblepenguin
I think the reason nobody's accepting or playing by your rules is because you've written the rules to suit your argument which you've already laid out and so when somebody doesn't follow them perfectly or starts beating you you can just say they didn't follow the rules.
Perhaps rethink your rules next time?
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
I already promised to keep the other terms.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yomama12 6 months ago
yomama12
jkgraves735harrytrumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
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)