The Instigator
TrustmeImlying
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
cagystorm
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

The exodus of Jews from Egypt described in the Bible more than likely occurred as described

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 7 votes the winner is...
TrustmeImlying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 68333
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

TrustmeImlying

Con

I, CON, claim that the exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt as described in the Bible more than likely did not occur.

My opponent, cagystorm, has repeatedly claimed the the Bible is a historically accurate book, and even goes on to claim that religious and secular scholars alike are in agreement as to it's historicity.

I've chosen this particular event as it would have an incredibly high likelihood of having archeological, documentary, and cultural evidence to suggest that it occurred.

My opponent must provide evidence beyond biblical narrative to demonstrate the validity of the Bible via alternative sources.

1st round acceptance, and good luck to PRO
cagystorm

Pro

I will debate you.
Debate Round No. 1
TrustmeImlying

Con

The accounts of Exodus refer to the founding story of Israel. Most are familiar with the general concept: The Israelites had settled in Egypt, were then enslaved, and were freed by God's actions. While there's much more, this is a comfortable amount to start with.

If these events were historically accurate, my opponent would be overwhelmingly supported by evidence of all kinds. Fortunately the opposite is the case:

1. Archeological Evidence
Archeologists and Egyptologists have searched for more than a century to find some evidence to support the theory that the Jewish people may have dwelled and escaped from Egypt, however none exists.

http://books.google.com.au...
(Page 5)

In fact, many now refer to this as a "fruitless pursuit"

http://books.google.com.au...
(Page 99)

Almost all historians now agree that the Israelites are of Canaanite origin, and archeological evidence shows worship of the Canaanite deity "El" that preceded Yahweh, pottery of Canaanite influence, and many various clues that suggest that this is most likely the case.

https://books.google.com...
http://books.google.com.au...
(Page 161) , (Page 148)

The most reasonable conclusion is that no archaeological evidence supports a large Jewish population settled in or fleeing out of Egypt as the Bible describes.

2. Documentation and Records
Egyptian records never mentions any accounts of 600,000+ Israelites being held in slavery. They also fail to mention how the two cities the Israelite people supposedly built, Ramesses and Pithom, do not fit in with the time period or context of the Bible.

http://books.google.com.au...

What about the highly remarkable plagues? Nothing.
The loss of their first born? No.
The great defeat of the Egyptian army in pursuit of an unarmed group of slaves? Nothing.
The law handed down by unnamed pharaohs to kill the newborn males of all Israelites to contain their numbers? No records of that either.

No documentary evidence from Egypt or Israel mentions these events, and they are exclusively found in the Bible.

3. Conflicts With Reality and Expert's Opinions
What would become of any nation after suffering such devastating losses as their armies, crops, livestock, water, and first-born sons? Internal chaos and destruction would be virtually gaurunteed.

In reality, what we see is Egypt entering a phase of ambitious expansion, internal stability, and peace. The 18th dynasty sparked the "New Kingdom of Egypt" which was the empire's pinnacle of power and influence over the world.

More can be read about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Scholars, historians, and scientists share an overwhelming consensus on the matter, they all agree that these accounts aren't describing a literal event, but instead suggest that this story is merely to demonstrate God's power.

http://books.google.com.au...

http://www.haaretz.com...

http://www.religiouscriticism.com...

http://harvardmagazine.com...

http://www.haaretz.com...

http://articles.latimes.com...

http://books.google.com.au...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://www.chabad.org...

The conflicts created by attempting to insert this story into a true historical timeline quickly falls apart, and the story ceases to make sense on further inspection.

4. Conclusion

The events described in the Bible have trespassed beyond unlikely and into impossible. That being said, they would require a massive amount of supporting evidence to be considered historical, yet history suggests the opposite, that these stories are in fact complete fabrications.

Thanks for reading and I give the floor to PRO.
cagystorm

Pro

I made a mistake accepting this debate for I have not studied this subject. Thank you for the opportunity, but your knowledge of this particular subject is overwhelming. I propose you save this debate for someone who believes in Judaism. Thank you again and I will be praying for you. John 14:6 Psalm 14:1
Please respect my decision and don't disrespect me for leaving.
Debate Round No. 2
TrustmeImlying

Con

PRO concedes before stating his case. All CON's points extended.

Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
TrustmeImlying

Con

Round 4 extension
cagystorm

Pro

I know a bigger word than you do...
Debate Round No. 4
TrustmeImlying

Con

Round 5 extension

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cagystorm 2 years ago
cagystorm
I never said I know what God wants. No Christian knows what God wants!!
Anything we know about God we know, because Creation or the Bible has revealed it to us.
http://www.allaboutgod.com...
Read these attributes.
That is a logical fallacies to say that all Christians think something because you heard one or a few say something.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
If we cannot imagine god, then how do people claim to know such specific things regarding god? If god is a mystery, then stop claiming you know what he wants. If you understand god, then you can imagine him asking the question to himself. Which is it? Do you understand him? Seems Christians claim they do. If you cannot, your last claim, then why do you (Christians) make claims as though you understand him? Or do we simply making the claim depending on the question? Gay marriage? God hates that? Claiming to know god. How would god answer this question? Christian, "God is a mystery. Don't think about that." Flaws is what this points out. Flaws in reasoning.
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Cagystorm:
In the conversation that led up to this debate, you called me a fool. You gave me obviously false statistics, and suggested on more than one occasion that I "do some research". You said "People who are smarter than you agree to something maybe you should consider that." All this because I asked for evidence to support your belief in a god.

Now you ask that I not "disrespect" you? I haven't yet, I'm not going to start.

I AM going to go out on a limb and guess that (despite your ever changing profile picture and age) you're actually pretty young. In sincerity, here's some advice that I hope you'll take. At your fingertips is the largest well of human knowledge that has ever existed. Read up on any topic you want but don't ever, EVER let any one source tell you what the truth of anything is. Thanks for accepting the debate, have a good one.
Posted by cagystorm 2 years ago
cagystorm
Would you like to debate it? I understand this subject... lol? Is God real? or maybe something a little more generic?
Posted by cagystorm 2 years ago
cagystorm
You say jump into God's mind, but you can't!! You can't fathom God's mind. He is all knowing!! Omniscient is one of the words used to describe Him. He is outside our realm of reasonable thinking.
Posted by cagystorm 2 years ago
cagystorm
What your not understanding is that you think you know time. God is outside the realm of time. Time was created by God for man. He was not created, He has always been and always will be.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
I have a pretty good understanding of time. Time is an emergent property. It is measured through repetition and it flows due to entropy. If you have neither, you have no time. An infinite vacuum (what I suspect is the foundation of reality) would have no time. No need to wonder when there would be a beginning. An infinite vacuum would have no time, no need to begin.
The question is to be taken from god's perspective. Yes we humans make certain claims. But lets jump into god's mind for the moment. Would he not ask that question? How would he explain it? How would he have knowledge of it? Even if the human claims concerning god were true, wouldn't god wonder how he came to be? I think he would ask the question. I have no idea how he would answer it.
Posted by cagystorm 2 years ago
cagystorm
Where did God come from?

We can only partially comprehend the notion of God's existence. To do so, we must use human concepts to speak of God: "without beginning or end"; "eternal"; "infinite," etc. The Bible says that He has always existed: " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). And, "Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2). Quite simply, God has no beginning and no end. So, where did God come from? He didn't. He always was.

To us, the notion of time is linear. One second follows the next--one minute is after another. We get older--not
younger--and we cannot repeat the minutes that have passed us by. We have all seen the time lines on charts: early time is on the left and later time is on the right. We see nations, people's lives, and plans mapped out on straight lines from left to right. We see a beginning and an end. But God is "beyond the chart." He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been.

Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time has even been called the fourth dimension. But God is not matter. In fact, God created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing; and time had no meaning (except conceptually)--no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.

Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end--and/or no beginning. God has no beginning or end . . . He is outside the realm of time.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
You should read it before you believe it. If the Bible is truly a book written by a God, wouldn't Christians be reading it all the time? An interesting thought, this is God. God thinking, "OK, I'm a god. I'm all powerful. But where did I come from?" How would God answer that?
Posted by cagystorm 2 years ago
cagystorm
It will not let me post an argument, it says it's not my turn to post???
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
TrustmeImlyingcagystormTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con gives arguments.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
TrustmeImlyingcagystormTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't do anything. Gets no points.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
TrustmeImlyingcagystormTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TrustmeImlyingcagystormTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
TrustmeImlyingcagystormTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession (I suggest the instigator reopen the debate for another applicant)
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
TrustmeImlyingcagystormTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro essentially concedes.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
TrustmeImlyingcagystormTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.