There is simply no evidence to back up biblical claims that Exodus happened or that the Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. Exodus 12:40 says that the Hebrews lived in Egypt for 430 years.
Exodus 12:37 tells us that 600,000 men, not counting their children, left Egypt in the Exodus (this is repeated also in Numbers 1:45-46). We have hundreds of thousands of people allegedly living in one place for over 400 years and leaving absolutely no archeological trace of their presence!
We also have close to a million people roaming the deserts of Sinai for 40 years and leaving no archeological presence whatsoever, but there is plenty of archeological evidence of Egyptian presence in Sinai at the alleged time of the Exodus.
Since the end of the Three Day War (1967), the Israeli archaeologists have been working in overdrive for 40 years and found no evidence to back up biblical claims.
Numbers 13:26, 20:1, 20:14; and Deuteronomy 1:46. tell us that out of these 40 years, the Israelites spent 38 eight years in one single location! You'd think that a settlement of one million people would yield some evidence of their presence in that location, which has been found and positively identified (Kadesh-Barnea).
More importantly, the son of Rhamses II, Merneptah, conquered Canaan a generation after the alleged Exodus. An existing stela (stone monument with inscriptions), dating to the 13th century BC, speaks of this event. The document makes no mention of Exodus which surely would have served as a motive for revenge against the Israelites.
Archeological evidence found in the Sinai suggests that the Egyptians had military and other installations in the peninsula at the time of the alleged Exodus. The Egyptians had no difficulties cross the Red Sea. The Egyptians present in the Sinai would have laid waste to Israelites during their alleged 40 year presence there. There is no evidence of any long-term siege or mention of a campaign against the Israelites either from from Israeli or Egyptian sources.
Finally, historical documents also show that Egypt had control over the Canaan and all the way up to Syria on occasion during the New Kingdom (ending in the 11th century BC), and that if any of the stories about the Exodus were anything other than Israelite myths, the Egyptians would have eradicated Israelites from the face of this earth.
It's a legend.
All you offer is the Bible. By saying that Christ necessarily believed a lie you are sing the scare-tactic that may discourage many for all the wrong reasons. Christ could not have believed a lie, because what the Gospels teach is incompatible with God killing the first-born, both human and cattle! That would make God, who is Life, the God of death!
It is also ridiculous, for the lack of a better word, that an all-knowing God needed the blood of lambs as "markers" for Him to know which household was Jewish in order to spare them his wrath!
I have my reason and you have yours. One thing is certain: again, extraordinary biblical claims fail to be corroborated by extraordinary evidence; big time.
Well, "IF" your conclusion is that the Exodus probably never happened, then I would assume you would say that dinosaurs didn't exist until science verified their existence a couple of hundred years ago? It appears that your approach is that nothing is IN the Bible until it is proved IN. My approach is that nothing is OUT until it is proved OUT.
Archaeological evidence found in the Sinai suggests that the Egyptians had military and other installations in the peninsula at the time of the alleged Exodus. The Egyptians had no difficulties cross the Red Sea. The Egyptians present in the Sinai would have laid waste to Israelites during their alleged 40 year presence there. There is no evidence of any long-term siege or mention of a campaign against the Israelites either from from Israeli or Egyptian sources.
That depends on the strength of the God you believe in. :) I read and appreciate all of the evidence you present against the Exodus, but I do not find it persuasive. It boils down to "you would think that ...". I don't say that means we have to throw it out, since I have used that argument before myself. However, I give the presumption to God's word instead of 21st century scientists.
All you offer is the Bible.
Yes. Among that which was created, that's what I trust the most. :)
By saying that Christ necessarily believed a lie you are sing the scare-tactic that may discourage many for all the wrong reasons. Christ could not have believed a lie, because what the Gospels teach is incompatible with God killing the first-born, both human and cattle! That would make God, who is Life, the God of death!
I don't understand. Your position is that the OT and NT cannot both be true. Wouldn't that make at least one of them a lie by simple logic?
It is also ridiculous, for the lack of a better word, that an all-knowing God needed the blood of lambs as "markers" for Him to know which household was Jewish in order to spare them his wrath!
It certainly IS ridiculous to think that God "needed" that. But that wasn't the point, was it? Those who trusted that it would work were saved, those who didn't have that faith suffered the consequences. THAT is a theme we see throughout the Bible.