The Exodus Story

[_karl61]

A lot of Christians bag on the Book of Mormon for lack of archeological evidence, yet one of the most fundimental and important stories of the Old Testement is completely unfounded in reality.

In accordance to archeology, the following flaws exist:

1. Egyptian records show zero indication of plagues, a massive exodus of their labor force, or a complete loss of a large army. None. Zip.

2. There is zero evidence to the existance of a large mobile (2 million large) population wondering around in the desert. Two million people. 40 years. No evidence. Zero.

3. There is no evidence that the Cannanite population received a massive influx of 2 million people, rather there is evidence that the Isrealites were native cannanites.


The problem is if the Exodus story is wrong, does that not invalidate the entire Christian Bible into nothing more than a Dominoed series of myths? Even Jesus uses Exodus as a method of demonstrating God's power......

JMS

1 - Egyptian records failed to record the Exodus to avoid embarrassment in future generations. If you knew anything about ancient record-keeping, you would understand that such omission was entirely expected. Why would the Egyptian leaders want their future offspring to know that they were duped by a bunch of slaves. Furthermore, who do you think was keeping records? The working class? Do you imagine many literate Egyptian dissidents in this time period? Geez.

2 - No record? Are you joking? What do you think the Bible is? It is THE record of the incident, by the side willing to tell the tale. As for the 2 million figure, do we really have to tread this ground again? Where's Brant Gardner when you need him? It was absolutely to be expected that those recording the history of the event would exaggerate the numbers to magnify the story. Geez.

3 - See 2. But, come on, Israelites were Canaanites? Some evidence? Is it conclusive. I hope it's not based on any DNA work, 'cause we sure know how unreliable tracking ancient Semitic DNA is!

" Egyptian records failed to record the Exodus to avoid embarrassment in future generations. If you knew anything about ancient record-keeping, you would understand that such omission was entirely expected. Why would the Egyptian leaders want their future offspring to know that they were duped by a bunch of slaves. Furthermore, who do you think was keeping records? The working class? Do you imagine many literate Egyptian dissidents in this time period? Geez."

I don't think people in that era thought about embarrassment to future generations. Just look at the book of Judges where they boasted about what they did.

[_Baker]

I don't think people in the era thought about embarrassment to future generations. Just look at the book of Judges where they boasted about what they did.

That just shows that they didn't consider the same things as potentially embarrassing in those days. Don't be a victim of presentism. The Egyptians were outdone by a bunch of Jewish slaves - which was highly embarrassing to them.

[Guest]

A lot of Christians bag on the Book of Mormon for lack of archeological evidence, yet one of the most fundimental and important stories of the Old Testement is completely unfounded in reality.

In accordance to archeology, the following flaws exist:

1. Egyptian records show zero indication of plagues, a massive exodus of their labor force, or a complete loss of a large army. None. Zip.

2. There is zero evidence to the existance of a large mobile (2 million large) population wondering around in the desert. Two million people. 40 years. No evidence. Zero.

3. There is no evidence that the Cannanite population received a massive influx of 2 million people, rather there is evidence that the Isrealites were native cannanites.


The problem is if the Exodus story is wrong, does that not invalidate the entire Christian Bible into nothing more than a Dominoed series of myths? Even Jesus uses Exodus as a method of demonstrating God's power......

JMS

1. Egyptians did not record their defeats.
2. Egyptians certainly had Semitic slaves who may have been Hebrews.
3. Exodus is consonant with The Admonitions of Ipuwer.

[_karl61]

I don't think people in the era thought about embarrassment to future generations. Just look at the book of Judges where they boasted about what they did.

That just shows that they didn't consider the same things as potentially embarrassing in those days. Don't be a victim of presentism. The Egyptians were outdone by a bunch of Jewish slaves - which was highly embarrassing to them.

If true then Jewish slaves were mere observers in a cosmic game.

[_Brackite]

1 Nephi 4:

[1] And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?

[2] Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

[3] Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians.

[_Buffalo]

Since JSkains has demonstrated that at least 3/4 of the LDS cannon is false, I want to know when he will be leaving the church?

[_basilII]

There are still some major differences between the Exodus narrative and the history portrayed in the Book of Mormon.

1) Egypt and Canaan are real identifiable places. Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi are not. The Jewish people were a real ethnic group in antiquity. The Nephites and Lamanites were not.

2) As has already been pointed out, the Biblical texts grew out of oral traditions and we shouldn’t expect them to be history in the sense we use that term today. They are mainly about God’s relationship with his chosen people. Not all Christians are/were Biblical literalist. And that would include many of the more traditional faiths as well. The Book of Mormon was supposedly preserved intact from antiquity, that is its major selling point with regard to the messy transmission of the Bible. Prophets like Mormon had the actual written records of his ancestors like Nephi and Alma to edit. So there is less wiggle room for vagueness when it comes to historical accuracy.

3) Sometime in early first millennium B.C. the Israelite people became an identifiable national group. The tradition they maintained about their origins was linked back to bondage in Egypt and as foreign occupiers in Canaan, something that seems strange to claim if it had no historical foundations at all. Like the history of the Trojan War recorded in the Iliad, the specifics may not be historically accurate, but something happened to give rise to the legends. Perhaps a much smaller group left Egypt and founded a dynasty in Palestine, or the release from Egyptian bondage refers to freeing Palestine from Egyptian political influence. With the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations, there is no continuity with a clearly identifiable ethnic group, currently or historically.

4) Within a few centuries of when the Exodus event was supposed to have occurred, we began to have in the Biblical record many identifiable historical events and peoples. The major historical concerns are primarily with the early narratives of Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua, which is when presumably oral transmission of tradition was occurring. After that we get, in broad outlines, a reasonable historical record considering the standards of the time. With the Book of Mormon, once the scene moves away from the Old World, we have no unambiguously and historically identifiable events or peoples at any stage of the narrative.

If one was going to bet one’s salvation on either one of the texts, then I would go for the Bible. Yes, there some historical accounts are probably not accurate when taken literally. But there are a lot of historical accounts that are generally accurate and that describe real people, real places, and real events. There were kings of Israel and Judah. Babylon and Assyria were real empires. Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus were real places. Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Peter and Paul were real people. With the Book of Mormon, none of it appears to be real history with verifiable places, peoples, or events. So both texts contain historical inaccuracies, it just that with the Book of Mormon it is all inaccuracies.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

This is exactly how it happened. End of story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LKUpWvnubU

[_Hoops]

This is exactly how it happened. End of story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LKUpWvnubU

Yes!!! I thought everybody knew this!!

[_Aristotle Smith]

There are still some major differences between the Exodus narrative and the history portrayed in the Book of Mormon...If one was going to bet one’s salvation on either one of the texts, then I would go for the Bible. Yes, there some historical accounts are probably not accurate when taken literally. But there are a lot of historical accounts that are generally accurate and that describe real people, real places, and real events. There were kings of Israel and Judah. Babylon and Assyria were real empires. Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus were real places. Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Peter and Paul were real people. With the Book of Mormon, none of it appears to be real history with verifiable places, peoples, or events. So both texts contain historical inaccuracies, it just that with the Book of Mormon it is all inaccuracies.

basil,

This is pretty much my view as well. I think one of the big fallacies that many people make on their way out is that after concluding that the Book of Mormon is all made up, they quickly conclude the Bible is in the same boat because they hear about a few inaccuracies.

Let me be clear that I am not an inerrantist, but the Bible is in a different league from the Book of Mormon. It has a definite context and makes sense in that context. Whether you choose to place faith in it is a different matter.