Because, God knew him from the beginning that he will rebell against God. This is an example for our generation, that if you harden your heart towards God - He will hardened it more like a stone of heart. And, that's why there's so many atheist in our days.
There's no archeological evidence to suggest that the exodus actually happened (ie. Hebrew pottery adopting an Egyptian style), and scholars generally agree that there aught to be if it happened. That's not to say that it's impossible that it could have occurred, but the evidence suggests that it probably didn't.
However, there is evidence for an Egyptian colonisation of Canaan -the land that became Israel- during the time that the Hebrew people were beginning to emerge and the Jewish religion beginning to come about in its earliest form. I think it's quite likely that the story of Exodus was a myth created and passed down with the intention of expressing the feelings of the early Jews on the departure of the Egyptian, the freedom this gave them, and the fact that they then had their own lands. They no doubt believed that Yahweh was on their side, and probably wanted to tell a story which showed that more clearly.
I definitely don't think that the Exodus is historical fact, but I think that diminishing it to 'fiction' is far too simplistic, because the authors will have truly believed that there was some level of truth in the story; namely that God was on the side of the Jews and freed them from the oppression of the Egyptians.
(P.S sorry, I wasn't able to watch the video tonight, so what I'm saying might be irrelevant. If so, I'm sorry.)
Don't be. This is rather a unique view, of the Egyptians exiting and to me is more plausible than the reverse that the myth shows.
It is quite possible that some facts from the Hyksos expulsion were indeed incorporated in the myth to give pride to the Jews. Quite hard to tell from this far up in history. That is why I depend on the archeology that says it did not happen as written and I add the fact that I do not believe in miracles.
I think of the Bible similarly to how I think of a fable. In fables some things may be portrayed fairly well. There's factual flaws, though. Animals don't talk, but fables often have them talk. The message underlying it all is the most important idea, though.
But to answer your question, it's a jumbled mix of fact, fiction, inaccuracy, and perspective.
There is little to no evidence that the Egyptian's used slaves for manual labor or for anything really. So it is unlikely that they enslaved a hole people's for generations and not have left any written or physical evidence of it.
It's probably an unhealthy mix of fiction and facts.
What goes for the 10 plagues of Egypt, science already got it covered. The rest of the story is more or less fiction, but I wouldn't doubt that in case the ten plagues really happened, there's no doubt that one would see a decent number of people, that would: — use the ten plagues as a proof for existence of their god(s) — use FUD (it's super effective!) to gain control over sheeppeople. (FUD tactics would take advantage of the ten plagues and the "this shit proves my god(s) is/are real" argument).
The context of the passages and the way the words "yam suph" have been translated throughout history make it clear that the "Israelites" did indeed cross the "Red Sea", a 1,350-mile-long body of water extending from the Indian Ocean. In some places, the Red Sea is more than 7,200 feet deep and more than 100 miles wide. While the Israelites would have crossed the Red Sea in what is now known as the Gulf of Suez, this is the large body of water God supernaturally parted, and He used it to destroy the Egyptian army and allow the Israelites to pass safely through, just as the Scriptures describe."
Now we may be tempted to think that this is a wonderful story of God's miraculous saving power on display, and leave it at that. However, we would be missing the bigger picture in the story of redemption. The Old Testament prepares the way for the New Testament, and all of God's promises find their in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The exodus from Egypt, though a real, "historical event", prefigures the saving work of Christ for His people. What God did through Moses was to provide "physical salvation" from physical slavery. What God does through Christ is provide "spiritual salvation" from a spiritual slavery. However, our slavery isn't like that of the Israelites in Egypt. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt, it's also a picture that we're all slaves to sin.
As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed...John 8:34, 36."
To my knowledge, there is no archaeology in the middle-east to suggest that the Exodus took place, nor any accounts outside of the Bible to confirm it. Biblical historians are pretty much unanimous in believing that it wan't a real historical event. What archaeology are you referring to?
What accounts are these? I've never heard them mentioned and I've read quite a few books and took Hebrew Scriptures this year under a wonderful and well-respected academic, so I'd be very interested to read them and pass them on.
The earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus is in the writings of the Greek author Hecataeus of Abdera: the Egyptians blame a plague on foreigners and expel them from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, takes them to Canaan, where he founds the city of Jerusalem. Hecataeus wrote in the late 4th century BCE, but the passage is quite possibly an insertion made in the mid-1st century BCE. The most famous is by the Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd century BCE), known from two quotations by the 1st century CE Jewish historian Josephus. In the first, Manetho describes the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their dominion over and expulsion from Egypt, and their subsequent foundation of the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Josephus (not Manetho) identifies the Hyksos with the Jews. In the second story Manetho tells how 80,000 lepers and other "impure people," led by a priest named Osarseph, join forces with the former Hyksos, now living in Jerusalem, to take over Egypt. They wreak havoc until eventually the pharaoh and his son chase them out to the borders of Syria, where Osarseph gives the lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses. Manetho differs from the other writers in describing his renegades as Egyptians rather than Jews, and in using a name other than Moses for their leader, although the identification of Osarseph with Moses may be a later addition. [link]
Interesting, I didn't know about that (although, from experience, I am a little loathe to trust Wikipedia as a reliable source on Biblical studies).
I would also say that although it's interesting, it's somewhat different from the Biblical account - for example, Moses does not lead the Hebrews into Israel and found Jerusalem in Biblical account. The Greeks had strong links with Semitics during that time, so my inclination would be that this was written from an early Hebrew account of the Exodus which had reached Greece through trade routes. Just speculation of course, but I wouldn't be too inclined to call it external verification.
Please note that I haven't researched this since middle school, so my information is a bit rusty. The fall of Egypt as a national superpower was recorded by several surrounding nations, and the Exodus story, specifically Israel leaving Egypt seems to coincide with this event. Sure it went on, but it wasn't the same. Plus, considering Egypt's tendency to destroy particular elements of its history, like a female pharaoh for example, it could be possible that the events that took place were simply erased from history. That's speculation on my part, however.
I also recall an interesting bit of information I learned at the time, about the consistency of some of the bricks used to build the pyramids. It was noted that the consistency of the lower level was straw, then stubble, then finally just plain mud. It seemed to coincide with the Exodus story, so that struck me as odd.
Note that I'm not talking about the supernatural elements of the Exodus story, but simply the natural occurrences.
See, I don't think that any of that is really indicative of an Exodus at all; there could be alternative explanations which seem more likely. It's certainly possible that there was an Exodus and that the Egyptians destroyed any written evidence of it, but I'd say it's more likely that it didn't occur.
What you say about the fall of Egypt as a superpower and Israel leaving is interesting, though. What's the link between the two events?
It makes sense that a nation that lost a large portion of its workforce would suddenly drop in productivity, and thus influence.
I'm curious though, you said it was more likely that it didn't occur. While I understand the supernatural elements of the story are hard to believe, the idea that an entire people group were enslaved, then liberated, seems like something that would occur commonly in that day and age. I mean, the possibility that the event occurred, and then was written in flowery detail later by Israel, seems like a valid possibility as well, wouldn't you agree?
Well in my view, the things you suggest are things that could be otherwise explained than through the escape of Hebrew slaves. That seems unlikely because there is no arcaeological evidence for an exodus from Egypt such as things left behind or dropped during the journey, or a change in Hebrew styles of art etc. that suggest interaction with Egyptians on such a scale as Exodus suggests. Most Biblical historians agree that those things should be there if there really was a Hebrew escape from slavery in Egypt.
Historically, yes, slaves were common and the Egyptians may have kept them, but there's nothing to suggest that they were kept on such a large scale or that so many escaped. So yes, it's historically possible for the Exodus to have occurred, but I think that the evidence makes it unlikely that it happened.
I was mainly referring to the number of nations that recorded Egypt's national decline in their histories around the time this took place, though I do remember something from somewhere (granted, I haven't looked into this since middle school.) about the pyramids having different consistencies, in line with the decree pharaoh put out in scripture.
The supernatural element of the story is meaningless to argue about. You either believe it or you don't. I'm merely arguing that there is evidence that Israel's exodus did occur.
If we take this account as accurate, the Israelites cannot have entered Egypt any earlier than the Middle Kingdom. It's true that most Middle Kingdom pyramids were made primarily of mud brick, but why talk about them? Not only would this have been at the beginning of their presence in Egypt, when Genesis and Exodus says they were not enslaved, but Exodus does not mention pyramid construction. It talks about the "treasure cities" of Pithom and Raamses.
Pithom -- or Pi-Atum, the "House of Atum" -- is known from inscriptions and later accounts in Classical times, when it was known to the Greeks as Heroopolis -- but its exact location isn't known. One candidate site, which may have provided the information you were thinking of as it seemed to have been built out of bricks made without straw, is now known to date from the 7th century BC, which is far too late. If it's the correct site for the city called Pithom, its mention is clearly a later insertion.
On the other hand, Raamses or Pi-Ramesses was no mere treasure city; it was the capital of Egypt under Ramesses II. He didn't build the city, but he must have enlarged it to become his capital and it would not be surprising if he employed slave labor to do it. That makes him the earliest Pharaoh under whom the Exodus could possibly have happened. (The Bible is unclear on the length of the oppression.) That means the time of the Exodus dovetails nicely with the advent of the Sea Peoples, who showed up around the time of the Bronze Age collapse of the 12th century BC. Whether they caused the collapse, or were set wandering and marauding as a result of it is unclear; perhaps either is true for different groups of Sea Peoples as they were not an ethnically uniform group. Egypt actually fared better than other nations of the Mediterranean at that time. Both the Mycenaean Greek kingdoms and the Hittite Empire collapsed, but Egypt was relatively untroubled until Ramesses III of the 20th dynasty was forced to fight off an invasion of them. (Look up "Battle of the Delta".)
It's also true that around this time, Egypt went into a decline. During Ramesses III's reign, they lost control of many of their Asian possessions, and generally poor growing conditions for a nearly 20 year period led to a rise in grain prices, localized famine, and the first labor strike in recorded history. This may have a wider problem than just Egypt, though, so if you were looking for Biblical correspondences it looks a lot more like the seven lean years prophesied by Joseph. But since this led to the Israelites' arrival in Egypt in the first place, it's far too late! Ramesses III died around 1155 BC, but King David apparently reigned c. 1000. Even assigning a longer reign to David than the Bible says, you can find only about half the 480 years 1 Kings 6 tells us elapsed between the Exodus and Solomon beginning construction of the Temple. Given the conventional date c. 970 for this, we'd have to find the Exodus occurring under Thutmose III. However, at the time of his death in 1425 BC, Egyptian power was at its zenith. It's precisely the wrong geopolitical situation for the events of Exodus. (And not a word in Exodus of a situation that could not possibly have gone unremarked by anyone living there: Thutmose III succeeded not his father, but his *aunt*, Hatshepsut, with whom he was co-regent for 22 years, although it was she and not he who had all the power. This was only the second time it was ever recorded that Egypt was ruled by a woman.)
If anything, although there are a few suggestive things you can point to, the archaeological record cannot be reconciled with the Genesis-Exodus narrative in any coherent way.
One of the theories that intrigued me about the exodus was that it happened during Merenre II's short reign. At the end of the 6th dynasty and not during Ramsesse II reign. There were environmental disasters also their civilization was on a fast decline (which could easily happen if a majority of their labor force left). But that would throw Solomon's date of the Exodus out of whack...unless he just couldn't count