@Ricardolindo I thought I answered your question in the post that you quoted.
View attachment 56210
Do I think the Exodus happened? I suppose its a bit like asking whether the Trojan War happened. For a long time we had little evidence of the latter other than the stories people told, but eventually we found out that some sort of event sort of roughly analogous - though much much much less grandiose than the stories described - did occur. There's not much evidence that a Davidic united monarchy existed, but there are some coins which archeologists dug up recently in Syria which referenced a House of David, and I assume that there's some validity to the oral narratives passed down through generations. I don't see why discussion of an Ancient Jewish kingdom should be treated very differently than ancient discussions of the Sea Peoples who attacked Egypt (for whom we don't have much evidence, though generally assume something happened), the Greek myths (once divorced of the narrative fluff), the Three Kingdoms period of China, etc.
But to repeat myself from my prior post and from the top of this post - My answer to your question is that it's sort of irrelevant whether it literally happened. The Talmud says over 80% of Jews/Israelites did not leave Pharaoh's Egypt. The Exodus text addresses the notion that many Jews who fled Egypt would chicken out and go back to what they knew, and accordingly the path out of Egypt was a roundabout one done so as to avoid direct confrontation with Pharaonic forces. If statistics and general statistical/sociological rules of group organization are generally constant no matter what year you're looking at, then it makes sense to me that the 80% figure (or, the more general 80-20 principle which plays out mathematically across normal distributions in statistic) would apply with respect to people getting up and moving. It's a story to get a principle out of, and Jews view it as a history of their culture. And Jews have a particular way of reading the stories which puts much more emphasis on the narrative and figurative over the literal; they impose an added gloss of their own historic cultural attitudes, such that words which mean one thing to them often have a very different meaning to somebody from a different cultural background who is reading the old testament after it's been translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English or whatever other language. Different languages have different grammar, syntax, double-entendre, etc. Just as some Ancient Greeks complained that writing stories down would result in their losing meaning (because of concerns about pace, inflection, tone, etc. which could not be put to page but are very important for understanding the meaning of a text) the same principle applies to how Judaism had a written torah and an oral torah (which was later written down).
I treat the Jewish texts and narrative history as I would treat any other cultures: I think it's very important to understand the cultural perspective and context and assumptions and habits of the people who wrote something down. In English, how does one know whether "bank" refers to the edge of a river or a financial institution without context? Or whether "cool" means positive/fashionable or a temperature without context?