Those are all lies, man. And I will now prove it.

The dean of modern Archaeology, William F. Albright, who is considered to be the greatest archaologist of modern times, has this to say about the archaeology and historicity of the Bible:

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition"(ARI, 176).

Even usually liberal sources are now admitting the overall historical reliability of the Old Testament. Excerpting from his book Is the Bible True? Jeffrey Sheler notes for U.S. News & World Report:

"In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old Testament -- corroberating key portions of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus" (Oct. 25, 1999, 52).

Now I will address each of your claims:

You said "the patriarchs are mythical."

First, it is important for me to point out that you cited no evidence supporting your claims.  Were the patriarchs mythical? Absolutely not!

1. William Fr. Albright, the worlds greatest Bible archceologist stated:

"Thanks to modern research we now recognize its [the Bible's] substantial historicity. The narratives of the PATRIARCHS, of Moses and the exodus, of the conquest of Caanon, of the judges, the monarchy, exile and restoration, have ALL been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago" (CC, 1329).

2. Law codes have been found from the time of Abraham that show why the Patriarch would have been hesitant to throw Hagar out of his camp, for he was legally bound to support her. Only when a higher law came from God was Abraham willing to expel her.

3. The discovery of the MARI LETTERS (thousands of tablets discovered in Syria -- 1834 -- that depict life from about the time of the patriarchs in Genesis) reveals such names as ABAM-RAM (ABRAHAM), JACOB-EL, and Benjamites. Though these do not refer to the biblical people, they atleast show that the names were in use.

4. These records also support Gen.14, where five kings fought against four kings.

5. As to patriarchal history, Albright said:

"Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial history of PATRIARCHAL tradition" (Albright, BP,1).

6. Scholar Walter Kaiser adds:

"The amount of epigraphic material for this period of history is staggering. Much of this material awaits further study and publication. Meanwhile, an increasing high degree of probability and corroberating evidence continues to mount up from the external evidence to such a point that the case for genuineness of the PATRIARCHAL stories is strong indeed" (OTDATR, 96).

You said: "The exodus is mythical."

Wrong again.

1. See the quotes I gave above.

2. There are archaeological findings supporting the exodus event. I can't get into this now. But I recommend you read "Archaeology and the Old Testament, by Anders. He deals specifically with the exodus data.

You said: "The conquest is mythical."

Wrong agan. Read Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability, by Clifford; Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, by Wiseman.

MOSES

You also argue that Moses was mythical.

1. Albright:

"The contents of our Pentateuch are, in general, very much older than the date at which they were finally edited; new discoveries continue to confirm the historical accuracy or the literary antiquity of detail after detail.......sheer hypercriticism to deny the substantially MOSAIC character of the Pentateuchal tradition" (AP, 225).

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY

The late date many critics assign to Deuteronomy -- 7th century B.C. -- has been thoroghly discredited by the excellent scholarship of Meredith Kline in his landmark work on The Treaty of the Great King (see also Gleason Archer, SOTI, 253-62), in which he demonstrated that Deuteronomy follows the typical suzerainty treaty of the Hittities in the 2nd millenium century B.C. --the very time in which tradition informs us Moses wrote Deuteronomy.

SUMMARY ANC CONCLUSION

This was a very brief treatement/refutation on my part due to time constraints.

Most of the claims from the author of this thread are based on arguments from silence and ignorance.

Note, no evidence has ever been produced to disprove the accounts in the Old Testament.

William F. Albright started his lifes work as a skeptic. He actually set out to debunk the Bible. But after researching tremendous amounts of evidence in favor of the historicity of the Old Testament, he came to believe that the Old Testament is historically accurate.

Rook, with all do respect, your bibliography is PRE-ARCHAEOLOGICAL. Meaning, your authors were not familiar with the modern discoveries of archaeology, and none of them can hold a candle to the scholarly erudition of William Fr. Albright. And your authors were liberals with an agenda and axe to grind in the first place.

MODERN ARCHAEOLOGY CONFIRMS THE HISTORICITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Archer, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties"

Livingston, "Redating the Exodus" in "Biblical Archaeological Review"

Blaiklock, "The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology"

Custance, "The Flood: Local or Global"

Gluek, "Rivers in the Desert"

Kaiser, "The Old Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?"

Kitchen, "Ancient Orient and the Old Testament"

Kline, "The Treaty of the Great King"

Lubenow, "Bones of Contention"

Pritchard, "Ancient Near East Texts"

Reinwinkle, "The Flood"

Sheler, "Is the Bible True?"

Whitcomb, "Darius the Mede"

Whitcomb, "The Genesis Flood"

Wilson, "Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability"

Wiseman, "Ancient Records and the Structures of Genesis"

Yamauchi, "The Stones and the Scriptures"

Young, "The Biblical Flood"

Anders, "Old Testament Archaeology"

Anders, "New Testament Archaeology"

Did you even read my Bibliography? (Obviously not, because you had to stop and correct yourself after your initial post - you've been caught in the act of ignoring posts!  So you don't read, and pretend you do, and then lie about it!) 

Every one of those authors published within the last ten years with the exception of Alhstrom. Davies, Thompson, Van Seeters et al are all not only scholars who have published collectively thousands of articles in recent journals, but all are familiar with archeaological finds. You have no concept or grasp of scholarship Apotheon, you simply go to peoples websites and copy-paste things into a text box and post. This is apparent in that you used two of my list (which you previously called 'pre-achaeology' - a term which does not exist..you just made it up) and put them in your list. Pritchard does not agree with you, by the way.

Finally, all of those books listed with the exception of one, is a monograph. In fact, two are texts books. All of those books refute the originality and historicity of the Old Testament, specificallt Thompson, Van Seters, Davies, Garbini, and Lemche.  I am personal friends with some of the scholars.  Get your facts straight you know-nothing, sorry excuse for a human being.  Try reading a book for once.

The guy clearly just makes up whatever helps him sleep at night....I really think these sort of unrepentant, irresponsible liars just need to be banned from the site.... refuting blatant lies is a waste of our time.

Apotheon, William Albright is not a god; he isn't even close to one, and his successors have good reason to believe that his approach was fundamentally flawed. He tended to find some ruin and ask himself "Does that fit the Bible?" More recent archeologists have concerned themselves with trying to date garbage dumps and the like to find out when places were inhabited, and they find out that the Bible's early history does not fit.

Also, this claim that William Albright was once a skeptic who tried to disprove the Bible is a classic conversion brag, alongside "I was once an atheist; I hated God." Don't the fundies have any originality?

I have a few more points worthy of note:

1. Rook never once quoted from any of his sources anything that directly contradicts my own quotes.

2. Rook never quoted anything from any of his sources. His argument would have more merit of he actually quoted from one of his sources something that directly or indirectly goes against one of my several quotes in favor of biblical archeology.

3.. No archaeological discovery has ever disproved anything in the Bible. This is very imporant for the skeptics to know.

P.S. My last list of books is from apologeticsinfo.org. I forgot to mention this in that post.

Rook, I have to give you credit for having so much patience as a deconstructionist dealing with religious history.

It still doesnt amount to a hill of beans even if one could prove that a person or city existed when it comes to claims of magic.

Superman can not litterally fly in real life because we go to the movies and see him flying around the real city of New York.

Even if Rook would concede that every character in the bible was a real person, it still doesnt prove by any stretch that snakes or donkeys talk, or that the sun stopped dead in the sky, or that a disimbodied being with no reproductive organs got a 9 to 14 year old girl pregnant.

Rook is doing a fine job of schooling you. But even if you have it in your head that you are right about those events and people being real, you still have only one claim that ultimatly after all this convoluted attempt to justify beliving , all you have is "God did it".

I know what rigor mortis is and I know that dead bodies dont reconstitute themselves magicaly 3 days later. I know that it takes a sperm and and egg to make a human baby. You cant get around those facts, so insted of facing them you have deluded yourself into believing that because someone claimed the bible to be a history book, the magic must be real. 

Now, insted of saying "I am right and god is real" to yourself. Take yourself outside your belief and look at what Rook is saying objectively. Look at it as an experiment. Pretend that you are an alien from another planet who has never heard of Christianity and that you have picked up the book for the first time.

It doesnt read like history. It reads like Marvel Comics. But you have fun trying to take on Rook.

Rook, keep up the great work. 

I wouldn't recommend Finkelstein, although they make some great points, I feel his book is still not as good as anything written by Lemche or Thompson.  Thompson's book, "Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources" is destructive to everything he has to say.  Thompson is the first person to truely write about and deconstruct the theories of Alt and Noth (two who influenced Albright) and further decontructs Albrights position on the monarchy, and the Jews as nomadic prior to the monarchy (what monarchy?).   Thompson's experience in this field makes him among the top 10 experts today worldwide. 

 But it doesn't matter who you recommend, because Apotheon is too lazy to read the books himself, and he is too deceptive.  So far he has not given us one original thought, or one honest answer.  IT is dodge after dodge, and he just steals from websites and pastes info here when in fact he doesn't have the slightest clue what he is posting about.  He probably didn't know Albright was dead until I brought it up.  He certainly doesn't have a clue as to Albrights position was on the matter of historicity, nor does he have a clue that Albright had his doubts.  He is just name dropping - something he got from somebody else who was just as clueless as he is.

Of course it is.

Apotheon, no skeptic can take your comments seriously... modern scholarship is mainly Christian or at least from societies where Christianity is the dominant religion and yet they agree more with the skeptics than the fundies. The idea that archaeology hasn't disproved anything in the bible would have to mean that nothing in archaeology is at odds with the Genesis account , or Noah's flood!

Get real, your hyperbole is your undoing.

I prefer "lowperbole"

Just thought I'd add some levity to the thread.

So, by the standard of your really small brain, acheological evidence that:

 - The garden of eden never existed

 - There was no great flood

 - That man is a species of great ape

 - That many of the cities of the Bible never existed

...None of the above (which is merely the tip of the iceberg) is a 'strong attack on Christianity'?

I'd like to get some more into the question of who Moses might had been. Although the Exodus as described in the Bible is unhistorical, the Biblical account could well have been inspired by some real history. In particular, the expulsion of the Hyksos, who ruled northern Egypt from about 1648 BCE to about 1540 BCE. They had been Canaanites, and their stay of Egypt and expulsion from Egypt could well have been remembered by later generations in Canaan. They had also lived through the massive Thera eruption, which they could have learned about from Cretan refugees; that could well have inspired some of the Ten Plagues of Egypt.

And the Pharaoh who drove them out? Ahmose, whose name sounds like "Brother of Moses" (Ah Moshe) in Hebrew.

And the Red Sea? That was the Septuagint's translation (hê eruthra thalassa) of what was originally the Reed Sea (Yam Suph).

So I imagine a scenario that starts with

Pharaoh Ahmose (Brother of Moses) drove us out of Egypt, though he lost interest after we went through a huge marsh, a sea of reeds.

The storytellers would then have to explain who Moses was, and they'd come up with something like

Moses, brother of the Pharaoh, led us out of Egypt.

And the second part is not dramatic enough, so it would be turned into

Moses parted the Reed Sea so his people could cross it, and when the Egyptians arrived, he let the water pour back to drown them.

And the Septuagint? Some translator might have wondered "Where in Sheol is the Reed Sea?" and concluded that it was the Red Sea, which was appropriately located.

So some of the Bible's "history" is little more than a game of "telephone", though it must be said that that is common among other early histories.

And when was that? I'd like to see some actual documentation of that, as opposed to the all-too-common fundie testimony of "I was once an atheist, a skeptic, an evil monster who ate babies."

How so?

Exodus is purported history, and I was hoping to address the question of how much is fact and how much is fiction in it. I'm thinking of something like Greek mythology, which features a lot of real places from Mycenaean times. Or how Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great got remembered as Dietrich von Bern. Or the Song of Roland, likewise based on some real history.

Moses I don't think was historical -- I think that he was invented to explain why an Egyptian Pharaoh's name, Ahmose, sounded like "Brother of Moses" in Hebrew.

However, the Hyksos had been Canaanites, and when they returned, they could have blended in with the local population and they could have told of their adventures in Egypt, including fleeing the "Brother of Moses".

That's quite correct -- the rule of Canaan by New-Kingdom Egypt could explain the slavery-in-Egypt part quite nicely.

The picture I'm proposing is VERY mixed-up history -- and very likely oral history for some centuries. And in cases like Greek mythology, Theodoric the Great, and the Song of Roland, oral history can get very mixed up.

Consider the case of the Laestrygonians in Homer's Odyssey. Their land resembles a Scandinavian fjord, and their long daytime is what happens during the summer there -- the best time for sea voyaging. However, two of the three named entities in that story have recognizably Greek names: the town Telepylos ( "Far Gate" ) and the leader Antiphates. I can't place Astacia, however.

But why a Scandinavian fjord? Scandinavia was on the way to the Baltic Sea, and the Mycenaeans had lots of Baltic amber. So some Mycenaeans could well have voyaged there and described some of the terrain along the way.

However, southern Norway and Sweden are likely Germanic-homeland areas, along with Denmark, so one might expect some Germanic names there. Towns and villages with names ending in -chaim-, -thorp-, -wik-, -dal-, etc. (-ham, -heim, "home", -thorp, -dorf, -vik, -dal, -tal, "dale", etc.). And some personal names with "wolf" in them.

Furthermore, the poets who composed the Odyssey over the centuries likely took this and other accounts of voyages and turned them into the voyages of one hero, Odysseus.

I agree that they weren't, but since they had been Canaanites, they would have blended in with the local population when they returned.

It is purported history, like the various epics I've mentioned.

Purported by whom?  Certainly not the author of Exodus.

But not where they're supposed to be.  Long have Homeric scholars noticed that the areas discussed in Homer's poems do not relate to geography, even for the day and time when they were written (10th-9th century BCE).  Same thing with Jason and the Argonauts, which does not appear to have been written using any ancient Atlases. 

You're comparing two time periods here.  Both of which are not very comparable.

Based on what evidence?  Ahmose and Ahmosh (you're trying to suggest this is where 'Moses' came from) look similar in *english*.  That does not mean they are similar when viewed in their original written form.  In fact, I know they aren't.  Even if you compared docetic or coptic to the semitic equivalent, it would not look similar. 

Another flaw in your perspective is that you ignored the fact that Exodus *tells* us where the name Moses came from.  The author explains it right away as a literary invention (much how Isaac, Jacob, and Joshua are so-named), because the Pharaoh's daughter "drew him out" from the water--the word for 'draw out' in Hebrew is "Mashah" and Moses is "Mosheh".  It's a pun, as much as Isaac (which means "laughter&quot is a pun on Sarah's laughter at her gained knowledge of future pregnancy.  It is also an important name to the story - as Moses "draws out" his people from Egypt.  His name reflects the literary significance of his characters role in the narrative. (similar to how the name Jesus Christ in the Gospels reflects the intended purpose behind the character)

Moreso, the story of Moses does not make Pharaoh Moses' brother, but grandfather, as the daughter of the Pharaoh (again, he's anonymous) adopts Moses as her son.  So why would the Hebrews invent a story and character to explain a name (a very silly reason and void of real intent)?  Especially when the intent of the story is not to explain the name (the narrative spends only three chapters on birth, adoption, and attendance to the pharaoh) but to explain the usefulness of God to a people who are seemingly in need of such comfort.  Your perspective here seems to raise more questions then it actually finds answers to, and little of it can be shown to be helpful to the overall narrative. 

Could have.  But no evidence remains of them after their expulsion of Egypt.  Subsequent campaigns by Ahmose, Ramses, Merneptah and Thutmose could have wiped them out.  It could be that their civilization thrived elsewhere only to be destroyed by an earthquake, forever lost to the sands of time.  Speculating is certainly okay, but it is never okay to base a perspective on a strong of speculations like this.

Why would you assume that these are all related?  Which stories dealing with Greek mythology?

Because they're mythical realms.  They do not represent history.  Homer is not writing down history from past events deemed historical (in his day, perhaps during the Hellenistic period).  His whole story is about the inner conflict of the Greek city-states, and their constant civil wars.  It's all allegory.  In fact, the story starts off telling us that (the Iliad) with a "civil war" between Achilles and Agamemnon.  The Odyssey, as well, is a story about what Greece *should* be.  For example, the kindness offered to strangers (Mentor and Telemachus) should reflect Greek city-states, and how they treat others.  This is expressed at the very end of the epic, where, ready to fight, Laertes, Odysseus and Telemachus, against the suitors and those who opposed his rule in Ithica, Athena comes down and demands everyone lay down their arms.  Whatever wrongs were done in the past, mend them, and unify.  This is Homer's (or whoever wrote these epics pseudonymously) advice.

Why the Scandinavian fjord?  Personally I think there is no discussion of such a place.  This seems like a stretch on your part, another speculative induction, which you then base another speculative induction on, in an attempt to build a case of pure speculation.  The story is not about a trading voyage, or about scavenging.  (If anything, the amber could have been looted from ships by Pirates, which Telemachus and Odysseus are often confused with by others housing them on their voyages) 

Hardly.  The voyages are hardly discussed (the shipwrecks are more discussed then the actual voyage part).  Long winded discussions and feasts and marriages, but not voyages.  This does not fit with the story. 

You're assuming they returned.

Homer wasn't purported to be history. 

Matt, as I just got done saying (I'm sure you went tl/dr on me), the Iliad and the Odyssey are fiction.  This means that the events in these books are also fictional.  This implies that the author intentionally created narrative, invented plot, and wrote things that, if recounting things from the vagaries of memory, would never write.  In this context, I would say that none of the events happened.  Period.  This means that "Troy" probably didn't exist where it suggests it does (although almost certainly in Asia Minor, in fact sites have been found that contend for such an honor - although who knows if such a place even really existed historically) and not nearly in the state of glory they claim.  The site currently thought of as Troy is in Asia Minor, but was destroyed by an earthquake--not a war.  And these sites, by the way, are Bronze Age settlements.  They aren't fortified cities with huge walls like they show in movies. 

But there is absolutely no way the story refers to Britain or upper-western Europe.

Neither the early books of the Bible nor the Homeric epics are clearly labeled "fact" or "fiction" by their writers, and we don't even know who those writers were, so we have to work out what is fact and what is fiction in them.

The Homeric epics do contain some nontrivial history in them -- the Iliad refers to bronze armor and boar's-tusk helmets, both of which were common in Mycenaean Greece, but which went out of style before Classical times. But if there was ever a historical Achilles or a historical Odysseus or, for that matter, a historical Homer, I think that they've been too fictionalized for us to be able to tell anything about them.

And it's unlikely that Scandinavia was ever inhabited by giant cannibals, even though the geography of the Laestrygonians does match a Scandinavian fjord. Giant cannibals, monsters, sorcery, etc. are very dramatic and spectacular, it must be said, and the storytellers who composed the Odyssey likely put those elements in for that reason.

And about the Laestrygonians, I pointed out a disappointing feature in that story -- the lack of recognizable Germanic names. It is especially disappointing because, for the most part, names are like armor in being much more mundane than giant cannibals or monsters or sorcery. Which is why I think that they could have been preserved better. Why was no Laestrygonian named something like Hylphos or Hylphas? ( "Wolf" ) Or why didn't they have a territory name with -land- in it? As in modern-English "land".

Rook, I will also concede that you have an interesting theory about the Homeric epics -- that they are allegories about how the perpetually squabbling Greek city-states ought to stop fighting each other. But that theory does not exclude the possibility that parts of the Homeric epics, and Greek mythology in general, are dimly-remembered legitimate history.

Another possible bit: Jason and the Argonauts run into the mist-shrouded Clashing Cyanean (Blue) Rocks in the Bosporus on the way to the Golden Fleece. Rocks trying to smash one's ships seems rather dramatic, but *blue* rocks? I think that this is a distant memory of northern voyages, where sailors could see lots of ice floes and icebergs, which can look bluish. But some storyteller decided that it was too interesting a peril for his heroes, and imagined them in a place which never gets sea ice.

BTW, the Golden Fleece itself was likely a reference to an ancient method of gold mining -- putting some fleece in a stream where it collects tiny bits of gold.

-

I mentioned Theodoric/Dietrich and Roland because they are examples of oral transmission of history where we have some independent checks. We can compare the orally-transmitted epics about them with originals that had been written more-or-less on the spot. And while some factual details do survive, there is also a lot of conflation and other mixups -- and just plain fiction.

As to history getting mixed up and mangled and contaminated with fiction, one has to bear in mind that an oral storyteller can't simply refer to some written chronicle or some encyclopedia, let alone visit some place like google.com or wikipedia.org

-

As to where the Hyksos went, they likely returned to Canaan and assimilated into the local population, including the hill people who eventually became the Israelites.

-

As to fiction vs. nonfiction, there is another reason to be careful to avoid either/or. There's a common convention that some parts must be fictional while others are factual. In particular, "foreground" details, like specfically who's who, are fictional, while "background" details need not be. In particular, "mundane" fiction has our familiar world and society as a background, and historical fiction has the background of the appropriate time and place. And historical-fiction writers are often judged by how well they give the background details correct.

This foreground-background distinction may explain why some people find science fiction and fantasy very unnerving, as the late Isaac Asimov once suggested. In SF and fantasy, not only the foreground is fictional, but also much of the background.

-

Finally, I do agree with MattShizzle that that Homer-in-Britain book is absurd. How does the author try to make the details fit? With some absolutely absurd shoehorning?

I find "a very short trip from Greece" rather curious. I found the distance from Mycenae to Troy using someone's Google Maps Distance Calculator, and it turns out to be:

Northern Greek coast: 700 mi / 1100 km

East across the Aegean then north: 500 mi / 800 km

From Argos, Greece (near Mycenae) to: Hissarlik, Turkey (near Troy)

It would have taken at least a few days to make the trip using the sort of watercraft that the Mycenaeans had had.

ETA: I decided to assess the Baltic-amber-voyage hypothesis in this way, finding the length of a coast-hugging voyage from Argos to Klaipeda, Lithuania.

Its length is 5400 mi / 8700 km

As to the "monsters" isn't that common back in those days to imagine monsters lived in lands that the writer is either completely unfamiliar or only vaguely familiar with?

Especially when that person's "historians" include Habermas and McDowell.

I hate using IE for this but FF3.0 still won't let me post. <expletive>! 

Unfortunately many do not see the Bible as a guide but the literal word of Yahweh the butcher god of ancient Canaan. Bibles provide  poor light as they only burn for about 3 or 4 minutes. I'm not sure how uplifting murder and mayhem is to you but it doesn't work for me. I now understand why Christianity took hold after considering your statement of arguing over a 3000 year old dead or mythical Moses a newer version was needed 2000 years ago so Jesus was cast in the role.

It is true that there is no evidence for Moses, the ten plagues that fell upon Egypt or the exodus ‘at that time’. But there are a number of scholars who claim that a gross error in chronology has been made in calculating the dates of Egyptian history and that they should be reduced by centuries. Such a re-dating could bring the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in that dynasty to support the Biblical records.

One of the last kings of the 12th dynasty was Sesostris III. His statues depict him as a cruel tyrant quite capable of inflicting harsh slavery on his subjects. His son was Amenemhet III, who seems to have been an equally disagreeable character. He probably ruled for 46 years, and Moses would have been born near the beginning of his reign.

Amenemhet III may have had one son, known as Amenemhet IV, who was an enigmatic character who may have followed his father or may have been a co-regent with him. If the latter, Amenemhet IV could well have been Moses. Amenemhet IV mysteriously disappeared off the scene before the death of Amenemhet III.

Amenemhet III had a daughter whose name was Sobekneferu. It is known that she had no children. If she was the daughter of Pharaoh who came down to the river to bathe, it is easy to understand why she was there. It was not because she had no bathroom in her palace. She would have been down there taking a ceremonial ablution and praying to the river god Hapi, who was also the god of fertility. Having no children she would have needed such a god, and when she found the beautiful baby Moses there she would have considered it an answer to her prayers (Exodus 2:5—6).

But when Moses came of age he identified himself with the people of Israel and was obliged to flee from Egypt. This left a vacuum on the throne, and when Amenemhet III died there was no male successor. Sobekneferu ascended the throne and ruled for 8 years as a Pharaoh, but when she died the dynasty died and was succeeded by the 13th dynasty.

There is plenty evidence for Israelite slavery in Egypt–the sudden disappearance of these slaves, the devastation of Egypt by the ten plagues, the destruction of the Egyptian army–if we look for it at the right time, and time is a vital element in the interpretation of ancient history.

According to the Biblical records, the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon laid the foundations of his temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 6:1). This would place the Exodus about 1446 BC. God’s covenant with Abraham was 430 years earlier (Exodus 12:40, Galatians 3:16, 17) about 1850 BC. From the ages of his predecessors back to Noah, given in Genesis 12 and 13, it can be calculated that the great universal flood occurred 427 years earlier, about 2302 BC. But according to most authorities on Egyptian chronology the pyramids were built about 1550 BC, and the first dynasty of Egypt ruled about 3100 BC.23

Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries.

The issue is clear. An acceptance of the present chronological interpretation of Egyptian history, and a rejection of the Biblical chronology, opens the door to skepticism of the rest of the early Biblical records, including the record of the Creation of the world in six days. But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified.

By that logic if we find out there's a flaw in what we know about the Civil War it means that it was actually a war between the Earth and Aliens - and Superman came in the nick of time to win it for Earth and change everyones memories and plant all kinds of fake evidence so we see it as history says.

In your opinionated assertion you have about 60 Ifs, may haves, but theres, unsupported claims, and assertions. For convenience I have marked them in bold.

You start by assuming Moses exists and try to force that idea into the surviving history and interpretations from Ancient Egyptian archeology.

Here you assume Sesostris III enslaved his people and they were some how Israelite. You assert Moses exists and he was born during this time period.

You have no way to know if he had only one son or not for sure. How can you assess anyone's character from partial biased records? How can you know how he ruled or with whom from partial records? How can you know he was Moses, he could have been Superman or left for India on a boat that landed in Australia.

Surviving records lead you to believe she had no children but there is no certainty. You assume she went to the river to bathe and she was a daughter of a Pharaoh. You assume easy understanding from partial records. You assume she was doing a ceremony and praying. You assume she wanted children. You assume she found a baby and it was a character named Moses. You assumed she prayed and wanted a child.

You assume Moses was real, he lived to come of age, he sided with Israel, Israelites were in Egypt, and he fled.

You assume Israelites were in Egypt and they were slaves. Only asiatics that seem to have been in Egypt were ruling Egypt until driven out by Pharaoh Ahmrose. What slaves? What plagues besides the fantasy tales in the Buybull? The Egyptian army was destroyed, you have proof beside the Buybull? Where?

You assume the Bible is a record and not a writing of fables. You assume the Exodus was real and it occur ed xxx years before an unproven King Solomon allegedly existed who is alleged to have built a great temple. You assume a date for your assumed Exodus. You assume there is a God, a man named Abraham and they made a contract and a date xxx years. You assume there was a flood and it was universal and you date it to a time period where Sumerian history shows otherwise. You assume dates and/or authorities have successfully determined this. When was the Sphinx constructed?

You assume the Bible isn't a fantasy. You make unsupported claims on Egyptian dynasties and construction of pyramids etc. Again when was the Sphinx built? You again assume the flood story was real. You assume the direction of dating for Egyptian chronology.

The only thing you have shown here is anything is possible with nearly 60 claims and what ifs.

Consider this complete fantasy claim below:

What if an alien craft landed on Earth in 40,000 BCE and altered our DNA. What if they manipulated civilization to their own ends and promoted religion as a way to control man. What if thelr ultimate purpose is to come back sometime in the future and Jesus is the commander of the Alien forces. We are then to be conscripted into the Galactic invasion force to invade rebelling planets and are a sort of clone army. I did this with about 8 what ifs not 60 like you.

I've never watched any of the Hitler Channel, and I can agree on rejecting some of the more enthusiastic ideas like those. I certainly agree that the Minoans being the Lost Ten Tribes is absolute horseshit. The Minoans lived too far before the historical parts of the Old Testament, and they were big-time polytheist idolators.

As to "Reed Sea", it's a more-or-less literal translation of yam suph. "Red Sea" is a Septuagint (mis)translation.

I have another speculation that I want to add. The Hyksos departing Egypt was followed by the Egyptians conquering Palestine during their New Kingdom. But some centuries later, storytellers reversed that order of events because it seemed more reasonable for the Israelites to be enslaved then escape than to escape and be enslaved.

So I'm proposing some major mixups.

The real Mt. Sinai is over in Saudi Arabia See the blackened, burned peak, the split rock which Moses struck, and the altar which the golden calf was placed.  http://youtube.com/watch?v=K-eSRcr9CWw

Real Mount Sinai Found Discovery in Saudi Arabia.   http://www.squidoo.com/mountsinai

http://sharetext.org/ad6