For those who want proof of the exodus

[Aractus]

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3464018/

This one can be found on Netflix.
I know it's a tall ask to ask anyone to watch hour and half two hour movie for the sake of debate. That's not what I'm doing here I am providing a resource for those who want an honest look at what evidence their is for the exodus. In this film every major point before and after the exodus is examined and what they have found out there in the sand.

I say an honest look because this the evidence and theory that binds the evidence has holes. Those holes are identified and discussed. ultimatly it is up to you to look at all the evidence and decide for yourself.

Yes we're well aware of Tim Mahoney and his book. And movie.

This so-called proof that you are presenting us with is a documentary film. Documentaries rarely offer facts, are almost always biased, and are not an academic standard of evidence. This one film proves the Exodus to you does it Drich?

You can't sniff the bullshit?

Here's the first problem: the premise of the hypothesis put forward by Mahoney (or rather Rohl) requires that mainstream Egyptology is wrong. That most professional Egytologists, Archaeologists, and near-east Historians are wrong, and that there's a systemic problem with their fields resulting in this. That premise alone shows that this "evidence" is likely to be nothing more than a sensational show with little to no academic merit. Especially as Mahoney is a film-maker and not a scholar in a relevant field.

The second problem is that Rohl only looks at the Exodus. As soon as you move the Exodus from 1250 BC to 1450 BC you create other chronological problems to do with the Biblical narrative, such as the period of Judges which, unlike the Exodus, can't be moved back 200 years.

Thirdly it doesn't address any of the meatier problems. For example, Moses is adopted by Pharaoh's daughter and this Egyptian King reigns from before Moses is born up until Moses is an 80-year old man, which is when he dies and a new King takes over. This new King, according to the Bible, is drowned in the Red Sea after the ten plagues. Thus his reign couldn't have lasted more than a few weeks to months. There is only one Egyptian king who reigned for at least 80 years, and that's Pepy II. He ruled for a reported 94 years. But even that's disputed by Historians. But for argument's sake let's say we know he ruled for 94 years, he was indeed followed by a king that had an incredibly short reign of only 13 months (Merenre Nemtyemsaf II). And it coincided with total economic collapse as well. However this is 1000 years earlier in the 22nd century BC.

So let's come back to Rohl - his hypothesis is that Dedumose II is the king who drowned in the Red Sea. And fair enough we don't know much about him and his probably could have been as short as required by the Biblical account. However what we don't have is his predecessor reigning for at least 80 continual years.

Can you see the problems now Drich?

The problem is that Rohl, who's work is very valuable I'm sure, is convinced of the reality of the Exodus and thus he tries to make the evidence in Egypt fit the narrative in the Bible. But even if he managed to do that it doesn't change the fact that the Bible claims that the enslaved Hebrews were made to do forced labour - and only convicted criminal slaves in Egypt could be made to do forced labour - the Bible claims that Moses and 600,000 Hebrews went to Mt Sinai, and they didn't - the Bible claims they stayed in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, after they plundered the Egyptians, yet no trace of them has ever been found - and finally the Bible claims and mentions several specific cities that there was a great conquest of Canaan led by Joshua, and this is not supported by the archaeological record. Some of the cities claimed to have been besieged by the Israelites were in fact abandoned without any apparent conflict.

What both fail to address is what the film does do very well. Provide archeological evid nice for the Joseph, Joseph's saving Egypt from a 7 year drout Joseph's grave the grave to his twelve brothers. The city where the family of Joseph grew into the nation of Israel. The evidences for the enslavement, the evidences for all the 1 born males being slaughtered in the time of Moses. The Egyptian papyrus that describes the plagues, the written Egyptian evidence for the exodus. The loss of their army. The destruction of Jericho 40 years later and on and on and on...

I don't know what they fuck you're talking about. Provide some evidence please not just a claim that "we found the grave of Joseph". There's no evidence whatsoever for the enslavement of an entire nation of people by the Egyptians at ANY time. They allowed foreigners to live in their land freely without being enslaved.

Jericho was destroyed 100-150 years too early for an "early" Exodus, and it was taken by Egyptians not Hebrews. Seems to me the documentary is making the claim "there was a walled city destroyed in a way consistent with Joshua's conquest around the right time". But when you look at the details they're all wrong: Jericho was conquered by Egypt. It was conquered around 1500-1550 BC, not 1400 BC as required by an "early" Exodus. Furthermore Egypt controlled territories in Canaan up until at least the 9th century BC - this clearly contradicts the Bible which claims that Joshua took the whole of Canaan for the possession of the Hebrew people. And while Jericho may have been walled, most of the other cities in Canaan were not. In fact the few strongholds that did exist (up until the 9th Century) were controlled by Egypt, at which time they were abandoned. In the 13th century - 200 years after the supposed "early Exodus" - Egypt was clearly in control of the Canaan region. Yes the nation of Israel existed in some capacity way back then, but as a pathetically small population somewhere in Canaan - certainly not as the overlords of the region as has claimed by the Bible.

When did the Egyptians ever loose their army and how do you explain them controlling strongholds in Egypt up until the 9th century BC with "no army"?