For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

Everyone knows that slavery occurred in the United States during the late 20th century. 

But the more closely we examine the archaeological record from say, the Kennedy Administration through the Reagan years and into the Bush presidencies, there is simply no evidence of slavery whatsoever.

Therefore, based on this lack of evidence during the period examined, it must be concluded that slavery never existed in the United States.

[GrandizerII]

Thanks for your review. I have a question or two.

1. Based on your next to last paragraph: what is the basis for the conventional assumption that the Exodus HAD to occur during the reign of Rameses? IOW, if the skeptics are right, and the Exodus is PURE FICTION, then why do they insist that this fictional event had to occur during his reign? If the Exodus never happened, why do skeptics insist on dating it in the Middle Kingdom? But if they are insistent upon placing it in the reign of Rameses, aren't they admitting that the Exodus did occur???

It didn't have to occur at all. And regardless of what some skeptics may say about when the Exodus could have occurred, the fact still remains it has not been established that it did occur. Like I said earlier, it's not enough to just meet pieces of evidence that could fit your theory, you need to make sure your theory is not riddled with various difficulties, not challenged by other pieces of evidence against it, and is not trumped by a better theory.

Based on your last paragraph: Let's see...we have a non-king or pharaoh living in a palace in the Land of Goshen inhabited largely by Semites, and this palace has 12 colonnades, 12 tombs found on the grounds, and the one shaped like a pyramid (reserved for VERY important people) has a statue of a man with mushroom shaped haircut (semitic), yellowish-skin (used to depict northerners), a throw-stick (reserved for men of importance) and traces of a multi-colored coat (like the one mentioned in the Bible belonging to Joseph). When the archaeologists discovered this pyramid, they saw that it was not broken into violently but opened carefully, and ALL OF THE BONES WERE REMOVED as one might expect to have occurred if Moses honored Joseph's request to be buried in Canaan. Then, we find a tomb of Joseph in Shechem which indicates that his bones were ultimately moved and interred there centuries after Joseph died.  And all of this is just a coincidence?

All this according to the documentary, but how do we know the documentary's analysis of the statue is accurate? How do we know they didn't omit important facts that would've negated the claims and interpretations they made?

Well, it's possible I suppose...

Yeah, but is it probable? That's the more important and relevant question to ask.

[Minimalist]

You are an astonishing fuckhead.  Trying to give drippy a run for his money as dumbest of the dumb?

[Drich]

Granted.  People lived in Egypt.

Semitic people who Just so happened to live where the bible said Joseph's family settled (who were again Semites which is unusual because those people are generally nomadic)

Their is absolute evidence that they lived and Prospered for a very long time, then towards the end of their time in egypt they lacked the basics of life while other at the same time prospered (which would indicate slavery.)

Stipulated: there were slaves in Egypt.

Semetic slaves with Jewish only Names. Again their is a list in the Brooklyn museum

Their is a cataloged and verified Egyptian govermental document that lists 100 Jew only slave names

Stipulated: there were slaves in Egypt.

Again according to this list Jewish (Pre-Judeian) slaves

There are over 25 unescavated towns/villages sites around the central Semetic city that could indeed support the number recorded leaving egypt.

Stipulated: there were towns sufficient in number to house some number of slaves some of which might well have been jewish.  But what do you have to show a large number of jewish slaves were released at the same time.  I strongly doubt it.

The evidence shows in the central city and the 25 that surround it, it's inhabitants were semetic. The archeaology also shows these cities were all at once abandoned.
Their is a mention of this exodus in the "Admonitions of a Egyption sage" Where the slaves left their things behind and took the possessions of the masters and left egypt.

Their is an egyptian document that describes the plagues from an egyptian perspective.

Denied: that it rained frogs and genies swept through Egyptian towns killing every first born child in any house not marked by the blood of a burnt offering (or whatever it was).

Nile turned to blood first, flies, sickness, boils death, hail destroying crops and live stock, the death of their children. All the wile the slaves danced in the streets (so to speak) and looted their former masters.

http://raseneb.tripod.com/Ipuwer.htm

So what in you mind is without substance?

Just the crazy part.  

It's only crazy because that what you've been told, and you have not researched it yourself.

You have some evidence for the mundane bits:
jews in Egypt;
that Egyptians owned slaves;
some of whom were Jewish

But, again my shock and disbelief about mainstream egyptology is that they say with fire and anger that Egypt never own Jews as slaves EVER!!! their is even a big push to post date the start of israel past the three kingdoms of egypt so that this claim can be dismissed outright!

So then the question becomes if the 'experts' are willing to lie about this, how much further are they willing to go to hide the history of the Jews?

Do you have any evidence that a large number of jews left out of slavery at the same time?  This I would question along with the crazy 'miracle' bits.

Again we have the "Admonitions" papyrus who happens to describe the end of the middle kingdom of Egypt from an egyptian sage hand written to a Pharaoh. that explains why/what they thought was the reasoning for the failure of the middle kingdom. that includes a description very very close to the exodus account, and you have the word of the Anti Jew theory/German archaeologist working on the site of the semetic city, who thinks this absolutely cannot be the jews, just a Semitic people who's story closely mirrors the jews, and again dates everything back to the end of the middle kingdom

[The Grand Nudger]

If the claim was that slavery existed during those adminstrations, then the conclusion you offered would be correct with respect to those administrations.  The claim, currently, is that the exodus happened during that time period..and yet we can say with certainty..as we can in case of the two US admins and slavery, that it did not.  

If we choose to slide the timeline..the narrative loses those points of legitimacy which give it any credence in the first place.  Either it fits where it's claimed to be, or it doesn't.  Moving it will -cause- it to be intrinsically less trustworthy, not more..because you will be moving it away from those articles of history upon which the very notion that it might have happened is formed.

In essence, you are removing any possibility that it could be anything -other- than mythical, at that point, as it will no longer raise to the already low standard of legendary (where it currently sits, for many).

[Minimalist]

You can't shame an idiot with facts, Rythym.

[Cyberman]

The absence of evidence when such evidence ought to be present. Otherwise we might just as well be talking about Jack and the beanstalk.

Are you saying that there ought to be the remains of a wooden boat that didn't rot or get turned into firewood by the locals? And because there isn't, we can be certain that the Ark never existed?

Why would you even suspect there was an ark without evidence to suggest it? Besides which, you don't need the lack of physical remains to be certain that the ark never existed. The puerile impossibility of the whole story manages to sink the boat all by itself.

[Drich]

My point is simply that the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the bedrock of mainstream thought tomorrow.

No, the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the crackpot ideas of tomorrow.  The key word there being 'often'.  Crackpot ideas don't often turn out to have merit.  Period.  If you meant to say that they sometimes turn out to have merit, you would have been on firmer ground, the only question being how often is 'sometimes'.  I would argue that it is rarely.

Yeah, the earth is round not flat, man can indeed build a heavier than air craft, we will go to the moon, traveling past the speed of sound, wireless global communication, moving pictures, Pictures! yeah, all of that was always thought possible by mainstream 'thinkers' of their time.

The problem with toeing the line of 'non-crack pot thinking'? Nothing can possibly happen that hasn't already been accepted.

When you people refuse to question anything other than your 'doctrine of science and history,' you yourselves become the devoutly religious ostriches that burys their heads in the sand when something different comes along.

[Drich]

If you look closely, you will see that the six markers are currently positioned so that the exodus occurs in the reign of Ramesses. However, Mahoney argues that these six events:

1. Arrival
   
2. Multiplication
   
3. Slavery
   
4. Judgment
   
5. Exodus
   
6. Conquest
   

can be sequentially found earlier which places the Exodus in the Middle Kingdom as opposed to the New Kingdom as is commonly held.

There is archaeological evidence which supports an early dating of each of these six markers, and this evidence places these events in the proper sequence as recorded in the Bible. So, in order to disprove Mahoney's theory, it seems to me that the skeptic has to either prove that Mahoney has misinterpreted (or fabricated) the archaeological data or show that other STRONGER evidence places the event in question later on the timeline. But I don't see skeptics wanting to argue for any of these events, period. To argue that they occurred later is to argue that they actually happened! Something skeptics are loathe to admit.

IOW, Mahoney is saying:  

1. There are six events that appear in the biblical account of the Exodus.
2. The record of these events tells us that they occurred in a specific sequence.
3. The occurrence of these events can be supported by archaeological evidence. 
4. This physical evidence reveals that the proper dating of these events should be in an earlier time period than the reign of Ramesses II.

All I seemed to hear from the skeptics in the film (and in this thread) is: "Oh, no...that's much too early for the Exodus. We know it had to occur much later."

But folks, if there is "NO EVIDENCE" for the Exodus (as is commonly claimed), then why do skeptics quibble over WHEN it didn't happen? 

I've point that question out several times now!!! AWESOME WORK!! And you pulled a screen shot off the movie of the bar graph I tried to explain!!!

Again Great work!!

[Drich]

"Missing."

It's suppose to be missing... I know you claim to be a hindu now, so FYI the Ark... Not apart of the exodus..