For those who want proof of the exodus

[Drich]

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

awareness=/= understanding. Apparently because not one of you has yet to address the content. only time line your scholars have constructed to say when they think and event that did not happen actually happened.

This so-called proof that you are presenting us with is a documentary film.

actually no. I am providing a film that contains literal verifiable well documented proof. Their is a huge difference. Youre trying to say the film itself is proof and have attempted to dismiss that straw man. While in reality the film only compiles the proof and documents/records where it can be found. You've seem to confuse a true documentary with a commentary.

Documentaries rarely offer facts, are almost always biased, and are not an academic standard of evidence.

Again no. True Documentaries record and present evidence. Commentaries posing as Documentries provide little evidence. Commentaries build on the word of "experts" to try and establish truth/the truth they you want you to hear by relying on a Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Documentaries tend to provide verfiable primary/secondary source material. this film provides such evidence, and uses experts to simply read what is written, or attest to the fact of what they themselves dug up/found.

This one film proves the Exodus to you does it Drich?

No this film provides serveral points of evidence that systematically and chronologically account for the assimilation of the semetic tribe/family of Joseph, the 7 years of plenty, the seven years of drout, the accumilation of wealth Pharaoh accumulated from the drout, Joseph's house, his tomb, the tomb of his siblings, the rise and growth of the semitic tribe in the goshen region, it documents their well being, and sudden decline/near starvation for several hundred years in the skeletal remains/Slavery, it provides a papyrus list of Jewish slaves, egyptian documentation of the plagues, then sudden abandonment of the semetic city, the fall of egypt and the fall of the cities in the promise land.

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.

ah, no. The only problem that is identified is the time line. Egyptologist think that egypt is several hundred years older than what it is. The problem that the movie brings up? the dark periods in which Egyptologists simply guesstimate how long egyptian soceity was lost between it's 3 main dynasties.

Again, in those three periods of time we have Absolutly NO records at all from eygpt. (what we know are from historeans and other empires) we do not know what when on nor for how long in 3 seperate instances that went on from 150 to 1000 years really lasted. It's not like we have recorded history from the first kingdom all the way to the New Kingdom. we have these 'intermediate' periods where egypt was splintered and ruled by local tribes, different countries, and we are only guessing at how long those tribes actually ruled between Empirical rule under a single pharaoh.

The "Established wisdom" of "main stream egyptology" is simply a collection of egg heads who all agree/will not question the established popular time line that accounts for the dark periods as if they were actually set in stone like the rest of egyptian history. which again is not based on proof but more Argumentum ad populum. Those who believe the earth was flat also enjoyed majority consensus for a very long time as well. And they like the egyptologists had no more 'proof' to go on other than conventional wisdom told them.

Which again is meaningless, simply because the bible does not set book ends on the events here. These same egg heads who say the exodus did not happen are the same one who set it in a time frame where if it happened it had to happen in a time where the evidence does not support it...YET If said egg heads were honest, they could simply look 3 or 4 hundred years back and find not only does the archaeology support the exodus but also established history!

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.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the time line arguement being presented. We are not pushing the events back we are saying 'intermediate period' after the new Kingdom was not 350 years it was more like 100 to 150 years. This does not push anything back, it bring everything back before this period forward. Egypt is not as old as scholars think it to be. we say this because again they can not definatly account for the 'dark ages' of egypt.

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.

[/quote]
...I just read the first part of exodus again, and could not find any reference to a pharaoh who rule for 80 years.. Nor does it say Moses was 80 years old when the Pharoah died. It simply states that moses killed a egyptian, was caught Pharoah wanted to kill him, he fled, he found his wife, the 'a long time past' and that pharaoh died... The new Pharaoh came in, work the jews harder, they cried out and God decided to help them... Time passes Chapter 3 starts with the burning bush... Again nothing in the story says on pharaoh has to be a certain age when he died nor a certain age when the other one took power.

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?

No. Why because according to the evidence provided the middle kingdom fell into the 2nd egyptian dark age when the Jews left with the wealth of egypt, and the destruction of Pharoah and his army.

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 narritive does not say the egyptians captured and enslaved the jews. It says Joseph saved egypt from a 7 year time of famine that would have destroyed it, but rather than destroy egypt Joseph's work brought all wealth land and power into Pharaoh's house. (which is documented by egypt in this time period) So Pharaoh's wealth was complete and he owned/ruled all of egypt like no other pharoah before. as a reward Joseph was allowed to move his family/12 brothers in some of the most fertile land in egypt at the time. it was in this area that the semites grew to an unmanageable/intimidating size. This was the reason for their enslavement and death order of all the boys in moses' generation, which kicked started the exodus.

the Bible claims that Moses and 600,000 Hebrews went to Mt Sinai, and they didn't

who says?

- the Bible claims they stayed in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years,

no it doesn't. It says they wandered the widerness for 40 years, they did not settle in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years.

after they plundered the Egyptians, yet no trace of them has ever been found -

what trace of a Bedouin tribe who has wander the desert 5000+ years ago as ever been found? or are you saying desert nomads were never a thing? seriously what does a foot print made in the sand look like after 5000 years? what about the faberic/tent material? what do sun baked bones tend to look like after 5000 years? Whole cities that contained 10's of thousands of people have been swallowed up by the sands in that region leaving absolutly no trace. what massive foot print do you think a 5000 year old tent city who only lasted fourth years (again not in one place) would leave?

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.

Some??? How many? which ones?

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".

again watch the video

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.

Again they were not foreigners they had lived their for several generations/Hundreds of years (longer than the US has been a country) Technically the semites enslaved by Egypt that later became the jews were indeed not known as jews then. they were 2nd class egyptians who over stayed their welcome, that couldn't leave if they wanted... some would say they were like prisoners.

Jericho was destroyed 100-150 years too early for an "early" Exodus, and it was taken by Egyptians not Hebrews.

again says a time line created by "experts" who say the exodus did not happen, but if it did happen it happened at a time where no evidence supports the narritive rather than back in egypts history where everything the bible claims is supported! Where's that crap sniffer of yours now?

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.

again the time line issue is not one of moving the exodus back or forward on the egyptian time table. It is about moving everything pre 3rd intermediate period forward.

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.

Not even close sport. 1072 to 712 is known as egypts fall into it's third dark age/intermediate period. during that time egyptian power, and holdings were splintered among different rulers, families and even other countries.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/egypt....htm#step7
The not even close part refers to you being a whole dynastial kingdom off topic... I guess you and your source material both didn't see the movie or read the book!!

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.

not according to britannica. It seems to think by the end of the 13th century any egyptian influence was all but gone, and the philistines ruled the region along with the cannanites. Which is consistent with what the bible tells us/who opposed the Jews from taking the promised land.

http://www.britannica.com/place/Canaan-h...iddle-East

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"?

they didn't. That is why the empierical rule of the pharaoh fell. His enforcers all lay at the bottom of the RED (one e) sea, and his son died So egypt was divided up like a bunch of play cards for any and all who wanted to claim power. Remember we are talking about the end of the middle dynasty not the 9th century which also places egypt in the middle of another intermediate period where nubians controlled egypt,not the 'pharaoh's or egyptians.