For those who want proof of the exodus

[Aractus]

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.

Good then you shouldn't have any problem referencing the proof directly instead of pointing us to a documentary film. Where's the proof?

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.

No they don't. Most documentaries compile all the "evidence" they have for just one side of an argument, and then present their conclusion based on their selection of evidence. Basically - they make "History Porn".

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.

That list isn't proof of anything. Provide the actual evidence please. Not claims that this or that happened. Even your list doesn't correlate with the Bible - "sudden decline/near starvation for several hundred years in the skeletal remains/Slavery" - where in Exodus does it say that the enslaved Hebrews were being starved? Not only does it not say that in Exodus, we know that Egyptians didn't mistreat slaves in the way you think they did.

We know there were Semites in Egypt in the 13th century BC, that's nothing new at all. Egypt welcome foreigners to live and work in their land. But there's no evidence of Egypt ever enslaving an entire nation of people such as Israel, and furthermore the Bible clearly says they were made to do forced labour, and slaves in Egypt could not be made to do forced labour unless they were convicts. The Bible description of harsh Egyptian slavery is wrong, and it's exactly the kind of propaganda you might expect a rival nation to invent about their perceived enemy.

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!

Okay, firstly I said that the Rohl has a completely different timeline accepted by most other Egyptologists. Your assertion as fact that "Egyptologist think that egypt is several hundred years older than what it is" is wrong. That's just a theory put forward by Rohl which challenges the majority view of Ancient Egyptian chronology, however it is not supported by very many scholars in the field. So you can't just claim that Rohl is right and every other professional Historian and Archaeologist is wrong.

"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's just not true. History is constantly revised and Egypt is no different. You never, ever get 100% agreement from any serious historian on all aspects of history. And their conclusions are based on evidence, not on "wisdom".

I don't care when the Exodus happened, Drich, if it happened. If you found that the Exodus did in fact happen, say, in 2200 BC then that's great. Then I'd ask were there 600,000 people counting the number of men of fighting age involved? And then I'd ask you why does the Bible make it clear that the Exodus happened in c. 1250 BC? And then I'd ask why does the Bible claim a grand conquest of Canaan when Egypt controlled the Canaan land up until the 9th century BC?

The Merneptah Stele was created in 1208 BC. On line 27 it says "Israel is destroyed it's seed is no more". This is the only mention of Israel in the ancient Egyptian texts - and there are a lot of Egyptian texts, way more than the the 22 scrolls of the Hebrew Bible, yet Israel is mentioned only once. By contrast, the Hebrew Bible mentions Egypt hundreds of times (at least 645 times). So then Drich, why does Egypt never mention Israel, if it's so important back then, except for this one time?

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.

You aren't a scholar you can't make that conclusion. That's simply the view of ONE scholar. You know very well I tell Min at every opportunity not to use quacks like Richard Carrier who's views are dismissed wholesale by almost every other scholar. You have to play by the rules as well. Now I don't know that Rohl is a quack, he appears to be a well respected Egyptologist, but his theory challenging the chronology of Ancient Egypt is not supported by other scholars.

...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.

Exodus 7:7: "Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three when they spoke to Pharaoh."

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?

Are you actually stupid, or is it an act? I already gave you one example: Jericho had been abandoned at the time of the supposed conquest of Canaan.

But an even bigger problem for you is that some cities were occupied by Egypt. Beit She'an, for example, was a heavily fortified Egyptian city located on the Jordan river smack bang in the centre of the so-called "promised land". It was destroyed by fire in 1150 BC.

So let's recap - you believe in an early Exodus in c. 1450 BC. That was then followed by 40 years of wondering in the wilderness before the grand conquest of Canaan lasting two weeks.

So you're telling me that the Hebrews led by Joshua took Canaan c. 1410 BC. Yet for another number of centuries there were still standing cities in Canaan occupied by Egyptians and others who were not Israelites. So they didn't take the land of Canaan. Now you might tell me "ah but the Bible does say that David is the one who conquers Beit She'an several centuries later". Yeah he does, and then the Assyrian Empire came and wiped out the whole of Israel (leaving just Judah) in the 8th century BC. But the bigger problem is that Beit She'an was one of a series of administrative points for the rule of Egypt in the Canaan lands. Archaeology clearly shows that until the mid 12th century they were the dominant nation in the region. Beit She'an had control of an area of 20-30 kilometres radius, which of course includes cities that it is claimed that Joshua conquered. He couldn't have conquered anything in Canaan in the 15th, 14th, or 13th centuries because the whole area was controlled by Egypt at that time.

So again, not once in history did Israel ever control the "promised land". Not once. Not even as a divided kingdom did they manage it.

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.

Egypt didn't have second-class citizens.