Yes, clear evidence muddied up by the point of Ipuwer Papyrus. I do not deny that there is the possibility that Merenre Nemtyemsaf II [what a name] lived during the time that the Exodus COULD have happened...but again, this is, at best, circumstantial evidence. We still have nothing showing Hebrews living in Egypt at ANY time, though to your credit we at least have a timeframe of when it could have happened. See, you want there to be a date that it could have happened but the truth of the matter is you have to stretch more than just the timeframe; you have to stretch the numbers of the Hebrews themselves. I remember reading that the Hebrews numbered two million and that according to the story of Exodus they all left at once. For one thing, there is no way that two million people all leaving Egypt at once would not have left SOME kind of a visible impact that archaeologists would have discovered already. The Sinai desert should have some indication that it once hosted nearly two million people. But hell there's not even evidence that it COULD have hosted two million people; water and food for two million nomads in a desert? Really now. Not to mention the population of Egypt in the ORIGINAL dating was around 3.5 million all-told. You now introduce a date of a thousand years going back...meaning that population count is likely going to be even lower. So no, the biggest problem needing a solution isn't so much the Pharaoh who existed but rather why such a demographic and economic catastrophe such as the sudden departure of two million slaves never registers anywhere in Egypt's history and why two centuries of ardent archaeology spearheaded by the Israelis themselves has turned up absolutemente nada. The story is not historical, it's just simply a story. So, see, you keep throwing around the word "evidence" but to quote Inigo Montoya...
In the court of logic, you have, at best, hearsay and a single piece of circumstantial evidence whose connection to the trial at hand is fragile at best.
Still, pulling up the Papyrus was actually unexpected, and it was, if nothing else, something I had not considered prior, but after reading on it, I have to state it doesn't really hold up as damning proof of much of anything.
Quote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In the court of logic, you have, at best, hearsay and a single piece of circumstantial evidence whose connection to the trial at hand is fragile at best.
Still, pulling up the Papyrus was actually unexpected, and it was, if nothing else, something I had not considered prior, but after reading on it, I have to state it doesn't really hold up as damning proof of much of anything.
