Moses, Hebrews leaving Egypt, etc. - backed up by other histories?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Lesions, boils, and bug infestations were ordinary and commonplace; nothing supernatural about that, if it happened - if. There is still not even a little evidence of any exodus from Egypt (thousands upon thousands of people would have left traces), so we just can't say that it happened because a fantastic and outrageous supernatural story was told about it and for which there is no other substantial corroboration.

The Bible fulfills its own prophecies because 1) it was edited to show that and was vague enough for it to be easily done (how many hundreds of messiahs were prophesied to do this or that?- lots) , and 2) the people who wrote the new parts read the old parts and made certain parts of it congruent.

The priest who I had as a professor for theology 101 basically put it all down to algae.  When two kinds combine from two tributaries of the Nile, the algae turns red, like blood and depletes the water of oxygen which causes the frogs to leave where they perish in the desert sun, which attracts flies and so on and so forth.

There's nothing "supernatural" about God.  God created everything that is natural... why wouldn't he use his creation in the way he created it to achieve his means?

The miracle was never "it happened" but "it happened precisely when God said it would happen".

[Lincoln Republican]

One needs no further proof than the Holy Bible itself, the word of God through his chosen servants, the prophets.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One needs no further proof than the Holy Bible itself, the word of God through his chosen servants, the prophets.

Winfield, I expect better of you when you troll than this.  Granted, I am often disappointed in that expectation, but seldom this badly.

[color1]

Snowguy,  like I said before, there should be only 1 plague that still after 3400 years should show up in the Pharoahs (probably 3 generations: old adult, young adult, youngster/baby) -- assuming the Biblical story to be true. If the Biblical story of Moses and the plagues are true, the one of the boils affecting everyone -- even Pharoah and his family & court -- should be present in the mummies. 
   The evidence is there!!! Thutmose II and two succeeding Pharoahs show signs of skin lesions/boils.  These are the only 3 Pharoahs showing these skin lesions.
   Everyone said (until last year 2012) that Thutmose II could NOT NOT be the Biblical Pharoah of the Exodus, because he had a first born son who became Thutmose III (perhaps the greatest Pharaoh ever).  The Biblical story has the Passover killing every(except Isrealites) first born male in Egypt including Pharaoh's house. In 2012, dna showed that Thutmose II is NOT the father of Thutnmose III (the first born male) of Thutmose II.  The Egyptian records clearly show that Thutmose III was the first born male of Thutmose II.  A secret substitution must have taken place, and the impostor still clamed to be the first born maie of Thutmose II.  This impostor became probably the greatest Pharaoh of Egypt.  The real Thutmose III must have died -- & the Egyptian court took great pains to hide the fact -- until of course the year 2012.  They fooled the world for 3400 years!
   So if the Biblical story is true, the physical evidence points to Thutmose II as the Pharoah of the Exodus and the one Moses confronted.  What is amazing to me is that after 3400 years, evidence still exists that verifies the Biblical account of plagues (boils) and the Passover.  Amazing!!!
   By the reign of Thutmose III, asiatics no longer existed in the Nile Delta.   During Tutmose II/Haspeth's reign, an inscription indicates that asiatics near Avaris were undesirable and perhaps forced out.

   The outside existing evidence is clear, if the Biblical account is true, then Thutmose II must be the Pharoah who Moses confronted and who God made an example of to the world.  Thutmose II is the Pharoah of the Exodus.  I see dates for Thutmose II death of 1479, 1491, 1504, 1518 BC.

Snowguy all the other plagues (blood, grasshoppers, gnats/flies, darkness, hail) can never be verified by outside existing evidence, but God preserved two (boils, Passover) even after 3400 years.

[color1]

Winfiield,
  For those who do not believe, we can still point out the supernaturalness of the Bible.
    -  The Biblical prophecies concerning God's judgement on the Jews for abandoning Him and worshipping the dozens and dozens of gods of Caanan and beyond. There are dozens of prophecies that have been fullfilled some in the last 70 years.  For nearly 2000 years those prophecies concerning the reestablishment of the nation of Israel remained hopeless unfullfilled.  But in the last 70 years they have been fullfilled.  The Temple still remains to be built.
    - Science has confirmed what in many cases the Bible claimed 2500 years ago.
      -- a creation/beginning of time and the universe, the vastness of the universe, the earth as an orb, God expanding the universe, the earth and sun traveling the heavens (science has confirmed this - our super cluster is moving)
   - it interesting that the Bible says a major dispersion of humans happened from Babel (western asia) and current dna studies show that actually happened

[Lincoln Republican]

One needs no further proof than the Holy Bible itself, the word of God through his chosen servants, the prophets.

Winfield, I expect better of you when you troll than this.  Granted, I am often disappointed in that expectation, but seldom this badly.

When one expresses oneself with what one believes does not by any means mean that that individual is trolling.

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfiield,
  For those who do not believe, we can still point out the supernaturalness of the Bible.
    -  The Biblical prophecies concerning God's judgement on the Jews for abandoning Him and worshipping the dozens and dozens of gods of Caanan and beyond. There are dozens of prophecies that have been fullfilled some in the last 70 years.  For nearly 2000 years those prophecies concerning the reestablishment of the nation of Israel remained hopeless unfullfilled.  But in the last 70 years they have been fullfilled.  The Temple still remains to be built.
    - Science has confirmed what in many cases the Bible claimed 2500 years ago.
      -- a creation/beginning of time and the universe, the vastness of the universe, the earth as an orb, God expanding the universe, the earth and sun traveling the heavens (science has confirmed this - our super cluster is moving)
   - it interesting that the Bible says a major dispersion of humans happened from Babel (western asia) and current dna studies show that actually happened

Thank you.  You raise some extremely interesting points.

[Lincoln Republican]

To be clear, although I do believe in the Bible, I do as well respect the views of those who do not share this belief.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One needs no further proof than the Holy Bible itself, the word of God through his chosen servants, the prophets.

Winfield, I expect better of you when you troll than this.  Granted, I am often disappointed in that expectation, but seldom this badly.

When one expresses oneself with what one believes does not by any means mean that that individual is trolling.

But when one is trying to convince others that those beliefs are true, you do need a better argument than "Because I say it is true."  You usually provide a better argument than you did here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

color, Thutmose III was officially the son of Thutmose II by a secondary wife.  Frankly there's no need to assume that he was a secret replacement for a missing firstborn son who could have easily come from a different secondary wife and when he easily could have been the product of adultery.  It's not as if the concept was unknown then when you consider that Joseph was accused of it.  Plus, since the primary wife of Thutmose II, Hatshepsut, only had a daughter, the secondary wives had every reason to try extra hard to have a son who could be the next pharaoh.

Until you are able to address my multiple reasons why a date before the Battle of Qadesh for the exodus is implausible for a historically accurate Exodus, you won't be able to convince me of anything in your intricate tale of coincidences and conspiracy.

[color1]

Ernest,  the dna test is for Y chromosomes (it traces the male lineage).  Thutmose III had a different father than Thutmose II.  It says nothing as to who his mother was.  Now those dna tests confirm that Thutmose I was indeed Thutmose II father.  It shows a secret substitution happened. But Thutmose III still claimed that Thutmose II was his father & therefore his right to be Pharaoh.

  The question is why didn't the 2nd or 3rd son of Thutmose II ( assuming he had more sons) become the next Pharaoh (proclaimed)?  If Thutmose II had other sons, was hiding the fact the the first-born son died that important? 

If you anchor Thutmose II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus around 1479 BCE what does that do for the rest of Egyptian history. 

The writer of the Book of Joshua, apparently wrote the book some time after the land was alloted to be conquered by each tribes (they were not able to conquer because they had iron chariots - as it still is today). So it appears that some time in say 70 - 100 years, that some off-shoot of the Hitties acquired iron chariots in northern Caanan/Levant.  The Bible records a military hardware revolution in real time. When Joshua first conquered Caaanan, the Hitties had no iron chariots.  But when he was very old or perhaps a few years after his death, iron chariots existed according to the Book of Joshua.
   Archeology has already begun to shift the iron age as being earlier than previously thought (the issue with carbon-14 dating in the region is that volcanic eruptions from Vesuvius alters the carbon dating results over the centuries).  So is pottery dating more accurate?

   Your concerns about Joseph and what Egpytian dynasty is not something I can address.  Imo the Genesis account implies that several Pharaohs ruled during Joseph's tenure as vicar.  We see a Pharaoh in his prime when Joseph first becomes vicar; but later in Genesis,  Joseph says, something like: I am like a father to Pharaoh"  This suggest a new young Pharaoh had come into power.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I did not expect to ignite such a conversation, and needless to say, I haven't read nearly all of this. Pretty sure I made this around Holy Week and it's still going.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

  The question is why didn't the 2nd or 3rd son of Thutmose II ( assuming he had more sons) become the next Pharaoh (proclaimed)?  If Thutmose II had other sons, was hiding the fact the the first-born son died that important? 

If the answer were the common human follible of adultery, then the fact that the Ancient Egyptians didn't have DNA testing to prove paternity is a more than adequate explanation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well it sort of calls into question why both the records of ancient Egypt and their neighbors have Thutmose III conquering Canaan and Syria at a time when if Thutmose II had been the pharaoh in Exodus, Joshua would have been doing the conquering.  Egypt continued to receive tribute from Canaan and Syria for the rest of the Eighteenth Dynasty,  It wouldn't be until after the battle of Qadesh in the Nineteenth Dynasty that Egyptian power in the Levant went into a lasting decline.  You'd basically have to have the Egyptians, the Hittites, and the Mittani all engage in a two century long conspiracy to ignore that Israel had conquered Canaan.

[color1]

I think that after Joshua died and his generation of elders, the will to drive out everyone diminished greatly, Both the Book of Joshua and Judges indicate that some were too strong for the individual Israeli tribes to drive out.  Others they just let stay.  So even in Akenaten's time they were still trying to capture their alloted land.  After the 1st generation elders died out, the Bilble indicates that the Jews began worshiping Caananite idols/gods.  So the will to conquer was greatly diminished.  So tributes to Egypt makes sense from the remaining peoples and kingdoms in Caanan/Levant.  Thutmose III must have invaded Caanan/Syria during the 40 year hiatus of Isreal in the desert.  He must have been convinced that they ALL perished in the desert.

To the Egyptians the Hebrews were Isrealites (peope of Isreal/Jacob) to the Caananites they were Habirus/Hebrews invaders.

    Those thousands of grain seeds will provide more clarity of the timeframe for Joshua's initial conquest of Jerico and upto Hazor.  We will just have to wait.

added 31 May 2013:
""At Tel Amarna, Egypt, cuneiform tablets from about the 14th c. BC were discovered, and they contain urgent pleas to the Egyptian Pharaoh Akenaten, asking him to do something about the "Apiru" which were invading in sizeable numbers and taking over parts of Canaan. --And again, as mentioned earlier, Dr. Frank Moore Cross of Harvard Universtiy states that the term "Apiru" is "the origin of the term 'Hebrews'." So, at about this time, there is a return and major influx of Hebrews back into Canaan --in large enough numbers to cause alarm in the current residents, and a plea to higher authorities in Egypt for help.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if the Amarna Tablets are referring to Hebrews (which is a disputed interpretation), you must remember that the Israelites were but one of the Hebrew peoples of the period.  The term could just as easily be applied to the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, the Midianites, and the Ishmaelites, just to name peoples named in the Bible.  In theory it could also apply to the Qahtanites that Arabic tradition claims as descending from Joktan, son of Eber, but they likely would not be raiding Canaan at that time, as they were a people of southern Arabia.  To assert that the term must have been referring to Israelites is mere wishful thinking.

[color1]

I think the evidence taken together is overwhelming for the Israeli exodus from Egypt/Nile Delta/Avaris sometime between Thutomose II and Thutmose III.  They were there in T II's time (undesireable, not worshipping Re, or listening to Pharaoh; wonder who that could be?)  and totally eradicated from Nile Delta/Avaris by T III day.  Those same Avaris-style homes are the earliest Israeli homes in Caanan.   

The Bible says clearly in Joshua's time that the iron chariots were introduced into northern Caanan sometime near the death of Joshua's (or a few years thereafter). Northern Caanan went from no iron chariots among an army more numberous than the sand to people in the plains/valleys had iron chariots.  Probably with 100 years of the initial conquest of Caanan by Joshua.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Those same Avaris-style homes are the earliest Israeli homes in Caanan.

As I said earlier, you've got some claims I've never heard of before (historicity of Exodus isn't a high priority to me) and this is one of them.  It also seems like a highly dubious inference.  Given that Egypt exerted suzerainty over Canaan for much of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, it seems to me that alone is sufficient to explain Egyptian style houses in Canaan without any requirement for the architectural technique be imported by Israel. What makes the claim even more doubtful is that after forty years in the desert, those Israelis would have no experience in construction.

[color1]

I just wanted to put my thoughts together.  There seems to be so much bashing of Moses and the Exodus as mere fabrications without any archeological underpinnings/support. Taken together,  I think the evidence is overwhelming in support of the Israeli Exodus from Egypt.  Each piece of "evidence" by it self is dubious -- but taken together, and acknowledging Biblical claims - overwhelming.

The thousands of charred grains  from Jericho & Hazo should give more support for the Exodus/Conquest (need to wait for carbon-14 results to be published)

[color1]

I need to buy BAR so I can read entire article, but nice start of article, BAR July/Auguse 2013 Vol 39 no 4:

""Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor?

Amnon Ben-Tor

The Book of Joshua says the Israelites defeated the mighty king of Hazor and destroyed the city with fire. Years of excavation have revealed the intentional destruction of the once-powerful Canaanite city—“the head of all those kingdoms”—with a raging inferno that burned at more than 2,350 degrees Fahrenheit. But who did it? According to the excavator, the Israelites are the only feasible candidate."

[color1]

Here is an interesting wrinkle from the new carbon 14 grain dates: the calibrated dates for Jericho destruction level grains show around 1600 - 1520 BC or around 1550 BC.  But apparently the raw uncalibrated date shows around 1400 BC.

""I read the scientific article on the carbon dating done on the Jericho site written by Bruins and Van Der Plicht. When I did the math from their results section of the YBP, they all turned out to be right around the year 1400 BC. But in their abstract and conclusion they told how the date was around 1550 BC. I understand calibration might have something to do with this, but then in the article it says in italicized words that the uncalibrated date “Must Always Be Mentioned”.""

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The reason the uncalibrated date should always be mentioned is because as calibration standards are refined, the calibrated date can change and does change as comparisons with the dendrochronological record and other sources improve.  By including the uncalibrated date, if someone makes use of their data twenty years from now when a more refined calibration scale has been developed, they can use that data and plug it into the new scale.  However the current scale is well enough developed for that area and era, that I find it extremely unlikely that any revised scale would change the calibrated dates for the destruction of Jericho by more than 20 years in either direction.

[color1]

Perhaps like the recent revision by up to 200 years of the beginning fo the iron age, the same thing will happen at Jericho. As a layman, tree ring confirmation seems the most accurate correlator.

   In 2010 carbon 14 correlated update for pharaohs:

Ahmose 0          1550 1539 1566 1552 1570 1544
Amenhotep I 0   1525 1514 1541 1527 1545 1519
Thutmose III 24 1479 1479 1494 1483 1498 1474
Hatshepsut 25    1473 1479 1488 1477 1492 1468
Amenhotep II 1  1427 1425 1441 1431 1445 1423
Amenhotep III 2 1390 1390 1404 1393 1408 1386
Amenhotep IV 171352 1353 1365 1355 1370 1348
Tutankhamun 7  1336  ND   1349 1338 1353 1331

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps like the recent revision by up to 200 years of the beginning fo the iron age,

I already covered why that revision you mentioned earlier does not apply to the beginning of the iron age.  Not even the source you cherry-picked that datum from made that claim.  I'm going to do now what I should have done earlier and put you on ignore.  You are either too dishonest, too stupid, or too trollish to have a meaningful conversation on this topic, which is a shame.  I'd welcome a good conversation with a Biblical literalist, which is why I engaged you as much as I did; Biblical literalists are scarce on this forum.

[Insula Dei]

Within 1 pharaoh without boils, Akhenaten comes to power & rejects all of Egypt's gods and worship one sun god.

Akhenaten was born more than a century after Thutmoses II died.  Also the god Aten that Akhenaten worshiped was a prexisting, albeit minor, deity in the Egyptian mythos.

Also, if there is a historical correspondence between the Exodus and the archaeological record, the XVIIIth dynasty is too early. The exodus itself had to have happened after the battle of Qadesh during the reign of Ramesses II. Sometime in the XXth Dynasty is most likely.

Merenptah is, I believe, the favourite of those argueing for the historicity of Exodus. Don't really understand where the crazy Thutmose-fixation in this thread comes from.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Merenptah is, I believe, the favourite of those argueing for the historicity of Exodus. Don't really understand where the crazy Thutmose-fixation in this thread comes from.

The Merenptah Stele is thought to have the earliest mention of Israel, tho the reference is only probable, not definite.  If so, it would seem to place the emergence of Israeli as a power among those in Canaan at about the right time to allow for the era of the judges and the later kingdom.  It does cause problems for the strict literalists however as it would require the exodus to have started under Rameses II and that just doesn't jive with the archaeological record.  It's far less of a problem for those who view the Deuteronomic History as a mix of history and myth.