I'm saying 1, evidence exists for exodus, and 2, that dismissing the bible, a first hand account, simply because it is religious is ridiculous, and to do so universally (removing any religious text as a historical basis) would radically alter accepted history.
Certainly the eqyptians would have a reason to cover up exodus with revisionist history as well would they not?
Certainly the eqyptians would have a reason to cover up exodus with revisionist history as well would they not?
I completely agree that there is archaeological evidence supporting an exodus of some sort from Egypt. My question was whether you were claiming that it supports the Biblical account, and if so then how do apparent discrepancies such as what people actually left Egypt, did they escape or were they driven out, where did they go, and even what period in time did it occur, get reconciled so that the Bible's account is the truth?
As for whether the Egyptian account might be the revisionist version, that would mean they would have to have written their version some 300-400 years before it even happened and somehow what they claimed ended up being corroborated by all the other physical archaeological evidence from the time period for that area.
Which of two conflicting stories is more likely to be altered - one written at the time and jibes with everything else we can find or one that claims it happened several hundred years after the other account was written and wasn't committed to writing until nearly a millennium after the fact?