It would be extremely difficult for the honest skeptic to dispute the overwhelming archeological support for the historical accuracy of both the Old and New Testaments. Numerous items discussed in the Bible such as nations, important people, customary practices, etc. have been repeatedly verified by archeological evidence (and never once refuted). Bible critics often have been embarrassed by discoveries that collaborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate, just to name a few.
Did you know that there exists on display in the Egyptian Museum at Cairo, a stela from Pharaoh Merenptah (13th son of Rameses II), distinctive in that it includes a reference to the "tribe" of Israel. The mummy of Pharaoh Merenptah (also on display) is distinctive in that the analysis of the salts found in the canopic lungs of the mummy imply that he apparently drowned in salt water.
The objects are listed in the Official Catalogue of the Egyptian Museum as item 212 in room 13 (ground floor).
That they've found chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea.
When compared against secular accounts of history, the Bible always demonstrates amazing superiority. The noted biblical scholar R.D. Wilson, who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, meticulously analyzed 29 kings from 10 different nations, each of which had corroborating archeological artifacts. Each king was mentioned in the Bible as well as documented by secular historians, thus offering a means of comparison. Wilson showed that the names as recorded in the Bible matched the artifacts perfectly, down to the last jot and tittle! The Bible was also completely accurate in its chronological order of the kings. On the other hand, Wilson showed that the secular accounts were often inaccurate and unreliable. Famous historians such as the Librarian of Alexandria, Ptolemy, and Herodotus failed to document the names correctly, almost always misspelling their names. In many cases the names were barely recognizable when compared to its respective artifact or monument, and sometimes required other evidence to extrapolate the reference.1Did you know that Sir William Ramsey, probably greatest archaeologist of the 19th century (if not the 20th), a professed atheist, went to Asia Minor to debunk the books of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. To his chagrin, dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:
I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.2Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.3
That last bit about W.M. Ramsay isn't particularly germane to the issue with respct to the account of Exodus. However, it is relevent in the sense that the integrity and veracity of accounts rendered in the Scriptures have not only been proven accurate time and time again, but breathtakingly so. Only a fool would proclaim lack of evidence as being evidence of lack. As if.
1. Wilson, R.D. Ph.D., D.D., A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament - 1st Edition, (Philadelphia, The Sunday School Times Co., 1926)
2. Ramsay, William M., St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen - 10th Ed., (London, Hodder and Stoughton, MCMVII), pg 8
3. Ramsay, William M., The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), pg 222
Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.
I note that your references are almost a hundred years old. Sadly out of date.
So a pharoahs lungs have salt water "as if he had drowned" Could it be salt water was usesd in the embalming process? Even if he had drowned there is no way to know the circumstances. Same with chariot wheels in the Red Sea (see my previous post on the error in translation) the hebrews were supposed to have fled through the REED sea.
The Israel stela mentions that the people were wiped out. It says nothing about any "exodus"