[doc30]

I remember a show on the History CHannel when they were talking about Rameses and Moses. The Egyptians never recorded their defeats, only their victories. And when they did list their victories, they were listed as victories against a certain country or land. But there was one reference to a victory in a raid against the Hebrew people. It was very interesting because it referenced the Hebrews and a people, not as a nation or country. The Pharoh at the time was after Rameses, so the thinking is that this was a small Egyptian raid against the Hebrews before the founding of Israel while the Hebrews were 'wandering the desert.' The show ended with the archeologist standing in front of Rameses munmmy and saying that we were looking at the remains of a man who may actually have laid eyes on Moses.(in an archeologiacally sense the word 'may' is used here, not as a statement of religous faith).

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

From what I understand, the traditional Egyptian timeline conventionally acceptet by Egyptologists makes it impossible for the Exodus to be anything other than a myth.

However, there was an Egyptologist some years ago who pointed out some inconsistencies with the traditional timeline. He pointed out that instead of an unbroken succession, there was a lot of overlap that was not taken into account by Egyptologists.

As a result, he put together a new time line and found out some interesting things. I don't remember it all, but I do remember him asking why the Hittites were able to conquer Egypt - which was the superpower of its day. Furthermore, the Hittites expected to gain easy victories - which they did.

[DannyTN]

Reed Sea not Red Sea?

I was taught that at a university 25 years ago that it was a bad interpretation. But I read somewhere recently that King James and crew did get it right. That it wasn't a bad interpretation after all.

[DannyTN]

"The Egyptians never recorded their defeats, only their victories."

Well that hasn't changed then. Don't they still deny being whipped by Israel.