mudknot2005

Hmmm i am watching this show on the history channel, called Exodus Decoded..... Needless to say this guys is moving dates around based on one professors opinion. He determined that the pharoh name was Auhmoses (s/p) meaning brother of moses. What suprised me was that the mummy of the pharaoh was still found in the Kiro museum. Maybe i recall wrong but should the pharaoh not be at the bottom of the red sea? He is also claming that israelites went to egypt, i can't remember how to spell their name right off hand but it sounds like Hicksaw. He claims that all scholoars are wrong in thier dating of the time of moses. That it acutally happened around 1400 B.C.E. He is also claiming that this tablet which of course he had no access to says that egypt had a period of time of storms, and no light. He also had a professor on there saying that the dates are correct, and that they could be moved forward 10 years or back 10 years...... Yet he jumps over a 150 years.... :banghead:

mudknot2005

Now he is claiming that the miracles moses prformed, such as turning the nile blood red, was do to gas leakes under the nile. Yes there is documented proof. Now you are justifing the fact that there were no miracles, but simply random acts of nature..... How does this help the case of jews being in egypt, or validate any claims in the bible.....

Roller

Tow recent threads on this topic that will (probably) answer most of your questions:
The Exodus Decoded?
EXODUS really proven true this time !

Malachi151

This is a bunch of half-assed conjecture. All this does is provide an example of a natural event that could seem similar to the description in the OT, however, if you look at ancient mythology, you seer that there are many things that were simply made up.

There is nothing that says that this had to be a recording of a natural event, and IMO, its much more likley to have simply been made up out of thin air as simply a dramatic element in a story to make is impressive.

QRUEL

doesn't explaining away all the exodus events to natural causes do more harm to the inerrantist position than good... if god was to have done it like the bible says, why should one attempt some half baked unfounded assertion that it was an act of nature instead of divine intervention ?

Doug Shaver

It would, if inerrantists were concerned about developing a coherent theology. Coherence is about the last thing they're trying to achieve, though.