Solitary Man

Might in my opinion means that a reasonably good argument could be made for reading it, as long as the bias of the arguer is kept in mind. A well-argued book that is totally wrong is far better than a poorly argued book that is...still crap. I remember finding all sorts of useful things in Carotta's book.

Diogenes the Cynic

I would agree that it might be worth reading, not to be convinced of its conclusions, but just to see what the best, most erudite case can be made for the plausibility of a historical basis for the Exodus. It sounds like the author is trying to suggest just enough ambiguity, or range of interpretation in the archaeological evidence to create a plausible hypothesis (which he admits he can't prove) which traditionalists can cling to.

Doug Shaver

What was your point in saying that it got great reviews?

Solitary Man

It might be worth it to pick it up?

Robert Byers

The first and best evidence for Israel in Egypt is the bible itself. It is a legitamate witness until proven otherwise to what it accounts. The bible says this and that and so it is beholden on deniers to show it is false before it can be said not to be evidence for those who believe it.
I would also add the story is so aggresive in its contentions , written back then, that it seems unreasonable to think authors invented it out of the air.
If so it must of created a stir in the Egypt of the day to hear what is said about their own history.
Robert byers
Toronto, Ontario

Nero's Boot

No, not really. Considering that the ancient Egyptians had no idea they were underwater during the Deluge (as their records seem to completely omit, and in fact has no gaps that would result from such a cataclysmic apocalypse), then I'd say odds are pretty good ancient Egyptians had no idea Jews were ever slaves, or that a sea parted, or an Egyptian prince going native.

--in fact, it's almost as if no evidence whatsoever even points to a time of Hebrew slavery NB

Diogenes the Cynic

This is all errant nonsense. First, Bible stories are entitled to more default assumption of historical veracity than any other ancient religious myth (is Homer evidence for the existence of cyclops?). Secondly, all of the key claims of the Exodus story already HAVE been specifically refuted by physical evidence.
The story was written anywhere from 600-1000 years after the alleged events so, no, it created no stir in Egypt.

Doug Shaver

Is that true of all books or just the Bible?

You are not the first Bible-believer I've put that question to. If you answer it, though, you will be the first to do that. All the previous ones have just evaded it.

Hex

If that's so, please provide corroborating proof for: The Global Flood (of Noah's Fame) and the ensuing genetics that hold it up, The (famed) Plagues of Egypt - most notably the death of -all- first-borns (which should include a Pharoh), The Biblical Exodus.

Each of these is huge in terms of scope, either geologically, genetically, archaeologically, or through historical documentation (other than itself, hence corroborating).

I contend that if it fails on any of these large-scale events, then you should retract that the Bible's accounts are a 'legitimate witness' of past events as a blanket statement.

Thanks! :wave:

Robert Byers

It should of created a great stir if it suddenly appeared in literature. it didn't because the old egyptians knew it was a old story.

Any account purporting to be the truth on major issues and meant to be embraced as a national literature and claiming God as as a author does nit need to establish its legiatamacy to make the claims it does.
It doesn't mean it must be believed until proven wrong but it does mean that it is a witness in good standing for men to regard in making decisions on its contents.
Robert Byers