Sekhmet, it appears you are picking and choosing different parts from my articles instead of reading them as a whole.
Let me throw in a couple points that you seem to be ignoring.
- Concerning the Ipuwer Papyrus, I can not come to agree with the possibility of it to be 12th dynasty work, period.
Why? For 3 reasons:
1. The Ipuwer Papyrus specifically states that the river WAS blood! This is an EXACT description of one of the plagues of Egypt.
2. These plagues happened according to scripture during a dynasty that utilized a large armies of chariots, of which the Bible says "600 chosen chariots + ALL the chariots of EGYPT!". We are talking LATE 18th DYNASTY HERE!
3. The fact that the Ipuwer Papyrus was an 19th dynasty composition is MORE COMPELLING PROOF than to merely speculate and say that it was from an earlier time during the First Intermediate Period.
Notice the word you missed:
The official name of this document is Leiden Papyrus #344, after the Dutch museum where it currently resides. The style of writing suggests that it was a XIX dynasty composition, but it is probably a copy of one written much earlier.
Did you SEE it Sekhmet?! The word is "Probably", and there is NO PROOF for it whatsoever. It is MERE speculation, and that is why Dr. Moller brought it up, because he believes these scholars are wrong, as well as I. I don't agree with their speculations.
There are just too many similarities between the plagues of Egypt and the descriptions, and critics will continue to do all in their power to accuse us "fringe" historians of being wrong. Admitting that there is a relation here means to subscribe to biblical authenticity, and that is something critics and unbelievers are unwilling to do. Therefore, they will do anything possible to try and descredit the biblical narrative based on unproven speculations that are completely null and void of common sense.
This was a labeling by the Egyptians – “they were a weak people at that time” (so it appeared) .
So you prefer to use Egyptian sources, to believe them over what is written in scripture? i do not.
Those verses indicating their “might”, “great number”, and may “fight against us” are simply due to the fact that years had passed, and these “shepherds” have grown in number. The original term seemed to apply, but does equating a particular name of meaning necessarily negate the possibility of change in context in strength with these people? Not in the least.
Especially when Egyptian sources support your theory far better then scripture does. Right!
Sekhmet, you really confuse me as to what your point is sometimes. I'm not even sure what you are disputing. How do you gather that I am taking Egyptian sources over the Bible? You seem to miserably fail to percieve the overall point I am trying to make concerning the name "Hyksos" being applied to these asiatic foreigners that dwelt in Egypt. There is enough evidence that suggests the term "Hyksos" is translated as "shepherd kings". It seems likely that the Hebrews were intermingled with these people, the "shepherd kings". You quote me verses from scripture describing their great "might" as a people, and that this is "indicative" to the fact that this term "Hyksos" ("sheperd kings") can in no wise apply to the Hebrews in any way shape or form.
Not only have I tried to make it clear to you that the Egyptians coined this term on them (regardless of their might), but you seem to fail to comprehend the fact that when Jacob and his sons came to settle in Egypt, they WERE sheperds! The Bible makes it clear time and time again that they had "flocks" and "herds", let alone the fact that when Jacob moved into Egypt, they were in a famine which "severely" weakened them, and settling in Egypt did them a great favor, for Egypt was prepared for the famine by Joseph.
"Haste ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt: come down unto me, tarry not: And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy [bherds[/b], and all that thou hast: And there will I nourish thee; for yet there are five years of famine; lest thou, and thy household, and all that thou hast, come to poverty."
"And Joseph said unto his brethren, and unto his father's house, I will go up, and show Pharaoh, and say unto him, My brethren, and my father's house, which were in the land of Canaan, are come unto me; And the men are shepherds, for their trade hath been to feed cattle; and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have. And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation? That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians."
Although you may argue that the Hyksos did not come into the picture until several dynasty after Joseph (based on my premise that Imhotep was from the 3rd dynasty), it is still logical to conclude that as a result of this "famine", there was a great and long-stretched migration of asiatics into Egypt from the time of the famine all the way to the end of the slavery. The term "Hyksos" of which the Egyptians applied coincides amazingly with what they were originally known in scripture, as you can see above. The evidence suggesting that the Hyksos "overthrew" the Egyptian dynasties and ruled from about "the 18th through 16th centuries B.C." also nullifies your theory that the Hebrews could not apply to the Hyksos (because "they were mighty"), since this just goes to clearly show that although the name "Hyksos" equates "sheperd kings" (name applied based on original status in Gen. 46:31-34), it does not necessarily equate the reality of their increasing strength and numbers of which God had blessed them with.
There is not overlording the Egyptian sources over the Biblical here. It all has to do with evaluating the data from the perceptions of these civilizations at their different times.
Regarding 1Kings 6:1 vs. Judges. I will have to enlighten you at a further date concerning this info since I am short on time at this moment. I have done an incredible amount of research on all the different view points concerning the dating of the Exodus, and am now very familiar with your viewpoint of how you arrive at 583 years. Be aware that I was a bit hasty when I said I did not recognize the authors you mentioned, since I do know Professor Ken Kitchen. You do know that Ken Kitchen is contributing to Moller's new series, "The Exodus Case"? I bet you didn't even know that:
Read. He's in the list. You can even see him talking in the first video clip, "The Red Sea Crossing Promo". He is obviously probably one that "reputiates" Moller's theory (to give the program a balanced approach), but the fact that Moller is letting these men contribute (both that support and reputiate) only leads me to highly respect Moller and his theories, since he obviously is aware of ALL the theories you have mentioned. I trust he has good reason not to believe in them
Later I will provide you sources that show how we cannot trust the calculatons in Judges, (since there seems to be evidence of overlapping years) and that these men are not doing the calculations right, however, 1Kings 6:1 can be trusted to its fullest.