Eden Found?

The Garden of Eden was a real geographical location that existed roughly 14,000 years ago in what is now the Persian Gulf.

 Critics often dismiss Eden as a myth because Genesis 2 describes four rivers (Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon, and Gihon) connected to one source, which does not match modern geography 

However, during the last Ice Age (approx. 14,000 years ago), lower sea levels meant the Persian Gulf was a dry, fertile valley. Satellite imaging reveals that ancient riverbeds (likely the Pishon and Gihon) once flowed into this basin alongside the Tigris and Euphrates.

The Pishon River most likely is the now-dried "Wadi Batin" river flowing from Arabia (Biblical Havilah), a region known for gold

The Gihon River most likely is the Karun River flowing from the Zagros Mountains. It's argued "Cush" in Genesis 2 is a mistranslation of the "Kassites," who lived in western Iran, rather than Ethiopia 

The Hebrew text can be interpreted as four rivers meeting to form one central water source, rather than one splitting into four. This matches the geography of the ancient Gulf basin where these rivers converged. 

Archaeologists refer to this lost area as the "Gulf Oasis." It was likely a lush paradise watered by subterranean freshwater springs (matching the "mist" mentioned in Genesis) with abundant resources 

Conclusion: This fertile region was flooded by rising sea levels between 8,000 and 13,000 years ago. The Genesis account preserves an ancient oral tradition of this real, lost place, suggesting the story is much older than the Babylonian exile period 

The 12 Tribe Peaceful Infiltration Theory

 "Indigenous Origins" model or the "Peaceful Infiltration" theory. It suggests that the vast majority of the "Twelve Tribes" never set foot in Egypt. Instead, they were likely native Canaanites who gradually developed a distinct identity in the varied highlands of Canaan.

Here is a breakdown of why this theory exists, which specific groups likely did come from Egypt, and how the story might have unified them. 

This will be followed by the arguments they use to defend the historical accuracy of a large-scale Exodus.

1. The Core Idea: Most Israelites Were Canaanites

The prevailing archaeological consensus (championed by scholars like Israel Finkelstein and William Dever) is that the early Israelites were not foreign conquerors who arrived en masse from Egypt.

• Cultural Continuity: Archaeological excavations in the central highlands of Israel (where the early Israelite villages appear around 1200 BCE) show a lifestyle almost identical to the surrounding Canaanite culture. Their pottery, alphabet, and architecture were Canaanite.

• Gradual Emergence: Instead of a sudden military conquest (as described in the Book of Joshua), the settlement patterns suggest a gradual demographic shift. It appears that disaffected Canaanite peasants, pastoralists (Shasu), and social outcasts (Habiru) retreated from the oppressive Canaanite city-states in the lowlands and moved to the highlands, forming a new, egalitarian society that eventually became "Israel."

• Genetic Evidence: Modern DNA studies on ancient remains in the Levant have shown a high degree of continuity between the Bronze Age Canaanites and Iron Age Israelites, supporting the idea that they were largely the same people.

2. Who Actually Left Egypt? (The Levite Hypothesis)

If most tribes were already in Canaan, where did the Exodus story come from? Many scholars believe the story belongs to a small, historical core group—likely the tribe of Levi.

• Egyptian Names: The tribe of Levi is the only tribe with a high concentration of Egyptian names. Moses (Mose), Aaron, Miriam (Meryam), Phinehas, and Hophni are all linguistically Egyptian names. The other tribes (Judah, Ephraim, Benjamin, etc.) have almost exclusively Hebrew/Canaanite names.

• The "Yahweh" Connection: The theory suggests that this small group of Levites/migrants originated in Egypt or the Sinai (Midian), where they adopted the worship of Yahweh (possibly from the Shasu people).

• Migration: This small group likely migrated to Canaan, bringing with them the powerful story of a God who liberated slaves. This narrative would have been incredibly attractive to the "indigenous" Israelites in the highlands—who were themselves escaped serfs or peasants resisting the Canaanite city-state kings.

3. Merging the Traditions

This theory solves the problem of how you get a "national" myth for a people who were mostly native to the land.

• Adoption of the Story: The indigenous tribes (like Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah) adopted the Exodus story as their own because it spiritually mirrored their own experience. They had "escaped" the bondage of the Canaanite city-states (ruled by Egypt at the time) and were living free in the hills. The Levites' story of escaping Pharaoh became the unifying metaphor for the entire confederation.

• The Song of Deborah: One of the oldest texts in the Bible, the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), describes a battle where various tribes are called to fight. Notably, it depicts the tribes as already living in their traditional lands in Canaan, with no mention of a recent mass arrival from Egypt.

Summary

The idea that the Exodus did not include all the tribes is not just a fringe theory; it is the standard archaeological explanation for the origins of ancient Israel.

The consensus paints a picture of a "mixed multitude":

1. The Majority: Indigenous Canaanite peasants and pastoralists who never left the land but rejected the city-state system.

2. The Minority: A small, religiously influential group (likely Levites) who escaped Egypt, brought the worship of Yahweh, and provided the "Exodus" narrative that united these disparate tribes into a single nation.

In the context of modern academic scholarship, the "minority view" is the Traditional or "Maximalist" Model. This view holds that the biblical account is substantially historical: that the Twelve Tribes of Israel existed as a distinct ethnic unit in Egypt, were enslaved, and left en masse (or in a very large group) to conquer Canaan.

The Counterarguments.

While this is the majority view among religious believers, it is considered a minority position in secular archaeology and critical biblical studies. Its primary academic defenders are scholars like Kenneth Kitchen, James Hoffmeier, and Bryant Wood.

Here is a summary of the arguments they use to defend the historical accuracy of a large-scale Exodus.

1. The "Argument from Embarrassment"

This is perhaps the strongest psychological argument. Proponents ask: Why would a nation invent a history of slavery?

Ancient Near Eastern cultures typically created origin myths involving descent from gods or heroic kings (like the Romans descending from Troy/Aeneas).

It is highly unlikely that the Israelites would fabricate a humiliating past where they were slaves to a foreign power unless it actually happened. The "stain" of slavery is central to their legal codes and theology ("treat the alien well, for you were aliens in Egypt"), suggesting it was a deep, traumatic historical memory for the whole people, not just a few Levites.

2. Specific "Egyptian Color" and Verisimilitude

Scholars like James Hoffmeier argue that the Exodus narrative contains specific details about Egypt that a later writer (living centuries later in Canaan) could not have known. These details suggest an eyewitness tradition.

Geographical Accuracy: The Bible mentions specific places like Pi-Rameses and Pithom (Exodus 1:11). Archaeology has confirmed these cities existed and flourished precisely during the 13th century BCE (the time of Ramesses II), and then were abandoned. A later writer would have likely used the names of cities relevant to their time (like Sais or Tanis), not abandoned ruins.

Price of Slaves: Kenneth Kitchen noted that the price paid for Joseph (20 shekels) and the value of slaves in Leviticus matches the inflation of slave prices in the ancient Near East specifically during the 2nd Millennium BCE. By the time the text was supposedly written (centuries later), prices were much higher.

Tabernacle Architecture: The design of the Tabernacle in the wilderness closely resembles the layout of Egyptian military war tents used by Pharaohs like Ramesses II, suggesting the author was familiar with Egyptian military camp structures of that specific era.

3. Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence

Defenders argue that the lack of Egyptian records mentioning the Exodus is exactly what we should expect.

Royal Propaganda: Ancient Egyptian pharaohs never recorded defeats, embarrassments, or the loss of labor forces. Their monuments were designed to project eternal victory. If a group of slaves escaped and the Pharaoh's army was humiliated, it would have been systematically purged from the records.

Perishable Materials: Administrative records in the Nile Delta (where the Israelites lived) were written on papyrus, which rots in the humid climate. We have very few administrative records from the Delta region generally.

4. Archaeological Destruction Layers

While the "gradual infiltration" model emphasizes continuity, maximalists point to distinct destruction layers in Canaanite cities that align with the biblical conquest narrative (around 1400 BCE or 1200 BCE, depending on the timeline used).

Hazor: The Bible emphasizes that Joshua burned Hazor (Joshua 11:11). Excavations at Hazor show a massive destruction by fire in the Late Bronze Age, complete with decapitated statues of Canaanite gods/kings.

Bethel and Lachish: These cities also show signs of violent destruction and cultural change during the period associated with the Israelite arrival.

5. Critique of the "Indigenous Model"

Finally, proponents of the full Exodus argue that the "Indigenous Origins" theory fails to explain sociological unity.

If the Israelites were just a loose collection of Canaanite peasants and refugees, why did they adopt such a rigorous, exclusive, and "foreign" religion?

It is difficult to explain how a motley crew of locals would suddenly agree to stop eating pork (a cheap, staple Canaanite food) and worship a desert god without a massive, shared, foundational event like the Exodus to bind them together.

Summary of the Debate

Feature	Indigenous/Minority Exodus (Majority Academic View)	Traditional/Total Exodus (Minority Academic View)
Who left Egypt?	A small "Exodus group" (mostly Levites).	All 12 Tribes (a massive population).
Who were the Israelites?	Mostly native Canaanites who rebelled.	A distinct ethnic group that entered from outside.
Archaeological Evidence	Settlement patterns, continuity of pottery/culture.	Destruction layers at Hazor/Bethel; Egyptian textual details.
Main Argument	Material culture (pots, houses) looks Canaanite.	Textual details (names, geography) look authentic/Egyptian

The Biblical Exodus occurred in the 13th century BC under the 19th Dynasty reign of Pharaoh Ramesses II.

This is an outline of Inspiring Philosphy's  Exodus Rediscovered: Documentary  Full credit goes to IP for all of the info in this post. I merely put into a form that I can more easily consume. Watch IP's video to get all the info -  this is a 12 minute read, the vid is close to an hour. 

1. Biblical & Geographic Clues for a 13th-Century Date 

A - The "Midnight Summons" and Pharaoh’s Proximity

One of the strongest geographic arguments presented is the logistics of the tenth plague and the start of the Exodus (Exodus 12).

• The text states that Pharaoh awoke in the middle of the night, discovered his firstborn dead, summoned Moses and Aaron immediately, and told them to leave. Moses and Aaron then returned to the Hebrews, who departed by morning.

• The Problem is that in the 15th century (the "Early Date"), the capital of Egypt was Thebes, which is located hundreds of miles south of the Nile Delta (Goshen), where the Hebrews lived. It would have been physically impossible for Pharaoh to summon Moses, have a meeting, and for Moses to return to Goshen all within a few hours.

• However in the 13th Century, during the 19th Dynasty, the capital was moved north to Pi-Ramesses (biblical Ramesses). This new capital was located very close—only a short distance—from Avaris (the center of the Hebrew settlement). This close proximity allows the biblical narrative of a midnight summons and immediate departure to be historically and geographically plausible.

B - The Construction of "Ramesses" (Exodus 1:11)

Exodus 1:11 explicitly states that the Hebrew slaves built the store cities of Pithom and Ramesses.

• Construction vs. Anachronism: Proponents of an earlier date often argue that "Ramesses" is just a later editorial update (anachronism) for an older city name, similar to how Genesis mentions Jacob settling in the "land of Rameses" centuries before Rameses lived. However, the documentary argues there is a key distinction: Genesis refers to a region (using a later name for the reader's benefit), whereas Exodus 1:11 makes a specific historical claim that the Hebrews built the city.

• Historical Timeline: The city of Pi-Ramesses did not exist before the 19th Dynasty; it was built by Ramesses II (the Great). Therefore, if the Bible claims the Hebrews built it, they must have been in Egypt during the 13th century when it was constructed. If they had left in the 15th century, they could not have built a city that didn't exist yet.

C-  Egyptian Loanwords in the Pentateuch

The documentary highlights linguistic research by scholar Benjamin Noonan to argue that the text originates from the Late Bronze Age (the time of Ramesses).

• High Frequency: The books of Exodus and Numbers contain a significantly higher proportion of Egyptian loanwords compared to the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

• Specific Time Period: These loanwords reflect the Egyptian language of the Late Bronze Age (New Kingdom period).

• Authenticity: If the Exodus account were a myth invented centuries later during the Babylonian or Persian periods (Iron Age), scholars would expect to see more Aramaic or Persian loanwords (as seen in books like Ezra and Nehemiah). The abundance of accurate, period-specific Egyptian terminology suggests the author had intimate, firsthand knowledge of Egypt during the 13th century.

D - Accurate Toponyms (Place Names)

The itinerary of the Exodus mentions specific places that align with 13th-century Egyptian records.

• Migdol, Succoth, and Baal-zephon: The documentary notes that these specific names appear in Egyptian papyri (such as Papyrus Anastasi III) from the Ramesside period.

• Migdol: Refers to Egyptian forts on the Sinai border that were prominent during the 13th century.

• Topographical Precision: The text correctly identifies that the Hebrews turned back to camp near specific landmarks. The documentary argues that this level of geographical precision—naming forts, bodies of water, and cities known to exist in the 13th century—strongly supports the account being a historical record from that time rather than a later fabrication.

2. Archaeological Evidence at Avaris (Tell el-Dab'a) 

A -  A Continuous Semitic Population

The documentary highlights the work of Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak, who has excavated Avaris for decades.

• The Hyksos Connection: Avaris was the capital of the Hyksos (foreign "Shepherd Kings") during the Second Intermediate Period. The Bible suggests the Hebrews arrived during a time favorable to foreigners (Joseph's time), likely coinciding with Hyksos rule.

• Remaining Population: Crucially, Bietak’s findings show that after the Egyptians expelled the Hyksos rulers, a significant Semitic (Asiatic) population remained at the site. They did not leave immediately but stayed through the 18th Dynasty and into the Ramesside period (19th Dynasty). This aligns with the biblical narrative that the Israelites grew into a large nation within Egypt over centuries.

B - Evidence of Enslavement and Oppression

The archaeological record at Avaris transitions from a prosperous Semitic settlement to one showing signs of oppression, matching the "New Pharaoh who did not know Joseph" narrative.

• Brick-Making: The documentary points to the Tomb of Rekhmire (a vizier from the New Kingdom), which depicts light-skinned Semitic slaves making mud bricks under the watch of Egyptian taskmasters. This is a direct visual parallel to Exodus 5.

• The "Habiru": Egyptian texts from the Ramesside period refer to a group called the "Habiru" (often linguistically linked to "Hebrew") who were tasked with dragging massive stone blocks to build the city of Pi-Ramesses.

• Infant Deaths: Excavations at Avaris from the New Kingdom period revealed evidence of ritual executions of young males. This grim discovery correlates with the biblical account of Pharaoh ordering the death of Hebrew male infants (Exodus 1:16-22).

C - The "Two Abandonments" (Correcting the Timeline)

A major point of the documentary is clarifying when Avaris was abandoned, as this dates the Exodus.

• The 15th-Century Misconception: Proponents of the "Early Date" (1446 BCE) often claim Avaris was abandoned then. However, the documentary clarifies that only the palatial district (administrative buildings) was abandoned in the 15th century. The main Semitic settlement and the Temple of Baal remained active.

• The 13th-Century Total Abandonment: The archaeological record shows that the entire site of Avaris was suddenly abandoned midway through the reign of Ramesses II (c. 1250 BCE).

• Post-Abandonment: After this sudden departure, the site was not reinhabited by the Semitic population. Instead, the area was converted into a cemetery for the city of Pi-Ramesses. This sudden, total evacuation of a long-standing population fits the narrative of a mass Exodus.

D - Cultural and Religious Matches

• Lack of Pig Bones: Excavators noted a distinct lack of pig bones in the Semitic sectors of Avaris. Since pigs were commonly eaten by Egyptians and other Canaanite groups, this dietary restriction suggests a cultural connection to the proto-Israelites (who viewed pigs as unclean).

• Idolatry: Evidence shows the population worshipped Canaanite gods (like Baal) alongside Egyptian deities. The documentary notes this actually supports the biblical text, as the books of Joshua and Ezekiel explicitly state that the Israelites worshipped foreign gods while in Egypt and had to be taught monotheism in the wilderness.

3. Corroborating Details

A - The Plagues and the Subsequent Wood Shortage

The documentary offers a naturalistic explanation for many of the plagues (e.g., an algae bloom causing the Nile to turn to blood, leading to frogs fleeing the water, dying, and attracting flies/disease). However, it highlights one specific long-term consequence mentioned in the text: the destruction of trees.

• The Biblical Claim: Exodus 10:15 states that the locusts (following the hail) ate not just the crops, but "every tree which grows for you out of the field."

• The Ecological Reality: While crops can regrow the following year, trees take decades to mature. A catastrophic event destroying Egypt's trees would cause a resource crisis years later.

• The Archaeological Evidence: The documentary notes that starting in the 20th Dynasty (the period following Ramesses II's 19th Dynasty), Egypt experienced a severe wood shortage. Archaeological records show that Egyptians began recycling coffins during this time because new wood was unavailable. This shortage appears chronologically consistent with a massive destruction of trees during the reign of Ramesses II, as the supply of salvageable dead wood would eventually run out, leaving a gap before new trees could mature.

B - The Death of the Heir (The 10th Plague)

A critical piece of evidence is the fate of Pharaoh’s firstborn son.

• Biblical "Firstborn": The documentary argues that in the ancient context, "firstborn" often referred to the heir designate (the one chosen to succeed the throne) rather than strictly the biological first child.

• Ramesses II's Tragedy: Historical records confirm that Ramesses II’s eldest son and Crown Prince, Amun-her-khepeshef, died suddenly and unexpectedly around the 25th year of Ramesses' reign (circa 1265 BCE).

• The Alignment: This death fits the timeline of a mid-reign Exodus. If the Exodus occurred around 1265 BCE, the sudden death of the Crown Prince matches the biblical account of the death of the firstborn son of Pharaoh.

C -Precision Regarding the Agricultural Calendar

The text of Exodus demonstrates a highly specific knowledge of Egyptian agriculture which differs from that of Canaan/Israel.

• The Hail Plague (Exodus 9:31-32): The narrative notes that the hail struck down the flax and barley because they were "in the ear" and "in bud," but it did not destroy the wheat and spelt because they "ripen later."

• Egyptian Botany: This distinction perfectly matches the agricultural cycle of the Nile Delta. 18th Dynasty tomb paintings depict flax and barley being harvested together, while wheat matured about a month later.

• Eyewitness Credibility: The documentary argues that a later Jewish writer living in Israel (where agricultural cycles are different due to reliance on rain rather than the Nile) would likely not know these specific botanical details. This suggests the account was written by someone who had lived in Egypt and witnessed these events firsthand.

D -The Sudden Decline of Egyptian Power

The documentary counters the argument that the Exodus should have caused the immediate collapse of Egypt. Instead, it suggests the Exodus contributed to a sharp decline in Egypt's ability to project power.

• Ramesses II vs. Merneptah: Early in his reign, Ramesses II was a military juggernaut (e.g., the Battle of Kadesh). However, his successor Merneptah faced immediate and severe threats.

• Loss of Control: Shortly after the proposed Exodus date, Egypt struggled to defend its borders. The Libyans invaded from the west, reaching as far as Heliopolis, and the Sea Peoples began encroaching from the east.

• The Connection: The documentary proposes that the loss of a massive labor force (the Hebrews) and the military losses sustained during the Exodus (the drowning of the chariot corps) destabilized Egypt. This weakened state explains why Egypt suddenly lost its hegemonic control over Canaan and struggled to repel invaders in the generations immediately following Ramesses II.

4. Addressing Common Objections 

A - The Silence of Egyptian Records

One of the most frequent arguments against the Exodus is the lack of direct Egyptian inscriptions mentioning the Hebrews or the plagues. The documentary offers three specific counter-arguments:

• Royal Propaganda: Ancient Egyptian records were not unbiased history books; they were royal propaganda designed to glorify the Pharaoh and the gods. The documentary notes that Pharaohs never recorded defeats, military blunders, or embarrassing events. A massive loss of slave labor and the humiliation of their gods by a foreign deity is exactly the kind of event that would be purged from official records.

• Limited Excavation: It is estimated that less than 1% of ancient Egyptian sites have been excavated. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when so much of the ground remains untouched.

• The Climate of the Delta: The Hebrews lived in the Nile Delta (Goshen), which is wet and marshy. Unlike the dry sands of southern Egypt (where papyrus is preserved for millennia), the humid soil of the Delta destroys papyrus and mud-brick structures very quickly. Consequently, most administrative records from this region have naturally decomposed.

B - The "Two Million People" Problem

Critics often point out that the logistics of 2 million people (600,000 men plus women and children) wandering the desert is archaeologically and ecologically impossible for that era.

• Reinterpreting "Eleph": The documentary argues that the Hebrew word eleph, usually translated as "thousand" (e.g., "600 thousand men"), has a wider semantic range. In military contexts, it can mean a "clan," "family unit," or "troop."

• A Realistic Number: By reading eleph as "clans" or "units" rather than a literal numeral, the total population of the Israelites drops significantly—likely to between 15,000 and 100,000 people. This smaller number is historically plausible, matches the carrying capacity of the land, and aligns with the archaeological footprint of the Semitic settlements found at Avaris.

C - Did Pharaoh Die in the Sea?

A common assumption is that the Exodus account requires the Pharaoh himself to have drowned in the Red Sea, yet Ramesses II lived a long life and his mummy is well-preserved.

• What the Text Actually Says: The documentary emphasizes that a close reading of Exodus 14-15 states that Pharaoh’s army, chariots, and horsemen were destroyed. While Psalm 136 poetically says God "overthrew Pharaoh and his host," the narrative in Exodus does not explicitly state that the king himself entered the water and died.

• Historical Precedent: It was common for Pharaohs (especially older ones like Ramesses would have been) to command from the rear rather than lead the charge directly into hazardous terrain. Therefore, the survival of Ramesses II does not contradict the strict reading of the biblical text.

D - No Evidence in the Sinai?

Critics often argue that 40 years of wandering should have left pottery or graves in the Sinai desert.

• Nomadic Lifestyle: The documentary explains that the Israelites were living as nomads. Bedouin groups who have lived in the Sinai for centuries leave almost no archaeological trace because they use biodegradable materials (skins, wood) and do not build permanent stone foundations.

• A Temporary State: The Israelites were not building cities; they were moving. Expecting to find substantial ruins from a transient group in a shifting desert landscape is an unrealistic archaeological standard.

The Exodus: Did it Happen?

Okay, right off the bat: There’s no archaeological evidence for the Exodus account. However there is compelling internal evidence for it. 

First, concerning the lack of archaeological evidence, to conclude that the Exodus didn't happen just on that basis would be the logical fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance. Usually described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Secondly, the Egyptians kept only records of their victories, never their defeats, and the Exodus would surely have been a defeat for them.

The Egyptians kept no record of defeats, only victories not just due to pride but because the Egyptian religious belief that once anything is written down or spoken it may have the ability to be perpetuated and perhaps repeated, something that is part of the nature of Egyptian religious beliefs.

We see examples in the Egyptian’s desire to have their names spoken after death in order to maintain their existence in the afterlife, and so the idea that writing an event down will also make it possible for the event to continue, perhaps recurring at some future point. Surely so catastrophic an event as so many slaves being let go at once would not be something the Egyptians would wish to commemorate.

Thirdly, even if there had been such records, they would never have survived in the damp delta area. We have virtually nothing of this nature, archaeologically speaking, from the Delta. The fact is that the entire area is simply too wet for papyrus to survive. The ancient ground level is now some twenty feet or more below the modern surface, and the water table is so high in the area that most current excavations must employ the constant use of pumps to keep the diggings dry.

So there’s little external evidence for the Exodus. But what of the internal evidence?

1) The straw in the bricks.  Moses and Aaron go to Pharaoh and say, ‘let my people go’ and to celebrate a festival to our God. And Pharaoh replies In Exodus 5:6-8

That same day Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and overseers in charge of the people: 7 “You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. 8 But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don’t reduce the quota. They are lazy; that is why they are crying out, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ 

Bricks in Egypt were made with straw to give it strength. But they were not made that way in Canaan. The fact points to an authentic account of someone who knew Egypt, not a made-up-later tale from a Canaanite outsider.

2) They were said to have worked with bricks, and not the stones that a later writer might suppose from the pyramids and tombs and the storage places for Pharaoh, namely, Pithom and Raamses.” (Exodus 1:11)

3) The way that the Hebrews got into their bondage (Exodus 1:8-10) fits in well with how Egypt pushed back at Libya, taking captives, as the Egyptians always minded when foreigners become too numerous. It was okay to have a few, but when they became a large body to be reckoned with, they didn’t like that. 

4) Pharaoh lays plans to kill off the newborn Hebrew boys in Exodus 1:16, in which Pharaoh lays plans to kill off the newborn Hebrew boys. He instructs the midwives to put the child to death if it is a son.

The Hebrew word for “stool for childbirth” literally means “two stones,” as in ‘a stone under each buttock.’ Egyptians did give birth that way [see pg 116] and it can be seen in their hieroglyphs, and it makes more sense than the modern way of lying prone, for it allows for gravity to assist. 

According to the descriptions in the Bible, women in the process of childbirth either kneeled or sat on someone's knees.(Genesis 30:3). See here as well. 

5) What of the frequent expression that Pharaoh’s “heart was hardened?”  The Egyptians believed that a person thought with his heart. After all, it is the heart that beats faster when someone is excited.

6) The name “Moses,” and says that it’s a purely Egyptian name. It means “birth.” It is incorporated into the names of several pharaohs: Ahmose, (“the moon god is born”) Thutmose. (“Thoth is born”) In Greek, the name with its appended suffix becomes Amosis and Thutmosis. Ramesses is similar in pattern: (Re is the one who bore him)

If this Egyptian etymology is correct, it makes an even greater point for authenticity, because the Bible writer doesn’t appear to know that, and he attributes a Hebrew setting to the name, a play on the verb mashah (to draw out [of water]). We read that the weaned infant was brought to Pharaoh’s daughter, “so that he became a son to her; and she proceeded to call his name Moses and to say: ‘It is because I have drawn him out of the water.’” (Exodus 2:10) The application doesn’t quite fit, say some, for the word construction implies that Moses does the drawing, whereas the text says otherwise, and the only way to solve the difficulty is to ignore it. Moreover, why would Pharaoh’s daughter name the child with Hebrew etymology and not her own? Without intending to, the Bible writer gives added reason to regard the account as genuine.

7) There is a document, known as the Leiden Papyrus, from the time of Ramses the Great. It contains an instruction to "distribute grain rations to the soldier and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great Pylon of Ramses". Some connect Apiru (it means “stateless people”) with the origin of the “Hebrew” that it sounds like. It fits well with Exodus 1:11, “they appointed chiefs of forced labor over [the people of Israel] to oppress them with hard labor, and they built storage cities for Pharaoh, namely, Pithom and Raamses.” Source. Note: I have not had any luck is seeing a transliteration of the original 

Ramses the Great ruled for 67 years, had about 100 children, of which 52 were sons, and outlived many of them, including his firstborn, Amunhirkepshef. It is his 13th son, Merneptal, who succeeds him as pharoah. Of his early military campaigns, Merneptal has recorded in his fifth year that “Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe; Ashkelon has been overcome; Gezar has been captured; Yano’am was made nonexistent; Israel is laid waste, its seed is not.” The Merneptah Stele is the first (and only) mention of “Israel” in ancient Egyptian records.

It is telling how the word “Israel” is written. At the end of every other mention is a hieroglyph of three hills. It means “country.” At the end of “Israel” is the drawing of a man and a woman. It denotes Israel is not yet an established place, not yet a country. It is still a people wandering in the Sinai wilderness. 

If this had been a story that was made up decades later, they would not have known all of these particulars. Thus given the evidence it's likely that the Exodus occurred, even though we do not have all the details

Just a Few of the Archaeological Finds that Support the Historicity of the Old Testament

The House of David Victory Stone 

Also known as the Tel Dan Stele, this slab of stone that was found in northern Israel in 1993 provides proof of Israel’s most famous ruler. The Aramaic inscription carved into it offers the first evidence of King David’s dynasty outside of Biblical sources.

It has been dated to the eighth or ninth century BCE and appears to recount the victory of King Hazael of Aram-Damascus, Syria, over King Joram of Israel and King Ahaziah of the House of David. This account differs from the Book of Kings, which states Jehu killed Joram and Ahaziah before taking the Israeli throne. The fragmented inscription reads:

[…] and cut […] my father went up [against him when] he fought at […] And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors]. And the king of I[s]rael entered previously in my father’s land. [And] Hadad made me king. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven […]s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kings, who harnessed thou[sands of cha]riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation …] other [… and Jehu ru]led over Is[rael … and I laid] siege upon […]”

Providing undisputed evidence of the rule of David, the Tel Dan Stele is perhaps the most important relic of Biblical significance to have ever been found in the Jewish state.

 
King Solomon’s Wall

A three-month excavation in Israel’s capital Jerusalem, just over a decade ago, uncovered a section of a wall that is believed to date from the tenth century BCE. Influential archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University led the dig in a location known as the Ophel, close to the Temple Mount. The wall, which is an impressive 70 meters long and six meters high, appears to confirm the Book of the Kings’ account of King Solomon building a huge defensive barrier in Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:1).

There aren't very many kings during the tenth century that could have built such a structure, basically just David and Solomon. This is the first time that a structure from that time has been found that may correlate with written descriptions of Solomon’s building in Jerusalem. Other relics found at the site appear to support her assertion. They included figurines of women that symbolize fertility, as well as jar handles inscribed with the message “to the king” and seals that bear Hebrew names.

 
Hezekiah’s Tunnel

Charles Warren discovered Hezekiah’s Tunnel in 1867, after being sent to conduct excavations close to the Temple Mount. The tunnel, which was constructed around the eighth century BCE, formed part of a system used to transport water from the Gihon Spring to within the city’s walls. Its discovery also confirms the Biblical account of Hezekiah preparing the city for a siege led by Assyrians after the King of Judah offended Assyrian King Sennacherib. An inscription found on the tunnel wall confirms this feat of engineering was made possible by two teams using axes, who dug through rock and gravel from opposite ends until they eventually met in the middle.

 
Ketef Hinnom Amulets

Excavation works undertaken in 1979 at a tomb dating back to the seventh century BCE in Ketef Hinnom, southwest of Jerusalem’s Old City, uncovered something remarkable: Two tiny silver scrolls that would have originally been worn as amulets. It took three years for the scrolls to be carefully unrolled, and while most of the text on them was indecipherable due to how much they had disintegrated, experts quickly realized their significance.

They are the earliest written passage of the Hebrew Bible, even predating the famous Dead Sea Scrolls by around 400 years. Part of one inscription is a version of Numbers 6:24-26: “The Lord bless you and protect you! The Lord deal kindly and graciously with you! The Lord bestow His favor upon you and grant you peace!”

 

Jerusalem’s City Wall

Archaeologists working in the City of David National Park made an exciting announcement that confirms the Biblical description of the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem led by King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE, and the exile of the Jewish people that followed. The discovery of the ancient wall, which is five meters wide, proves Bible accounts of Jerusalem being fortified by a huge structure.

Dr. Filip Vukosavovic of the Ancient Jerusalem Research Center coordinated the excavations alongside Dr. Joe Uziel and Ortal Chalaf on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. “When we exposed the first part of the wall, an area of ​​about one meter by one meter great, I immediately understood what we had found,” Dr. Vukosavovic said.

In 1846—before archaeology even existed as a field—an Assyrian obelisk was discovered in what is today northern Iraq. It referred to Jehu, a ninth-century BC Hebrew king. For the first time, an archaeological find corroborated what was in the Bible, and Victorian society was electrified. But this was only the first in a torrent of similar discoveries that challenged secular claims that the Bible is a collection of made-up myths and folktales.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Since then, the evidence has kept coming.

For example, in 1961 an inscription was found bearing the name "Pilate," the earliest known reference to this figure outside of the New Testament. In 1968, a first-century home in Capernaum was identified as that of the apostle Peter. In 1990 an ossuary was found bearing the inscription—and bones—of Caiaphas, the high priest who infamously pushed for Jesus's execution. In 1993, a stele mentioning the "House of David" was discovered, yanking King David out of the realm of myth and into the historical record.

 
The destruction of Sodom

This peer-reviewed paper in the most respect scientific journal describes the cataclysmic destruction of a Middle Bronze Age city north of the Dead Sea and represented years of research and technical analysis by 21 scientists, who likely never expected to author a paper in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals that mentioned the destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom. But in the end, the parallels proved impossible to ignore.

For starters, the archaeologist who excavated the site had been guided there by what the Bible said about Sodom. Dr. Steven Collins knew if the place existed, this site—today called Tall el-Hammam—must be it. In 2006 he began excavating. When he and his team got down to about 1650 BC—when Sodom was believed destroyed—they uncovered a five-foot layer of soot. Randomly scattered throughout this vast "destruction matrix" were bits of melted brick, burned fragments of human bones and other baffling detritus. No volcanic eruption—or fire or earthquake—could have produced this.

The day they found it, Collins discovered the shard of a jar. A seasoned ceramic typologist, he tagged it instantly as from about 1700 B.C. But one side of it had a strange glassy green glaze. The technology to intentionally produce anything like that would not exist for another 24 centuries. What could it be? A lab in New Mexico concluded that the pottery had been melted by super-intense heat lasting a very short period of time. What would do that?

Another perplexing fact: though the site was inhabited for millennia before the cataclysm, immediately afterward, there was a gap of 700 years before humans again settled there. Why would a site offering unmatched natural resources and military advantages be shunned for so long? It was unprecedented.

What Dr. Collins came to believe—and what the recent Nature article corroborated in extraordinary detail—is that what happened was a "cosmic airburst/impact event" very similar to what happened in Tunguska, Siberia in 1908. That's when an asteroid of about 180 feet in diameter entered the Earth's atmosphere at 34,000 mph, and exploded a few miles above that largely uninhabited region. The equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, the 1908 blast flattened 80 million trees, and so disturbed the upper atmosphere that for three days people in London could read newspapers at midnight. The Nature article says the Tall el-Hammam explosion was likely even more powerful.

The destruction it wrought is hard to fathom. The most powerful hurricanes produce winds approaching 200 mph, but this explosion may have generated winds of 700 mph. Walls 15 feet thick were utterly obliterated. The heat was such that nearly all of the thousands of inhabitants were vaporized. In fact, Nature tells us that the temperature at the center of the Tunguska explosion was 18,000 degrees Fahrenheit; the Tall el-Hammam explosion was perhaps even hotter. Whatever charred bone fragments survived—along with melted pottery, plaster, and roofing tiles—indicate that for 25 seconds the temperature was roughly 3,500 degrees, hot enough to melt stainless steel and titanium.

The only events comparable to what happened at Tall el-Hammam are the atomic bomb tests in the New Mexico desert in 1945, which melted the sands into a glaze so similar to what Collins found on the Bronze Age pottery that when he first showed the fragment to the lab scientist she assumed it was from the Los Alamos testing site.

The Nature article concludes explicitly that what happened in 1700 BC bears inescapable parallels to what the Bible says about Sodom. And indeed, they are startling:

1) stones fell from the sky;

2) fire came down from the sky;

3) thick smoke rose from the fires;

4) a major city was devastated;

5) city inhabitants were killed; and

6) area crops were destroyed."

It even says that what happened "may have generated an oral tradition that...became the source of the written story of biblical Sodom in Genesis." That a prestigious journal of science would admit these things should at least make any critical thinking person sit up and take notice.