With the exception of those conservative scholars who insist on Mosaic authorship of the Torah, scholars agree that the Exodus account is a composite literary construct, composed and edited from smaller units transmitted over centuries to achieve theological and historical coherence. Recent research has identified more and more of the Exodus material as coming from the Israelite monarchy and the Exile, times long after the 2nd millennium epoch in which the narrative is set, and the original base of the story becomes corrspondingly more and more difficult to identify. While the overall intent of the narrative is historical, it is not history in the modern sense, but as a theology set against a historical background, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Children of Israel, and that it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as if they were modern history.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Recently, the archeologists Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (director of historical interpretation, Ename Center for Public Archeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium) summarized the archeological findings and latest corrections regarding the historical origins of the Jewish nation. In their words, "The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan - they emerged from within it. There was no mass exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan".

Finkelstein and Silberman point out that there is still no evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, Moses, and Joshua. There is no evidence that Jewish people existed as an identified people that were enslaved in Egypt. There is no evidence that over 600,000 men (plus women and children - the number could have been over a million) had an exodus from Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years. According to the Bible, 38 of these 40 years were actually spent encamped at Kadesh-barnea. This area has been turned upside down for decades, looking for even a tiny piece of pottery from this supposed time. It is not likely that this many people would have lived here this long and not left archeological evidence.

The archeological evidence contradicts the Biblical theme of Joshua taking control of the Israelites from Moses and conquering Canaan. For example, the Egyptians had a strong presence in Canaan at this time, yet the Biblical accounts make no mention of this. The Biblical themes of the origins of Israel are myths. Like the gospel accounts of the New Testament, they were fabricated in later times and inserted into earlier times as a tool of religious and political propagandists,

http://www.concentric.net/~Worgar/exodus.htm

vescucci:

Lol, atheists are the coolest people on earth.

There are so many of you guys, you should start a proper religion and ditch the satanism thing, lol

Mazaje is awesome

mazaje:

How can Yahweh be the creator of the universe when he himself is the creation of men?. . .Yahweh is, throughout the narration of the stories in the OT, an anthropomorphic idol, made in the image and likeness of the artist who cast it. . . . . Yahweh started out as a primitive and warrior tribal deity who is the God of the Jews, he lived with inside a box or ark of covenant them assembled them together and addressed the some times through public speech, fights along side them with his mighty sword of slaughter, orders them to invade other cities and plunder them for worshiping other Gods, tells them to kill each other if the fail to worship him etc. . . .I want to go off topic a bit, I read a very eye opening article about the exodus some years ago and in the paper I got to know that history and archeology do not even support most of the major stories and events in the bible AT ALL. . . .



Most of the stories in the bible like Yahweh the God it talks about were mostly created to give the Jews a theological and cultural identity and nothing more, This is nothing different from the Mayans or the Yoruba's and their own folklore about Oduduwa and the other Gods like Sango and Ogun. . . .Its funny that people now choose to identify themselves with the God  the Jews invented to give them so sense of identity and community while condemning the Gods their own ancestors created to give their own sense of identity. . . . .Non of the Gods of man made religions exists that is why no God can be shown to exists on its own independent of man made stories and myths, man's influences, man's cultural and societal acceptance. . , Yahweh like all the other Gods are man's creation. . .

Posted by: mazaje
Insert Quote
How can Yahweh be the creator of the universe when he himself is the creation of men?. . .Yahweh is, throughout the narration of the stories in the OT, an anthropomorphic idol, made in the image and likeness of the artist who cast it. . . . . Yahweh started out as a primitive and warrior tribal deity who is the God of the Jews, he lived with inside a box or ark of covenant them assembled them together and addressed the some times through public speech, fights along side them with his mighty sword of slaughter, orders them to invade other cities and plunder them for worshiping other Gods, tells them to kill each other if the fail to worship him etc. . . .I want to go off topic a bit, I read a very eye opening article about the exodus some years ago and in the paper I got to know that history and archeology do not even support most of the major stories and events in the bible AT ALL. . . .

Quote
With the exception of those conservative scholars who insist on Mosaic authorship of the Torah, scholars agree that the Exodus account is a composite literary construct, composed and edited from smaller units transmitted over centuries to achieve theological and historical coherence. Recent research has identified more and more of the Exodus material as coming from the Israelite monarchy and the Exile, times long after the 2nd millennium epoch in which the narrative is set, and the original base of the story becomes corrspondingly more and more difficult to identify. While the overall intent of the narrative is historical, it is not history in the modern sense, but as a theology set against a historical background, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Children of Israel, and that it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as if they were modern history.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus




Quote
Recently, the archeologists Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (director of historical interpretation, Ename Center for Public Archeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium) summarized the archeological findings and latest corrections regarding the historical origins of the Jewish nation. In their words, "The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan - they emerged from within it. There was no mass exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan".

Finkelstein and Silberman point out that there is still no evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, Moses, and Joshua. There is no evidence that Jewish people existed as an identified people that were enslaved in Egypt. There is no evidence that over 600,000 men (plus women and children - the number could have been over a million) had an exodus from Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years. According to the Bible, 38 of these 40 years were actually spent encamped at Kadesh-barnea. This area has been turned upside down for decades, looking for even a tiny piece of pottery from this supposed time. It is not likely that this many people would have lived here this long and not left archeological evidence.

The archeological evidence contradicts the Biblical theme of Joshua taking control of the Israelites from Moses and conquering Canaan. For example, the Egyptians had a strong presence in Canaan at this time, yet the Biblical accounts make no mention of this. The Biblical themes of the origins of Israel are myths. Like the gospel accounts of the New Testament, they were fabricated in later times and inserted into earlier times as a tool of religious and political propagandists,

http://www.concentric.net/~Worgar/exodus.htm

Jenwitemi:

Thank you for asking. I will suggest the following attributes;
1)It is the life force as well as the unifying source of all it's creation.
2)It has no chosen people. All creation is chosen by it, and as a result, all are equally special.
3)It is all knowing or omniscient.
4)It is omnipresent/ all present. It is everywhere all the time and at the same time.
5)All powerful/ omnipotent.
6)It is omni-benevolent or all loving.
7)It is the unifying force of all creation, and not the source of separation that we have been led to believe.
It has no name, except the names given to it by humans on their own volition.
9)It is an egoless entity that is totally transcendent of any human ego generated emotions like wrath, jealousy, parochialism, egocentrism, arrogance, etc.
10) It demands no worship or praise because it is transcendent of any desire for such.
11)It has no gender(which why i am using "IT" for it because).
12) It's inability to have an enemy because of it's transcendence through it's nature of egolessness.

These are the attributes of what [size=16pt]i [/size] consider to be the true creator God of the universe. But let us start with this list. Can you let us know which of these attributes did the jewish tribal deity fulfill?

JeSoul:

  But doesn't that single letter nullify your entire post Jenwitemi? As Vesc pointed out earlier, perhaps the problem is with our perception of what we expect God to be like? I know you were just giving your opinion though.

JeSoul:

 
However, have you considered that if God was God, He(just a term) would by light years and leap dimensions transcend all the classifications you've just given above?

JeSoul:

   I understand we can only work off the limitations of our mind, but perhaps this is why we should refrain from projecting ourselves onto God and ascribing certain characteristics onto Him as well?

JeSoul:

Also, you do realize this sin of subjectivity is the same you accuse religionists of. But perhaps this sin is not such a bad one. Faith, or the lack thereof is a very personal and intimate thing. So either way, I don't think the veracity of a persons faith should be subject to another's terms and conditions. Let each man decide for himself and by their fruit ye shall know them . . .

Mudley313:

If there was a god, it definitely wont be that bloodthirsty, biased, tyrannical and maniacal jewish deity with an overblown ego called yahweh created in the image of savage bronze age jewish normads in their own image

one thing i've always wondered, if yahweh was supposedly revealed to the israelites at a point in time through their prophets and this is the same god portrayed in the adam and eve myth; when then was there a disconnect between yahweh and humans (who he spoke directly to in earlier times) that he needed to be reintroduced as the one and only true god to the wandering jews?

Jenwitemi:

I don't see how that nullifies the entire post, jesoul. Every attribute in that corresponds with the general view of theists of what the creator should be. In any case, Yahweh cannot even fulfill a single one of those attributes.

I do agree with you, though, that human perception of what the creator should be plays a role, but don't you think that we should reject in it's totality, the jewish perception of what the creator should be, when it stinks so much?
Yes, i have considered this, but the attributes in the list is already light years ahead of the attributes of Yahweh, and that is the point here.

Jesoul, i do not consider subjectivity to be a sin, so i never accused any religionist of that.

I have a deep understanding of what faith is and how personal it is to each individual. I do not dispute that. But what i reject totally is the imposition of someone else's subjectivity on others, which is what religion is, especially henotheistic religions. Believe my subjective perceptions or burn in hell. That is totally insane.

mazaje:
With the exception of those conservative scholars who insist on Mosaic authorship of the Torah, scholars agree that the Exodus account is a composite literary construct, composed and edited from smaller units transmitted over centuries to achieve theological and historical coherence. Recent research has identified more and more of the Exodus material as coming from the Israelite monarchy and the Exile, times long after the 2nd millennium epoch in which the narrative is set, and the original base of the story becomes corrspondingly more and more difficult to identify. While the overall intent of the narrative is historical, it is not history in the modern sense, but as a theology set against a historical background, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Children of Israel, and that it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as if they were modern history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

mazaje:
Recently, the archeologists Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (director of historical interpretation, Ename Center for Public Archeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium) summarized the archeological findings and latest corrections regarding the historical origins of the Jewish nation. In their words, "The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan - they emerged from within it. There was no mass exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan".

Finkelstein and Silberman point out that there is still no evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, Moses, and Joshua. There is no evidence that Jewish people existed as an identified people that were enslaved in Egypt. There is no evidence that over 600,000 men (plus women and children - the number could have been over a million) had an exodus from Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years. According to the Bible, 38 of these 40 years were actually spent encamped at Kadesh-barnea. This area has been turned upside down for decades, looking for even a tiny piece of pottery from this supposed time. It is not likely that this many people would have lived here this long and not left archeological evidence.

The archeological evidence contradicts the Biblical theme of Joshua taking control of the Israelites from Moses and conquering Canaan. For example, the Egyptians had a strong presence in Canaan at this time, yet the Biblical accounts make no mention of this. The Biblical themes of the origins of Israel are myths. Like the gospel accounts of the New Testament, they were fabricated in later times and inserted into earlier times as a tool of religious and political propagandists,

http://www.concentric.net/~Worgar/exodus.htm

nuclearboy:

Science is "pick and choose" what tosses your salad  It effectively, allows you, like religion  , decide your own truth as you ignore what you wish and accept what you don't want.

Very recently, I was opportune to be watching tv when National Geographic aired a program titled "The ten plagues of the Bible - the first curses". Effectively, Science has "discovered" that these ten plagues really did happen in the exact order they appear in the Bible.

However, there is another explanation given to it - The "bloodying" of the Nile was due to Climatic change (probably due to global warming from all the horses of egpyt farting non-stop  ) which caused unusual growth of a particular algae which supposedly turns water to as blood. This "bloodying" forced the frogs in the water to come out (the second plague). Their subsequent death in unfamiliar conditions led to the invasion of flies and insects since the frogs (their natural predators) had ALL died. This brought about the next plague etc etc etc (you get the point).

I also have links I'm searching for that proved the Red Sea was crossed by the Israelites and that the same sea bogged down and destroyed Pharaoh's Army. So basically science itself throws out Mazaje's argument above that these events were not historical even if science tries to downplay the issue by providing "natural" reasons for what can suddenly no longer be denied.

Archaeology

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found nothing which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[8] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[19] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[20] While some archaeologists leave open the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200, they dismiss the possibility that the Exodus could have happened as described in the bible.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

In the first half of the 20th century the Exodus was dated on the basis of 1 Kings 6:1, which states that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple. Equating the biblical chronology with dates in history is notoriously difficult, but Edwin Thiele's widely accepted reconciliation of the reigns of the Israelite and Judahite kings would imply an Exodus around 1450 BC, during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC).[30]  By the mid-20th century it had become apparent that the archaeological record made this date impossible. The mummy of Thutmoses III had already been discovered in 1881,[31]  and Egyptian records of that period do not mention the expulsion of any group that could be identified with over 2 million Hebrew slaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues. In addition, digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous destruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BC - in fact many of them, including Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua, were uninhabited at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Biblical plagues happened in reality, say scientists


Scientists have claimed that the Biblical plagues that devastated Ancient Egypt in the Old Testament really happened and were the result of global warming and a volcanic eruption.

According to a report in The Telegraph, researchers believe they have found evidence of real natural disasters on which the ten plagues of Egypt, which led to Moses freeing the Israelites from slavery in the Book of Exodus in the Bible, were based.

Archaeologists now widely believe the plagues occurred at an ancient city of Pi-Rameses on the Nile Delta, which was the capital of Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Rameses the Second, who ruled between 1279BC and 1213BC.


The city appears to have been abandoned around 3,000 years ago and scientists claim the plagues could offer an explanation.

Climatologists studying the ancient climate at the time have discovered a dramatic shift in the climate in the area occurred towards the end of Rameses the Second's reign.

They found that Rameses reign coincided with a warm, wet climate, but then the climate switched to a dry period.

The scientists believe this switch in the climate was the trigger for the first of the plagues.

The rising temperatures could have caused the river Nile to dry up.

This marks the arrival of the first plague, which in the Bible is described as the Nile turning to blood.

According to Dr Stephan Pflugmacher, a biologist at the Leibniz Institute for Water Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Berlin, this description could have been the result of a toxic fresh water algae.

He said that the bacterium, known as Burgundy Blood algae, is known to have existed 3,000 years ago and still causes similar effects today.

"It multiplies massively in slow-moving warm waters with high levels of nutrition. And as it dies, it stains the water red," he said.

The scientists also claim that the arrival of this algae set in motion the events that led to the second, third and forth plagues - frogs, lice and flies.

The arrival of the toxic algae would have triggered such a transformation and forced the frogs to leave the water where they lived.

But as the frogs died, it would have meant that mosquitoes, flies and other insects would have flourished without the predators to keep their numbers under control.

This, according to the scientists, could have led in turn to the fifth and sixth plagues - diseased livestock and boils.

The explosion of the volcano Thera, which was part of the Mediterranean islands of Santorini, just north of Crete, around 3,500 years ago, is now also thought to be responsible for triggering the seventh, eighth and ninth plagues that bring hail, locusts and darkness to Egypt.

The cause of the final plague, the death of the first borns of Egypt, has been suggested as being caused by a fungus that may have poisoned the grain supplies, of which male first born would have had first pickings and so been first to fall victim. (ANI)

http://sify.com/news/biblical-plagues-happened-in-reality-say-scientists-news-international-kd4nOcfdded.html

mazaje:


there is NO evidence any where els beside the Hebrew text that the Israelis were ever enslaved in Egypt in the first places, the Egyptians have no record of them ever being enslaved in Egypt. . .

mazaje:


I will love to see the archeological or scientific evidence that says that the red sea was once divided into two using a rod for the Jews to cross over, last time I checked even the Christians archeologist were lost as to the right route the Jews would have taken if the story were true. . . .The exodus remains NON HISTORICAL. . . .It has all the elements of a myth contained in it, Firstly the real name of the Pharaoh of Egypt was NEVER mentioned in the bible, which is very telling, All Egyptian pharaohs had names, the bible fails to mention the name of the pharaoh whom the story revolves around. . . .Over a 100 years of archeology finds NOTHING to support the exodus narrative. . .

nuclearboy:

Horatio mazaje

The point is that they happened and Moses knew about them "in advance". My posts show I do not subscribe to the Bible thumping brigade's ideas of the world being 6, 000 years old or much stuff like that so please discuss with me and not with them "through me". [1] The plagues happened. [2] these preceded Israel leaving Egypt. Once these two are stated, it is puerile to say the Biblical exodus was non-historical thus proving the "scholars" and "archaelogists" you quoted deliberately twisted fact to push forward their own agenda. OR they are ignorant of scientific findings and thus purely opinionated and not worthy of the term "science".

Though highly subject to criticism, there was recently a documentary made by "James Cameron" and titled "Exodus decoded" which pushes forward another theory for the crossing of the red sea which whist "subject to a lot of debate", provides a theory for the crossing. He asserts that the Israelites crossed the "reed sea" and that a mistake in translation had that as "RED SEA". The reed sea is only inches deep in some portions and tide out brings that water depth to practically nothing. The Biblical narrative has Moses expelled from Egypt earlier in his life and having to wander on his own for a long time till he got to Midian. The idea is that Moses likely found out about the "tidal patterns" of the reed sea whist banished. At the time of the exodus, he led Israel to the low spots, waited til tide was out and they walked across what would have seemed to them (not knowing anything about the reed sea tidal patterns) as a miracle i.e. it was Moses who parted the sea.

Egypt in pursuit suddenly found Israel almost on the other side and followed - but with chariots laden with heavily armored men. These were bogged down and then the tides came back in.

I would expect a sincere human to understand that God will rarely take out of nature. With such a story as the ten plagues and crossing, is it impossible knowing they took place, that God used the forces of nature (which He created anyway) to achieve the plagues and crossing? Why was it at the exact time Moses was entreating Pharaoh and threatening him that the "burgundy blood" algae decided to show up? Was the global warming caused by a higher pepper level in food leading to particularly flatulent farting across the continents of the world? Did the ancients know about algae that color water. Or that such would force frogs out of their habitat? Or that the death of such would create a population explosion in gnats, lice and insects which would afflict cattle and flocks, killing them etc etc? Yet Moses knew about them in the exact order they came about - that is the miracle here; that and science claiming it was natural and keeping quiet about how a shepherd knew about it!

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus suggested in his work Contra Apion that the Hyksos were, in fact, the ancient Hebrews. It is incontestable that Hyksos lived under Egyptian rule in Egypt. Other names that have been used for Hebrews in history include Hiberu and Apiru, described in Wikipedia as " names given by various Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Ugaritic sources (dated, roughly, from before 2000 BC to around 1200 BC) to a group of people living as nomadic invaders in areas of the Fertile Crescent from Northeastern Mesopotamia and Iran to the borders of Egypt in Canaan." They are "variously described as nomadic or semi-nomadic, rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, and bowmen, servants, slaves, migrant laborers, etc."

Pastor AIO:

aaa aaah!!! What about Chinese civilization that have been going strong for about 6,000 years? The inventions of Gunpowder etc etc. Your above statement is so eurocentric that it's almost scary. We have all been colonized but surely by now we ought to be aware that the world and it's history is much bigger that the way the europeans see it.

Let's not forget Aztecs and Maya.

nuclearboy:

The title of this thread - "Re: Disbelief In Yahweh As The Creator God".  Yahweh is the "God" of the Hebrews, not so?

I'd like views on the following statement then - "All of Jewish history is played against the backdrop of world history, but all of world history is intertwined with the Jewish people." Why the Jews? Why not say the Egyptians who were a world power? Why not Medo-Persia that followed? Why not Greece?

Why not Rome? Each of these 4 empires was little known until it came into prominence as a world power and after that, zilch!

Why a tiny collection of tribes which seem to have usurped and upset every single period in history, including the present?

Always, everywhere these people have been at the center of most any issues on the world stage! What then does that suggest about them and their "God"?

And why does every single religious belief of standing have "much" in common with the primary belief of Christianity?

Much as stated, of course, is subject to interpretation. But even Ifa of yoruba land has "ELA" the deliverer, who came to earth through a virgin and would lead all that followed Him to heavenly bliss.

A lot (too many) of coincidences makes doubt a proposition somewhat "deliberate", in my opinion. And the evidence, as it were, demands an unbiased verdict!

nuclearboy:

Couldn't find the exact link though I searched hours. This link carries an idea of that one http://www.imninalu.net/Hyksos.htm

Further Speculations! 

History

http://www.jewishhistory.org/hyksos-or-hebrews/

then

", the price of twenty shekels of silver paid for Joseph in Genesis 37:28 is the correct average price for a slave in about the 18th century B.C.   Earlier than this, slaves were cheaper (average ten to fifteen shekels), and later they became steadily dearer. This is one more little detail true to its period in cultural history."

-- Ancient Orient and Old Testament, by K.A. Kitchen


"In the last verses of Genesis it is told how Joseph adjured his relatives to take his bones back to Canaan whenever God should restore them to their original home, and in Joshua 24:32 it is told how his body was indeed brought to Palestine and buried in Shechem. For centuries there was a tomb at Shechem reverenced as the Tomb of Joseph (see photo to left). A few years ago the tomb was opened. It was found to contain a body mummified according to the Egyptian custom, and in the tomb, among other things, was a sword of the kind worn by Egyptian officials."

-- Prophets, Idols and Diggers
    book by John Elder


"It is the location of of Ra'amses and Succoth that is established beyond reasonable doubt. Though earlier sought in the eastern delta at the site of Zoan/Tanis (San el-Hagar), Ra'amses must be placed at Qantir (Tell ed-Dab'a), some 17 miles to the southwest (see map above). Furthermore, it seems conclusive that that was also the site of the Hyksos capital, known in the period as Avaris. Excavators have discovered archaeological remains at Tell ed-Dab'a indicating that it was a large habitational site in the Hyksos era and into parts of the New Kingdom period. The artifacts dug up at the site (pottery, utensils, burial wares, etc.) do not conform to Egyptian typology, but rather to what is found in contemporary layers in Palestine. In The Ancient Near East: A History, the authors comment, "Archaeologically, it is as if the site were actually in Palestine."  Just north of the tell a tile factory was found where glazed blue tiles were manufactured for use in the palatial estates of the pharaohs. And in the environs of this installation were found certain ostraca that actually bear the name of Ra'amses. This was the locale in which the Israelites lived and from which the Israelites began their journey.

In a word, it appears that the biblical, historical, and archaeological data are best served by theorizing that it was a Hyksos monarch before whom Joseph stood as an interpreter of dreams (Gen. 41:14-37) and who later ceded a choice parcel of land (Goshen) to Joseph's family (Gen. 47:6). According to such a theory, the "new king" of Exodus 1:8 would have been one of the native Egyptian monarchs of the New Kingdom who, as part of his Hyksos purge, resolutely refused to recognize the validity of the Goshen land grant. Discerning in the Israelites a multitude who might very well join with his Asiatic enemies in war, this new king moreover acted quickly to enslave the Israelites.

The above-mentioned theory also fits well with the historical profile attested in the book of Genesis. The patriarchs moved in and through Palestine for some 215 years (cf. Gen. 12:4; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), seemingly with the greatest of ease, mobility and freedom. Yet, it is inconceivable that their movements should have gone unnoticed (e.g., Gen. 14:14). That bespeaks a political climate in Palestine that would have been free from any sort of national or international domination, which is truly characteristic of that period between 1850 and 1550 B.C. The theory might also humanly explain how Joseph, a non-Egyptian, was able to rise to a position of Grand Vizier in a foreign land -- the court itself would not have been Egyptian, but Hyksos. It also might explain why there is no historical mention of Joseph.

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/joseph.htm

Was there a Hyksos invasion?

Manetho's account, as recorded by Josephus, of the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt describes it as an armed invasion by a horde of foreign barbarians who met little resistance and who subdued the country by military force. He records that the Hyksos burnt their cities, destroyed temples and led women and children into slavery.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

There is actually some evidence that they were a people known as the Hyksos in Egypt, But they were not slaves they were fierce rulers, they had Hebrew names, and they were kicked out of Egypt at the beginning of the 18th dynasty. So there was an Exodus of these Hyksos and they are said to have robbed Egypt of all it's silver and gold and cattle and weapons on their way out. So there are similarities butween the two stories but one is an Egyptian account, and the other is a biblical account, Odly enough Tuthmosis III is the name of the king that expelled the Hyksos and it is ruffly the same name as Moses in the Egyptian language, Remamber that Moses was the adopted grandson of the Pharoah that rulled in his time.

There is no proof in either direction whether the Jews were in Egypt, but there is this Evidence of two stories that have many of the same elements, and the Roman historian Josephus Flavius who was a Jew states in his monumental writing that the Jews were infact the Hyksos.