Post by v***@gmail.comPost by TimPost by v***@gmail.comPost by TimPost by v***@gmail.comPost by TimPost by v***@gmail.comhttp://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/09/The-Exodus-Controversy.aspx
the truth is that virtually every modern archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all (Watanabe 2001).
That's why the subject of the exodus is called a controversy,you stupid jackass. It means the experts disagree. YOU ARE TOTALLY RETARDED
No idiot, the experts don't disagree, that's why there is a consensus, and that means there is no controversy.
PROVE THE CONSENSUS EXISTS, YOU STUPID Asshole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel.[26] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.[27] Such elements as could be fitted into the 2nd millennium could equally belong to the 1st, and are consistent with a 1st millennium BCE writer trying to set an old story in Egypt.[28] So while a few scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story, arguing that the Egyptian records have been lost or suppressed or that the fleeing Israelites left no archaeological trace or that the large numbers are mistranslated, the majority have abandoned the investigation as "a fruitless pursuit".[29][30]
Read it and weep, myth boy.
ROTFL!That's one opinion, dumbass, one source. You still don't understand what a consensus is.DAMN ARE YOU STUPID.
Wrong, idiot, you can't read. There are 29 footnotes in that section:
Davies 2015, p. 51.
Jump up ^ Redmount 2001, p. 77.
Jump up ^ Moore & Kelle 2011, p. 90.
Jump up ^ Moore & Kelle 2011, pp. 88–89.
Jump up ^ Dever 2001, p. 99.
Jump up ^ Miller 2009, p. 256.
^ Jump up to: a b Kantor 2005, p. 70.
Jump up ^ Cline 2007, p. 74.
Jump up ^ Butzer 1999, p. 297.
Jump up ^ Dever 2003, p. 19.
Jump up ^ Grisanti 2011, pp. 240–46.
Jump up ^ Shaw 2002, p. 313.
^ Jump up to: a b Killebrew 2005, p. 176.
Jump up ^ Pratico & DiVito 1993, pp. 1-32.
^ Jump up to: a b Van Seters 1997, pp. 255ff.
Jump up ^ Soggin 1998, pp. 128–29.
Jump up ^ Finkelstein & Silberman 2002, p. 334.
Jump up ^ Faye 2013, p. 3.
Jump up ^ Meyers 2005, p. 143.
Jump up ^ Hayes & Miller 1986, p. 59.
Jump up ^ Davies 1998, p. 180.
Jump up ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 151.
Jump up ^ Moore & Kelle 2011, p. 81.
Jump up ^ Thompson 1999, p. 74.
Jump up ^ Barmash, 2015 & p.16 fn.10.
Jump up ^ Finkelstein & Silberman 2002, pp. 77–79, 82.
Jump up ^ Killebrew 2005, pp. 175–77.
Jump up ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 152.
Jump up ^ Hoffmeier 2005, pp. 115ff.
There's more than one opinion there, idiot. You can't read, and you've just proved again that you can't count. You're an idiot.