More Evidence the "Very Early Exodus" Model is Correct

 A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals that the chronology of ancient Egypt may have to be moved up. Radiocarbon dating shows the Thera volcanic eruption occurred before Pharaoh Ahmose I, meaning the 18th Dynasty and New Kingdom began later than previously thought and the Second Intermediate Period lingered longer. Ahmose I is the nativist Pharoah who expelled the Hyksos and reunited Egypt. For over a century there had been two (at least) Egypts. That would make the Hyksos the "Egyptians" of the oppression. People have wondered how Egypt could still be so strong so soon after the plagues and the Exodus. Now we have our answer- she wasn't. Hyksos Egypt never recovered and ended probably less than 20 years after the plagues and Exodus.

This new evidence means that the Thera eruption could have played a role in the plagues.

Here is a video I made a year ago making the case for this very early Exodus

Doctor Dan McClellan and I Have a Discussion on Genesis Chapter 2

Dr. Dan McClellan and I have a go on X. 

At that point, one of his homies tagged in for him, but that fellow was Socratic and quit asking questions once he saw I was after something that Dan McCellan could not provide. An open mind on the "no inspiration" side to debate me on the inspiration side in order to see who had the better case for what the text was saying. From D.M.s answer it is obvious he is either unwilling or unable to engage on that basis because to him any idea about the text that has divine inspiration as a part of it must automatically be dismissed, regardless of textual evidence. 

PS- another poster questioned whether or not my solution really solved "the order problem" as he still felt "plants were created after man in chapter two". It does and here is more detail as to why...

Mike at no point in chapter two after verse 6 are plants said to have been "created". In fact, they are not said to have been created in those verses either. It happens "offstage" of chapter two back in chapter one. Verses 4-6 are pointing back to chapter one and a time before they were brought forth by the land. This is because it was originally a tolodoth phrase about the Account of the Heavens and the Earth that was tweaked to do double duty to the recursive Account of Adam. So the formation of plants happened "off stage" in chapter one, but the part of chapter one that was later than the teaser in 2:4-6. Imagine tablets about the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire followed by "The Life and Times of Julius Caesar". It makes sense for those accounts to go together. But if I had a teaser on the edge of the tablet about the first story it might say "Founded as a Republic, Rome began small, there was no Empire, no distant legions, and no Emperor to impose his will on the known world. After this, the first and perhaps greatest Emperor of them all took the throne." See what I did there? I took a trailer about the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire that described things before it really got going as an empire, then used that to segway into another related tale that I wanted to add as a two-account anthology. At no time subsequent to that are plants "created" or even made for that matter. It only said the LORD God "caused them to grow". He could have done so by gardening. If you really want to know the rest, you have to see the text with fresh eyes. Animals generally were created before humanity, but a special human was also formed, and then special animals, ones that were helpers, were formed for just for him. There is no conflict between the two accounts once you see they are telling related but not the same stories.

The Origin of Early Genesis- The Tablet Theory

The Documentary Hypothesis is a mess. The critical scholars are desperately ignoring the Tablet Theory

 

Did John Write the Gospel of John? The Narrow Circularity of Critical Scholarship

These people are willfully blind, and this is a good example of that blindness. 

 

Was God a Man in the Old Testament?

God became Man in the Incarnation, but the Incarnation seems to have been ordained from the foundation of the world. There is scripture to suggest that God the Son became man in some sense even back in the Old Testament. The Christ-centered model for early Genesis can make sense of this paradox. Link to Amazon page of Early Genesis the Revealed Cosmology. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XRLDYJB

 

Other People Survived the Flood of Noah

Mainstream theology teaches that the flood of Noah was global in extent, and drowned all humans on earth except for the eight souls on Noah's Ark. The English translations of scripture seem to support this doctrine, but the translations are wrong. See why a deeper and more Christ-centered look at the text supports the idea that the flood did not kill all people on earth, but was aimed at wiping out the line of Messiah. This video deals mostly with Genesis through the last part of change nine through chapter 11. Other videos cover other aspects of this question. Link to Amazon page of Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XRLDYJB

 

After the Flood: Why Genesis 9 Supports a Local Flood