Some Notes:

The English language has no gender-neutral pronouns. So when the words man, he, him, etc are used, they mean "Generic human being" unless the context specifically says otherwise. Only women get words devoted just to them.

Thou, Thee, and Thine are singular pronouns. You and Your are plural in the 16th Century English the King James Bible was translated into. This actually makes the message clearer than our habit of using "you" as both a singular and a plural.

In many scriptures I have changed the King James (English) spelling to American spelling (labour=labor, for example. I understand those in England still spell it with a u). Also, in some scriptures I have changed the "-eth" to a simple "s." Spelling standards weren't set in English until the mid 1800's, well after the translating of the KJV. So I see no problem with making these simple changes that don't affect the meaning of the scripture but make it easier for our modern mouths and ears to deal with.

Introduction to Exodus



This is the second book written by Moses. Unlike Genesis, where many believe he actually compiled previous documents into one volume, there is little doubt that Moses actually wrote this entire book.

Dating the events of the Exodus is pretty simple. We know when Persia invaded Babylon (there is little debate on this date) and the Bible gives enough information we can simply count the rule of various kings, conquerors, and judges backwards.

This puts the Exodus at 1533BC (give or take a year or two due to partial years). We can count further back and discover that
  • Joseph died about 1677BC,
  • Abraham received his promise from God in1939BC,
  • The tower of Babel was destroyed in 2259(ish)BC and
  • The flood occurred in 2390BC.
A further counting would put Creation somewhere around 1656 years before that (making this year I am writing the 6055th year of planet Earth.)

Now these dates might be off by a year or two due to partial years being added together, but they couldn’t possibly be off more than that without calling the Bible a liar. (The scientific evidence for a very young earth is increasing every year. See ICR.org)

The Assyrians kept very good records which have recently been discovered. Their dates for the time of the History of Israel agree with the biblical dates, so we have two “witnesses” that these dates are correct. And Archeology, when viewed without the distraction of the “traditional” Egyptian timeline (written by non-believers), also supports these dates.


A major problem comes in, however, when trying to name the Pharaohs that correspond to biblical events:

Many of the official Egyptian records were kept on papyrus which has rotted, and so are no longer available.

Pharaohs were known to remove unpopular predecessors from all records, either inserting their own names in his place or eliminating all records from that time altogether.

There were a couple of times of so much chaos that there were two or more dynasties reigning at the same time and since they were both claiming to be the true rulers of the land they didn’t acknowledge the existence of the other. This means we can’t always really tell if these were really contemporary kingdoms or successive ones. “Traditional” dating puts them as successive, though that timeline would be drastically shortened if they ruled different parts of Egypt at the same time.

Fathers and sons occasionally ruled together (and in at least one instance father, mother, son, and daughter!) with some sons counting their rule from this time of co-regincy and others counting their rule from the time of their dad’s death.The Traditional timeline lists these as all ruling one after the other with their reigns starting at the death of their predecessor.

One very early dynasty in Egypt for some weird reason, had the same fashions as a dynasty several hundred years later. They also had many of the same events, being invaded by the same people, suffering the same droughts, etc. Some speculate that these two dynasties are actually one dynasty whose records were accidentally duplicated by the early BC historians.

For some Pharaohs, all we have of their record of existence is one hieroglyphic of their name, one mention in Manetho (3rd century BC) or another king list, or one mention in another, later country’s records. Since most pharaohs were known by several names, it is hard to tell whether they are the same person with different names or different people all together.

And just to confuse things even more, it was not uncommon for a country to give its own name for a foreign king that might not be the one his own records would use.

For example, Ramses means “Son of the Sun God.” Would biblical records call him Ramses, or would they call him whatever the Hebrew word for “son of the sun god” is? (Shshk, actually, and since Hebrew didn't have vowels yet, he may actually have been the Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:1-12 . The records of conquests by Ramses II and the biblical Shishak are remarkably alike). Or some other name entirely (“Jerk of a Conqueror”)? And the Bible doesn’t even give a name to about half of the pharaohs it talks about, just calling them “Pharaoh.”

(For example, Jezebel was, I am sure, was never called that to her face. It means “Offspring of a dung beetle.” Her real name likely meant “Offspring of Baal” but that is not what the Bible (the Jewish records of history) calls her.)


However, if we dismiss the traditional dates assigned to various Egyptian kings and look at the actual evidence from other sources, we begin to see some correlations.

The Bible says, for example, that Israel was very rich during the reign of Solomon and he had a special building pattern in his projects (three rows of rocks, then a row of timber, then back to rocks). He also built a palace for his wife, the daughter of the Pharaoh.

The Traditional timeline (written, remember, from confused king lists with the assumption of no civil wars or co rules, and millions of years of history) puts Solomon in the Iron Age during which Israel was exceedingly poor. So secular historians say Solomon probably never even existed because there is no archeological evidence for his wealth in the Iron Age.


Of course, they used to say that about David until they found his signet ring.


If, though, you just look at the actual archeological evidence you see that there was a time when Israel was exceedingly rich, built in the exact style the Bible mentions, and has the ruins of an Egyptian style palace. These evidences occur during the Bronze age, putting Solomon about 45 Egyptian kings earlier than traditionally thought (in the 18th dynasty instead of the 22nd).


Is it reasonable to assume the Traditional timeline is off by this much? Well, since mummies from the 21st dynasty were found wrapped in bandages labeled that they were made under a king from the 22nd dynasty, and evidence for a couple of civil wars in that general time period, and a lot of historians now doubt if a lot of the kings on that part of the list existed at all, yes, it’s reasonable.


It is known that the first recorded king of Egypt was Menes. Mizraim was Ham’s second son (according to the Book of Genesis) and many believe he was actually Menes, setting up his great kingdom in the pattern of Nimrod’s Babylon. In fact, Egypt today calls itself Mirz (“Egypt” is England’s word for the country).


The early kings of Egypt were buried with boats. Was this so they would have an escape in the next great flood? The natural result of being the (non-God-worshiping) great-grandchildren of Noah? And were the pyramids in fact attempts to recreate the Tower of Babal?

The book of Exodus begins about 60 years after Genesis ends.