No such thing as Moses

[_antishock8]

Do you think a 1,000 years from now people will be arguing whether or not B.O. existed?

I think so.

He's the annointed one. *honkshu*

[_EAllusion]

Since Gaz choose not to source his post, I'll do so for him.

This is the source:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

Knowing Gaz, there's a good chance he got it from being crossposted on Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/725672/posts

[_Danna]

CC, you owe TAK an apology. Are you Mormon enough to humble yourself and offer this man an apology?

I'm not Mormon at all. (Thank heaven.) He did deserve an apology, though.

Ahhh, that explains it!

(excuse my butting in) The Ipuwer Papyrus may be of interest to a mainstream Bible literalist. But, even after a brief google, it is clear that it conflicts, dating wise, with Mormon teaching on the exodus.

Mormons have linked the Hyksos and Exodus, the Ipuwer Papyrus composition predates the Hyksos, especially if it refers to the Thera eruption as Wiki (and other sites) suggest.

But, my guess is that when pinned down, a Mormon would say that the Hyksos/Exodus link is not doctrinal. As explained to me as a teenager, the Hyksos link was useful to explain the marriage of Joseph to the daughter of an Egyptian priest pre-1978. These days the link would not be necessary to the 'it was all Brigham's personal opinion' variety Mormon; although it would still be favored by the 'all the pre-existence fence-sitters got born already' variety.