chavos

Kind of misleading to call it THE original hebrew text if there are others that are more widely considered to be authentic. I have yet to see a convincing proof that the lillith story predates the J source creation story, or that it had anything beyond a small following before 1996.

Indeed, such a confusion is still possible in the Hebrew. The song of Miriam suggests crossing a swamp (Sea of Reeds) instead of a ocean like Red sea.

With out making a comment one way or another about the feasibility of the exodus story, there are other defeats that are not recorded by the egyptians, nor are those records complete in the form we have them today. Omission in the incomplete records we have found is not a negative proof. For generations, the "Exodus Event" whatever it might have been, was THE formative story and myth of the Hebrews. There's probably a fair amount of myth in that story...but there is also likely a kernal of truth, small or large.

The Pharoh's name is never given. Indeed, there is no solid indication with in the text of when these events took place.

Reading the link you posted, jynx, i'm struck by the focus on proving the historical anachronisms of various texts, while ignoring the idea that the ancestor legends are not meant to be read as history, but as legend. Much of that book is cultural transmission, not historical transmission. Check the geneologies. They make no sense in terms of timing, and other evidence we have...people of these names have no other record. But...translate the names, instead of just transliterating them. They aren't people's names, but ancient hebrew names for places. They are meant to show political and social relations between nations and ethnic groups, not blood lines. This is just one example of the type of misreading i feel that source falls in to. Over literalism kills scripture, whether it be from skeptics or from fundamentalists.