Reddit mentions of The Gold of Exodus

> Are you claiming this is not implied?

It's not implied because it is not possible. You can not be a "nation" just by calling yourself one. A nation, at bare minimum, has governance over its own affairs. The Jews quite obviously did not.

>By the same token, if not, the 'Promised Land' and Moses and the Ten Commandments and all the laws of Moses are just for whatever Jews happened to follow him?

I don't understand this question, but continuing with the preceding paragraph the jews only became a nation once they established laws to govern themselves and where in a land where no other State could impose its laws upon them. They were never a nation until they had conquered the promised land. They ceased being a nation when they were conquered first by Sennecherib (the northern kingdom) and then later by Nebuchadnezzar (Judah & Benjamin: the southern kingdom). The were not a nation again until 1942 (1945?).

> The presumption has always been that the Jews as a people were all in Egypt at the time,

They were a community, of course. It's not semantics to understand the difference between a community and a nation. The words are meant to convey an exact meaning and you don't get to swap them around when it suits your fancy to swap them around.

> The Bible talks about more than a million Jews. No presence of any large body of people have ever been found.

You may have misunderstood what I was asking for, so I will repeat it. What is the methodology to physically determine a people group moved out. Let me give you an example of methodology so that we are clear:

1. The MeMover detects the particles of J-ion by examining 1, 2, 3 and comparing its reactions to 4,5 & 6. The research by Dr. Whomever shows that human beings leave J-ion on surfaces any time they have come in contact with them. Thus we can determine where there is the presence of J-ion detected by the MeMover device that there had been a human being touching this surface.
   
   See the step by step process by which I can follow the entire sequence? That is what I am asking you for. Not a philosophy, not a speculation and not a hypothetical.
   
   I would like to know what methodology, in step by step fashion, that Mr. Finkelstein uses to determine any people group moved out of any place on earth. Furthermore I would like to see how often this methodology used by Mr. Finkelstein has correctly determined the migration of a people group.
   
   >You should read his book on the subject. It should prove illuminating.
   
   Yeah, maybe. I would have to finish the 3 or 4 books I've already started though. LOL
   
   >I'm interested. Please provide a reference. I've never heard that.
   
   This [BBC Article](5. “Moses,” July, 2009, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/history/moses_1.shtml, accessed October 4, 2010.) reports the find of an archeologist who claims to have discovered the a stable capable of holding 500 horses and chariots from the time of Ramses II. The exodus records Pharaoh sending 600 chariots after the Jews to capture them.
   
   More specific to your question about the chariots, I read it in the book "The Gold of Exodus" by Howard Blume. He is the one to make the claim. Now, Mr. Blume has always disagreed with the traditional view of the path Israel had taken from Egypt to Canaan. This point is actually important because if you don't know what path they take, how can you possibly conclude they never migrated at all? Do you see what I am saying. But the problem is the cities and names have changed over time so that no one can say with 100% certainty which way it even was that the Jews went when they left Egypt. So the entire "well there is no evidence along the way" argument isn't an argument when no one knows which way they went to begin with.
   
   Mr. Blume decided based on various factors that you can read to chart their journey differently than what has been traditionally told and among other things he reports finding the actual mountain Moses was on, describes various features consistent with the writings in the Exodus and also claims to have found chariot parts along the crossing path of the Red Sea that he believes they crossed at.
   
   I will say that in doing a quick search, other persons such as Ron Wyatt who have said to discover chariot remains have been discredited and my statement is not based on Ron Wyatt. So I admit that you will not find any support of chariots found at the location traditionally believed to be where the Jews crossed.
   
   Whether or not you accept Mr. Blume's explanations for why he proposes a different path and if you accept Mr. Blume's claims of findings along the path he followed is up to you.
   
   >Lack of evidence isn't opinion.
   
   Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I am sure you would argue the same thing if someone came to you and said they can't find evidence that you were home last night at 10pm, therefore you must not have been. It is always and only opinion that attempts to explain a lack of evidence. "There's no evidence of you being home at 10pm last night because you were out murdering someone."
   
   >You want me to dig through his book and summarize his methodology for you, a person that will not accept his methodology?
   
   You've misread or misunderstood. His methodology is exactly what I am seeking because if the methodology is trustworthy than the results are trustworthy. Him as a person I can do without and don't care if it is he or you or Adolf Hitler who proposes the methodology. The methodology is my only concern. I will certainly accept the methodology when it is demonstrated to be accurate, consistent and trustworthy in its results.
   
   >If you want to a summation of how this is done in archaeology, why not Google it or take an intro course?
   
   Time :( There's only so much time in a day for all of us and we have to prioritize it wisely. It would be great if I had time to read every book there is but I don't. You are under no obligation to read and summarize the methodology to me, I accept that. It's ultimately up to me to read it for myself. I accept that too. If you're willing to summarize the methodology from what you've read, then thank you. If not, I understand.