Why Have Archaeologists Never Found Evidence of the Exodus?

Thee is evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt but there is still debate over which Pharaoh was the one who was ruling during the Exodus, I've wavered back and forth in thinking between Menerptah and Rameses II, but now believe it is Rameses II.

See these two answers for my differing views and the evidence:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200907...

Now see why I've changed my views with futher study to believe that actual archaeological evidence supports much of the Exodus story in reference to the Hebrews living as a foreign people in Egypt:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201102...

edit: I'm not claiming there is archaeological evidence of the story of the plagues in Exodus! Please read what I did say and Please see the links I've given and their references..the references are important. Shalom.

What would be surprising is if they had found evidence of it! We are talking about a span of 3500 years, and finding evidence of a nomadic group of people who would have been living a hunter/gatherer existence! Think about it, they were using animal skins and natural substances for tents, clothing etc- all of this would have rotted away over three thousand five hundred years! Iron implements would have been expensive and highly valued, not things that would be lost and thus they would be carefully looked after and not there to be found.

In short- stone age/iron age hunter gatherers left exceptionally few artefacts around even where they had permanent residences- expecting to find evidence of nomads, in a desert, 3500 years later is a pipe dream and something no sane archeologist would expect!

The first problem with finding evidence of it is that they were wandering through a desert. Wind blows the sand around and covers over much of what was left, as well as degrading any objects. The second problem is that they wouldn't have left anything behind in the first place. The only things that would have been left behind would be what was accidentally dropped and not noticed, and finding that would be like finding a needle in 10,000 hay stacks.

I did hear that they found a bunch of Egyptian chariots at the bottom of the Red(?) Sea once, but I don't know if that's true or not.

Did you try Googling 'evidence for evolution'? Perhaps you could Google ' evidence for Krishna' and see how much evidence pops up for him. In fact just Google 'evidence for [insert deity here] and I'm sure a credulous soul such as yourself could find evidence to believe in anything at all. I suspect you failed to notice that all sites claiming to have evidence for Exodus happen to be controlled by raving fundies, whose idea of 'evidence' generally involves believing something and then making **** up to support it. Or maybe you could refer to the decades of archaelogical digs carried out by Israelis desperate for some historical evidence to support their claims of being god's chosen people, and more specifically evidence that thousands of people spent 40 years wandering around the Sinai. The evidence they found is that there's quite a lot of sand around, and not a lot else. Exodus is a collection of stories, like the rest of the Bible. Get over it.

Because there were no burnt bodies. Nothing was left behind.

And those who claim to have found Noah's ark never found it, either.

Archeologists can only find those that leave a chemical...carbon 14, potassium-argpm etc -- "footprint". If there was any Exodus, they kept moving.

"Why Have Archaeologists Never Found Evidence of the Exodus?"

They have. The premise of your question is wrong.

Never happened. The Israelites are still slaves in Egypt.

FYI - There were several million not thousands.

P.S. God is not required to leave you clues. This is not a party game.

According to the bible, the Hebrews were slaves for 400 years. What exactly was god doing during this time? Why didn't he just free them then instead of spending centuries doing nothing? Oh, and killing every first-born of Egypt was perfectly just. It's not just that there's no evidence to support the story; the story doesn't even make sense to begin with.

You should research the evidence of other old testament accounts in the Bible.

It becomes even more interesting if you take the total area of the Sinai desert and divide it by 630,000 claimed by the bible freaks the thing is only a very small area total 150,000 acres