H20, with all do respect but you're reaching
any man hit by such tidal waves would be torn apart. Many things do not make sence concerning Mernetaph's death and are unable to be resolved anytime soon.
First claim: He was a very old man (73) or something when he died... many sources indicate a natural death
Second claim: The mummy shows a heavy mutilated body with head trauma's, broken bones and deep cuts
Third claim: The mummy drowned yet no source except Muir's sources have confirmed this.
and i'll try to go to the librabry this week
and it's for sure not the bible's intergrity that i'm putting at stake, the bible is speaking truth... is historical research doing that?
For one example this site is questioning the historians with the arguments that this concerns a later period of times
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/israel.html#hints
In revised history Merneptah [Hophra, Apries] ruled from about 580-568 BC, the period of coregency with Ramses II, and sole from ca. 568/69-558 BC. The stele describes the situation as it existed in Palestine following the Babylonian campaigns into the region. The same period, the same events moved Merneptah and Jeremiah to use similar expressions in describing what happened
i suggest you read the site, his arguments are impressive.
It also concedes with Mernetaph's assasination:
Ramses II's successor was Pharaoh Merneptah whose throne name was Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae. `Hotphirmae' should be repaired to read `hophramae'. The letter `t' in `hotep' (beloved) was not sounded just like in `Amenhotep' as compared to `Amenophis' in Greek. This way `Hotphir' was transliterated `Hophra' in Hebrew and `Apries' in Greek. Jeremiah said of this pharaoh:
"This is what the LORD says: 'I am going to hand Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt over to his enemies who seek his life, just as I handed Zedekiah king of Judah over to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the enemy who was seeking his life.' " -- Jeremiah 44:30
Who knows, with historical research confirming this, maybe in ten years from now, in the light of new discoveries this will be a conundrum in history, and our flood talks be in vain.
what we find in historical research is swift and replacable untill a next groundbreaking discovery commes along... the bible may know what happend truthfully, but that doesn't mean historical research has determined what happend yet... and i do not wich to alter any of the two, too fit someone's interpretation. It's better to your research at best, giving you the most truth even if it isn't complete you must take peace with that and not altering it to fit your agenda.