by now, I don't expect some of you members to acknowledge any cited evidence for anything ever supported by evidence relative to the Exodus.
And we, Buz, don't expect you to provide any, either. Wyatt had none. His successors have none. Exodus and Numbers provide a morsel, on a par with the evidence The Two Towers provides for Middle Earth.
Give it a rest until you find something. Anything.
Alot of researchers believe what most ancient texts say, yet sometimes apply different standards to the biblical texts.
Do you have some examples? Take the Iliad, for example: most people that studied it in the 19th century viewed it as pure storytelling. Then, after Troy was excavated, opinion shifted to it being a mixture of fact and fable. No one since 1800 that I am aware of converted to the worship of Poseidon or Zeus because of reading it, though their power is pretty evident from the text.
The Bible, now, gives us some similar stories of battle and intrigue. But the "different standards" that are most commonly applied to these stories are to take them as absolute literal truth. Am I reading you correctly when I take it that you mean the opposite of that? Again, do you have examples?
These kind of stories are expected when an historical account becomes mythos.
Totally unlike stories of snakes walking and talking to people, or of womwn turning into salt, or of people being eaten by fish and surviving three days inside them. Those are 100% historical-sounding, right? Do those things happen a lot where you live? They don't so much out here, and we have lots of snakes to attempt conversations with.
Yes, many of the books of the Bible purport to be history. Some of them actually appear to really be history, with variable degrees of accuracy. But, as you can find on various topics here at EvC, it's a pretty shaky excuse for history when there is no external evidence whatever for many of the things described. Where are the ruins of Solomon's great temple? Where did the Hebrews camp out for most of 40 years in the desert?