If you say so. I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate with you about such things. I agree with you to a degree that history is very manipulated, that said, we have a history that is accepted by historical scholars, we can't prove conclusively that it isn't as it's accepted, I'm sure there's a huge party that isn't correct, shall we go and follow every single idea or forward by alternative people because it sounds plausible, even though we can't prove it?. You're going off on a tangent that was nothing to do with my response, my response (again) was saying that things need to be in context. Did the Egyptians for example follow the same law as the israelites?, I'm pretty certain they didn't, did they not follow god?, Which god?, Ra, if so there is written evidence that they didn't follow the same law as the israelites etc, it's far too big of a discussion to have here. The subject is massive! And that wasn't what my response was about. How do we pick it apart?, Like I said huge huge huge subject matter and if you want to go off into philosophical conjecture, feel free but I'm not going there with you, only because it would be a waste of time as nothing will change because we have an accepted history , do I believe it all with all revisions and context, word changes in the various Bibles etc, no, not all of it, I don't. Feel free to have the last word because I'm over explaining what I was getting at to you now. Believe what you like, no odds to me.