After Mena/ Menes/ Narmer’s death (by a hippopotamus), the successors to the throne of the 1st Dynasty became progressively weaker. As we saw above, the seat of government was in Thinis,  adjascent to Abydos where the Thinite Kings had their tombs (Upper Egypt).
Egyptologists were puzzled by the tomb of Unefes, the Fourth King of Dynasty 1. (The monument’s name for this king is Den-Merneit; the Turin Papyrus calls him Ato or Ati, or Ita.)
This tomb is by far the most carefully built of all, both in the symmetric planning of it and the regular construction, but curiously, it is the poorest in tomb furniture. [William Flanders Petrie, A History of Egypt (Revised 1972), P. 19]
Our revised chronology has already shown how the superior technology reflected in this tomb could have originated in Mesopotamia. Now we shall consider who was responsible for delivering it to the Egyptians.
Since no later tombs were so constructed, Petrie’s statement leaves us with two major elements to consider. First, that this king’s tomb is of exceptional construction and design could well indicate it’s architect was only temporarily available. And second, that the tomb contained poor furniture may indicate it is nomadic.
We are forced to conclude that the superior architecture of the tomb came from another culture other than the natives. Historians have recently concluded that the megalithic stone builders from Libya could have visited Egypt in this era, but the tomb was less megalithic and more Messopotamian in design. Hebrew history suggests that the designer of this tomb was the celebrated and world famous Sage, Abraham.  For these reasons, and secured by  evidence to follow, I shall go one step further: I propose that Abraham is the only person in all of history who could be common to the tomb, it’s design, and the era in which it was built.
This proposition would be outrageous were it not for two facts which we shall establish: if Abraham can be found in Egypt during Unefes/ Ato’s 1st Dynasty reign, we should find confirmation of it in the historical record; we should also be able to find other, stronger evidence of his presence there.
Our first evidence occurs as a verification to Petrie’s report that King Unefes/ Ato’s tomb, located at Abydos, was “by far the most carefully built of all,” both in symmetry and regular construction. It arises in a comment attributed to Manetho, the ancient Egyptian historian, who says that this same king built pyramids:
By the order in Manetho this king appears as Unefes, in whose time was a great famine and who built the pyramids near Khokhomea or in the Armenian Khoe.
Traditionalists have considered Dynasty 3 to be the beginning of the Old Kingdom and the start of the pyramid building age. Thus, Egyptologists were perplexed that this 1st Dynasty King is said to have built pyramids long before pyramids were invented, as this comment from Petrie reveals:
This has been supposed to refer to Ka Kem, the name of a district of Saqqara; but it may well be read as (the village of Kho), and refer possibly to Ouu (demotic), now Oau, between Abydos and Asyut. In any case pyramids are probably a misunderstanding for some other form of building at this age. [W. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (Revised 1972), P. 19]
Babylonian Influence
Can it be that these so-called pyramids mentioned by Manetho were actually Babylonian ziggurats? (Ziggurats were towers in the form of terraced pyramids with each step smaller than the one below.) If so, they represent additional definite evidence of cultural exchange between Mesopotamia and Egypt at this early time.
Because the templed ziggurat was a Mesopotamian invention, and knowing that it was also an astronomical observatory, it would be fair to assume that some foreign astronomer came to Egypt to teach the Egyptians the arts of astronomy. Would it be unfair to also assume that foreigner had sufficient influence to inspire observatory construction?
That apparently was exactly the case, for it was at this particular point in time, that a foreign astronomer did come to Egypt, bringing with him all the necessary fame, time, interest, ziggurat experience, masterful teaching skills, and professional expertise. According to Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian living about the time of Christ, that man was Abraham, one of, if not the greatest of the ancient astronomers:
Berosus mentions our father Abram without naming him, when he says thus: “In the tenth generation after the flood, there was among the Chaldeans a man righteous and great, and skillful in the celestial science...” [Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews,  VII, Verse 2]
Josephus went on to describe Abraham’s visit to Egypt:
He [the king] also made him [Abraham] a large present in money, and gave him leave to enter into conversation with the most learned among the Egyptians; from which conversation, his virtue and his reputation became more conspicuous than they had seen before. For whereas the Egyptians were formerly of different customs, and despised one another’s sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account, Abraham conferred with each of them, and confuting the reasonings they made use of every one for their own practices, demonstrated that such reasonings were vain and void of truth; whereupon he was admired by them in these conferences as a very wise man, and one of great sagacity, when he discoursed on any subject he undertook; and this not only in understanding it, but in persuading other men also to assent to him. He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy, for before Abram came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also. [Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Kregal Publications, Transl. William Whiston, Bk. 1., 8:2 (Emphasis added)]
Today’s historians call Josephus “uninformed” because they know that astronomy was used in Egypt long before their date for Abram’s life. But it is today’s historians who will be proved incorrect.
Abraham Of Ur
According to the Bible, Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees [Genesis 11:31]. That Abraham was definitely a Chaldean is also confirmed by Josephus:
...and he left the land of Chaldea when he was seventy-five years old. [Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, VII, Verse 1]
Both Josephus and the ancient Hebrew history Book of Jasher, report that Abraham’s fame spread throughout the ancient world; it was attested to by several ancient historians, including Berosus, Hecataeus, and Nicolaus of Damascus [Antiquities, Bk. 1, 7:2]. It therefore becomes no stretch of the imagination to notice that from this very city of Ur was excacated one of the most exquisit archaeological finds in the history of archaeology. Yes, from Abraham’s old home town, was discovered an artifact depicting Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of his son.
Ram In The Thicket
Some archaeologists dub the “Ram in the Thicket” as one of the most exquisite artifacts of antiquity. This treasure, found in the death pit at Ur, eloquently confirms Abraham’s measureless fame and influence.
Due to their acceptance of a woefully incorrect model of history, some scholars speculated that this artifact was created in the memory of some ancient legend from Ur. They reasoned that the younger Genesis story of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice must be a copy of that older tale.
But in our new model of time things appear reversed. Showing that traditionally accepted Egyptian history is a millennium too old, our model also pushes Babylonian history forward by the same amount. In effect, it means that Abraham’s era is older than Ur’s death pit. It also means that by the time the artifact was created, the story of Abraham’s offering up his son Isaac had already become legendary, and was revered back in Ur (Abraham’s old home). The Genesis story says:
And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I.
And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. [Genesis 22:9-13 (Emphasis added)]
Home Town Hero
Is it feasible this story made its way back to Ur? Could Abraham’s fame have been sufficient to propel stories of him all the way back to his home town? Yes. Several ancient documents credit him as a king, and numerous accounts tell of Abraham dealing with kings. In fact, Abraham’s household defeated the combined forces of five Babylonian Kings [See Gen.14:14].
Perhaps, the “Ram in the Thicket” attests that Abraham was not only a legend in his own time, but was intimately known and loved back in the land of his birth. (During the third millennium B.C. it was a common motif in Babylonia to depict upright animals, yet since goats often stand on their hindquarters, the Ram in the thicket may be misleading because many goats enjoy raring up).
Abraham Of Egypt
We have now established some primary points of evidence:
1. Abraham came from Mesopotamia (Chaldea/ Babylonia).
2. He was a great astronomer.
3. He was first to teach astronomy to the Egyptians.
4. Structures called Pyramids were built in Egypt before the Age of Pyramids.
5. Ziggurats were invented in Mesopotamia.
6. Ziggurats existed before Egypt’s pyramids.
7. Ziggurats were used for astronomy.
With only this data, it is obvious that the traditional time model needs drastic revision. It needs to either push the era of Abraham further back in history or pull Egypt’s history drastically forward. Can we confirm and validate this position? Absolutely.
The Hebron Connection
To help locate the time of Abraham’s visit to Egypt, the ancient Hebrew Book of Jubilees states:
And he removed from thence and went towards the south, and he came to Hebron, and Hebron was built at that time, and he dwelt there two years, and he went thence into the land of the south, to Bealoth, and there was a famine in the land. [Jubilees 13:10; (see also Numbers 13:22)]
Here we establish that Hebron was built in the days of Abraham. The next verse tells of Abraham going to Egypt, and specifies that the old city of Tanis was built seven years after Hebron:
And Abraham went into Egypt in the third year of the week and he dwelt in Egypt five years before his wife was torn away from him. Now Tanis in Egypt was at that time built, seven years after Hebron. [Book of Jubilees 13:11-12; (see also Numbers 13:22)]
Tanis is mentioned as far back in Egyptian history as the 1st Dynasty. Since Tanis was built in Abraham’s time, and because it also existed as far back as the beginning of the 1st Dynasty, we must connect Abraham’s era with the 1st Dynasty.
Some traditionalists, upon discovering this discrepancy with their conventional model, say the verse refers to a rebuilding of Tanis. But this explanation mismatches their concept because archaeological evidence shows no rebuilding of Tanis during the Middle Kingdom, the period when they place Abraham in Egypt.
In fact, the Hebrew record which reports that Hebron and Tanis were almost the same age is archaeologically confirmed. Therefore, if Abraham came to Egypt in the era when both Hebron and Tanis were built, it explicitly places Abraham on the Egyptian scene a thousand years earlier than where he has commonly been placed. The prevailing model of time requires a rebuilding of both cities seven years apart, which is not archaeologically indicated, nor is it a practical assumption.
To this point we have successfully initiated the first thread of evidence which will eventually become an iron clad fact: The life and times of that great Hebrew Sage Abraham, occurred during Dynasty 1, an early period of Egypt’s history, and not a thousand years later as traditional history teaches.
A Time Of Famine
Now let’s return to that ancient Egyptian historian Manetho, who will provide another thread in our web of evidence against modern historians and in favor of the biblical account as it was recorded by the Hebrew House of Sages. In the statement we saw earlier, Manetho parallels the so-called pyramids built near Khokhome with a time of “great famine”. It is worthy of repeating here:
By the order in Manetho this king appears as Unefes, in whose time was a great famine and who built the pyramids near Khokhomea or in the Armenian Khoe.
The Bible also reports that Abraham went into Egypt because of a severe famine:
There came a famine in the land, so severe that Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while. [Genesis 12:9, New English Version]
Since the Bible specifies that Abraham visited Egypt during a severe famine, and Manetho mentions a great famine, connecting it with pyramids built by the 1st Dynasty’s fourth king, I propose that Abraham and his wife Sarah journeyed to Egypt at precisely this point in time. (Incidentally, this combination of facts strongly increases the probability that Abraham actually did introduce the ziggurat/ pyramid design to the Egyptians.)
The First King Called Pharaoh:
There are still other hints that mid-1st Dynasty is the period when Abraham visited the land of the Pharaohs. During that Dynasty the title of the king was Mena/ Menes, Minas or Min, as we saw in Chapter 2. Yet about midway through Dynasty 1 the title of the king became “Perao”, a name which was also associated with the start of the 2nd Dynasty at Memphis.
Today there remains an interesting story about the first Egyptian King called Pharaoh. It is found in an ancient Hebrew writing called the Book of Jasher (which means Book of the Upright), extant in two versions, one obviously corrupt, the other reasonably authentic. This Book does not appear in our modern Old Testament Bibles, probably because to the Hebrews it was not considered sacred, but was merely a history book. [Scripture does, however, quote Jasher twice; see Joshua 10:13 & 2 Samuel 1:18.]
This old Hebrew book tells about one Rikayon, a wise but poor man from Shinar (the Babylonian Sumer). He resolved to go to Egypt during the reign of Anom, King of Egypt. When Rikayon first arrived in Egypt, he nearly starved awaiting an audience with the king; so he used trickery to get recognized. He impersonated an officer of the king and recruited an army to guard the burial grounds of a nearby city. Thereupon, he charged a tax to all who wished to bury their dead and sent the tax money to the king. Rikayon soon become very popular with both the king and the people:
...and the king answered and said to Rikayon, thy name shall no more be called Rikayon, but Pharaoh (to get paid, to exact) shall be thy name, since thou didst exact a tax from the dead... [Jasher 14:16]
After the king’s son Oswiris became king, Rikayon was made a governor. Then the Book of Jasher says Rikayon snatched up the whole government:
...and Rikayon cunningly usurped the government of Egypt. [Jasher 14:31]
Next, Jasher clearly parallels the time of Rikayon with both Abraham and the “heavy famine” of Abraham’s time:
...and in that year there was a heavy famine throughout the land of Canaan, and the inhabitants of the land could not remain on account of the famine for it was very grievous. And Abraham and all belonging to him arose and went down to Egypt... [Jasher 15:1, 2]
The Famine Is Confirmed
We have now accumulated five separate reports, all from un-bias sources, which connect Abraham to Egyptian Kings in a time of “great,” “heavy,” and “severe” famine: two books (Jubilees and Jasher), one historian (Manetho), and two chronological records (Genesis and Numbers). Is it logical that modern historians would ignore five concurring, parallel accounts? And yet, they have.
Our thread of evidence is now becoming a rope.
Escalating Evidence
It is entirely reasonable that there is no mention of Rikayon’s King Anom in Egyptian King lists; Egyptian lists make no mention of Hebrew names. However, they do say that the reigning king during that identical period of time was Ato. Is this Ato the same as Rikayon’s Anom?
If so, then Anom’s son Oswiris was Ato’s son Hesapti. The evidence indicates that Abraham arrived in Egypt during the famine of Ato/ Anom and that during his stay he saw the ascension of Hesapti/ Oswiris to the throne; Abraham was likely still there when Rikayon usurped control of Egypt. In any case, the story definitely connects Abraham and Rikayon as contemporaries.
Knowing the Book of Jasher had no reason to misdirect us, we may safely conclude that Abraham came to Egypt midway through the 1st Dynasty, when the 2nd Dynasty gave birth to its first king, called “Perao”. This leads us to consider that Rikayon, who seized the government, might have been the first King of the 2nd Dynasty. After all, truth has been known to be stranger than fiction.
The Alien Dynasty
Was the formation of Dynasty 2 a direct result of Rikayon’s usurpation of power in Egypt? We can find further clues which validate this position.
Above, Jasher said that King Ato/ Anom promoted Rikayon to governor and gave him the new name of Pharaoh. However, we also know that Egyptian history records report that Pharoah was not a governor under a king, but was himself a king. This is confirmed by Egyptologist Clara E. Clement:
The king, called Perao, (which means, of the great house, and is the origin of the Biblical name “Pharaoh)”, was frequently named as “his holiness”, and seems to have stood before his subjects both as a god and a ruler. [Clara E. Clement, EGYPT, (Saalfield Publishing 1903). P. 32]
Rikayon’s government takeover would certainly explain how the title for the king changed from Dynasty 1’s “Mena/ Menes, Minas or Min”, to the 2nd Dynasty’s “Perao (Pharaoh)”.
 God Set Incorporated
Another set of clues are seen in the sudden introduction of Semitic names of 2nd Dynasty Egyptian Kings, for it is Dynasty 2 which introduced Semitic gods to Egypt. Before Dynasty 2, ancestor worship seemed dominant. (See Chapter 1, Chapter 7 and Appendix A for more on this subject.) But by mid-Dynasty 2, things had changed.
In later years, Horus had come to be known as the symbol of Upper (southern) Egypt; Set was a god of Lower Egypt. Rikayon could well have been the originator of Set: he came from a foreign land, as did Set, and also began his reign in Lower Egypt, where Set originated.
Egyptian legends tell of the rivalry between these two gods, Set and Horus. It is during the reign of the fourth King of Dynasty 2, where we first see the name “Set”:
Figures of the gods first appear in this reign, where Osiris and Set are both named as “beloved of Horus” (the King). [W. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (Revised 1972), P. 28]
Could the legends have begun when Rikayon (Perao) usurped the government from Dynasty 1? This concept is entirely in accord with the evidence already at hand. Review for a moment, what we have already observed:
During it’s pre-dynastic age, a religion of god-king worship was prevelant in Egypt. When Mena/ Menes/ Narmer, the 1st King of the 1st Dynasty came along, he was also referred to as Hor-aha or Horus, and apparently he was soon deified into the god-king Horus. Evidently, by the time Unefes/ Ato/ Anom took his place as the 4th king, the name Horus had become attached to the office of King, and thus, the term “beloved of Horus” was born.
After the king’s son Oswiris became king, Rikayon, who had already become very popular with both the king and the people, was made a governor and awarded the name of Pharaoh. If Rikayon was Set, then ancient god Osiris was probably Oswiris, the king’s son. Obviously, both men would legitimately be called “beloved of Horus”, and their rivalry would easily have sprung from Rikayon’s usurpation of Oswiris’ government.
All these clues help prove that Dynasty 2 usurped power from the older 1st Dynasty. They also indicate that the usurper was of foreign origin, serving to confirm the accuracy of the Book of Jasher’s account of Rikayon as well.
Therefore, I propose that the first King of the 2nd Dynasty (Hotep-Ahaui, or Bezau; some list Bezau as last King of Dynasty 1), was known in Hebrew history as Pharaoh (Perao) Rikayon.
The Earth Tells All
The earth itself provides yet another element in our evidence that the general time frame of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt matches Rikayon’s era. According to the Genesis record, Abraham lived during the time period which included the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah along the great Rift Valley fault. If our new model is correct, we should look for geologic activity during the 2nd Dynasty.
Archaeologist Petrie says:
Of the reign of Bezau we read that there was a chasm at Bubastis, and many persons perished; as that is the region of volcanic action shown by the basalt beds of Abu Zabel, it is not unlikely that an earthquake and a great fault in the earth, might occur there. [W. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (Revised 1972)]
According to our revised chronology, this disaster fits closely to both the description and time of the Bible’s report of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Is it only coincidence that those two cities sat along the same fault system? Is it also only coincidence that the calamity occurred during the reign of Bezau, first King of Dynasty 2?
Now we have established that:

1. The Book of Jubilees record says the cities of Hebron and Tanis were built within seven years of each other, at the time Abraham moved to Egypt; it has been archaeologically proven they are almost the same age. The city of Tanis existed in Dynasty 1. Therefore: Abraham traveled into Egypt during Dynasty 1.

2. Abraham journeyed to Egypt during a great famine. The reigning king during that famine was Dynasty 1’s fourth king, Unefes/ Ato/ Anom. Therefore: Abraham arrived in Egypt during Dynasty 1.

3. Rikayon journeyed to Egypt during the reign of Dynasty 1’s King Ato/ Anom. Abraham was in Egypt during Ato/ Anom’s reign and in the days of Pharoah. The name Perao/ Pharoah was used as early as the 2nd Dynasty, and was a new title King Ato/ Anom bestowed upon Rikayon. Therefore: Abraham was in Egypt during Dynasty 1 and was probably still there at the start of Dynasty 2.
Early Egyptian Chronology
In all probability, Dynasty 2 did not exist as a consecutive chronology of kings, for there is evidence that it was not as unified as many scholars have suggested. The tombs of these kings are scattered throughout Egypt:

1st Hotep-ahaui Tomb at Saqqara
2nd Ra-neb  Tomb at Saqqara
3rd Neteren  Tomb is unknown
4th Perabsen  Tomb at Abydos
5th Send  Tomb unknown
6th Ka-Ra  Tomb at El-Kab
7th    Tomb unknown
8th Kasekhem Tomb at Hitrakon-polis
9th Khasekhemui Tomb at Aby-dos

If tomb location gives any indication of where the king had his capitol, then we must conclude that the 2nd Dynasty shifted its seat of government from the lower delta to Upper Egypt after the reign of the second or third king, while the 1st Dynasty came to an end.
As author Kurt Mendelssohn points out, the 2nd Dynasty seems to have been composed of kings with only local jurisdiction and not rulers controlling both north and south Egypt, even though some kings did wear the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. [Kurt Mendelssohn, The Riddle of the Pyramids, 1974, P. 29]
Diversity in art and inscriptions also suggests that Dynasty 2 was not continuous like a father to son lineage. This seems to be further confirmed by the ancient Egyptian chronologist Manetho, who wrote that the third King (Neter-en) ordained that the throne might pass through the female line. [W. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (Revised 1972) P. 24]
These are only a few of the factors which make it difficult, if not impossible, to trace this dynasty as a continuous chronology.
Transition Time
Although we have already settled that Dynasty 2 did, in fact, come into power in the midst of Dynasty 1, we can find more substantiation from Archaeologist William Flanders Petrie:
During the reign of the seventh king of Dynasty One could be the time that the Second Dynasty was born, for Manetho told of the dynasty weakening and the state falling into anarchy. [W. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (Revised 1972), P. 22]
The ancient historian Eusebius suggests the same thing:
But if the number of years is still in excess, it must be supposed that perhaps several Egyptian Kings ruled at one and the same time, for they say that the rulers were kings of this (Thinis), of Memphis, of Sais, of Ethiopia, and of other places at the same time. [Eusebius]
Archaeologists generally agree that Dynasty 1 suffered a general decline during the reign it’s Sixth King. Although there is confusion among the different documents which refer to the beginning of the 2nd Dynasty, I concur that it was very near this time that the 2nd Dynasty was created and that it co-existed with the latter part of Dynasty 1. This model is further verified by the general overlapping of C-14 dates of the two Dynasties. [See C-14 graph, Radiocarbon (1963-1975).]
As time moved on, the remnants of Dynasty 1 eventually died out in Upper Egypt. That left space for the remaining Kings of Dynasty 2 to move their capitol up the Nile, which is apparently exactly what happened, for the latter Kings of the 2nd Dynasty are shown wearing only the crown of Upper Egypt.
Dynasty 2 is presumed to have decayed until it controlled only nomes (provinces) in southern (Upper) Egypt. And then there was a time of war:
The eighth king of this Second Dynasty made inscriptions of slaying his “..northern enemies, 27,209”.
The year of fighting the northern enemy, within the city of Nekheb grasps the rebels, and unites Egypt before the Horus Kha-sekhem. [W. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt (Revised 1972), P. 26]
Egypt’s uniting “before the Horus” could give a hint as to why Dynasty 2 had moved to Upper Egypt after its first few kings. Here, the interpretation of the term “rebel” seems to mean civil war; this indicates that the northern kingdom was about to again give birth to the next Dynasty (Dynasty 3).
A New Working Model Of History
We now have a new working model of history which overcomes many problems of the traditionally accepted model. Though it is radical, ours sits on a foundation of fact. On the other hand, conventional suppositions sit on multi-layered speculation, in positions which we have already and shall continue to refute.
After factoring in the compatibility of early Egyptian Dynasties with our new model and adding the other colorful threads of evidence, we should conclude without a doubt that Abraham and Sarah visited Egypt during the change-over from Dynasty 1 to Dynasty 2, when the city of Tanis was founded. However, there is a last proof we need to examine.
The Ebla Connection
The earth has revealed another fact about Abraham’s time, which although remote from our direct evidence concerning Dynasties 1 and 2, do connect them with other co-existent goings on in the world.
In 1968, excavations in the ancient Syrian city of Ebla exposed one of the greater archaeological finds of the twentieth century. Later, in 1975, at this site called Tell Mardikh, a great library of 14,000 clay tablets was unearthed. These Cuneiform tablets were written in several languages, some in old Sumerian; but most were scribed in Canaanite. [Biblical Archaeology Review, (March 28, 1978), P. 8. See also, Clifford Wilson, Ebla Tablets, Secrets of a Forgotten City, Master Books, Edition 3, 1979]
This extensive library mentions the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and continues down to the era of the Hebrew Monarchy. It also contains names almost identical to biblical personalities. The tablets mention the city of Melchizedek (Salem), and King Ebrum (Not Abram), plus later biblical names like David and Saul.
Two of these clay tablets deal with case law and codes of law older than Hammurabi’s law. Because this law code is so similar to Exodus chapters 21 to 23, historians are being pressured to lessen the years separating ancient Ebla from the more “modern” Exodus story.
Hebrew Record Vindicated
As already established, Abraham did not live during Egypt’s Middle Kingdom (Dynasty 12); and now the Ebla tablets have forever destroyed that notion. They clarify two vastly important points.
First, the tablets outline a consecutive historical timeframe which not only refers to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but even mentions their kings. We have already established that Abraham’s lifetime encompassed the era of these two cities. Now the tablets absolutely verify the earlier era of Sodom and Gomorrah, which in turn confirms the era of Abraham’s lifetime, and all in a time frame which also parallels Egypt’s 1st and 2nd Dynasties.
Second, Abraham’s lifetime (and that of Egypt’s first two Dynasties) also paralleled Babylonia’s change-over from Sumerian to Akkadian times, for the Ebla tablets place Sargon of Akkad well after the time of these cities of the Dead Sea plain. They document that Abraham predated Sargon by several generations.
Time Dominos Begin To Fall
Since we have completed our tour through Dynasties 1 and 2, having found and verified the period when Abraham and Sarah visited them, we are now nearing the era where the Egyptian King lists should encompass and expose the next Hebrew Sage to live in Egypt, namely, Joseph. Our search for him proceeds.

Read Chapter 4
 
 
 

joseph, imhotep, dynasty, oswiris, egypt famine, old kingdom, vizier, ptah, rikayon, jasher, ebla, horus, pepy II, natagerti, joseph, imhotep, dynasty, oswiris, egypt famine, old kingdom, vizier, ptah, rikayon, jasher, ebla, horus, pepy II, natagerti, joseph, imhotep, dynasty, oswiris, egypt famine, old kingdom, vizier, ptah, rikayon, jasher, ebla, horus, pepy II, natagerti, joseph, imhotep, dynasty, oswiris, egypt famine, old kingdom, vizier, ptah, rikayon, jasher, ebla, horus, pepy II, natagerti, joseph, imhotep, dynasty, oswiris, egypt famine, old kingdom, vizier, ptah, rikayon, jasher, ebla, horus, pepy II, natagerti, joseph, imhotep, dynasty, oswiris, egypt famine, old kingdom, vizier, ptah, rikayon, jasher, ebla, horus, pepy II, natagerti, joseph, imhotep, dynasty, oswiris, egypt famine, old kingdom, vizier, ptah, rikayon, jasher, ebla, horus, pepy II, natagerti,