Wow. I'd like to see a dedicated review of this from one of our egyptologists, but even as a layman I can see that this is nonsense. Egypt founded around 2100 BC? The first dynasty began around 3100 BC. They are really suggesting that the dates are off by a millennium? Senusret I was the pharoah that Joseph served? But his son, Amenemhat II campaigned in Syria. Surely an exodus of Hebrew slaves into Canaan would not have been out of his reach. None of this makes any sense.

EDIT: I got farther, but now they are claiming that Neferhotep I was the pharoah of the exodus. But he belonged to an entirely different dynasty, a century after Senusret. That just doesn't follow for me. He existed contemporary to the Canaanite 14th Dynasty in the east, and they don't appear in the exodus account at all.

There's no archaeological or historical evidence for an exodus of Jewish/Israelite slaves from Egypt. Creation.com is not a source I would give even a moment's thought as being reliable.

I haven't read the entire article closely but from the parts I have read, it seems to me the author is being very disingenuous with Egyptian history, citing convenient facts that could be fitted into his Biblical narrative. For example, as proof of the ten plagues of Moses, he cites that Neferhotep was not succeeded by his firstborn sun (implying that his son was killed by the last plague that killed all firstborn of Egypt). But a cursory glance through the hundreds of Pharaohs will reveal that many, many Pharaohs were not succeeded by their firstborn son. And there are many different reasons for why this might happen, the most common of course being that children had a high mortality rate. Furthermore, if Neferhotep and his family had followed the tradition of brother-sister marriage, his son might have died an early death due to complication resultant from inbreeding. The author's assertion is pure speculation.

Secondly, the article states that the lack of Neferhotep's mummy is proof that the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea when Moses collapsed the path through the water. Seriously? The number of Pharaohs of which we have found mummies is very small, so the lack of Neferhotep's mummy proves absolutely nothing. The author would first have to explain the absence of all other missing Pharaonic mummies before he can even begin to speculate on Neferhotep's fate.

Assertions like this make it clear that the author is picking and choosing only those precise facts that fit into his narrative while ignoring the mountains of facts that do not fit. That is disingenuous, biased, and unscientific.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19p1vu/do_we_know_if_the_exodus_happened_the_way_its/

This should be relevant to your question.

What you're referring to is called [New Chronology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl) and is proposed by David Rohl (A Test of Time) and Peter James et al in Centuries of Darkness. It's not a creationist thing at all, but rather trying to show how things synch up better between the Old Testament and archaeological evidence - the historicity of the early Old Testament texts. They do this by trying to introduce a new lower chronology (about 350-400 years) than the current one which is based on Edward Thiele's work and while it's not perfect, it's the best we've got. Most ANE scholars do not accept Rohl's adjustments - that's not to say he's definitely wrong, but that his chronology is no better than the one currently used and creates problems elsewhere - under his scheme, Philistines turn up in Canaan in 800BC, which means David and Saul are fighting people who technically don't exist. There are recognised problems in (Egyptian) chronology, the question is whether or not the corrections are more plausible than what the current standard is (Henige once suggested that nothing beyond about 750 is correct but there you go).

As I'm referenced further down, it might be worthwhile pointing out that while much of the defense for the Exodus comes from Kenneth Kitchen, he is very much opposed to the New Chronology which would scotch his 13th century Exodus. If you want a historical Exodus, you're not going to get a better defense than his.