Interesting that you mention the
Admonitions of Ipuwer. Consult the following source for more reliable information on that than you appear to have:
https://www.ancient.eu/article/981/the-admonitions-of-ipuwer/
Here's a brief extract that may well be relevant to you:
As recently as 2014 CE, the documentary Patterns of Evidence: Exodus claimed The Admonitions of Ipuwer was historical reportage, an Egyptian view of the events given in the biblical Book of Exodus, proving that work historically accurate. The companion book of the same name reasserts these claims as does the work by David Rohl, whose theories infuse and support the film and book, Exodus: Myth or History? which perpetuates the misunderstanding. However well-meaning these works may - or may not - be, they are intellectually and historically dishonest in how they represent the evidence they claim to be presenting impartially. Those who represent opposing views are dismissed as either atheists or blinded by 'mainstream' scholarship while literary and physical evidence is manipulated to prove the claims of the producers/writers.
Through the popularity of Rohl's works, this misunderstanding of the nature of the Egyptian text is presently perpetuated, even though there is no sound basis for it in the work itself. One can only accept The Admonitions of Ipuwer as history if one has little or no knowledge of Egyptian history and literature. As Rohl is an Egyptologist, one might wonder why he would advocate for an understanding of the work so completely at odds with accepted scholarship. The answer becomes fairly obvious if one is aware of Rohl's repeated calls for a revision of Egyptian chronology, his 'fringe' status among accepted scholars, and his insistence on the historical truth of biblical narratives such as the Book of Exodus; his perpetuation of a misinterpretation of the text supports the claims he makes in books which have sold well and have conferred on him a degree of celebrity.
The
bold emphasis here is mine.
Are you relying on
Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, SetiAlpha6?
---
Edited this post to add: ah, I see that (Q) found the same information before I did. I should have read to the end of the thread first. This does raise a question, however. Since the quoted site is among the very first links that come up in the search results on google, why aren't you already aware of this criticism, SetiAlpha6? It looks to me like you haven't done your homework very well on this. Maybe you should stop reading pseudohistory and see what some real historians and archeologists have to say about your pet theory.