In addition to Google's overview, perhaps I should clarify that which I perceived as self-explanatory: Egypto-Biblical SynCHRONicity. The same TIME period.  The events  that transpire in any time period are a different matter.  When 2 people synchronize their watches, they set them to the exact same time so that they agree with each other.  And they must set it against a single, reliable time source.  Egypt's history predates Biblical history by aeons and, from c. 3100 BC onward, consists of an uninterrupted timeline.  Thus, between the 2, Egypt becomes the standard by which the 2 chronologies must be set. 

My E-G Sync. is a double-edged sword.  It not only seeks to locate certain events within a contemporaneous timeframe, but also aims to highlight any obvious conflicts and/or discrepancies existing between those events.  If such discord exists, E-G Sync. illustrates the difficulty of reconciling them without applying the Conan Doyle Principle: "Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".  It makes the necessary departure from the 1-sided, ethnocentric perspective of the OT narrative by integrating insights from verified, contemporary sources that result in reality-based  history.  For I long discovered that, when it comes to finding tangible evidence of an extra-Biblical narrative, the physical footprints of its dramatis personae always seem to evade detection.  And then we are told, "Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence".  Thus, the Biblical Israel remains obscured in historical darkness.  But Jade Temple LTD is a light shining in the darkness, and my E-G Sync. is an extension of that light.  If there's anything in the darkness, I will make sure it doesn't remain  invisible.  Otherwise, there was nothing there.  Period.

​

When the right chronological system is used,  the parallel worlds of Ancient Egypt and that of the Old Testament narrative become perfectly aligned.  The story of Joseph serves as a crucial time marker.  The Masoretic Text places him too soon, while that which is based on the Jewish calendar places him too late.  But the LXX  puts Joseph's story in the only historical setting that affords a critical analysis of its literary significance.  

​

It focusses attention on the questions that the biased historian is reluctant to answer:  Was Joseph a historical person?  If he lived before the revelation of God's name to Moses, how could he  have known that name before Moses?  If it was only the Hebrews who didn't know the name of God before the time of Moses, does that mean that Joseph --- if a real person --- was not  a Hebrew?  Why was it necessary to wed him to a priestess of Neith? 

Just to mention a few.