She proposes that many people who profess to believe in a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent really believe in a God who is only two of those -- or less.

Catholicism: God is not omniscient because you need to perform an elaborate liturgy to get his attention. Also, you pray to saints to intercede with God, which seems rather bureaucratic.

Fundamentalism: God is always right, but he is not only far from omnibenevolent, he has an absolute right to be as malevolent as he wants to. That seems like the position of certain people here.

Liberalism: God is far from omnipotent; he's very nice and concerned, and he knows all about your suffering, but he couldn't help you even if he wanted to.

Something given is no longer owned. Even if god gave us life, he'd have no right to take it back. Saying god only loaned you life, under a long list of strict terms and conditions and reserving the right to reposess it at any time without justification, doesn't make him sound so benevolent, does it?

When the Hyksos were expelled, they took those memories with them back to their original homes in Canaan. On the way, they traveled through some marshes that seemed like a sea of reeds. The Egyptian pharaoh who led this effort was Ahmose, whose name sounds like "Brother of Moses" in Hebrew.

Later storytellers elaborated on who "Moses" was, turned "the Brother of Moses drove us out of Egypt" into "Moses led us out of Egypt", and "explained" how someone in the royal court of Egypt had changed sides. They also wove those dimly-remembered Thera disasters into that narrative as those plagues of Egypt.

So the Exodus story is a tangled mess of fact and fiction.

I don't mean to do argument-by-scenario, but the hypothesis is a bit easier to follow when presented as a scenario.

I ask this question: if there actually is an almighty God, is he unjust in the taking of life if He created it? He would be the rightful owner, so to speak. Logic here, nothing more.

Wow, I remember using this same logic when I used to argue in favor of god.
Yes, he would be unjust. Just think about it, it would be reducing your creation to play-doh creatures that you could torture and kill at your whim. How is that love?
How is that intelligence?
It's pretty sad when the old testament is so bad that you have to argue that torture and murder is actually ok, because you can't interpret the bible any other way.
So rather than admit that it's all fiction, you have to say that god's ways are mysterious, and it's all good.

We certainly seem to have a lot of Egyptologists writing here.

Sarcasm doesn't become you, Jerry.

Almost all seem to claim that the historic records of Egypt do not substantiate the biblical story of the plagues. This point will be in dispute anywhere people talk about it.

Whether it's disputed has no bearning on whether it is true, and does not reflect whether it is genuinely disputed within academic circles - those who claim biblical accuracy always seem to come up woefully short on evidence, surprisingly enough.

Are there any in this forum who have given the bible any scholarly research time?

Why would biblical scholarship (I dislike the term, since I don't think that the Abrahamic texts have much worth beyond being examples of bad literature, bad history and questionable sociology) matter to us? The exodus story is pretty clear, unlike some of the rest of the biblical texts, and egyptian history is pretty well documented too.

I ask this question: if there actually is an almighty God, is he unjust in the taking of life if He created it? He would be the rightful owner, so to speak.

Is a parent unjust in taking the life of a child he/she has brought into the world? Is s/he the rightful owner? (I'd really hope you answer "no" to those questions.) Christians are so fond of calling their god 'father' while never stopping to think what an abusive father their god would appear to be!

if there actually is an almighty God, is he unjust in the taking of life if He created it?

Yes.