"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

You've shown no such thing. And the fact is that Muslims recognise Moses as one of the three greatest prophets. Therefore confirmation of the Exodus story (which this is not) would be a significant support for their religion.

According to Muslim theology the Exoduse helped Muslims (Moses taught Islam) and hurt pagans. Therefore your statement is either false or deliberately phrased to be misleading.Islam recognises the god of the Bible, the God of Moses, Jesus and the other prophets as Allah. So your second statement is also false.I don't know that Saudi Arabia DOES refuse to let anyone investigate and date the artifacts or the named areas. I DO know Ron WYatt had a habit of refusing to let experts examine his artefacts. I also know that accordign to AiG Ron Wyatt misrepresented the nature of the supposed "crossing site".

In case you didn't notice I stated "according to Muslim theology".
Given that qualifier my statement is true - whether Muslim theology is correct or not is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.And for your information "Allah" is not a name. "Allah" means God and according to Muslims Allah is the God of the Israelites.

The Exodus - and Joshuah's conquest - have run into severe problems because of the archaeological data. It is not so much the terrain as the fact that after the expulsion of the Hyksos the Egyptians had quite strict border controls and could have stopped anyone leaving. THere is also an absence of the evidence expected if a very large body of people - as the usual translation of Exodus have it - were in Sinai for an extended period of time.A good starting point is _The Bible Unearthed_ by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

First I said "data" rather than "dating".When using the Bible as a source it must be remembered that it is a collection of works. They are not all equally reliable. The archaeological data too must be taken on its merits. But let us be clear - there is no evidence for the Exodus outside of the Bible - and nobody has even been able to assign a definite time - nor certainly identify the Pharoah's involved (the book of Exodus spans the reign of at least two). Given the magnitude of the events reported it is very unlikely that it would happen as described without leaving more evidence. Even losing so many people would have a major effect on Egypt.And this is where the border controls are important. Firstly to flee past the fortresses would be dangerous. And secondly there are records of border crossings. Do you really think a crossing of that size would go unnoticed and unreported ?

Well that's a clear message from you Buz. "Don't look at the facts. Stop before you see the truth"The evidence against Wyatt is clear - it's so strong that even creationist organidations reject his claims. So there's no reason to place any faith in the video at all - let alone to consider it the final word on the matter.If you really had confidence in your beliefs you wouldn't suggest stopping with one suspect source. You would have nothing to fear from a PROPER investigation.

I'm being narrow-minded ? You're the one who said to STOP looking at the evidence beyond that one video. What are YOU scared of - the truth ?I guess that because you STOPPED looking you assume that there are no links between the video and Wyatt. Well just because you didn't look at the evidence doesn't say that it doesn't exist.According to Our Top Suggestions for DVD's & Books
"The Exodus Revealed - DVD & Video A must have, professionally produced, TV quality, production featuring the Red Sea crossing, the real Mount Sinai, and evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt. Based upon the work of Ron Wyatt. DVD has extras so get it if possible. Dr. Lennart Moller helped produce this video"According to Anchor Stone International - Ron Wyatt, Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, Red Sea Crossing, Ark of the Covenant
"The first is "The Exodus Revealed". This video is based on the research and field work of Ron Wyatt. Dr. Lennart Moller, the researcher responsible for this video, has continued Ron's work on this subject in a remarkable way. I recently spent 2 days talking with Dr. Moller while we were in Portland and the research material he has brought together is impressive. In my opinion this is the best documentation on the Exodus and Red Sea crossing available today"At http://groups.yahoo.com/...Covenant_Eschatology/message/1253
"Using the research given to him personally by Ron Wyatt, Dr. Lennart Moller has recently completed exhaustive study and documentation of both of these sites. This research is now available to the public in both a full-color book, "The Exodus Case" and a companion video, "The Exodus Revealed"."at Error 404 File Not Found notice and help
"The most recent is a video entitled The Exodus Revealed by Lennart Moller. He also has a book entitled The Exodus Case. He basically uses Ron Wyatt’s material and follows his ideas."According to http://www.oroville-eternal-riders.org/ Keith/Latest%20Nuwieba.pdf
"Lennart had dove at the site with Ron and
Eric before..."According to St. Augustine Record
"Moller, in turn, relies much on the findings of Ron Wyatt, a Tennessee researcher and scuba diver who died in 1999. "Nothing to do with Wyatt ? Or "Based upon the work of Ron Wyatt" delivered personally by Ron Wyatt to an associate of Ron Wyatt ?

Moller's hypothesis seems to require some major rewriting of the history of Ancient Egypt.He has Tuthmosis II as Moses - well we have the mummy of Tuthmosis II which is rather unlikely if he was Moses.He has Tuthmosis III take over as co-regent - rather than coming to the throne as a minor, after the death of his father Tuthmosis II. He would have been too young to rule as a co-regent when he officially took power. The early part of his official reign was dominated by the regent - his aunt Hatshepsut, who even presented herself as the Pharoah. At this point Tuthmosis ruled in his own name, which clearly contradicts the idea that he changed his name to Amenhotep II on coming to the throne. We also have found the tombs and the mummies of both Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II which makes it even less likely that they were the same personSenmut really comes into the picture during Hatshepsut's regency. He was a very powerful official until his death near the end of her reign. Well that creates some obvious problems when Moller has written Hatshepsut out of history. We also have a big problem in that if Moses is Thutmosis II and his "death" refers to his exile, how is it that he is a powerful official in Egypt at the same time as he is a fugitive in Midian ?Then we have Thutmosis IV which can't be the name he used as co-regent since he never was co-regent. Who is supposedly the same person as Amenhotep III. Further evidence indicates that Amenhotep III was likely a child at the death of Tuthmosis IV. We have tombs for both but probably not the mummy of Amenhotep III (the identity of the mummy once thought to be his is in question).He has Tutankhamun - a successor and likely the son of Akhenaten (aka Amenhotep IV) as an elder half-brother who pre-deceases Akhenaten.He represents Tutankhamun's wife, Ankhesenamun, as his mother.So he's removed the reigns of Hatshepsut, Thutmosis III, Thutmosis IV and Tutankhamun as well as rewriting the family relationships quite dramatically. Moller needs some really good evidence for this. For instance he needs to explain away the evidence that Tutankhamun was raised at the Amarna court - because according to Moller Tutankhamun died before the Amarna Period.

To be fair I suspect that Lysimachus is simply naively trusting Moller's team to get it right. And they haven't. He'd have done better to try and check out some of the claims than asking us to share that trust.But there are enough serious problmes here to call Moller's whole approach into question, as well ans any claim that Moller's team is carrying out any sort of scientific investigation.

I suspect that Moller is actually out to support his own faith, although there I can find no definite evidence.But the account given looks too much as if it is jumping to conclusions while ignoring relevant data. The whole business of the letter from Ankhesenamun reeks of that, never mind that they have to reject Tutankhamun's reign, make him an elder brother of his father and make his wife his mother. They have a letter which says that a Pharoah is dead and his wife has no sons and they read that to fit what they want to see.It also seems weird that they would write out Hatshepsut out of history while simultaneously identifying a prominent offical of that reign as Moses. It would be easier not to draw attention to the problem by leaving Senmut out of it. Probably there is some piece of evidence that they can't let go of despite the problems it causes to their overall picture. But the inconsistency is pretty obvious.

Questar is just a production company - http://www.questar1.com/about.html . There must have been more to it than that - someone had to come up with all these ideas about rewriting Egyptian history. A number of sources explicitly attribute the video to Moller and it is also described as a "companion video" to Moller's book, _The Exodus Case_. http://www.exodusbook.com/ is one example. Given that this evidence clearly points to Moller and his team as the source - and "Questar" is not a credible alternative, I'll stand by my statement. In fact later on you identify Wyatt as the ultimate source for one idea, which again points to Moller (and again contradicts Buzsaw's claim that Wyatt had nothing to do with the video).I find your denial that Moller is seeing what he wants to see less than convincing also. This major rewriting of Egyptian history requires some serious evidence - or another motivation. Let us also be clear that Moller's scientific credentials have little bearing on much of the work under discussion - he is not a historian or any sort of archaeologist by training. And certainly his credentials do not say how he approached this issue.You now say that Hatshepsut is Moses mother. This is in addition to being his (probably elder) half sister and pupil ? Senmut who you identified as Moses was Hatshepsut's tutor which is hard to beleive if he were also her son. Even if your claim were unquestionably true it would not change the fact that Hatshepsut's reign appears nowhere in your listing - and to make sense of the identification of Moses as being both Tuthmosis II and Senmut, Hatshepsut's you would have to put it during the reign of Tuthmosis I while Tuthmosis II were co-regent. Probably the evident implausibility of this is the reason why her reign is left unmentioned - written out of history.Perhaps you would like to explain why Tuthmosis I appears to be the successor of Amenhotep I when your naming scheme requires that the reverse would be the case since you evidently insist that they are the same person.I would also like to point out that despite your claims of "lots of good sources" many of the major claims are unsourced altogether. For instance the whole issue of alternating names needs support - and Brian has produced strong contrary evidence. As does the rewriting of the reigns and family relationships. Yet all we see are assertions that the evidence exists. Likewise the identification of the 'Apiru with the Hebrews - needs proper support, as do your claims about the contents of the Amarna letters (at the least you could say WHICH letters). In fact if you are going to demand an alternative interpretation you pretty much have to say which letters you are talking about.

The question is not whose "evidence" the video uses but who is behind the video. As I have already pointed out there is evidence linking Moller to the video - the video is even described as being "by Lennart Moller" in some places. Given also that the video is explicitly putting forward some of Wyatt's ideas on Egyptian history which go well beyond the question of the archaeologuical remains supposeldly at Aqaba anf the link to Moller is far clearer than to either of the others you mention. So the fact is that there are people who explicitly state that Lysimachus is wrong, there is some evidence to support their view and neither you nor Lysimachus have produced any evidence to the contrary. Indeed the original post in this thread emphasises Moller's role. I find it rather interesting in that first Wyatt's contribution was played down and now Moller's role - originally strongly emphasised - is also being minimised.TOo deal with the points relating to evidenceThe Austrian teams findings are almost certainly those Brian mentioned which do not show a specifically Israelite presence. They were interpreted as such for a while but it was found that the building type is found elsewhere in Canaan and is not diagnostic of Israelite presence.As for the "woman archaeologist" more details would be rather useful - and would have been useful when I was asking for actual evidence that there were large numbers of chariot remains in the area. If you still have access to the video it would be a good idea to identify her, and to find where her findings have been published - as should be the case if she is a genuine archaeologist conducting a serious investigation.

Well it's not the fault of the unbelievers that you have not produced much in the way of evidence. If you really had the evidence and chose not to produce it then you need to ask yourself why you held it back. Obviously we are not going to take the opinions of a shady character like Ron Wyatt with no qualifications over the consensus of the experts. It takes evidence.So the simple question is, when you say that the evidence exists do you mean that you have it, or just that you have been told that it exists ?

Wouldn't it be better for you to produce YOUR evidence ? You're the one claiming to have the evidence. I can't even be certain that excavation I read about is the same one. If you are really talking about making a scientific case then you really do need to be able to identify the excavation and the style of the buildings. And the dating evidence will also be needed if it is to be tied into your story.Moreover there seems to be a flaw in your reasoning. If you want to show that there were Hebrews in Egypt - especially in the Nile delta - then you need a distinctively Hebrew style of building. A style that was used by Hebrews is not enough - not if many other people who could be expected to be in the region also used it.As for the other listed "discoveries" I have yet to examine them in detail - mainly because little detail has been provided. Cetainly not "overwhelming evidence" or much more than the assertion that these things were found by Ron Wyatt.

Why do I keep talking about Ron Wyatt ? Because you do. For the rewriting of Egyptian History you quoted Ron Wyatt. The Aqaba site - including the alleged chariot remains - is a Ron Wyatt "discovery" - and so are the other claims put forward as evidence for the Aqaba location. That other people have taken over after Wyatt's death does not change the fact that Ron Wyatt is the initial mover and the others are simply expanding on his work. Why should I accept Ron Wyatt's opinions over those of mainstream Egyptologists unless I can actually check out the evidence ?Your WorldNet daily articles give voice to some other views but don't offer anything more in the way of evidence. I will admit that they were not as bad as I expected from WorldNet daily - probably no worse than a typical tabloid newspaper - but short of real evidence. So why bring it up ? And I am sure that you will dismiss things that are inconvenient like: [qs] "When he was alive, I spent some time asking him [Wyatt - PAK] questions and asking for evidence [regarding] his claims. None was ever forthcoming to me or anyone else," Sanders said. "In those areas where I have done some investigations, he has proven to be a charlatan." [qs] I suppose you will say that Sanders is simply lying. But why should I assume that ?But all you can offer is: That's worth less than Sander's personal testimony. At least Sanders is speaking of his own experiences. Even if the reporter is correct, and the "many" is thousands rather than hundeds or dozens it means little. I am sure that many more people believe that Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah but I still think he's a fake and a fraud. I expect that you do, too.On to the buildings. Rather than telling me relevant information you talk about 3D reconstructions in the video. Well, pretty pictures are not going to address the question of whether the style of building is distinctive to the Hebrews ! Are you seriously suggesting that I should look at the video because I will be beguiled by the presentation and so ignore the difficult questions that it fails to address ? It is quite noticable that you have produced no real evidence despite the fact that I drew attention to this very lack in the post you are replying to. You have not even given me the basic information I pointed out you would need.And I find it very easy to dispute the sulphur balls on Sodom and Gomorrah. This site for instance says that such things are common http://users.argonet.co.uk/...ngs/pages/rese/tales/sodom.htm And as for "no evidence of volcanic activity" - please ! While there is no sign of a geologically recent volcanic eruption there are volcanic springs in the area - and lots of sulphur in the waters.