"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Thanks Brian. I'm finding that most creos are going with Tut III as the one lost in the crossing which would place the Exodus a few decades later than Tut I. I'm still trying to figure this out as to who fits best. Tut III might eliminate the problem of the quick recovery.

And neither of you is much bothered that Tut III, who was pretty well documented, campaigned annually for nearly twenty years all up and down the Eastern Med as far North as Syria and that whole region was under Egyptian domination for the whole time?Or that Amenhotep II, the next in line also campaigned through that whole area as far north as Syria?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Buzsaw, it appears that I missunderstood you. Sorry for the confusion.

---

~Lysimachus

jar,

quote:

---

And neither of you is much bothered that Tut III, who was pretty well documented, campaigned annually for nearly twenty years all up and down the Eastern Med as far North as Syria and that whole region was under Egyptian domination for the whole time?

​

Or that Amenhotep II, the next in line also campaigned through that whole area as far north as Syria?

---

Because you seem so eager to point out a supposed error in the compatibility of this dynastic hypothesis being proposed here, I would have been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were AT LEAST marginally familiar with the issue before taking it upon yourself to start disputing matters you know very little about. Your objections however clearly indicate that you are not even aware as to what you are disparaging. Because if you had made some effort to understand it, you would have noticed that there is absolutely no conflict between the Thutmosid conquests that you are reiterating and the chronological scenario in review.I am sure there are individuals here (including myself) who would be more than happy to educate you on the proposed events before you continue to point out fictitious inconsistencies that are already addressed. And since there is absolutely no contradiction between the established accounts of Thutmosis III’s exploits and the scenario associated with the suggested Exodus events, would you mind explaining to me exactly what is being ignored or overlooked?No one here is implying that Thutmosis III (also known as Amenhotep II after assuming emperorshipaccording to this chronology) was the reigning Pharaoh during the Exodus event. In fact, this hypothesis rests heavily and harmonizes with the fact that Thutmosis III (known as Amenhotep II at the time) was in office during Moses’ 40 year excursion into Midian. And do not be too fooled by the fact that there are separate mummies attributed to these characters, as the reliability of these identifications are yet subject to heavy dispute and evaluation.So I really think your current perception of these facts needs to be jarred by some of these new concepts. P.S. BTW, if you are wondering where I came from, I have been reading this topic along with my brother Lysimachus and is why you will notice my earlier input concerning the Pharaohs.HydarnesThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 06-02-2004 05:39 PM

Hi, Can you clarify a few things about this for me please before I give a more detailed response?You say that this hypothesis argues that Thutmosis III was also known as Amenhotep II ‘after assuming emperorship’, was this after the death of Thutmosis II, when Tuthmosis III was co-regent with Hatshepsut, or was it after the death of Hatshepsut?When Thutmosis III became known as Amenhotep II, was he still referred to by certain people as Thutmosis III or did he, and all others cease to refer to him as Thutmosis? Was Thutmosis III in power when Moses left Egypt for Midian?I am very pleased that we have an expert on the Ancient Near east at the forum now, I am sure you will be an excellent addition to the membership and can help us all to gain a better knowledge of the subject.If you could answer the above questions whenever you have the spare time it will save me from presenting irrelevant information.I look forward to your reply.Brian.

Yes! A hardy welcome aboard, Hydarnus. You and your brother would certainly be a welcome addition to the creo team here in town. Likely you too are busy folks, but any input you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Hi Hydarnes,Ca I ask you if you agree with this statement? The main source of information regarding the history of Egypt is found in the graves of the pharaohs.Brian.

Hi Jar, I think this is actually the least of the obstacles facing this hypothesis.I am intrigued as to how Thutmosis can have a conversation with himself (Amenhotep), how he can tell others to give himself horses from his own stables, and how he can sit in his palace and listen to himself shooting arrows in the garden, and buriedhimself in two different tombs. I don't know about you, but I am no expert on Ancient Egyptian history, although I would say that I have a very good general background knowledge of the 18th and 19th Dynasties, but I am no expert.Hydarnes may have some answers to solve these 'obstacles', I for one would be very impressed if he can harmonise the plethora of Egyptian sources that *appear* to invalidate the hypothesis that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II were the same person.Brian.

If I may, a comment here which comes to mind as I read: ........yes, if indeed what is observed in those graves is interpreted objectively, honestly and factually.

Hiya Buz,What I am asking, irrespective of accuracy, is whether this expert agrees that the main source of information about the history of Egypt is found in the graves of pharaohs and not elsewhere.If the main source is the graves then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the expert has checked all the sources and concluded that the graves have most information.I will put your answer as a yes then shall I, that you believe that the main source of information about Egypt's history comes from the tombs of pharaohs?There is no trick or any underhandedness here, I am asking a simple question.Cheers.Brian.

In my opinion the hypothesis that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II were in fact the same person, is evidently 100% impossible. But, I am open-minded and I am quite open to having the evidence I present here refuted, I don’t think it can be, but Hydarnes seems very confident that the two pharaohs were indeed the same person.The first thing I would like to say is to mention the apparent change of name by Tuhmosis III when he became ‘Emperor’. Names were very important to Egyptians, they were carefully chosen as they were thought to reflect the person’s character. Ever since the beginning of the Egyptian Old Kingdom (c. 2686-2181 BCE) the king took five names, the first four he acquired when he came to the throne. The first name was the ‘Horus’ name, or chief name. The second was the ‘Two Ladies’ name, giving him the protection of the goddesses Nekhbet and Wadjet. The third name, the ‘Golden Horus’ name referred to his divinity and the fourth, his throne name. His last name, called the nomen, was the name given to him at birth and was preceded by the title ‘Son of Re’. (Oakes, L & Gahlin L, 2003 The Mysteries of Ancient Egypt Anness Publishing Ltd, London. Page 325.Now, keeping this information in mind, if we look at a few of the inscriptions of Thutmosis III we can see how this fits in with his names.The first inscription is from the ‘Armant Stela’, found at Armant in upper Egypt, it refers to Thutmosis III’s first Asiatic campaign. The inscription begins with a reference to the pharaoh. Live the Horus: Mighty Bull, Appearing in Thebes; the Two Goddesses: Enduring of Kingship, like Re in Heaven; the Horus of Gold: Majestic of Appearances, Mighty of Strength; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Making Offerings: Men-kheper-Re; the Son of Re, of his Body: Thutmose Heqa-Maat, beloved of Montu, Lord of Thebes, Residing in Hermonthis, living forever.
(Pritchard, J.B. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern texts Relating to the Old Testament Princeton University Press, Princeton page 234)The next inscription is the ‘Annals’ of Thutmosis III that are carved on the walls of the Temple of Karnak, and the introductory text is more or less the same as the titulary of the Armant Stela. Immediately after the titulary there is some text that undermines the argument that the pharaohs who alternated their names between ‘Thutmosis’ and ‘Amenhotep’ somehow cast doubt that they were part of the 18th Dynasty as they appear to be ignoring the fact that the highest god of the 18th Dynasty was Amun-Ra: His majesty commanded that [the victories which his father Amon had given him] should be established [upon] a monument in the temple which his majesty had made for [his father Amon, in order to set down] each individual campaign, together with the booty which [his majesty] carried every [foreign country] which his father Re had given to him (ANET p 235)So, not only did Thutmosis acknowledge Amun-Ra by taking the throne name ‘Men-kheper-Re’, he also acknowledged Amun-Ra in the records of his many victories.We can also see that nowhere in any of Thutmosis III’s names is there anything at all that is even remotely like Amenhotep.What about Amenhotep’s names, is there something there that is remotely like Thutmosis?This inscription relating to Amenhotep II is one of two almost identical inscriptions, one from Memphis and one from Karnak. The Memphis Stela is the least damaged of the two and the text comes from that:.. [T]he majesty of Horus: Mighty Bull, Sharp of Horns; the Two Goddesses: Rich in Dread, Made to Appear in Thebes; Horus of Gold: Carrying off and Gaining Power over All Lands; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: Aa-khepru-Re; the Son of Re, Lord of Diadems, Lord of the Strong Arm: Amen-hotep-the-God-Ruler-of-Heliopolis, given life forever; the good god, likeness of Re, Son of Amon upon His throne, for He built him strong and powerful in distinction to that which had been. (ANET page 245)Maybe it is just me, but I do not see any correlation between the two titularies, I do not see Thutmosis III taking the name ‘Amenhotep’ upon ‘assuming emperorship’, I see him taking the name ‘Men-kheper-Re’ as his throne name and I see Amenhotep taking the throne name ‘Aa-khepru-Re’.Now keep the two titularies at hand when we read this inscription from a Stela discovered near the Sphinx at Giza, which boasts of Amenhotep II’s sporting prowess, I will include the footnotes in brackets. Now when he was (still) a lad (note 19: The word means ‘puppy’ but in no derogatory sense) he loved his horses and rejoiced in them. It was a strengthening of the heart to work them, to learn their natures, to be skilled in training them, and to enter into their ways. When (it) was heard in the palace by his father, the Horus: Mighty Bull, Appearing in Thebes (note 20: Thutmosis III), the heart of his majesty was glad when he heard it, rejoicing at what was said about his eldest son, while he said in his heart: He it is who will act as Lord for the entire land, without being attacked, while the heart moves in valour, rejoicing in strength, though he is (only) a goodly, beloved youth. He is not yet sagacious, he is not (yet) at the time of doing the work of Montu. He is (still) unconcerned with carnal desire (note 21: Thirst of the Body) (but) loves strength. It is a god who puts (it) into his heart to act so that Egypt may be protected from him and so that the land defers to him (note 22: The old warrior king apparently eels that his son’s athletic preparation for kingship is god-given).

​

Then his majesty said to those who were at his side: Let there be given to him the very best horses in my majesty’s stable which is in Memphis, and tell him: ‘Take care of them, instil fear into them, make them gallop, and handle them if they be resistance to thee!’ Now after it had been entrusted to the King’s Son to take care of horses of the king’s stable, well then, he did that which had been entrusted to him. Rashap and Astarte (note 23: Two Asiatic deities) wee rejoicing in him for doing all that his heart desired.

​

He trained horses without equal: they would not grow tired when he took the reins, nor would they sweat (even) at a high gallop. He would harness with the bit in Memphis and stop at the rest house of Harmakhis (note 24: The Sphinx at Giza, dominated by the pyramids of Khufu (Cheops) and Khaf-Re (Chephren), (so that) he might spend a moment there, going around it and seeing the charm of this rest house of Khufu and Khaf-Re, the triumphant. His heart desired to perpetuate their names, (but) he still put it into his heart, so he said, until that which his father Re had decreed to him should come to pass (note 25: He postoned his act of appreciation until he became king).

​

After this, when he his majesty was made to appear as king, the uraeus-serpent took her place upon his brow, the image of Re (note 26: The King) was established at its post, and the land was as (in) its first state, at peace under their lord, Aa-khepru-Re. (ANET 244-45)I am at a loss as to how anyone can believe that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep were the same person when there is nothing at all to suggest that they were. There is no evidence here of Thutmosis changing his name to Amenhotep on ascension to the throne, and there is even a clear reference that Aa-khepru-Re was Thutmosis III’s son in the stela found at Giza.Also, given that there are two different tombs for these two pharaohs, KV 34 and KV 35, the identification of mummies is not a factor.I do realise that I have not seen the evidence that contradicts mainstream scholarship, but I am perfectly willing to read it and consider it against the extant Egyptian sources. Hydarnes has offered to ‘educate’ Jar on Egyptian history, I hope he extends the same offer to myself.Brian.

But what I hope they will be able to show is something other than the pure conjecture that we have seen so far.To educate me, they are going to have to find some external corroborating items, some stele, inscriptions and documentation, something other than their fertile imagination. They will have to explain why there are two tombs and the later tomb was also used to hide additional mummies. They will have to explain the two year period where it seems he co-ruled with his father, Tutmose III.I'm sure there is much I can learn but so far we have been offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Hopefully, that will change.I believe that it is likely that there was something like the Exodus. But it certainly was not on the scale described in the Bible. That is not surprising, people often exaggerate history to make things look better or grander than reality. That was certainly the case with Jerico. A migration of a few hundred families, maybe even a few thousand families (but that is much less likely) most likely happened. But the simple logistics of a mass Exodus of millions of people over a 40 year period while leaving absolutely no evidence and going totally unnoticed by the whole rest of the world, is frankly, very, very, very nie unbelievable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Great! This is a step in the right direction. But pray tell, would you have ever heard of it if it weren't for the Bible? If your answer is is "no," then we have these chariot parts in the only part of the whole region where 2 million or so people and an army including 600 chariots could cross if the waters were pushed back as this Bible says was the case and we have the only area of the whole region which describes a mountainous area where a couple of million people could assemble before entering, we have a black looking mountain top and a very notable split rock on the other side as the Bible states, we have 12 columns indicative of a memorial spoken of in the Bible, we have inscriptions indicative of the Biblical account of bull worship in the area, so on and so forth. So what do you have better for what to believe than the Biblical account which describes what is being observed here concerning the Exodus story? Other than the evidence I've cited, what should you expect to find remaing 35 centuries later from 2 million nomadic campers who built no permanent buildings or other permanent construction along the way other than a memorial for memorializing the extraordinarily amazing event?

We've been over the mountain, the column, the wheels, the pillars and all of the rest of it. None of that constitutes evindence as it stands. Right now it is not even indicative of evidence.One. You can not connect any of them to a time period within an over 1000 year period when they could have originated. Nor can they be connected to the alleged Exodus.Nor have you answered ANY of the questions that have been posed.BuzYou got nothing.At a minimum you need to be able to show...

1. That there were Hebrews in Egypt sometime before 6 BC.
2. That there was a character called Moses.
3. That there was an Exodus at all.
4. That Egypt lost a Pharoah.
5. That there is a plausible reason that the other World Powers at the time did not react.
6. That there is some plausible reason no one even noticed.

So far you have answered none of the questions. Even once you answer those, it would still be an Exodus, most likely unoppossed, of a minor people, consisting of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It does so present extraordinary unheard of ever imperical evidence, as well a corroborating evidence in the right order and in the region just as described in the Biblical account, even if you had nothing else to go by. I've repeatedly said the video documents quite well that they were there at the right time and in one or other of the two Exodus threads, I've addressed the rest, some of which have neither been proven nor adequately refuted by either side of the debate to be viable evidence or not. However, as all researchers, archeologists, scientists and mathmaticians do, you take the given and base your hypotheses and theories on connecting the dots of the given to determine the ungiven. Hogwash!

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz