"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Hi guys, I'm finally able to take a few peaks on the computer since my energy has increased a bit. My leg still hurts and there are pins and screws through it. Twas indeed an unfortunate incident. Rainy day + walking on overhanging logs don't mix. I'll be in this cage like cast for 3-4 months. My injury is called a "tibia plateau fracture", where my bone cracked just below the knee. I had to have incisions cut on the sides to allow the muscles to expand(swell), otherwise the muscles would have died and my leg would have had to be amputated *shivers at the thought*. However, I am thankful to God for one thing. That I am not paralyze, or that it was just my leg and not my back or neck. The reason I believe God helped me was that if I had not stretched out my right leg the way I did during the fall, I could have landed on near by tree stump on my back. I'm so relieved to know that my leg is most likely going to be okay, since according to physicians, my wounds are healing rather fast--faster than expected. Anyway, to answer a few points:

quote:

---

At a minimum you need to be able to show...

---

Since I am unfortunately able to spend much time on the computer and require plenty of rest, I will therefore proceed to answer the "hypothesis" answers to your questions, but will not, however, be able to delve to the statistical and archeological reasons as to why we come up with these hypotheses.

quote:

---

1. That there were Hebrews in Egypt sometime before 6 BC.

---

According to the Exodus Revealed video, computer graphic illustrations as well as photographs show that new ruins (building foundations) have been excavated in the land of Goshen...all of them were completely Asiatic, with no Egyptian style. Later, Hebrew buildings discovered in Israel were shown to have been built of the exact same style and architecture as those of the ruins found in Goshen. Even the Amarna letters indicate that there were Israelites in the area. You can even see in Egyptian inscriptions that the Egyptians have paintings of Asiatic slaves while the Egyptians have the whip in their hand.Pharaoh Merneptah is know to have stated in one of his letters "...Israel is laid waste", indicating that Israel was now in Palestine by this time.

quote:

---

2. That there was a character called Moses.

---

You'll have to see the chart sometime, but we believe that Thutmosis II was Moses. He was co-regent along with Amenhotep I, but then when he was thrown out of Egypt to dwell in the land of Midian for 40 years for killing the Egyptian, Thutmosis III took Moses' place as coregent, and ascended the throne as Amenhotep II. Amenhotep II (aka~Thutmosis III before he was Pharoah) became Pharaoh during the 3rd year of Moses’ dwelling in Midian, and died on the 32nd year of the 40 years during Moses’ stay in Midian. Thutmosis IV, who was Amenhotep II's successor, took the throne and became Amenhotep III. Tutankhamun was Amenhotep III's first born son, who probably was a victim of the 10th plague of Egypt. Moses would have become Pharaoh had he not been thrown out of Egypt. We believe that Senmut was Moses, heir to the throne, and Thutmosis I as co-ruler with Amenhotep I. There is also plenty of evidence that suggests Senmut was a male child who as heir to the throne, and he has numerous characteristics from Egyptian literature that are incredibly similar to that of Moses of the Bible. As you read the book and analyze traditional Egyptian history, you will find that much of this makes sense. But do realize that what I am stating is extremely brief. Just trust me; there is enough information out there to come to these conclusions. It would require me posting a book in order to take every possible question into consideration.

quote:

---

3. That there was an Exodus at all.

---

This is when you have to follow the bread crumbs. It's an overall picture that you can visualize here, and you must see the Exodus Revealed video in order to put the whole puzzle together in your mind. Once the puzzle fits, it is most certainly spine chilling. The reason why so many have concluded the Exodus to be myth for so many years is simply for the fact that archeologists have been looking in the wrong places, find no evidence, so therefore have no choice but to concluded that the Exodus must have been nothing other than legend.

quote:

---

4. That Egypt lost a Pharoah.

---

This too is well documented in the book, The Exodus Case. We believe that Amenhotep III (aka~Thutmosis IV as co-ruler pre throne ascension) WAS the Pharaoh of the Exodus. It may be interesting to note that Amenhotep III's mummy is not found in his sarcophagus, but yet his wife's mummy (Queen Tiy) was identified in another tomb. There was a mummy, but Amenhoteph III's mummy is highly believed to not actually be his true mummy according to most Egyptologists, but rather they had to use some other mummy as a replacement. Both Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his son Tutankuman died within a couple weeks. An interesting letter from Amenhotep III's old wife (before queen Tiy), Ankhesenamun, to the Hittite king Suppiluliumas as been preserved:"...When the people of Misra (Egypt, authors comment) learned the destruction of Amqa, they were afraid, for to make matters worse their master, Bibhuria had just died and the widowed queen of Egypt sent an ambassador to my father and wrote to him these terms:

​

My husband is dead and I have no son. People say that you have many sons. If you send me one of your sons he will become my husband for it is repugnant to me to take one of my servants to husband. When my father learned this, he called together the council of the great: Since the most ancient times such a thing has never happened before.

​

He decided to send Hattu-Zittish, the chamberlain, Go, bring me information worthy of belief; While Hattu-Zittish was absent on the soil of Egypt, my father vanquished the city of Karchemish. The ambassador of Egypt, the lord Hanis, came to him. Because my father had instructed Hattu_Zittish when he went to the country of Egypt as follows: Perhaps they have a prince they may be trying to deceive me and do not really want one of my sons to reign over them; the Egyptian queen answered my father in a letter in these words;

​

Why do you say they are trying to deceive me? If I had a son, should I write to a foreign country in a manner humiliating to me and to my country? You do not believe me and you even say so to me! He who was my husband is dad and I have no son. Should I then perhaps take one of my servants and make him my husband? I have written to no other country, I have written to youHmmmthis letter sounds interesting indeed, does it not? Finally Suppiluliumas believes her and sends a son, it is known what happened to him. This letter is remarkable because Pharaoh Amenhotep III’s widow says that her husband is dead (drowned in the Red Sea), she has no son (Tutankhamun died at the Exodus), and there are only servents left in the country (leaders, ministers, priests, officers drowned in the Red Sea). Bibhuria is probably a linguistic variation among the Hittites for Neb-maat-Re, one of the names of Amenhotep III. Further, this excludes Tiy as being the widow since she had another son, Akhenaten.Bear in mind that it is of utmost priority for Egypt to keep their great disaster a secret to the world. Should the Hittites, or any other Canaanites find out of the great catastrophe that struck Egypt during the Exodus (loss of firstborn and whole army), Egypt would become in great danger of invasion, for foreign nations might see this as an opportunity to strike. But, as we all know, Egypt did a marvelous job at keeping secrets. This is why Egyptologists today still cannot agree on many aspects of Egyptian history, because so many inscriptions were chiseled out, for Egyptians were known to record only their victories and accomplishments, but when it came to disasters, Egypt would hide as much of this information as they could.We must realize that at this period and point in time, the Hittites are a potential threat to Egypt. There is every reason in the world for Egypt to hide for as long as possible the fact that the army has been destroyed! The countries existed in relative isolation from each other, it was desert land between them and there were still border posts guarding the borders. After a time, when there is a risk that the truth will leak out that there is no longer a great and mighty army, then this letter can be an invitation to create an alliance (through marriage) with the Hittites before they fully realize what has happened. Obviously the Hittites are surprised (nothing like this has ever happened before) about the letter and send a messenger to look into the matter.At the same time this is happening, the cities in Palestine which belong to Egypt are having problems. The Tel-Amarna letters show that among other things these cities were threatened by the Hittites. They begged the Pharaoh in Egypt to send troops, but as it says in one of the letters written during this period, no help came. The situation was become untenable and Egypt was still incapable of sending troops. A strong Egypt with its mighty army could easily have supported its subject cities in Palestine.So, would you not find it rather suspicious that it is at this point in time (SOON AFTER THE EXODUS) that Egypt does not come to the aid of their allies, the Palestinians?! It was because Egypt was crippled, and it wouldn’t be until Rameses II that Egypt would climb back up to one final height, and then crumble again.We can see that these events altogether show that something dramatic most definitely occurred in Egypt at this time. These events were the beginning of the end of the 18th dynasty and include several different incidents which can be connected with each other; letters which state that only servants are left in the country; the time of and reason for Tutankhamun’s death; and the absence of help for the cities subject to Egypt. Similarities to these events described in the Ipuwer document are striking.Who formerly could have plundered Tunip without being plundered by
Thutmose III? and there is no help for us. For 20 years we have been sending to our lord the king, the king of Egypt; but there has not come to us a word — no, not one!After the powerful Thutmose something happened that destroyed the super power of Egypt and left the colonies without support.Friends, there is enough evidence to suggest that the grand Exodus did actually happen. The dots are slowly being connected, and things are beginning to make sense as never before. Scientists around the world are beginning to realize that there was more to Ron Wyatt’s discoveries than they had originally supposed. Ron Wyatt is passed away, and his discoveries are only living on, but are IMPROVING! Even various enemies of Wyatt are coming to the same conclusion. Once Mollers’ new series are aired on Television for the first time (since they have not been shown yet), the world will begin to start seeing things in a new light they never before viewed in. Regardless of the credentials any of these scientists have, the data is well documented and presented, and this cannot be denied. If a pigmy were to show me the world was flat, and he provided me ample reason as to why he believed so, I would be obliged to give him a fair hearing. But it is encouraging to know that more and more scientists around the world are beginning to acknowledge the compelling evidence associated with the Exodus.

quote:

---

5. That there is a plausible reason that the other World Powers at the time did not react.

---

The above response provides plenty of plausible reasons why the other World Powers did not react. These other World Powers were a great distance from Egypt, and Egypt kept themselves isolated for quite sometime after the Exodus event.

quote:

---

6. That there is some plausible reason no one even noticed.

---

Same as above. But not only was Egypt doing everything in their power to keep it a secret. These other World Powers were now preoccupied trying to fend off the oncoming Israelites who were conquering Canaan. Countless letters from the Canaanites for help came to the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton, but he did not respond nor do anything about it. Why didn’t he do anything about it? Three reasons could be easily suggested:1. Egypt’s military was still weak, and it had not yet climbed back up high enough to be capable of helping the Canaanites.2. Pharaoh Akhenaton was obsessed with his sun-god, the Aten.3. Pharaoh Akhenaton knew better than to take on the Israelites. He knew what happened to his father Amenhotep III when he attempted to chase down the Israelites, and Akhenaton wasn’t going to take that risk in defending Palestine from the oncoming Israelites. Going after the Israelites was now known to the Egyptians as a no-no.Friends, as you read the material I’m providing, things start to make sense, and a broad picture starts to grow. Try and perceive the logic behind this, and you just might very well start too view the Bible from a different perspective.Archeologists and scientists alike are beginning to realize more and more that the Biblical account is much more historical than supposed, and fiction and legend is beginning to wane as new discoveries are being revealed.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-17-2004 11:50 PM

---

~Lysimachus

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.

Hi,Glad to hear you are on the mend, I hope you are not in too much discomfort.I can sympathise with you here as I have just been signed off by my surgeon after 5 years of operations and physiotherapy for reconstructing my ruptured anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments in my left knee, it was a long road but I am almost 100% fit again, so chin up. Exactly where in ‘Goshen’, and why would finding ‘completely Asiatic’ ruins be surprising, and how do you link these ‘Asiatic ruins’ with the Hebrews and not any one of a number of other Asiatics? What is it that identifies a Hebrew building from any other Palestinian buildings? In fact what is a ‘Hebrew Building’? This is completely and utterly untrue. The Amarna Letters DO NOT mention the word ‘Israelite’ or ‘Israel’ at all, they do no even HINT at this. In fact, the Amarna letters are one of the strongest proofs AGAINST a 15th century Exodus date.I would like you to provide the catalogue number for the Amarna letter that mentions or hints at the Israelites being in Egypt. But what you appear to be unaware of is that Asiatic does not HAVE to equal ‘Hebrew’, to make this connection you have to have far more substantial evidence than this. This is another total piece on misinformation; pharaoh Merneptah did not leave ANY letters that mentioned ‘Israel’.You, or Moller, may be confusing a ‘letter’ with Pharaoh Merneptah’s victory Stele that has this ‘Israel is laid waste’ reference on it, so it isn’t a letter, it is a victory inscription.Also, the word for ‘Israel’ on the Stele does not HAVE to be translated as ‘Israel’, one possible other translation is ‘Jezreel’ which would actually fit in very nicely with the geographic locations on the Stele. Oh, and speaking of geographic locations, the name ‘Israel’ (if it is that) on Merneptah’s stele is preceded by the determinative that denotes ‘people’ rather than ‘land’. Therefore, this suggests that in 1205 BCE, the Israel of the Stele was not a settled people, surely the Israel of the Exodus would have been settled in Palestine 250 years after they left Egypt, after all the Bible does say that they entered Canaan 40 years after they left Egypt.So we have two pieces of misinformation thus far, the Amarna Letters DO NOT mention ‘Israel’ and Merneptah did not leave a letter, it was an inscription on a victory stele. The citing of these two sources really does suggest to me that whoever is peddling this stuff has no idea what they are talking about because if the source had researched the Merneptah Stele they would know that the possible mention of ‘Israel’ on the stele is the FIRST non-biblical reference to a people called ‘Israel’ outside of the Bible. It is also the ONLY reference to an ‘Israel’ in all of the extant Egyptian records. Merneptah’s stele is 1205 BCE, the Amerna letters describe life in Palestine from around 1400-1350 BCE. How can you not know this? Excellent, this causes a major problem however as the Pharaoh would not have to run away and hide in another country if he killed anyone, pharaoh was a god, so this picture is at odds with reality. But Thutmosis III reigned for far more than 40 years! He would have to be the pharaoh before Moses left for Midian and he would have to have died before Moses returned, again this doesn’t fit in with reality. Why? Why would a pharaoh have anything to fear from killing anyone, who would care? I have given details from various inscriptions ( SEE POST 144 ) that provide all the known names for these two pharaohs. I have also provided evidence from an inscription where Thutmosis III is actually speaking to others about his son’s sporting prowess. Both men are mentioned in the same inscription, Thutmosis III tells his staff to give Amenhotep II some of his best horses from his stables because his son is an expert horseman. The lives of the pharaohs are detailed at Karnak, it is impossible for them to be the same person. What is this based on? What evidence, inscriptional or otherwise, do you have to support this claim? So you think that Thutmosis III only reigned for 29 years? I would like documentation to support this as it is contrary to every piece of Egyptian evidence we have about Thutmosis III. None of it makes sense, it is complete and utter garbage.. I honestly think that you should have waited until you were feeling a lot better before you even contemplated answering these questions, what you have posted here is essentially unsupported fantasy. It actually looks as if you have no idea what you are talking about.
Once you deal with the questions I raise here we can move on to some of the other claims you make.But in all honesty, you should wait until you are up and about again so you can research this stuff properly before we continue, no one would think any the less of you for this.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 06-18-2004 07:45 AM

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.

But it is a very important illustration of how the Exodus Myth came into being.Here we have an example of the willing rewriting of well documented history for the sake of a myth. The character of Moses is raised from being an alleged Prince of Egypt to the Pharoah himself. Times are changed, lengths of reign changed, and corroborating evidence ignored.For me, it is a great illustration of how what was probably a very minor event at the time can be exagerated by non-critical followers from a short story into an epic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Paul,This was my first impression as well, but Lysimachus imforms us that his brother is an expert in Egyptian history, perhaps he can post something substantial in the weeks to come.But, as you know, taking one book as the sole source of information is an academic disaster waiting to happen, but I suppose it is easier than critically investigating a subject.What I am interested in is how Moller supports the claims in the book, for example, to say that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II are the same person would surely require the researcher to have found a fair degree of evidence to convince him that this is true. Also, to say that 'Hebrew ruins' are found in Egypt needs to have some sort of proof that these buildings were uniquely 'Hebrew', this is something that no archaeologist has ever managed to do. I suspect that they are talking about Avaris here, but the viewers of this video have difficulty in supplying an answer to this question. I think this is the problem when anyone goes outside their own field of study, there are exceptions, but normally they end up making too many schoolboy errors. But Moller may be quite clever here, he knows that there is a very naive audience out there with money to spend, and who are all too eager to swallow anything that supports their faith.Brian.

Brian,I'm curious, is there ANY evidence at all accepted by egyptologists that can account for any part of the Exodus story?

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.

Hi Custard,Hi Custard,There is no direct extra-biblical evidence at all for the Israelite enslavement, Exodus desert sojourn, or Conquest of Canaan. This can be stated categorically without fear of any contradiction, even the most extreme maximalist scholars will admit to this.What we do have is circumstantial evidence that is interpreted in such a way as to fit the Biblical account, but if it wasn't for the Bible no one at all would have any reason to believe that the narratives concerning these events actually happened.Here is some of the circumstantial evidence:One of the most frequently quoted references is Exodus 1:11, which talks of the Hebrews building the cities of Pithom and Rameses, has been cited by countless Christian scholars as being a concrete historical reference. There are so many scholars who believe that this is a genuine solid piece of evidence that I couldn’t quote them all but here are a few.’ Unless we deny the historical character of Ex 1:11, the date of the Exodus is definitely fixed’ A H Sayce quoted in Bimson John J 1978 Redating the Exodus and Conquest JSOT Sheffield, page 37. We now know that if there is any historical value at all to the store city tradition (and there is no reason to doubt its reliability), then Israelites must have been in Egypt at least during the early part of the reign of Rameses II’ Wright, G E 1962 Biblical Archaeologist edition 2, London, page 60.The ONLY reason why fundamentalists reject this dating for the Exodus and opt for a mid 15th century date is because the Bible places the Exodus at this time. 1 Kings 6:1 gives the reference here, 480 years from Solomon’s 4th year is c. 1446, and there is no other reason for promoting this date.The reason I mention the building of Rameses is because of the information contained in a contemporary source that has been used as circumstantial evidence for Hebrews building the City of Rameses. The document is Papyrus Leiden 348, which records the words of one of Rameses II officials as saying ’ Distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the ‘Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Rameses’.The apparent linguistic similarity between ‘Apiru and Hebrew caused a fair bit of excitement at the time, but this connection is now totally rejected as the ‘Apiru are mentioned in many other more recently discovered texts that do not fit the context of an ethnic group such as the Hebrews claim to be. The ‘apiru are a social stratum, (namely brigands, mercenaries, people for hire), and consist of many different ethnic peoples.Next there is the Merneptah Stele (not letter) which MAY mention AN Israel, it is not proven that this Israel (if that is what it says) has anything to do with the Israel of the Bible. But even if we concede that it is the Israel of the Bible the stele says absolutely nothing about the Exodus or enslavement, ALL the Merneptah stele tells us is that at the ed of the 13th century BCE there was a people in Palestine identified by the name ‘Israel’. That is it, that is the nature of archaeological evidence, anything else is adding your interpretation to the artefact because the artefact is mute.Next reference taken as proof of the historicity of the Exodus event is the information in 13:17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt."If we overlook the anachronism of the mention of the Philistines 150 plus years before they were in the area, the mention of the road through he Philistine country is an uncontested reference to the Egyptian military road between Egypt and Palestine (See Gardiner, A. 1920 The Ancient Road Between Egypt and Palestine Journal of Egyptian Archaeology No.6, Oren, E D Ways of Horus in North Sinai in Rainey, A. F. (1988) Egypt, Israel, Sinai : archaeological and historical relationships in the biblical period, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv).This road was fortified by a tight network of forts by Seti I in the early 13th century BCE and remained that way for the rest of the century, this suggests to many scholars that this was the reason why the Israelites made the detour away from the expected route. But again this is purely circumstantial and has no support outside of the Bible.I personally do not understand all the excitement that certain posters feel when they mention Asiatics in Egypt as if this were some big deal, to find Asiatics in Egypt is not surprising in the slightest. Asiatics had been wandering to and from Egypt for centuries. Papyrus Anastasi III mayest thou cross [to U-peqer] in the train of the god; mayest thou traverse the divine region in the train of Sokaris; mayest thou join the crew of the Neshmet bark, without being turned back; mayest thou see the sun in heaven when he opens the year; may Anubis attach for thee thy head to thy bones; mayest thou come forth from the Hidden Place, without being destroyed; mayest thou [behold] the sheen in the Netherworld as it passes by thee; may Nun be abundant in thy domain, may he inundate thy path, may he overflow (the land to) seven ells (depth) beside thy tomb; mayest thou sit at the rivers brink in thy moment of repose; mayest thou lave thy face and thy hand; mayest thou receive offerings; may thy nose inhale the breeze; mayest thou relax thy throat; the clothes of Tayt(?) Papyrus Anastasi VI Another communication to my [lord], to [wit: We] have finished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep- hir-Maat--life, prosperity, health!--which is (in) Tjeku, to the pools of Per- Atum1 [of] Mer-[ne]- Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, which are (in) Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive.The most significant extent text may be the Papyrus Anastsi V which records the escape of two slaves from the City of Rameses: The Chief of Bowmen of Tjeku, Ka-Kem-wer, to the Chief of Bowmen Ani and the Chief of Bowmen Bak-en-Ptah: In life, prosperity, health! In the favour of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, and of the ka of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: User-kheperu-Re Setep-en-Re (Seti II) life, prosperity, health! our good lord life, prosperity, health! I say to the Re-Har-akhti: "Keep Pharaoh life, prosperity, health! our good lord life, prosperity, health! in health! Let him celebrate millions of jubilees, while we are in his favour daily!" Another matter, to wit: I was sent forth from the broad-halls of the palace life, prosperity, health! in the 3rd month of the third season, day 9, at the time of evening, following after these two slaves. Now when I reached the enclosure-wall of Tjeku on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10, they told [me] they were saying to the south that they had passed by on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10 [Now] when I reached the fortress, they told me that the scout had come from the desert [saying that] they had passed the walled place north of the Migdol of Seti Mer-ne-Ptah, life, prosperity, health! Beloved like Seth." When my letter reaches you, write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? What people are after them? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them. [May your health] be good! Even I have to admit that there are some significant similarities here with the Bible narratives. The escape of slaves from Pi-Rameses, Egyptian militia pursue the slaves, the escape route is much the same as the biblical narrative, and the escape took place under the safety of darkness.But does this actually undermine the biblical account rather than support it? Is it reasonable to accept that the Egyptians, who did keep huge amounts of written records, could record the escape of two slaves yet fail to record the escape of two million?It should also be noted that the presence of non-Egyptian people in Egypt is nothing to get excited about, the finding of a purely non-Egyptian settlement in Egypt would cause as much surprise amid Egyptologists as Tiger Woods winning another golf tournament would cause in the golfing community.Egypt’s interaction with foreign communities is very well documented and the presence of resident foreigners in Egypt was a part of everyday life.Some foreign resident communities include:The House of Ba’al at Mennofre, The Camp of the Milesians, The Shasu of Atfih, The House of the Southern Shasu, The Fort of the Syrian, and The Harbour House.These are all examples of colonies of foreign merchants who settled in Egypt with Egyptian permission or agreement to conduct business (Redford, Donald B Observations on the Sojourn of the Bene-Israel in Frerichs, E. S., Lesko, L. H., and Dever, W. G. Brown University. (1997) Exodus : the Egyptian evidence. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, page 58)That there happens to be a settlement discovered in Egypt that happens to be ‘non-Egyptian’ would not be earth-shattering news to anyone familiar with the subject.As you can see, the only evidence presented in favour of an Exodus is all circumstantial, it can safely be declared that there is no direct extrabiblical evidence for the Exodus, it is a dead issue.Brian.

Is there any indication that a Prince of Egypt, of ANY nationality, ever stepped down from the ruling class, but remained in Egypt, with a following, and in continued discourse and confrontation with the reigning Pharaoh?What would you think the likelihood of such a person might be? Is there any reasons or explanations that you can tell us about why something at that level of government would not be recorded?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What are you guys talking about? The Exodus Revealed video was not done by Moller, and I gathered much of this information from the video. The video was done by Questar, and Moller was not mentioned until they came to the crossing site. The video speaks of the Amarna letters as being the GREATEST proof of the Israelites dwelling in Canaan, so how can you say that the Amarna letters are the greatest proof against it? This doesn't jibe, and leads me to believe that is just how you interpret it.The Amarna inscriptions speak of the "Apiru" invading Canaan. The word "Apiru" is of Hebrew origin, and are most likely the Israelites.Also, I might add that Moses was prince Moses, co-ruler. During this time of coregency, they are called "Thutmosis". Obviously it does not seem that any of you comprehend this. They are NOT Pharaoh. It doesn't matter how young they are, the TITLE still exists! I will have to address each of your points more thoroughly at a later date, but you guys are obviously basing your ideas that Moller is wrong simply because other sources state otherwise. Well let me tell you that these other sources have a great degree of uncertainty in them as well, since Egyptian history was vary vague. I said from the beginning that this was a hypothesis.Another thing, Moller was not into this for money. He was a scientist that originally went to investigate and analyize Wyatt's finds with a very critical approach. He came to the conlcusions that these finds had more merit to them that had been supposed, so therefore wrote his own book to support these hypotheses.Also, no one is reading anything the way anyone wants to see it Paul. Moller nowhere states that this is fact. He is simply drawing a broad broad picture, showing how the various events that took place in Egypt seem to reflect a major disaster that struck them around that time...1446 B.C. the approximate date of the Exodus.And yet another thing, who said Hatshepsut is out of the story? Hatshepsut was Moses' Egyptian MOTHER. She plays a prominent role in this WHOLE Exodus case!If the Bible speaks of Hebrews living in Egypt, there is something wrong in helping to put the story of the Exodus together by inferring that these so called "Asiatics" that lived in Egypt consisted of Hebrews. Nothing! The reason why is because the Bible is a historical book, and we can take what it says literally and fuse it with the writings of other books and inscriptions. You are relying COMPLETELY on the writings of inscriptions and other books WITHOUT the aid of the Bible, and that is absolutely and 100% completely biased. The Bible needs to be a reference book on your shelf, not a book to try and see how it contradicts other writings. Perhaps it is the other writings contradicting the Bible?---of which was composed of many many books, not just one.But let us get this thing straight about the gods and the names of Pharoahs. Quoated from Ron Wyatt's "Exodus to Red Sea" Article:THE KINGS OF THE 18TH DYNASTY "The kings of the 18th Dynasty are stated by historians as being named either Amenhotep and Thutmoses. But, there is a big problem with this fluctuation between names. The pharaoh was considered the earthly embodiment of the main god and his name reflected the supreme god of his royal family. Does it make sense to anyone that one king would consider Thoth (Thutmoses) the supreme god while the next considered Amen (Amenhotep) the supreme god, and continue to alternate gods through a succession of several kings? Of course not. As we read earlier, the list of dynasties and kings that the Egyptologists base their information on is quite inaccurate. The inscriptions found in temples and tombs indicate that the "Thutmoses" name is indicative of one of the offices of the pharaoh, just as was the "Amenhotep" name- and that each pharaoh was both a "Thutmoses" as well as an "Amenhotep" as he advanced in the royal line from co-regent to emperor. From our research, it appears that the crown prince received his "Thutmoses" title upon being appointed co-regent, and then became "Amenhotep" in addition to his earlier names, when he became emperor. Let me stress that it appears that this is the order he received each name; however, it may possibly have been reversed. But we have no doubts that each ruler possessed both names. And each ruler left inscriptions relating to his reign in both names - sometimes he referred to himself as Thutmoses, while at other times Amenhotep. Each individual king left inscriptions in both names, dating his regnal years sometimes from the date of his co-regency and sometimes from the date of his emperorship. We don't fully understand the "rules" governing these practices yet."In my opinion would be quite foolish to rule out this possibility. There may be evidence suggesting that Thutmosis and Amenhotep are not the same person, but then at the same time there is! This goes to show that Egyptian history is vary ambiguous. Not even I am completely ruling out the possibility that they may have been two different people. But based on the fact that there is evidence from both sides only shows us that, afterall, we can't rule out the Exodus as an impossibility!PHARAOH "RAMESES" "Yes, most people think of the pharaoh of the Exodus as "Rameses". And why not? The name "Rameses" is mentioned in the Bible as early as the story of Joseph. Was there a "Rameses" in the 18th dynasty? Yes... but that was more a title than a name - much like the title "pharaoh". Not only was "Thutmoses" also to become "Amenhotep" - he, as main emperor of all Egypt, was also titled "Rameses". If you will recall, in the story of Joseph, the land of Goshen was also referred to as the land of "Rameses": "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded." Genesis 47:11 Egyptian evidence shows that every native Egyptian king from the time of the so-called 5th dynasty was titled "Son of the Sun" or "Rameses" in addition to his other names. This has caused massive confusion among the Egyptian scholars, who have zeroed in on one particular pharaoh, "Rameses II", and proclaimed him the "greatest pharaoh of all Egypt". All one needs to do is go to the museum in Cairo and view the four statues of "Rameses II" in the main entrance hall- each one is clearly a different person. The inscriptions referring to "Rameses" refer to many different pharaohs. Also, let's go back to the inscription of Hatshepsut in the section on the Hyksos - remember that she said these people lived "in ignorance of RE? This inscription makes its quite clear that whoever lived in the delta (Goshen/Rameses) region, did not worship the native Egyptian god, Re. "Re" is the "Ra" of "Rameses" - and this verifies the supremacy of "Re/Ra" during the time of the 18th dynasty - and that "Rameses" would indeed be one of the titles of the pharaoh."Once again, when one stumbles on so many archeological sites such as the Red Sea Crossing (chariot, human, horse, and cattle remains, all on underwater landbridge), then discovers that the true Mt. Sinai could only have been on the east side of Aqaba, since Midian has ALWAYS been on the east side of Aqaba, and we know that Sinai (or Horeb) was located in Midian, and then when one realizes that Goshen is way above the Suez, and in order for the Exodus to have taken place at Suez the Hebrews would have had to insanely turn south and then cross Suez, we can to some degree logically fit Egyptian history to correlate with these events. Here we have the evidence...Mt. Sinai, the blackened peak, the split rock, the 12 alters, the 12 bitter springs, the QUAIL in the area, CORRIENDER SEED...and the list goes on and on! In fact, the list of facts that the crossing was at Aqaba is so immense that any few verses that seem to indicate it was at Suez don't hold a grain of salt. We are here investigating archeology, and there is absolutely no way one can just sit and completely ignore this stuff.Saying that we are basing our evidence on just a couple chariot wheels at the bottom of Aqaba is rather imprudent if you ask me. In fact, the chariot wheels are just a capstone to the long list that leads us to believe it was Aqaba. But more than a couple wheels have been identified. In the video, there were at least 8 or 9 clear identifiable ones! The other remains were parts of chariot wheels....sometimes you could clearly see the shape of chariot bodies. Also, the way the coral is scattered around is unnatural. We have these odd shaped coral formations scattered ALL THE WAY FROM THE WEST SIDE OF AQABA TO THE EAST! They dot ALL along the landbridge across the Nuweiba beach! I even saw photos of what appears to be the heads of skeletons. These chariot wheels are so clear...even with the coral growing on them! There is absolutely no apparent reason for these chariot shaped corals to be scattered randomly across this landbridge!!! You'd have to really blind yourself to ignore the evidence!I have not heard any of you ONCE mention that these evidence could suggest a possible Exodus. You guys are so closeminded and shut to this information that you will never see no matter how much is presented. God is trying to help you see something, but you refuse to see it. This approach is only making your case more and more hopeless by the hour, but I strongly suggest that you break out of it before it is too late.Here is a good explanation as to why Thutmosis III took Moses' place:THE MAN "WHO TOOK MOSES' PLACE" "When Moses fled Egypt at age 40, the emperor, Amenhotep 1 was very elderly - he had been preparing Moses for the throne for the past 22 years. Now, there was a big problem. Who would now be the future king? In Memphis, a young man was being groomed to be appointed co-regent for Moses when he became emperor. This young man was immediately elevated to the rank of co-regent and given the same name of Thutmoses. The records show that he assumed the throne on his year 22. Now, this is a strange statement and tells much more than one might at first notice. A co-regent, or royal heir-apparent, begins counting his years when he is designated as the "heir-apparent". That becomes his year one. Here, we have a man assuming office in year 22 and he assumes it under that same name as Moses had. Keep in mind, that as the royal heir assumes each stage of office, "heir-apparent", crown prince and co-regent, he also in some places counts his years from that particular appointment. This is why the years of "Thutmoses III are given as 54 years, while the years of Amenhotep II are given as 26 to 32 years (depending on what author you are reading). The problem with Thutmoses III, who took Moses' place, is that there are no records of his rise through the ranks. He just suddenly appears in year 22 as taking the throne. Now, what happened here is that when Moses fled, in order to continue the reign of the earthly embodiment of "Thoth" in the "Thutmoses" co-regent, this man simply assumed the years that Moses had held that position. In other cases, when a royal personage would die, the god is said to "fly to the heavens" and then re-descend into the body of whoever becomes the next earthly embodiment of the god. In this case, there was no death- there had to be an immediate transfer, which is exactly what took place. Everything that had belonged to Moses was simply figuratively transferred to this "new" "Thutmoses" and things went along without missing a step. This man is now referred to by scholars as Thutmoses III. All of the statuary attributed to him are actually the statues that were made of Moses. And it was to this Thutmoses that scholars attribute 54 years of rule. However, 22 of those years belonged to the man he replaced, Moses. And the historic evidence proves this, too. If we subtract the 22 years from the 54 year total, we are left with 32 years. Now, instead of going through all the evidence, let's just read what one historian has to say about this Thutmoses III: "He passed away after a rule of thirty-two (some say fifty-four) years, having made Egyptian leadership in the Mediterranean world complete." This is from "The Story of Civilization" Vol. 1 by Will Durant, (1954) p. 155. And it truly was 32 years later when the man who became emperor after taking Moses' place, died. Amenhotep II was perhaps the greatest ruler Egypt ever had. By the time of his death, Egypt was truly the world power and the wealthiest nation. Hatshepsut remained alive for many years after Moses fled, and is named as queen on monuments very late into this king's rule."Now let us delve into who really was the Pharaoh of the Exodus:THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS "Upon Amenhotep II's death, his co-regent for 29 years, the 4th Thutmoses, became Amenhotep III. Upon his becoming emperor, he appointed his young son, Tutankhamen, as "crown-prince" and for the next 8/9 years, this pharaoh ruled Egypt. He inherited the throne at a time when Egypt was well established as the world ruler. All he basically had to do was sit back and collect the foreign tribute as it arrived. Egypt had military troops stationed in all the vassal territories and maintained their empire peaceably. In his inscriptions, this emperor makes claims to be a triumphant warrior, but these references are to the time of his co-regency, when he accompanied Amenhotep II in his triumphant exploits. But most interesting about this man is the fact that historical data shows that he actually had no claim to the throne. He was not the first-born of the pharaoh, which was the standard mode of becoming emperor. The well-known "sphinx stele", still present between the paws of the sphinx at Giza, tells the strange story of how Thutmoses IV fell asleep one day in the shadow of the sphinx. He dreamed that the sun god came to him and told him that if he would clear away the sand from around the sphinx, he would make him king. This elaborate story would not have been needed if he had been entitled to the throne as rightful heir. But, it appears that Amenhotep II was also without a royal son. The inscriptions always call the new king the "son" of the previous king, but this is figurative- as referring to Osiris and Horus. But keep in mind that this new pharaoh was not the first born of the last pharaoh. This is important because this new king, Amenhotep III, was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Think about this- all the firstborn were killed by the Angel of Death; if the pharaoh had been a first born, he would have died that night! So it is very important that we establish that this pharaoh was not a firstborn. After reigning as emperor for 8/9 years, we reach the 40th year after Moses had fled Egypt. Remember, the pharaoh who took Moses' place reigned 32 years. Then, this last pharaoh reigned 8/9 years. This equalled the 40 years Moses was in the wilderness of Midian. At this time at the end of the 40 years, Moses returns to the court of pharaoh Amenhotep III as commanded by God. And soon, the plagues began to fall upon Egypt. When the plague of the death of the first born fell by the hand of the Angel of Death, the pharaoh was not striken- but his son was: EXO 11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. Above is a photo of Tutankhamen. This son was the young crown prince known to us all as "King Tut". However, the name is misleading, for we know he was never pharaoh, just crown prince. And while the historians all argue over who his father was, in an inscription on a statue of a lion dedicated by Tutankhamen to the temple of Soleb, he calls Amenhotep III his father. Remember, Amenhotep III was also named Thutmoses IV."I think the above might have answered your question Brian sbout the Sphinx Stele.Now let us keep reading to see that, perhaps we can paint Egyptian history with a very different chronology? Perhaps it isn't so wise to rely solely on traditional Egyptian history, with which even popular Egyptologists around the world admit that it is very confusing?This should answer any questions concerning the mummy confusion that Brian raised earlier:THE ROYAL MUMMIES "Another confusing factor in the identification of the kings and queens is the overabundance of royal mummies. In other words, although Thutmoses III and Amenhotep II are the same man, there have been found mummies for each name. Does this shoot down our theory? No, not in the least. First of all, it is necessary to have an understanding of the ancient Egyptian beliefs concerning death. At death, they believed that a body was necessary for the ba, the ka and the akh to survive. These were, loosely translated, the various "spirit forms" which made up the psychic person and survived after death. However, in cases where the person was unavailable for burial, etc., any body would suffice as long as it was labeled with the name of the deceased. They believed that as long as a person's name was being spoken, or was on the walls of his tomb, his immortality was assured. The name was the most important factor. The following is from "Mummies, Myth and Magic in Ancient Egypt" by Christine El Mahdy (1989) p. 13: "The tomb, the mummy, the equipment, the paintings and reliefs were all designed to help preserve the name of the individual. the greatest horror was to have your name destroyed, cut out from a wall." (Emphasis ours) If the mummy of the actual individual was so vital, why would they fear the desecration of their name? Because it was the key, in their belief, to their immortality. The mummy was important, as were the statues of the deceased. But the mummy could be supplied in a pinch- no problem. Since it was considered a sacred duty of each king to protect the burials of his ancestor-kings, if a king couldn't find a mummy for a particular king, he would provide one as is written in numerous inscriptions. Mummies have been found which the excavators claim to be the mummies of each of the Amenhoteps and each of the Thutmoses. However, a careful examination of all evidence leads one to conclude that the only mummies which are of the actual 18th Dynasty pharaohs in question are the mummy of Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II. Amenhotep I (Thutmoses I) was found in his own tomb, as was Amenhotep II (Thutmoses III). Amenhotep I's mummy was never unwrapped but was x-rayed- and it revealed several genetic peculiarities which were shared by the mummies of several of his ancestors. The most obvious of these was the fact that he had the same type of malocclusion - a very prominent protrusion of the top front teeth - almost an overbite. This genetic feature was seen in all his female relatives - sister, mother, grandmother and daughter. We believe the only authentic mummies of the 18th dynasty kings to be those of Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II. Of course, there wouldn't be a mummy for Amenhotep III as he drowned in the Red Sea. Nor would there be a mummy of Thutmoses II since he was Moses. The others, which are said to be Thutmoses I, III, IV and Amenhotep III we believe to be mummies supplied by later kings, as they were all found in other tombs, in other sarcophaguses, and as they were simply not royal burials. Here are a couple of examples of the evidence which shows these mummies to be extremely doubtful. These concern the mummy said to be that of Thutmoses 1, who is known to have ruled a minimum of 21 years by existing inscriptions: "However, several eminent physical anthropologists who have seen these x-rays have been absolutely convinced that this mummy is that of a young man, perhaps 18 years of age, certainly not over twenty." "X-Raying the Pharaohs" by James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks, (1973) p.131-2. The fact that this mummy is far too young to be this king is evidence enough. But now, let's go back to when the mummy was actually identified as Thutmoses I: "Among the mummies discovered at Deir-el-Bahari was one, which on account of its having been found in a coffin bearing the name of Pinozen I of the XXIst Dynasty, was formerly supposed to be the mummy of that king. Maspero, however, formed the opinion that it was the mummy of Thutmoses I on account of the facial resemblance which it bore to the Pharaohs Thutmoses II and III" "Egyptian Mummies" by G. Elliot Smith and Warren R. Dawson (1924) p. 91. This mummy was identified as Thutmoses I, because he seemed to favor the other mummies. Not a strong basis for identification. Plus that fact that the mummy said to be Thutmoses III was also determined to be far too young- plus the fact that he was just barely five feet tall. Then, there is the mummy of Thutmoses IV, who was extremely emaciated and identified as just barely 30 years old. It doesn't even take careful study to realize that these mummies are "impostors"."Looks like Wyatt is doing a pretty good job at providing sources. I trust you trust him, at least to some extent.THE "EGYPTIAN WATERGATE" "The year is about 1446 BC. The Egyptian pharaoh, his army and all the members of all the priesthoods have left in great haste. They are enraged that their entire slave population has fled, even though less than a week earlier the pharaoh and his ministers had virtually begged them to leave. The Egyptians lavished the great multitude of slaves with objects of gold, silver and precious stones as supposed "payment" for all the work they had done as slaves. EXO 12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: 36 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians. The Hebrew words in this text that are translated "borrow" and "lent" are the same word, "shaal". And this word simply means "ask", "demand" "request", "give", etc. Only 6 times in the entire Bible is it translated "borrow" and 2 times as "lend" or "lent". But 87 times it is translated "ask" and in excess of 60 times is it translated to read other words which mean simply "ask".

​

The verses are telling us that they "asked" for these things, as God had told them to do so they would not be a destitute nation. And the Egyptians were quite happy to comply with whatever they asked. The fear of God was in the Egyptians after the terrible plagues which had befallen them by the Hand of the Israelites' God. Back home in Egypt, the entire country is trying to recover from the catastrophic destruction the country has suffered as a results of the plagues brought by the God of the slaves, "I AM".

​

Every family is in mourning for the loss of their first born. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been experienced by these people. The crown-prince, the young boy, Tutankhamen, is being mourned by the entire nation and preparations are being made for his burial. But mostly, all is at a standstill until the pharaoh, the ministers of state, the army and the priesthoods all return with the slaves. Throughout the land, the continuous sound of mourning can be heard from sun up to sun down, and even throughout the night. The pharaoh, as soon he ascended the throne 8/9 years earlier as emperor, had taken as his "great wife and queen" a lady of foreign blood by the name of Tiy. When he had been co-regent in Memphis, he had been married to a royal daughter, as was tradition.

​

It was this royal lady who had given birth to his firstborn, Tutankhamen. But it was the "common" foreign wife whom he elevated to "great king's wife and queen" as soon as he was "boss"- and this lady was to play a big part in later events of Egyptian history after the Exodus. But now, back to the story at hand. Soon, word arrives at the palace in Memphis that is too fantastic to be believed- the entire Egyptian army, all of the priesthood and the pharaoh himself have all perished! All drowned in the Red Sea while in pursuit of the slaves! The confusion, grief, fear and agony of the entire country is impossible to imagine. But very quickly, it becomes utmost in the minds of those remaining that knowledge of what has happened must be kept secret.

​

The previous emperor had secured the position of Egypt as the world power. All nations feared as well as respected Egypt. They all, for the most part, brought their tribute regularly to the palaces, and Egypt had want of absolutely nothing. She had no need to ever go to war for the nations feared her great army. If word of what happened here became known, Egypt could lose her control over her vassal territories and that would mean financial disaster. There is a miraculously-preserved record of the last official correspondences of the pharaoh who drowned in the Red Sea, as well as correspondences with the later pharaoh, and even Tiy. These are contained in the group of tablets found in ancient Amarna, called the Tel-Amarna Letters. In these were found correspondences to this pharaoh of the Exodus, Amenhotep 3, from the Babylonian king, Kadashman-Enlil and the Mittanni king, Tushratta, which serve to verify other world events of this time. The greatest contender for world power, after Egypt, at the time of the Exodus was the rapidly emerging Hittite Empire. And the greatest Hittite king, Suppiluliumas, had just taken the throne a few years earlier. The Egyptians were sitting ducks if word leaked out... Time passed; the Egyptians tried to pick up the pieces and go on with their lives, but it was difficult. The only thing they had in their favor was the fact that they were so isolated from the rest of the world. No one could enter the country without being detected far before they arrived. Careful precautions were taken to see that the true situation was not discerned by others. There was but one person in Egypt who had the royal right to seat a new pharaoh- this was the original great royal wife of Amenhotep 3- the mother of Tutankhamen.

​

But, her situation was not an easy one. Remember, when her husband took the throne as emperor, he took a non-royal wife and she became his favorite. "My Husband has died and I have no son!" The true, royal wife of the royal bloodline took the only step she knew to take to secure strong leadership for the country and provide protection and security for Egypt. She wrote a letter to the Hittite king. We can learn about this in an inscription left behind by the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas' son: "...When the people of Misra `My husband is dead and I have no son. People say that you have many sons. If you send me one of your sons he will become my husband for it is repugnant to me to take one of my servants to husband.' When my father learned this, he called together the council of the great: `Since the most ancient times such a thing has never happened before.' He decided to send Hattu-Zittish, the chamberlain, `Go, bring me information worthy of belief; they may try to deceive me; and as to the possibility that they may have a prince, bring me back information worthy of my belief.' While Hattu-Zittish was absent on the soil of Egypt, my father vanquished the city of Karchemish... The ambassador of Egypt, the lord Hanis, came to him. Because my father had instructed Hattu-Zittish when he went to the country of Egypt as follows: `Perhaps they have a prince, they may be trying to deceive me and do not really want one of my sons to reign over them.'; the Egyptian queen answered my father in a letter in these words; `Why do you say `they are trying to deceive me?'If I had a son, should I write to a foreign country in a manner humiliating to me and to my country? You do not believe me and you even say so to me! He who was my husband is dead and I have no son. Should I then perhaps take one of my servants and make of him my husband? I have written no other country, I have written to you..." There is more, but for the sake of space, we will just tell you what happened. Suppiluliumas finally believed her and sent a son. However, that son never made it to Egypt. No one knows what happened to him exactly, but we do know what happened next. However, before we leave this most important letter, we must point out that the most convincing evidence of all is the fact that the queen who wrote the Hittite king makes it quite clear that all who remain in Egypt are her "servants"! Is this not a perfect description of the situation that would have resulted after all the royal ministers, priests and army had drowned in the Red Sea? The scholars assign the name of the dead pharaoh "Bibhuria" as being that of "Tutankhamen", for one of his names was "Neb-kheper-ru-re"; however, we believe it should be transliterated "Neb-maat-Re", which was one of the names of Amenhotep 3. Either way, the evidence is equally strong. Either the royal wife or the royal daughter (who was symbolically "married" to Tutankhamen) of the dead pharaoh would have retained the royal right to do this. So it really doesn't matter which wife wrote the letter as far as the evidence goes."RIVALRY FOR POWER "Meanwhile, time passes in the devastated Egypt. Petty quarrels arise between the true royal wife and the favored foreign wife of the dead pharaoh. It becomes a power struggle- but one that must remain confidential in order that the outside world not realize the vulnerability of Egypt. There is not clear evidence as to the exact events which next occurred, but there is enough evidence to generally know. The winner in the power struggle was the favored, foreign wife, Tiy. She took a man as her husband who was named "Eye" or "Ay" - a man who left behind evidence that he assumed the role of pharaoh for about 3 to 4 years, but a man who is not later recognized as a true king of Egypt in inscriptions of later kings. It was this man who officiated at the burial of the crown-prince, Tutankhamen.

​

The evidence clearly shows that Tutankhamen was buried very hastily and that most of the items of his burial were not originally his. The names had been changed from that of his father to his- remember, his father had drowned in the Red Sea and had no burial. "Akhnaten" Tiy was still the power behind the throne, even though Eye was "officially" the pharaoh. And within 3 or 4 years, she had elevated her son to the throne, as soon as he was old enough. He was known initially as "Amenhotep 4", but is best known today as "Akhnaten". He was a true son of the dead pharaoh, but as his mother was of foreign descent, he was not a legitimate contender for the throne. Only in a situation such as Egypt was in at that time could he have ever taken the throne. And while history records Akhnaten as being the pharaoh, it is evident that it was really his mother who was directing from the background.

​

Those of you who have done any research on Egypt are obviously aware of Akhnaten, and that Egyptologists credit him with shifting the religious system of ancient Egypt from one of many gods to a system of monotheistic worship. And to a degree, this is true. Let's return to ancient Egypt and the events there... Tiy, who is now wed to Eye, or Ay as some spell it, finally places her son in the role of emperor. For a while, he is known as Amenhotep 4. He is obviously quite young- one letter found at Amarna from Tushratta, the Mitanni king, tells him to be sure and listen to his mother. The ancient inscriptions and statues depict him as a strange, pot-bellied man married to a beautiful wife named Nefertiti, with a large family of young girls. But in fact, the evidence seems to show that all of this was in fact a cover-up; a made-up story to lend credibility to the fantasy that Egypt had a strong pharaoh calling the shots. The chronology of the ancient records give this fact away by conflicting accounts of the ages of his children, as well as other chronological blunders.

​

With no priesthood left for the worship of the numerous gods of Egypt, Tiy institutes, through the so-called authority of her son, the pharaoh, a reorganization of the religious system. All prior gods are forgotten. After all, hadn't they all failed miserably when pitted against the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? It is the god called "Aten" that is now worshipped- but, in fact, this "Aten" is just another form of the old sun-god, "Amen" and "Re". And apparently, "Aten" was the god of Tiy's native land. Since records show that Tiy was worshipped as a goddess in Nubia, and Aten was the Nubian god, we feel safe in assuming she was of Nubian descent. Also, the art-style of this period reflected the Nubian style. The old capitals of Memphis and Thebes are forsaken by the new ruling house and a new capital is built at a site between the other 2 cities. It is called "Amarna". And it is here that Tiy, Eye (Ay), Akhnaton and his "family" all reside. After a few years, the tomb of Tutankhamen is reopened and new furnishings are placed in the tomb- new items which contain the name of the new pharaoh in order to please the gods according to their beliefs. All of these sort of actions are taken for a dual purpose- to comply with their religious beliefs which require each emperor to care for the burial of their ancestors, and also to cover-up the true events which took place. The shame that Egypt suffered at the tremendous losses at the Hand of the Great, I AM, were to be carefully obliterated from any surviving Egyptian records.

​

Meanwhile, in Palestine, the Egyptian vassals are in trouble. The Tel-Amarna Letters show that these cities, which were under Egyptian control, were being threatened by the Amurru and the Hittites. They pleaded with the pharaoh to send troops, but as one letter stated, no help had been received for 20 years. The situation was deteriorating fast. The Egyptians still had no army to speak of. After all, every trained military man had been lost in the Red Sea, and with no military leaders, even an army of able soldiers would be virtually worthless without proper leadership and training. In time, the Egyptians finally rebelled against the strange leadership which had sprung up under the guidance of the foreign queen, Tiy. Evidence shows that the entire Amarna family probably died as a result of a plague. Whatever really happened, the events which took place in ancient Egypt back then are a strong testimony to the Biblical record- no matter how hard the historians may try to interpret them otherwise. "The Omen of the Sun" The evidence we will deal with in this scenario is something which takes us into the time that the great multitude finally entered the promised land. Remember the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas who received the letter from the Egyptian queen? Murshilish, his son, left a record of an event which occurred in his 10th year- and it is important to establish about when this event would have occurred. The reign of Suppiluliumas is known to be in excess of 30 years and that he came to the throne just before the Exodus. We know that after he died, another son took the throne for a very short period of time, but died of a plague.

​

The records show that this first son held the throne less than a year. Therefore, if Suppiluliumas died about 30 years after the Exodus, his next son died within that same year, and the son writing of this event reigned 9 full years and was in his 10th when it occurred, this would place the time of the event at about 40 years after the Exodus. I know this is getting complicated, but its important to show when the 10th year of Murshilish would have been. The event of which Murshilish wrote was "an omen of the sun" that was so sinister that the dowager queen, Tawanna, interpreted it as portending the eminent disaster of the entire royal house. What was this "omen of the sun"? Scholars want to assign it to being an eclipse, but many historians deny that possibility. The fact is that these ancient peoples were all well familiar with eclipses- they possessed the ability to calculate when they were to occur. There is but one event which perfectly fits the description of an omen of the sun, sufficiently frightening enough to cause the queen to view it as an evil omen- an omen that occurred about 40 years after the Exodus-- and we can read of that event in the Bible: JOS 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

​

The "long day" of Joshua, soon after they had entered the promised land after 40 years of wandering, is recorded in the records of the Hittite king, Murshilish! "The Plagues of the Egyptians" Murshilish provided another evidence for us, which verified another Biblical fact- let's go to the Scriptures, where Moses is speaking to the people after they had come out of Egypt: DEU 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; Moses tells that the Lord will cast out the people who inhabit the promised land, and that the Hittites are among those who will be cast out. Now, let's go back to the same chapter in Deuteronomy where Moses tells them how the Lord will accomplish this: DEU 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee. What exactly were these evil diseases of Egypt? DEU 28:27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. Whatever these diseases were, we know for sure that they were fatal. Now, let's read what Murshilish wrote in his "Plague Prayers", a prayer to the Hittite storm-god- and remember, Murshilish was Hittite king at the time Joshua led the people into the Promised Land: "What is this that ye have done? a plague ye have let into the land.

​

The Hatti land has been cruelly afflicted by the plague. For twenty years now men have been dying in my father's days, in my brother's days, and in mine own since I have become the priest of the gods....My father sent foot soldiers and charioteers who attacked the country of Amqa, Egyptian territory. Again he sent troops, and again they attacked it....The Hattian Storm-god, my lord, by his decision even then let my father prevail; he vanquished and smote the foot soldiers and charioteers of the country of Egypt. But when he brought back to the Hatti land the prisoners which they had taken, a plague broke out among the prisoners and they began to die.

​

When they moved the prisoners to the Hatti land, these prisoners carried the plague into the Hatti land. From that day on, people have been dying in the Hatti land." The Hittites caught the plague from the Egyptian soldiers who were stationed in Amqa, Egyptian territory above Lebanon. And those who contracted the plague, died. Again, we can read a contemporary account of the events exactly as stated in the Bible!"JERICHO "We will conclude our discussion of the Exodus with the evidence found at Jericho. In the past few years atheistic archaeologists have tried to discount the original work done at Jericho, which showed clearly that it was destroyed in precisely the manner described in the Bible by Joshua, and also the ironclad evidence that proved who the kings of Egypt were at the time of the Exodus. Due to lack of space, we must recommend that you obtain the book "New Bible Evidence" by Sir Charles Marston (1934) to read about the tremendous amount of information which verifies the destruction of Jericho at about 1407 BC. We will however, give one quote as an example from page 135 "So great was the importance of verifying the date of the destruction, that in 1930, Professor Garstang and his wife cleaned and examined no fewer than sixty thousand fragments from the strata of the burned city. At the expedition the following year (1931), another forty thousand fragments were treated in a similar manner. They attested to the same date, that of the middle of the late Bronze Age (1400 BC) before the infiltration of the Mykenean ware." But equally exciting was the discovery of the cemetery of this city, as we read on page 136: In due course a number of tombs were opened that proved to belong to the century 1500-1400 BC and included royal tombs of the period. There were found a succession of eighty scarabs bearing the cartouches of the eighteenth dynasty Pharaohs.In one was unearthed scarabs bearing the joint names of Princess Hatshepsut and Thotmes III (1501-1487 BC) and in another two royal seals of Amenhetep III...As the series of dated scarabs all come to an end with the two royal seals of Amenhetep III, there is evidence, quite independent of the pottery, that the city also ceased to exist during that period." Amazing, isn't it, that all this fantastic evidence is hidden deep within old books collecting dust in libraries? But it IS there! And we have only touched on the basics of this information--there is much more out there. Summary We realize that it isn't necessary to salvation that we know all these things about ancient history, but I personally can say this: no matter what, NOTHING can ever shake my faith in the Biblical account because I KNOW it is completely and totally factual. And God has preserved all these evidences of His Truth that NONE of us should have any reason for doubt. There was a particular time when Ron was discouraged in this work. And at that time, he read a verse--a verse that kept him going all these years: ISA 45:3 "And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by name, am the God of Israel." Even though Cyrus was being addressed in this verse, it is a promise to us all. He will not leave us in doubt. Recommended Reference Reading Archaeology and the Bible by George A. Barton New Bible Evidence by Sir Charles Marston A History of Egypt by James Henry Breasted "Ancient Records of Egypt II" by * "Life in Ancient Egypt" by Adolph Erman "The Ancient Egyptians" by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson "The Monuments of Senenmut" by Peter F. Dorman "X-Raying the Pharaohs" by Jas. E. Harris & Kent Weeks "Egyptian Mummies" by G. Elliot Smith & Warren Dawson "Mummies, Myth and Magic" by Christine El Mahdy "The Ancient Near East, Vol 1" edited by James B. Pritchard "Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol II" by Miriam Lichtheim "Records of the Past, volumes 1-6" edited by A. H. Sayce "Tutankhamen" by Christine Desroches-Noblecourt "The Scepter of Egypt, vol II" by William C. Hayes "When Egypt Ruled the East" by George Steindorff & Keith Seele "History of Ancient Egypt", volume 2" by George Rawlinson "Akhenaten" by Cyril Aldred "Akhenaton the Heretic King" by Donald B. RedfordAfterall, it seems that Ron did know his stuff. He did extensive research in this area, and I commend him for it. Some good sources there.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-18-2004 06:20 PM

---

~Lysimachus

Mmm, Brian, I believe you spoke too soon. You've poo pooed the empirical evidence, the Chariot junkyard in the sea accompanied by substantial corroborating factors, all in their proper order to fit the Biblical record. Now accompanied by all this we are beginning to learn that we have a reason for Egypt not coming to the aid of the Palestinian colonies and we are finding that the pharoah mysteries are coming to be placed in the overall puzzle so as to see clearly the picture that we see in that Biblical record.The Biblical record is like the puzzle box with the picture on the box. The pieces are historical and archeological findings that piece by piece are being put in their proper place to match what is seen on the box top. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-18-2004 10:48 PM

Hi Lysimachus. I'm glad to see you're on the mend and that God is answering our prayers. Our church has prayed for you and specifically that God would cause you either to heal instantly or that you would heal unusually fast. I do appreciate that you are using this time to bless us here again at EvC. I see I need to get the Exodus Story, the book to fill in on so much that is not in the Video. Thanks very much for all the info you have supplied thus far. It will be interesting to see how the debate goes. I did the best I could with what I had to go on while you were out, but didn't have the goods on the pharoahs, so am relieved that you're back. One thing for sure is that truth, if tenaciously sought eventually surfaces and after all, that's what we are striving for.I had an accident which could have been rather bad while you were away. I injured my foot moving a heavy hardwood desk. It left a crease across the top of my bony foot. I was on crutches the night it happened as I could not walk on it. I tried going to bed but the weight of the covers made it throb. I then changed to the davenport so my foot against the arm of the davenport and the covers were above the foot. My wife prayed for me and I smeared the contents of vit E capsule on it and taped a large slab of sliced slimy aloe leaf over the wound. By mid morning the throbbing subsided and by morning I could walk with a cane. By noon I needed nothing. I've said all the above to say this: If I were you I'd get hold of some hefty aloe vera plants, slice the fattest leaves, smear some vit E oil on and tape the aloe over the sore areas if at all possible. However, if it's all wrapped in a cast, maybe that's impossible. I don't know how these cages you're in work. Anyhow we continue to pray for you that a speedy recovery will recover and that you will continue to bless us here with more good stuff as you are doing for the cause of truth. May God bless you.

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.

Lysimachus is correct. Only a portion of the video features Moller. It begins with the work of an Austrian archeological team's find of a horseshoe designed settlement of foreigners with dates right for this and which as they put it, is designed consistent with other Hebrew settlements, etc. There is also a woman archeologist unrelated to the Moller team interested in this featured in the video who went in from the Saudi shore directly across from the Nuweiba beach peninsula and found more chariot wheels, showing that a crossing was indeed attempted by a large contingent of chariots, men and horses. A ship going down with a couple of chariots aboard would not possibly explain this. I don't remember her name or the nation she was from.