"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

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

Well, I can see that we arn't going to get much accomplished here as far as helping unbelievers reconsider the possibility of the biblical record to hold any truth regarding divine intervention. I had high hopes that atheists might evaluate their hearts and see that perhaps there is a living God, the one of the Bible, that truly does care and love them. In many cases, it takes evidence such as this to help them believe.Jesus said to Thomas in John 20:29 "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.How sad. The least thing you would think is for people to not believe EVEN after they have seen, but sadly, we must accept that this doesn't even always work. It has worked for some I know, but I have yet to see personally where someone will come to Christ because of the evidence and see their need of a living saviour. But one thing is for sure, by God's grace I will not give up!I will continue to do my part in showing the evidence--regardless of how much people would like to say it is "no evidence at all". It is just amazing to me how people cannot see this. It is so clear. It seems that people would at least, AT LEAST, reconsider the possibility that "high-credentialed" scientists and archeologists could be wrong, and that perhaps there is some authenticity in the possibility that Egyptian history has been written wrong. There are enough odd shaped coral remains, some are obviously chariot wheels and bodies, others are not so obvious but give the appearance of reckage randomly scattered on the sandy underwater landbridge, right across Neweiba beach, right in the direction toward Midian where the true Mt. Sinai is located. All this plus more are little dots connecting together so nicely. Of course one cannot deny there are some dots missing. There are always dots missing when it comes to historical accuracy. But the fact remains, if even Egyptologists are as confused as they are on Egyptian chronology and history, and are continually arguing over mummy's etc., this allots us the license to attribute this confusion as due to the fact that the studies conducted have not been revolved around any Exodus event. But in so doing, one can see that a lot of mysteries can be solved, and that the Exodus actually helps piece together Egyptian history rather than scramble it.We'll see where all this begins to head once the 3 part mini-series, The Exodus Case, is released on Television world wide. I sure wish they would indicate which station it will be played on. It looks like it is put together more professionally even than The Exodus Revealed video, and that video alone was done quite well.

quote:

---

So the fact is that there are people who explicitly state that Lysimachus is wrong, there is some evidence to support their view and neither you nor Lysimachus have produced any evidence to the contrary. Indeed the original post in this thread emphasises Moller's role. I find it rather interesting in that first Wyatt's contribution was played down and now Moller's role - originally strongly emphasised - is also being minimised.

---

I will admit that there are some areas which I am uneducated on which prohibit me to counter some points that have been made. The problem is, I'm soon going to be reading a book about traditional Egyptian history and their dynasties. My brother and I will carefully compare and see what doesn't make sense and what does. These threads won't be dying soon, so as time elapses, more knowledge will be contributed to this thread. So do not worry. Hydarnes is gone on a trip with my father to Florida, and will not be back in a month or so. He too will mostlikely delve deep into these threads and provide his good insight of Egyptian history.As for Wyatt. I admit that the "discoveries" discussed by Moller are most certainly accredited to Wyatt. Moller even gives Wyatt all the credit. However, Wyatt has passed away. He died in 1999. But now new studies are being conducted in at these sites hold water, and archeologists are beginning to realize that his claims had more authenticity than had been supposed. It is interesting how Ron's critics were never able to prove Wyatt wrong, but rather continued to formulate lies to help ruin their expeditions. Ron was extremely short on fonds, and the day that he wanted to excavate the Egyptian remains happened to be a hot day, of 120 degrees. Ron's skin was extremely sensitive, and therefore he was unable to get his wet suit on. This forced him to stop and was unable to continue. People criticized him and told asked him why he didn't bring this stuff up for analysis. He tried hard, but he couldn't get the necessary funds nor equipment. Also, the flights were set, and you would lose the money if you did not return home on the given date. Before he was able to finish his work, he passed away.But now new scientists such as Moller are carrying on this work of investigation, and are using much more sophisticated diving equipment--equipment in which Ron was never able to afford.Unfortunately, there are some people (acclaimed archeologists) who are claiming these discoveries to be of their own. These people, such as Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams are disshonest. For example, they claim to be the founders of the true Mt. Sinai, Jebel Al Lawz. If you ever see their documentary program, The Search for the True Mount Sinai, you will notice that the do not mention Ron once in the picture. The reality is, Ron had orginally told these men about the mountain, and this aroused their interest. They went to the site and then claimed they found Mount Sinai. But in order to be "unique" and not look so conspicuous, they felt compelled to formulate their own theory by adding a twist. So in order for their claims to be a "bit" unique from Rons, they went ahead and claimed that the crossing took place at the lower end of Aqaba, at the Strait of Tiran, which is absolute ludicrous to say the least, since the underwater topography does not allow for such a crossing to take place--even though they continue to falsly claim that there is evidence of such a landbridge. There is a landbridge, but it is a rather awkward shaped one, with very odd shaped terrain. The Isralites would have had to climb jagged peaks etc. which would have proven to be a disaster. I don't believe God would have made it that hard for the Israelites to cross. Plus their are no archeological remains at the bottom of the Strait of Tiran that indicate any archeological significance--just normal looking coral.Despite the unfortunate fact that there are contentions over the claims of these various discoveries, at least this does go to show that others are seeing the same stuff and agreeing. The fact remains, Ron was the originator of all of it, whether other scientists want to agree with him or not.You may ask, "Why would Ron, single Ron, happen to be the discoverer of ALL of these sites? That sounds fishy to me". I can see how you could think this. However, let me point out that Ron used the Bible as his geogographic guide. He was one "true" biblical archeologist. He did extensive research on the geography known back in ancient times, and the locations of places according to old maps. He did not use modern maps of today. To his discovery as well as the discovery of many others, the locations of various places painted on modern maps are highly questionable, and in many cases, have question marks next to the names. Basing his searches on the Bible, the writings of Josephus, and various old maps, this helped Ron come to the location of these sites rather quickly.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-20-2004 11:03 PM

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

The Austrian teams findings are almost certainly those Brian mentioned which do not show a specifically Israelite presence. They were interpreted as such for a while but it was found that the building type is found elsewhere in Canaan and is not diagnostic of Israelite presence.

---

And where is this documented? What I understand is that the architecture of these buildings was 100% identical to the architecture of Hebrew buildings found in Caanan. Also, why would these buildings be right in the location where the Bible speaks that the Israelites dwelt? In the land of Goshen! We know that the land of Goshen was supposed to be the richest part of Egypt, a place where it was easy to grow crops. The buildings have been found right in this "rich" location. Although there may not be 100% and absolutely proof that these buildings were solely of Hebrew origin, it is just one of the many links which help us put the Exodus story together in logical order. But even if this evidence did not exist, it would not negate all the other overwhelming evidence as to the locations of the crossing, Mt. Sinai, the 12 Bitter Springs, the "Well of Moses" (a name that was handed down for centuries for a well in the area), the Split Rock of Horeb, the 12 Alters at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the grand plain in which the encamped, the fact that Mt. Sinai is "the highest mountain in the land of Midian", the fact that there is one cave on Mt. Sinai--Elijah's cave, the engraved bulls on the alters that are identical to the bull inscriptions in Egypt, etc. etc. All these discoveries are found along the path which the Israelites would have taken. And this is not EVIDENCE?? *sigh*

---

~Lysimachus

Right. So far no evidence. Glad we finally agree.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

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

quote:

---

Well it's not the fault of the unbelievers that you have not produced much in the way of evidence. If you really had the evidence and chose not to produce it then you need to ask yourself why you held it back. Obviously we are not going to take the opinions of a shady character like Ron Wyatt with no qualifications over the consensus of the experts. It takes evidence.

​

So the simple question is, when you say that the evidence exists do you mean that you have it, or just that you have been told that it exists ?

---

Why is it that you like to put Ron Wyatt in front and pretend that he is all that revolves around these discoveries? I have already told you that there is a great number of scientists and archeologists analyzing and verifying the claims of Ron Wyatt. I can get you the list of them later. Ron was unable to excavate as much as he wished. He was very dissapointed that he was unable to do more exploring and excavating. Ron's health had been degenerating, and it prevented him from completing a lot of unfinished work. This is where the other scientists come in.By the way, incase you didn't know, very positive things have been written about Ron's discoveries in the WorldNetDaily News. I strongly recommend you read these Exclusive reviews WorldNetDaily. They will provide quite a bit of insite concerning the criticisms that went flying back and forth:Pharaoh's chariots found in Red Sea? 'Physical evidence' of ancient Exodus prompting new look at Old Testament: POSTED JUNE 21, 2003 (2003!!!)
Page not found - WNDReal-life raiders hunt Ark of the Covenant
Relic searchers dig near Jesus' crucifixion site in quest for chest holding 10 Commandments POSTED 2003 (filming was in 2003)Note: I saw the DVD filming of this last years dig. My friend Andrew filmed 50-75% of it at the digging site. They are very close to excavating the true Ark of the Covenant, in which it plainly states in the book of Macabees that where they are digging is the exact location. Read this entire article very thoroughly:Page not found - WNDNew claim over discovery of the lost Ark of the Covenant
POSTED 1999.Quoted from the article:
"There are many who believe his findings are genuine, and there are a few who are not so willing to accept his claims."Did you read that carefully? "MANY"! and few are not so willing to accept his claims. Now read this article carefully...it will explain as to why Ron believes the Ark of the Covenant is under Mt. Moriah, the same Mt. which Jesus was crucified.Page not found - WNDHis discoveries area lot more popular than you think, and WorldNetDaily seems to agree with these finds based on the positive remarks.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be better for you to produce YOUR evidence ? You're the one claiming to have the evidence. I can't even be certain that excavation I read about is the same one. If you are really talking about making a scientific case then you really do need to be able to identify the excavation and the style of the buildings. And the dating evidence will also be needed if it is to be tied into your story.

​

Moreover there seems to be a flaw in your reasoning. If you want to show that there were Hebrews in Egypt - especially in the Nile delta - then you need a distinctively Hebrew style of building. A style that was used by Hebrews is not enough - not if many other people who could be expected to be in the region also used it.

---

I told you how to solve this problem. Invest 13 bucks to purchase the video, and you will see these buildings reconstructed in 3D computer graphics. They are 100% identical in every way shape and form to the Hebrew buildings built in Canaan.Also, let me clarify. Goshen WAS NOT A TOWN! It was an area of LAND. The fact that it is an area of land is repeatec each time Gosh is named..."the land of Goshen". The land of Goshen was also called "the land of Rameses", or just "Rameses". In this land of Goshen in the rich Nile Delta, these buildings have been excavated. They HAD to be Hebrew, since the Bible tells us that Jacob and his family dwelt in this land.Here is a link that describe in more detail concerning these excavated buildings, as well as dating (what you wanted). It also quotes from The Exodus Revealed Video:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/exodus.html

quote:

---

As for the other listed "discoveries" I have yet to examine them in detail - mainly because little detail has been provided. Cetainly not "overwhelming evidence" or much more than the assertion that these things were found by Ron Wyatt.

---

I think you will find it rather hard to dispute the finds of thousands of sulpher balls laiden on the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no naturalistic explanation, and no evidence of volcanic activity in the area. In fact, no such balls of sulpher have been found anywhere in the world!

---

~Lysimachus

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

Often this is the way God works. He uses the weak to confound the wise. This happens over and over in the OT. David and Goliath are a good example. Seldom did he use the strong and the powerful to do his bidding. Why? Because God want's his creatures to recognize and honor himself. He delights in showing his might and power when his creatures will trust him fully. When I heard Ron lecture after his expeditions, he came across as a very humble person, railing at none of his critics and caring not that they were trying to get the credit, but that the information was getting out. He said he didn't know himself why God chose him to find these things. I believe it's because he followed the strict Biblical fundamentals in tracking them plus he said he spent a lot of time and effort in interviewing local herdsmen and folks whose ancestors had passed down stories about this and that pertaining to the things Ron was researching. Another reason is that Ron had a very positive faith in God and in his word to the point that he was willing to actually go out into dangerous areas and diligently search for what he was so sure he should find because of the homework he had done. His life is quite an incredible story as it all is coming to light.

Paul, you should require half as much evidence for some of the incredible stuff you ascribe to concerning natural selection and things which you are so sure came about hundreds of millions to billions of years ago. It's very obvious that you are poopoing all this evidence because to admit any of it would be devastating to all you believe. However there will come a judgement of all men in the by and by and this light which you and so many here are priviledged to witness will come to haunt and condemn you at that time. God has done the miracles and preserved the evidence. What more can one ask. You people are like the pharasees who witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead and immediately went about to kill the healer saviour, Jesus.

Typical Buzsaw. All I am asking for is the evidence that Lysimachus says exists. Even enough infomation to confirm that the archaeological study was the one I had heard of would be an improvement.As for evolution even if I all I had was popular works at the least I would know that those works had the backing of the community of experts - and in fact they often are written by scientists with elevant expertese (Steve Jones, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins to name three). This is more than I have had from Lysimachus which is essentially his memory of what was shown on a popular level video which goes firmly against the views of the relevant experts on several points and is based on the work of a charavter who appears less than trustworthy.But I have more than that. I have read degree-level books and even relevant scientific papers. Have either you or Lysimachus tracked down the reports of the archaeologists you talk about ? It seems not - you can't even remember their names. Neither of you seem even familiar with popular-level accounts of the 18th Dynasty - the association of Senmut with Hatshpeshut's reign should have been a red flag as should the claim that Amenhotep I was Thutmosis I.Go on Buz - call me biased because I ask for evidence rather than worshipping you. Tell me that God is so partial and unjust that he will condemn me for prefferring evidence and reason to "Buzsaw says so". It won't change my mind. Your false accusatiosn and empty threats only show how hollow your case is.

Amen to that Buzsaw! Very well said. PaulK will one day see what we are saying. He needs to tremble this very moment that this could be his opportunity to accept truth, and that there is a God trying to reach out to him through human instraments in this forum.

---

~Lysimachus

PaulK, I hope you will one day realize that "degree-level books" and so called "experts" are being used by the enemy to deceive the masses. Those badges and wigs they are wearing don't mean a thing in God's eyes. These so called "experts" have been trained in schools in which the teachers who taught them are unbelieving athiests, and are naturally going to teach science in a form that will seemingly counter the teachings of scripture, so therefore, once these "experts" attain their degrees, they boast in themselves and say, "you better listen to us, because look, WE have the degrees", when in reality, their degrees prove to be nothing but a curse to them and humanity--playing detrimental pyschology on the minds of many.Do you have any clue how you even obtain a degree? You take so many classes, until finally once you have passed the tests, you get your degree. But the classes have ungodly teachers raising more ungodly scientists.To me, a true archeologist is one that studies on his own, has a fair knowledge of chemistry, biology, DNA, bacteria, etc., and then goes out and weighs out the evidence from an unbiased approach. Many scientists who have obtained high degrees are extremely biased, simply for the fact that they were taught in universities who consider evolution as fact. You do not need any incredible high degree to prove these findings. They are simply there for a baby to spot and need very little analysis. On the other hand, evolutionists have to go out of their way to assemble various fragmented bone parts just to put together a theory of the "missing link".

quote:

---

the association of Senmut with Hatshpeshut's reign should have been a red flag as should the claim that Amenhotep I was Thutmosis I.

---

What about the association? I have seen no red flag as of yet. Just because there is evidence indicating Hatshepsut was Senmut's tutor? That is proof that he was not considered Moses' Egyptian mother? To me, it's the same difference. Just the fact that there is such an association should raise a red flag to you that perhaps there is a connection between Moses and his Egyptian mother and Senmut and Hatshepsut.To make things a bit clearer, according to the inscriptions, it mentions Nefure and Senmut, and it is very likely that it was princess Nefure who found Moses in the Nile reeds and adopted him to have an heir to the throne. In early inscriptions when she is a princess she is referred to as Nefure. Later when she ascends the throne and becomes queen probably her name/title changes to Hatshepsut.We must remember that there is an interesting comment about Senmut in the literature; "It is probably that Senmut abused his power and that at a particular point in the reign of Hatshepsut he fell into disgrace, as deomonstrated by the damage done to most of his monuments." This is EXACTLY what happened to Moses according to the Bible text: From an Egyptian perspective he fell into disgrace when he escaped from Egypt and it is obvious that a person, the heir to the throne, doing this would have everything in terms of monuments, statues, scrolls etc., destroyed. A persion doing what Moses did, must, according to Eguptian traditions - be erased from the history.Tyldesley writes a chapter on Senmut in the interesting review of Hatshepsut. A number of known, strange and in many cases unclear facts related to Senmut are discussed. In the following table some of these characteristics of Senmut will be commented in relation to the hypothesis that Senmut and Moses were the same person:A comparsion of Senmuts characteristics from ref 35 in relation to Moses as described in the Bible texts, mainly the book of Exodus(B), and in some cases in relation to descriptions by Josephus(J).SENMUT------------------------------------------MOSES"...son of humble parents."---------------Son of Hebrew slaves (B)"Unfortunately, we have no----------------Moses was found in the reeds of
means of knowing when---------------------the Nile at the age of three
Senmut had started his--------------------months by the princess at the
illustrious royal career."----------------royal court (B)."Driven by a burning desire to
shake off his lowly origins..."-----------Lowly origins(slaves)(B)."He rose rapidly through
the ranks..."-----------------------------Became heir to the throne (B)."...before quitting the army..."----------Was a general (J)."...to join the palace bureau-
cracy..."---------------------------------Was trained to be pharaoh (B)."...now took the calculated---------------His only link to the royal court
decision to link his future---------------was via his stempmother, the
totally with that of Hatshepsut."---------princess who adopted him (B)."...he was a close personal---------------He was adopted by the royal
friend to the royal family."--------------family (B).------------------------------------------According to the
------------------------------------------hypothesis of The Exodus Case
"...most typically holding the-----------the statues shows Nefure
Nefure in his arms."----------------------holding moses
------------------------------------------in her arms."...sitting with Nefure...held at---------According to the hypothesis of
right angles in his lap, a position-------The Exodus Case it was Nefure
hitherto reserved for women---------------holding Moses, according to
nursing children."------------------------Egptian customs.------------------------------------------He was to become the ruler and
"Effectively, Senmut was ruler------------was, before his escape,
of Egypt".--------------------------------co-ruler (B)."The discovery of the shared
tom of Ramose and Hatnofer,
Senmut's parents, confirms
that Senmut was not of
particulary high birth."------------------Moses parents were slaves (B)"Ramose and Hanofer...did not
play a prominent role in public-----------Moses parents was not public
life."------------------------------------people in Egypt (B)."Nor is there any evidence to
suggest that Senmut ever------------------Moses was not married during
married..."-------------------------------his time in Egypt (B, J)."...remain single, he must have-----------He married first when he arrived
been oddity, one of the few..."-----------to Midian (B)."...evidence that Senmut's----------------Not known. But could definitely
immediate family had been-----------------be a possibility when Moses
struck by sudden catastrophe."------------escaped from Egypt."...badly damaged fragment...
includes the words 'capture' and----------He was general and organized
'Nubia', is positioned next to------------war campains in Nubia (Ethiopia)
images of running soldiers"---------------and he led his army to victory(J)Senmut is busy in the palace
and related to Nefure and-----------------Moses grew up in the palace (B),
Hatshepsut "dating to the-----------------adopted by the princess (Nefure)
period before Hatshepsut's----------------that later became queen
accession"--------------------------------Hatshepsut."...indicating that Senmut----------------Not known from the Bible, but
was in royal service during---------------this is according to the
the reign of Thutmosis I..."--------------Hypothesis of The Exodus Case.------------------------------------------Moses origin was that he was
------------------------------------------found in the Nile river (B),
"...Senmut's shrine omits the-------------where the crocodiles were found.
customary earthly and---------------------Hatshepsut was probably the
funerary feasts and includes--------------childless women that found Moses
instead a depiction of--------------------in the river. Therefore she was
Hatshepsut being embraced-----------------in a symbolic way blessed by the
by the crocodile-headed god..."-----------god(s) related to the Nile river------------------------------------------Moses had to escape from Egypt
"Senmut was instantly stripped------------due to his mistake to kill an
of all his privileges and-----------------Egyptian (B). He disappeared
disappeared in mystery-------------to Midian and lost everything
circumstances."---------------------------he had in Egypt in a few days(B)------------------------------------------His tombs were unused since he
------------------------------------------died in todays Jordan (B).
------------------------------------------His tombs would definitely be
"His unused tombs were--------------------desecrated due to his escape, or
desecrated"-------------------------------betrayal of Egyptian court (B)."...his monuments were
vandalized and his reliefs and
statues were defaced in a
determined attempted to erase-------------Would be expected due to his
both the name and memory of---------------betrayal of the Egyptian court
Senmut from the history of----------------(B). The memory of Moses in
Egypt."-----------------------------------Egyptian has been lost."At least twenty-five hard stone
statues of Senmut have survived
the ravages of time. This is an
extraordinarly large number of
statues for a-----------------------------He was heir to the throne,
private individual..."--------------------not a private individual (B)."...we must assume that most,-------------The princess (who later was
if not all, were the gift-----------------queen) was the stepmother of
of the queen..."--------------------------Moses (B)."An intimate relationship with------------Intimate in terms of mother -
the queen would account for---------------son relation (B) (several)
the rapid rise in Senmut's----------------hypotheses suggests that their
fortunes..."------------------------------was relation was as lovers)."...being near to the gods was
purely a royal prerogative..."------------He ws a part of the royal family
(a remark of confusion)-------------------(B)."...Hereditary Prince..."
(a remark of confusion)-------------------Yes (B).What is surprising is that
Senmut was able to acquire
any form of hard stone---------------------He was part of the royal family
sarcophagus."-----------------------------(B). It was to be expected
(only for royalties)"Senmut's tomb was------------------------Moses escaped the country (B)
substantially complete when---------------and betrayed the Egyptian royal
all building work ceased"-----------------court."...tomb 71 suffered a great--------------Moses escaped the country (B)
deal of damage."--------------------------and betrayed the Egyptian royal
"...other damage appears------------------court. To destroy tombs and
to have been entirely---------------------other objects related to Moses
deliberate..."----------------------------could be expected."The historical record is-----------------The Egyptian historians did not
tantalizing silent over-------------------want to know what happened to
the matter of Senmut's--------------------Moses, and they had no idea
death."-----------------------------------what was going on (B)."What could have happened
to him? The enigma of
Senmut's sudden
disappearance is which has----------------It is most likely that what
teased egyptologists for------------------the book of Exodus is focused
decades..."-------------------------------on. The life of Moses (B)."Many of Senmut's monuments
were attacked following his
death, when an attempt was
made to delete his memory by
erasing both his name and his-------------Moses has disappeared from the
image."-----------------------------------history of Egypt.------------------------------------------Moses was adopted, but
"Each of these descriptions has-----------genetically he was a hebrew (B).
been based on four surviving--------------Hebrews are in many cases
ink sketches of Senmut's face."-----------characterised having an
"...high-bridge nose..."------------------"aquiline nose" which was not
"...aquiline nose..."---------------------a character of Egyptians.In summary; all these 35 comments on Senmut fits moses very well!

​

You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, deny this overwhelming evidence. Why would so many comments fit so many of the characteristics in the Bible and in Josephuses' writings? Why?

​

It only makes more and more sense why there is "no record" of Moses in Egyptian history. Egyptians were notorious for erasing all information of ANYTHING they despised. Moses was one character they despised, and in addition, would most certainly erase anything to do with the grand Exodus. You people just can't see this, and it truly makes me sad.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-24-2004 04:42 PM

---

~Lysimachus

Unfortunately most of the reply I started to write has been lost.Lacking time to reconstruct it, I will summarise the points.Simply attacking the experts becuase they disagree with you and instead demanding that others should share your biases will convince nobody who does not already agree with you. Simply insisting that others must agree with you no matter how weak your evidence is foolish.I have already told you the problem with identifying Moses with Senmut and Tuthmosis II. Senmut is active in Hashepsut's reign as regent, after the death of Tuthmosis II. Or in Wyatt's chronology after Moses flees to Midian. Moses has to be in two places at once for Wyatt's idas to work. Identifying Hatshepsut as Moses adoptive mother is also a problem as she is sister and wife to Tuthmosis II.Going over your alleged parallels one is quite clearly wrong."...sitting with Nefure...held at right angles in his lap, a position hitherto reserved for women nursing children"Obviously a woman would not be held in the lap of the child she was nursing. So it does not depict a mother-son relationship between the two.There are some weak but valid parallels - mainly with Josephus (the best one is campaigning in Nubia - but even that is hardly decisive). But also problems. For instance Senmut appears to have joined the bureacracy after his army career. In Josephus' account he flees shortly after the one military campaign he is credited with - although his reasons for doing so are not those given in Exodus. Since Josephus also has Moses marrying an Ethiopian princess during the campaign anything other than a rapid flight to Midian goes quite clearly against the assertion that Senmut never married.Other parallels are very weak - and used repeatedly, inflating the numbers. Equating "low birth" with "slaves" is so obviously weak that it can't be considered significant evidence even if given once. Listing it 3 times is only scraping the bottom of the barrel.Two "parallels" are listed as "not known" and so cannot count as evidence.Reading statements that refer to Senmut as working as an offical as indicating that he was a member of the royal family is simply perverse.The conventional view of Senmut as an official who rose to great power and had a close relationship and influence over the regent Hatshepsut fits the evidence rather better than Wyatt's version. A fall form grace would be catastrophic in siuch a position - and Tuthmosis III could not be expected to treat Senmut's monuments differnetly form those of Hatshepsut, should they have been spare desecration prior to his reign. Either his fall or his association with Hatshepsut are adequate to account for the attmepts to erase him from Egypt's history.On the other hand Wyatt's account has serious problems. Not only does it have to rearrange the family relationships, Hatshepsut's reign is a major stumbling block. Wyatt's account not only has Moses acting as both co-regent and heir AND a high official at the same time, it also has Hatshepsut as regent at the same time as there is a reigning Pharoah and a co-regent. this alone is adequate to dismiss Wyatt's account unless strong evidence can be produced to support it.So after eliminating the errors and those which do not apply we have:1) Parents of low birth and with no prominent presence in public life - a very weak parallel since there is nothing suggesting that the parents were slaves - and there were many of low birth.2) Apparently served as a general in Nubia. This only agrees with Josephus - it isn't in the Bible and there are details there which do not agree. Josephus has Moses simply appointed General contradicitng Senmut's career where he "rises through the ranks".3) Did not marry - although Josephus has Moses marry an Ethiopian princess he also appears to put Moses flight to Midian (for reasons entirely differet from those in Exodus) sortly afterward which solves that problem. It also eliminates Senmut's bureaucratic career which is listed as a supposed parallel (although it also goes against the identification with Tuthmosis II).The first is too general to count for anything. The third is weak and could also be explained by the relationship with Hatshepsut. That leaves only the military action in Nubia - which is weakened by a reliance on Josephus as sole source, by the contradictions with Josephus over his following career (ascending in the bureaucracy over a period of certainly more than ten years, aginst fleeing ot Midian almost immediately) and by the fact that it is not confirmed that Senmut was a general at all - let alone for an expedition to Nubia.All in all it is far from overwhlming evidence and leaves some very serious problems unaddressed.

I'll start by correcting myself. It seems that Senmut was tutor to Hatshepsut's daughter, not Hatshepsut herself.But my research has also revealed a little more informationSeveral of the quotes from Tyldesley come from her rendition of the "popular view" which she does not necessarily share.For instance she does not accept that Senmut was ever in the army.So Josephus has Moses appointed general (with no mention of his holdign any other ranks), and leading a single campaign in Ethiopia before fleeing to Midian.Exodus does not mention either a military career or a civil service career for Moses.The "popular" account has Senmut "rise in the ranks" without suggesting that he became a general and serving in Nubia. But this is just a prelude to a long and extremely successful civil service career.Tyldesley holds that he started as an administrator in the Temple of Amun - but of course agrees with the civil service career which is beyond any doubt.While the campaign mentioned by Josephus might be that of the popular account (although there is no definite link) it is not possible if Senmut is Moses. Or if Senmut is Moses then they cannot be the same campaign since that must happen at the end of Moses life in Egypt.It follows that Senmut's retirement from the army (if he was ever in it) is not and cannot be a parallel to the generalship attributed to Jospehus in Josephus. Moreover the accounts of Moses' life omit the very things that we know Senmut for - and the majority of his career. Any identification of Senmut with Moses is on very shakey ground.