"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Moller doesn't mention a thing about the Austrian archeologists. I haven't read the whole book yet. I gathered that information (the Austrian archeologists) from the video, The Exodus Revealed (which was way at the beginning of the film, and they didn't even interview Moller until over half way through it).As for the arrow, it is not representing Hatshetsup turning into Amenhotep II. The arrow simply represents that "position of coregency" transferring to Pharaoh (Amenhotep II). If you will notice, Thutmosis II and Thutmosis III are both under Hatsetsup in the green box. It's laid out in comparision to the time line at the bottom of the chart. Thutmosis II comes to a halt when he flees Egypt, and the arrow pointing from withunder the box shows a "replacement", Thutmosis III...which of course would mean, whoever is now in that position (which is now Thutmosis III) transfers to Amenhotep II.Brian,I'm still working on a reply for you. Sorry for the delay. LOL...this broken leg of mine has gotten me more involved into forum discussions than ever before, so now I'm discussing this same topic on 2-3 other forums at the same time! I've now transferred from hard-core RTS gaming (I used to play all the Age of Empires series, Empire Earth, and lately it was Empires: Dawn of the Modern World) My brother and I were top players in that game on the latter (http://www.empiresrts.com), and my brother was actually the number 1 China player of that game according to the ladder statistics (as Hydarnes). However, as of late I've quit gaming altogether because I realized that I needed to involve myself in more profitable things. Archeology as of late as really revealed my interest, and though I'm no archeologist, I love studying biblical archeology, secular archeology, as well as biblical history and secular history. My favorite time periods are Ancient times, Medieval times, and Napoleonic times. Once WWI starts, my love for history starts to decline...heh.Say Brian, are you or were you ever into online gaming? (not to get off the topic, but just curious )How about you PaulK?This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-28-2004 08:56 AM

---

~Lysimachus

Oh, PaulK, sorry for the confusion. I did provide you info about the Austrian Archeologists in Message 170, but I didn't address the link as providing that info.Here is the link again:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/exodus.htmlThe website itself is not any official source, however, the author does an excellent job at referrencing the offical sources. It is an interesting read, so I highly suggest you read it because it explains all the details concerning the presence of Israel in Egypt. Once agian, sorry for the confusion. I probably provided you so many links that it would be easy to jump over this one.

---

~Lysimachus

Well the quotes tell the story, don't they ? Syro-Palestinian buildings in the Hyksos capital. In all probability the buildings date from the Hyksos period and have nothing to do with the Exodus story. Even if they are post-Hyksos there is no distinctively Israelite architecture to allow us to reliably identify the people as anything other than Canaanite..I'll add that it's pretty well known that the Merneptah Stele refers to Israel (if that is what it means) as a people, not a settled nation. On the evidence of the Stele Israel was certainly not an "sizeable and organised national power" - in fact it is evidence that Israel was NOT a nation at that time.

You'd think that if this information is important that it would be in the book - which can contain far more information than could be crammed into the video. And I see that the arrow is just poor layout as I thought.And no, I'm not into online gaming - I suppose I could give it a go now that I have broadband, but I'd be more likely to go to Brettspielwelt than play Age of Empires.

You just can't concede that evidence of a large Cannanite population in Egypt could indicate Israelites? If you read that full article, you can see that it fits in. The Bible is not a fictitious book PaulK. Are you calling the writers liars? They were writing down historical events...events that took place. The Bible is a historical record, to fit in the missing pieces that Ancient civilizations left out. Ancient civilizations recorded events that the Bible did not tell us about, so therefore to understand those events we go to them, but then on the otherhand, the Bible tells us about events that Ancient civilizations did not tell us about. They both have to be weighed out, especially when it is a known fact that patriarchs and prophets wrote the Bible throughout the centuries recording events, and what is amazing is that ALL THESE WRITERS AGREED WITH EACHOTHER! No other book has had as many authors that wrote and agree with eachother as the Bible did. No other!The reason you want to throw out the Bible is because it mentions other stuff you don't like, and to accept the Bible means to concede to other things. But in order to not have to abide by what these other things say in the Bible, you figure it would just be better to throw it all out completely and rely on other sources (in which all these other sources you rely on have authors that never completely harmonize with one another).Israelites = Cannanites also. It was handed down from family to family of the Hebrews that they were delivered from Egypt. Israel kept careful record of their ancestory, and they know they were once in Egypt.So, if Egypt if vague enough to simply go as far and mention the names "Cannanite" and "Hyksos" (of which there is no proof that the Hyksos were a particular race, but rather a name applied to foreign cannanites), then wouldn't it only be logical to conclude that the Bible does help us out and fill in the missing holes as to who these Cannanites were?PaulK, you to come to yourself. Quit being so critical and doubtful about the scriptures. You'll trust every other writer of traditional history, but when it comes to the Bible, in which all the authors of each book harmonized incredibly well, then you feel this overwhelming urge to discredit it.I just can't understand how you people can do this. I just cannot.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-28-2004 07:00 PM

---

~Lysimachus

I can't concede that a Canaanite population must be Israelites, no. The Israelites are just a small subsection of the Canaanite population - if they even existed in the 18th Dynasty period. If we can't tell, we can't tell. Especially not in an area which was ruled by an Asiatic (i.e. Canaanite) group right up to the start of the 18th Dynasty.All you are doing is jumping to conclusions based on the assumption that the Bible must be accurate - but that's no way to defend the accuracy of the Bible. It only shows your own biases.Now if you want to say that the Israelites ruled a large part of Egypt until they were driven out by force then by all means try to make a case that Israel was founded by the Hyksos. But I don't think that is what you want, is it ? You want a distinct ethnic group to stay behind and as Exodus says, to be slaves and all the rest of the story. And you'll go on mixing Israelites and 'Apiru and Asiatics to try and produce the story you've already decided is true.

No, Paul, Lysimachus is not showing bias atol. Rather you are. Why?1. It is established by archeological evidence that there were slaves in Egypt at this time as has been shown.
2. As L'machus states, the Biblical record is the only explanation given anywhere for the presense of these folks in the land.
3. The Bible explains why they became slaves. Joseph via interpreted dreams which saved the day for a previous pharoah and his people and was favored. As reward his family was given this area for their family.
4. The pharoah who enslaved them was alarmed by the rate of birth and the great number of these foreigners that were accumulating so he enslaved them.
5. They would not likely be referred to Egypt as Hebrews but Caananites or by another name such as Hyksos.
6. To begin, for credibility of the Biblical record one should begin with the Imperical evidence, being the presence of the chariots in the sea, corroborated by the other substantianting factors already oft repeated.
7. So the Bible, not only fills in the unknown, but the Biblical record is highly substantiated by the archeological evidence.
This should be ample reason to go with the Biblical record as explaining the presence of the foreigners in Egypt during the 18th dynasty. The Biblical record explains why they were driven out. How about a better explanation by you as to just who the Hyksos and/or 'Apiru' were, in light of the chariot wheels, etc and what would your story be as to their presence in Egypt?

---

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

You're a genious Buzsaw...you put into words what I couldn't. You summed up just what was in my mind which I found myself unable to formulate.As for the Hyksos. Moller has a whole section describing how the Hyksos could incorporate the Israelites. I just haven't gotten that far yet. "Hyksos" + "Apiru" + "Cannanites" leads us to believe there must have been Israelites. Think about it, none of those three names are known races of distinct blood. These could most likely be coined names, all of them, that the Egyptians used to call the Israelites. "Apiru" = wondering people with no capital. This might have been a name they started to call them after they left Egypt and were wondering in the wilderness. Just my thoughts.If the Bible describes the abundant presence of Israelites in Egypt, wouldn't it only be logical to conclude that these names, of which there is no proof for race, would be what was referred to the Israelites? Afterall, there is plenty of evidence that Hyksos were teaming everywhere in Egypt, just like the Israelites. Apiru would be there new coined name after they wondered out of Egypt and had no dwelling place. We may never know for sure, but I have a feeling that the Bible is correct.Whoever wrote the book of Exodus and Leviticus sure must of had a lot of gall to just come out and lie to the world of such an incredible event as the Exodus, and that the Israelites in great numbers dwelt in Egypt.Tell me PaulK, if Egyptian inscriptions (or any history book related to Egyptian records) told you that Egypt was filled with Israelites during this time, but the Bible didn't, would you believe these writings? I have a feeling that then, yes, you would. But since it is the other way around, the Bible says there were, but the inscriptions don't come out openly and say for sure, then you won't believe it.The Bible. It's a book, a history book . It records events and tells us things that were and were not. Why is it that just because one isn't Christian, they cannot in the slightest accept the Bible as a historical source? Why?? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

---

~Lysimachus

Oh yesm the old technique of pretending that your opponent is doing what you are doing.Fact. It has NOT been established that the occupants of these houses were slaves. Your claim 1 is false.Fact. There is NOTHING surprising in there being an Asiatic population in the Delta - the Hyksos were Asiatics, according to the Egyptian history confirmed by the archaeology. Your claim 2 is falseFact. Since it has not been confirmed that there was a large slave population it need not be explained. Even if there were it would be better explained by the conquest of the Delta region by the 18th Dynasty. Your claim 3 is false.Fact. Your claim 4 is based solely on the Bible and therefore also has to be established as true.Fact. The Hyksos refers to the Asiatics who ruled the Delta as an independant Kingdom and who were drien out by war. It does not refer to all Asiatics, and if it refers to the Israelites then it contradicts Exodus as I have already pointed out. As to the general term you are rpeating the same error that since the Israelites would be considered Asiatics then Asiatics must automatically be Israelites.Fact. The claim of a "chariot graveyard" has yet to be substantiated - only a few remains of uncertain age and in most cases identity are shown. The wheel supposedly found by Wyatt is apparently missing (!). if they are indeed a I keep asking for evidence and instead we get these strained rewrites of Egyptian history.Fact. Your claim 7 is also false since - there is no need to invoke the Bible to explain any of the evidence I have been shown.So no, I am not showing bias. You are. No surprise there !And as to your final sentence since I hads already pointed out that the description of the defeat and exulsion of the Hyksos does not match the description of Exodus I cannot understand why you would wish to pretend otherwise. You are certainly aware that the Exodus says that the Hewbrews were enslaved and oppressed, and you should certainly be aware that the Hyksos were rulers expelled by military force. Moreover the expulsion was at the START of the Eighteenth dynasty - not the later Pharoahs who Wyatt and Moller associate with the Exodus. The archaeology does not contradict the Egyptian account in any way.So here's the better explanation. The so-called chariot wheels are either fakes - the coral covered ones could have been planted by Wyatt in the '70s, remains of more modern vehicles, natural coral fomrations or possibly the remains of a few genuine chariots. Probably a combination of more than one of the above possibilities.The Asiatic remains in Avaris are remnants of the Hyksos occupation ad have nothing to do with the Israelites. This is consistent with the archaeology of Israel itself which shows the Israelites growing out of the indigneous culture.The 'Apiru are a social classification - people in the fringes of society - and they come to Egypt for work and food (or to steal). Some may be native Egyptians.See Habiru - Wikipedia. On the interpretaion of Exodus you favour what are Hurrian "Hebrews" doing in Tikunani in 1550 BC ? Or in Palestine in the reign of the Mitanni prince Idrimi ?This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-29-2004 03:13 AM

Of course I'll answer your question. Sources have to be evaluated on their merits and archaeology can add to history. All else being equal contemporary records are more to be trusted than later sources. So there would be good reason for favouring the Egyptian inscriptions.However you are very much oversimplifying the case. One problem is that you are not relying on the Bible directly for much of what you claim. The rewriting of Egyptian history is based on a need to force it into a mould created by an interpretation of the Bible - which cannot be clearly matched to either Egyptian history or the archaeological records, but none of it is actually in the Bible. THe Bible doesn't offer any direct eidence for the name changes. The Bible doesn't identify Moses as a long-serving civil servant. The Bible doesn't identify Moses as being co-regent over Egypt. These things are based on assuming that Senmut and Tuthmosis II - who appear in the historical records as two distinct people - are both Moses. But the Bible doesn't say any of it.As I've stated I am willing to look at evidence, but the evidence I have seen is generally neutral at best. Some clearly contradicts the rewriting - as in the case of the inscription Brian quoted. So all we have is Wyatt's authority over that of virtually all Egyptology. Well naturally I'm not going to go with Wyatt ! At the least he's got a record of making incredible claims without evidence and that in itself is enough to decline to recognise him as any sort of authority.The fact is that the Exodus to Conquest has some very serious problems with the archaeology. It is all very well to point to Wyatt and Moller and say that they have proof - but unless and until they produce that proof then I am not going to believe it. And so long as you continue in the apologetic mindset of jumping to the desired conclusion you are only going to hurt your case.Two more points1) The relevant parts of the Bible are not proven accurate by archaeology. That is what Wyatt and Moller and you are trying to show. Assuming that it is unqestionably accurate creates a circularity.2) Wyatt's claims are not the Bible. If you want to claim that the Bible can only be true if Wyatt's claims are true then remember that you are placing your faith on a very shakey foundation. I don't mind if you give me ammunition like that - but why would you want to ?

First, the Bible is not a History book. It is a Book of Faith.And when you try to use it as a History Book, to try to force the pysical evidence to fit the Myth, you get into problems.You also make a totally incorrect statement in... That's silly. It is not just non-Christians that cannot accept the Bible as a historical source, it's most Christians as well. And the reason is simple. In far too many cases the history recorded in the Bible simply is not supported by the record and in many cases is totally falsified by external evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And FACT! The bible tells us there were Israelites and that they were slaves. This historical documents tells us so, so FACT, fill in the missing holes that Egypt didn't tell you about and get on reason and life. Period!You're scrounging around, and yes, it has been settled a THOUSAND TIMES that the Egyptians DID have a great number of slaves in Egypt. I can't believe you have the gall enough to say there is no evidence for this, when inscriptions in Egypt as well as their writings tells us as plain as day.*I'm having to pray that I will not get mad, because you just keep ignoring real facts, turn around, and then say I don't know the facts, when it is YOU THAT HAS BEEN IGNORING THE FACTS! FACE IT!*

---

~Lysimachus

Jar, the Bible is composed of HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS! DON'T SCROUNGE AROUND! It isn't right for you in the SLIGHTEST to say that the Bible is "JUST" a book of faith. The bible is composed of MANY BOOKS! NOT just ONE book. There are several books that SOLELY PRESENT JUST FACTS AND MENTION NOTHING OF FAITH! Other books are to strengthen faith. The historical documents intermingled with the books that guide the Christian walk go hand-in-hand, and since you infidels know this, you want to throw the whole book in the sewer.

---

~Lysimachus

Bogus, this is just going to go on and on, and I'm about to resign from this forum.At first I thought this forum wasn't composed of a bunch of hot-headed people as some other forums, but now I'm realizing that it is just as bad or WORSE!I've presented the facts to many people before, and even with their good knowledge in history can see the facts as plain as day. It is rather quite discouraging to see how so many react when it comes to the Bible. Their "real selves" and "true colors" come out like a roaring lion.Truth isn't popular, and I should have known better. From now on, I'm going to start sharing this light (of which I know for a fact that the theories presented are in harmony with scripture more than ANY OTHER theory based on the archeological finds and simply logic of the Bible in conjunction with the correct geography of old maps) WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE OPEN! PEOPLE WHO ARE STARVING FOR THIS TRUTH.But let's face the truth. You have NO WAY OF EXPLAINING WHY ON EARTH DISTINCTLY VISIBLE CHARIOT WHEEL FORMATIONS LIE AT THE BOTTOM OF AQABA (ON THE LANDBRDIGE---WHY THE LANDBRIDGE?) ALL THE WAY FROM THE WEST COAST TO THE EAST COAST! NO OTHER SEA WILL YOU FIND THESE CORAL FORMATIONS! NONE! PERIOD! YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO FACE IT AND I'M CONVINCED NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!I can see clearer than ever now, I haven't obeyed scripture, and instead cast my pearls before the swine.One day you will see what you rejected. Mark my words.

---

~Lysimachus

Lysimachus,Calm down, take five minutes and relax.Chill mate.Brian.