"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Might as well leave him be, Ly. He and so many others here in town have no desire for any truth, no matter what which may lend any credence to the Bible. Until that changes, (not an impossibility) we prayerfully keep posting truth and eventually some will believe.

---

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

Brian, you're either blatantly malishously lying about me or your memory has failed you that I countered all of the above. I don't consider you to be a liar so why don't you reread the accounts and note where I showed that Yum Suph is referenced in the Bible as the Gulf of Aqaba which has no reed shallows. I stated too that Edom, meaning Red would be a reason to translate references of Aqaba as Red Sea. This is an ongoing debate. Your hypothesis on this is not established fact regardless of how many modern translators choose to revise it to Reed Sea. Most of these folks, like you, have an agenda which is exclusive of miracle. I also explained the encampments and how the Hebrews traveled by day and by night with rest stops when needed so as to need only two encampments. This is the 2nd time I've needed to refresh your memory on this. Why do you keep on maligning me this way?

Buzzy, you and Lys have to make up your mind. Either reinforce your POV by providing concrete evidence from a number of reputable sources (I know, 'reputable sources' might have to be a thread on its own:-)), OR insist on the miracle technique. Now, gentle readers unaquainted with the topic, the miracle technique is divided into two parts. The 'ZAP'method is used for minor miracles needed for a mano/mano result, while the biggie 'SHAZAM' (sorry,Captain Marvel) is used by God for special occasions (Splitting seas, `gealing ice walls, turning waters red,etc.) Many scholars are divided on whether 'Manna' falls into the first or second category.So,B and L, it behooves you to stop retreating to your fall-back possie every time you run out of ideas. Just say 'I dunno.' No one will think the less of you.

I honestly would not go out of my way to watch it, if I was doing nothing else and it just happened to be on TV I would probably watch it, but I certainly wouldn’t be waiting on it coming on.What we have learned so far here on the discussion of the video really doesn’t compel me to take it seriously at all, there are far too many schoolboy errors and unsupported claims for me to take this seriously, I certainly wouldn’t quote anything from it in any academic work I was producing, unless it was to show how people misunderstand archaeology and history writing.Look at what we have been told so far that is completely untrue, or has nothing at all to support it. If any of these claims are not from Moller please let me know.1. That the ‘Apiru are essentially the Hebrews. Untrue.
2. That there are no Egyptian remains at Tell el-Dab’a. Untrue.
3. That the Amrana Letters mention the Israelites. Untrue.
4. That the Amarna Letters tell of an invasion from outside Canaan. Untrue.
5. That Moses was Thuthmosis II. Untrue
6. That Thutmosis II and Amenhotep I were coregents. Impossible.
7. That an Egyptian pharaoh would have to flee from Egypt because he killed someone. Untrue.
8. That Senmut was Moses. Unsupported and highly unlikely.
9. Thutmosis I and Amenhotep I co-ruled. Possible evidence for a short co-regency, however, according to the video these two people were supposed to be the same person. Co-regency, possibly supported for a short period, that they were the same person is untrue.
10. That Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III were the same person. Untrue
11. That Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II were the same person. Untrue.
12. Tutankhamun died during the Exodus. Unsupported and contradicts the 1446 date.
13. That the Israelites conquered Canaan. Unsupported and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.
14. That ‘Hebrew buildings’ were found at Tell el-Dab’a and at unnamed sites in Israel. Unsupported.
15. That ‘Thutmosis’ and ‘Amenhotep’ are titles and not personal names. Unsupported and greatly contradicted by the existing evidence.
16. That the Exodus happened in 1446. Unsupported and rejected by mainstream scholarship for over 60 years.
17. Thutmosis I was co-regent with Ahmose. Impossible.
18. Not only was Moses actually Thutmosis II’ Senmut was also Thutmosis II.
19. That Egypt lost all of its armies in the Red Sea. Unsupported and contradicted by archaeological evidence.
20. That the Israelites travelled 120 miles before the Egyptians caught up with them. Contradicted by anthropology and reality.I could go on and on and on, these 20 observations are off the top of my head. There is just too much of this hypothesis that is unsupported, contradicted by evidence and simply just made up to take it seriously at all. As I say, if it happens to be on the TV when I am watching it then I will more than likely watch it, I certainly wont be making any special effort to do so.Brian.PS. I forgot to mention earlier that I haven't played any online games. I play very few games but i detest these RTS games, far too boring. If I play a game it is usually a shoot 'em up of some kind. I enjoyed Return to castle wolfenstein, Medal Of Honour, Halo, and I am currently playing Call of Duty. But I dont spend much time playing them.

This dating makes the following assumptions:1) That the remains are the result of a single event.
This has not been established and appears to be the result of jumping to conclusions.2) That the four-spoked wheel was not used after the time of Tuthmosis IV. As we have seen this appears to be false - "carriage" chariots continued to use the four-spoke design alongside "war" chariots using the six-spoke design.3) That all the remains are genuine. The most doubtful of the lot is the eight-spoked wheel - which (after point 2 above) is the only thing that points to the 18th Dynasty at all. However this wheel has never been given a detailed examination by experts and has apparently disappeared. If it is a Wyatt fake - and it is the most dubious of all the remains - then the dating falls apart.The other big problem is that although the wheels are dated to the reign of Tuthmosis IV, the Wyatt hypothesis needs them to be dated to the end of the reign of Amenhotep III AND to about 1446 BC. But Amenhotep III is the successor to Tuthmosis IV and the end of his reign is about 1350 BC, nearly 100 years too late. We see that Wyatt's attempt to rewrite Egyptian chronology is no "optional extra" - it is absolutely needed to reconcile the claimed date of the chariot wheels with Wyatt's Exodus date, and Wyatt's identification of the Pharoah of the Exodus.

Well, I'm pretty much done with this thread. I'm confident that I did my part. No matter how astounding these discoveries may be, it isn't going to convince a skeptic who is so set against it...even though they are unwilling to admit that the beliefs of which they rely on are much less as far as evidence is concerned. When it comes to archeology, concrete evidence does not exist, and no matter what topic of archeology it may be, you will ALWAYS find one who will disagree. One example is Creation Vs. Evolution, what this very forum is about. The subject in itself is an unending debate. It swings back and forth back and forth...and one day it looks like the evolutionists are in the hole, the other day it looks like the crationists are in the hole.So to me, to say "you must provide concrete evidence" is totally unfair. What I am providing however are archeological discoveries to "reconsider" the Biblical account from an objective approach, and admit that there may be more historical accuracy associated with it than you think.For me, the chariot wheels are a masterpiece discovery. Critics fail time and time again to find a genuine explanation for their apperance. One day you will here "oh...Ron Wyatt planted them!"...another day you'll here..."no...you see...there were cargo ships in the area that dumped things overboard"....another day you'll here..."those are bicycle wheels!"...and yet another day, you'll here..."oh...those were Assyrian chariot wheels" (but no explanation how they got randomly scattered in a straight line across from west to east.If you guys only knew how silly you sound trying to scrounge around and find loop holes. I know this may sound harsh, but I have to be honest. When God appears in the clouds of glory, people like you will be the first to wail and say "I knew it all along, I just didn't want to accept". What I'm trying to do here is prevent that from happening, but unfortunately, I've run out of breath. I will leave you to your decision.Brian,I testify to what Buz has said. He clearly referenced your argument. There is nothing "in-depth" or mysterious to discuss here. Yum Suph was a name used for the entire Red Sea, including the main body, Gulf of Suez, and Gulf of Aqaba. Moller even quotes from Kings and shows that the word in Hebrew for the Gulf of Aqaba translates as "yum suph". Period. Nuff said. For the Red Sea to have happened at Suez is beyond reason and human comprehension. It would have been insane, does not fit the biblical criteria, nor does it fit the biblical geography, nor does the bottom of these waters fit any possible crossing terrain (swampy and marshy), nor does it even make sense seeing that Pharaoh's army could have just gone around the Suez northern lakes, NOR does it make sense because Goshen (nile Delta--richest, most firtile land of the country) was up in the North. The Israelites would have had to go WAY south into Egyptian territory and then turn east toward the east coast of Suez. That makes no sense at all. Why not just cross on dry land straight into the Sinai Peninsula?Common Sense + the Archeological remains leave little mystery to this grand puzzle. It has been solved, and critics worldly scholars will continue to deny it time and time again.

---

~Lysimachus

Well the fact is that on the rewriting of Egyptian history Brian and I have produced significant evidence against the views you put forward. Supporting evidence on the other hand has been either merely asserted to exist or on examination has shown to be less than firm - or worse. Even on the simple matter of the supposedly unique pattern of names in the 18th Dynasty the evidence was against you - on the very page you claimed supported you.Or this claim: ( http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO )
By all accounts is contradicted this interpretation by the text included in the mural which indicates that the "boy" - explicitly referred to as a "daughter" - is Hatshepsut herself.It isn't that concrete evidence does not exist in archaeology. It is just that the concrete evidence to SUPPORT Wyatt's claims either does not exist or has yet to be produced.And the date of the Exodus ? You've got three - none of which fit the complete picture you try to offer. Around 1446 BC ? Then the chariots - supposedly dated to the reign of Tuhmosis IV don't fit and there is no evidence of Egypt being hit by disasters whatsoever. The end of the reign of Tuthmosis IV ? Still no disasters. The end of the reign of Amenhotep III ? Nearly one hundred years after the supposed Biblical date, too late for your chariot wheels, forty after the reign of Tuthmosis IV - and with pretty feeble evidence of disasters even then (more jumping to conclusions!). Three different dates - and none of them fit.At this stage it is clear that the only evidence remaining are the finds claimed by Wyatt and Moller. But given the errors and the jumping to erroneous conclusions seen in dealing with known archaeology - as well as the non-existent land bridge - their judgment is suspect at best. Wyatt also has a record of making incredible claims (one example - http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07.htm ) which may well be outright lies. People who have worked with Wyatt believe that he is a fraud and that he has "planted" evidence. Moller is an associate of Wyatt carrying on Wyatt's work and that association is enough to render his claims suspect unless backed by solid evidence - which has yet to be provided. The fact that Moller is publishing popular books and not publishing papers in the archaeological literature only adds to the impression that the evidence there will also fail to stand up to scrutiny.And then there's the issue of misrepresentation. Even in this post you try to suggest that critics offer definite explanations for the wheels which keep changing. That is not the case. After all the evidence offered is hardly good enough to offer a definite answer ! There are lots of possibilities for the origin of the wheels (those that ARE there - for all I know some of those claimed wheels are just coral !). When it comes down to it there is, maybe, the remains of no more than a dozen chariots - if any. And that is all that can really be said. The evidence to go further is lacking.I suggest you consider what has been shown in this discussion. And I ask you: if Wyatt and Moller - and you - cannot be trusted to provide accurate information when it can easily be checked out, then how can we trust your information when we are not in a position to check that your assertions are true ?

PaulK, when will you give up?Quit "pretending" that you guys have provided evidence against us. We have provided evidence against you, and you refuse to accept it. Quit fooling yourself that it is the other way around, when you know very well it isn't. You're playing psychology on yourself, and it's just fogging you up.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-06-2004 07:55 PM

---

~Lysimachus

LOL...I see that you're still mixed up on the chronology PaulK...do I have to reexplain? The fact that the chariot wheels fall right into Thutmosis IV plays right into our hypothesis, since it is right after Thutmosis IV that the kingdom declined.

quote:

---

Still no disasters.

---

And you want to know why there is no "evidence" of a disaster? Because Egypt didn't record them. Just like they recorded their victories without a single loss against the Hittites etc. They wanted to look good. They erased the bad.The decline was kept silent in history. It was a slow process, because we have no evidence of a mighty Egypt under Ay, and also, Akhenaten fits the hypothesis welll.....he gave no aid to his allies.The Exodus happened as God states.

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

Moller is an associate of Wyatt carrying on Wyatt's work and that association is enough to render his claims suspect unless backed by solid evidence - which has yet to be provided. The fact that Moller is publishing popular books and not publishing papers in the archaeological literature only adds to the impression that the evidence there will also fail to stand up to scrutiny.

---

Actually, Wyatt's wife along with Richard Rives is carrying on Wyatt's work. Moller simply had a love for biblical archeology, and decided to investigate for himself these discoveries and published a book, completely separate. He is an expertise in DNA lesions and related illnesses e.g. cancer, hobbies in archeology photography, minerals and precious stones, travel in foreign cultures and scuba diving, chemistry, biology, limnology, toxicology, ecology, and marine biology.This is one great combo - one you can trust when it comes to analyzing coral structures, chariot parts, and bones at the bottom of Aqaba.It's kind of sad that he and only a few others are actually willing to go down there at the bottom of Aqaba and research this stuff. Why don't some other acclaimed archeologists come and do some research on this stuff on their own? You never hear anything about it...just criticism based on "hear say", not actual personal investigation. But to tell you the truth, it probably is better that way. You never know what these critics are potential of. They may even destroy the remains for all we know, just to try and prevent us from proving out theories.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-06-2004 08:23 PM

---

~Lysimachus

That Egypt had good reason to keep the disaster from their enemies was addressed in posts way back just like the yum suph/Aqaba stuff, but they ignore it and later, down the road, falsely charge that we walked away without responding. As for the imperical and so much of the visible corroborating evidence, these guys try their best to undermine and ignore the important visible stuff and steer the debate on the unknown debatable factors. They approach this very unscientifically and unscholarly. In science the visible and known is used as the basis for the research which is used to interpret the unknown and connect the dots to arrive at hypothesis and theory. Here they want to work from the unknown and the controversial and apply the interpretation of this which best suits their ideology against the visible empirical chariots in the sea which aligns with the visible corroborating factors. That's not scholarly but their bias over-rides the will to be scholarly when the result would be to have to admit there's a supernatural dimension in the universe. This unscholarly approach is resorted to quite often in these debates which implicate the supernatural here in town and is something we creos just have to put up with and hammer away at. Then to, common sense and logic are no-nos with many of these folks too. They don't seem to like these atol. It appears that they'd much rather complicate what is observed in arriving at their hypotheses and theories.

wanted to keep it quiet, the other world powers at the time sure would have noticed, made records detailing it and would have taken advantage of it.That too has been pointed out many, many times.The fact that no one noticed the Exodus is one of the biggest hurdles that will have to be explained.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How can I beleive what you say when you are so determined to deny the facts. Brian and I have both provided evidence that contradicts Wyatt's chronology. The evidence supposedly for it has been examined and found wanting. This is simple fact.

No, I'nm not mixed up on the chronology. Thanks for admitting that you DO need Wyatt's chronology to save your hypothesis. Without it the situation is just as I said. You have nearly 40 years between the death of Tuthmosis IV and your "disasters". For which the evidence is slight and circumstantial - hardly sufficient for the scale of the claimed disasters.