|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days)  Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: Bogus. You haven't done your homework on Moller's homework, so how can you assume such a thing? I've quoted to you very few passages from his entire book, and it would be rather imprudent of me to post the whole book. You should buy it and read the whole thing for yourself, then you would see it much different. I guarantee you that what you have read online doesn't do the job as if you were to read the whole book. I told you a hundred thousand times already that Moller's book is NOT ABOUT EGYPT's chronology. It is about the Exodus, and provides an additional-summary-chronological hypothesis (of which a separate book must be written about) so that we may see what Pharaohs may have ruled at this time. Moller has thoroughly documented and provided scientific analysis for the bones at the bottom of the sea, the petrification of these bones, and the material makeup of the various structures found at the bottom of the sea. He does a superb job in delving into the measurements of the so called "land bridge", the location of Midian, and he has a total of 71 historical and archeological references from various acclaimed sources around the globe.
quote: Wow, how brazen for you to say that. Biblical archeology did not die in the 1970s. Evolutionists and skeptics continue to say this, when in reality, they are fooling themselves. In fact, it is sine the 1970s that various biblical archeological sites have added new questions, and answers to the Bible have become more realistic. Read this article for example: Herzog's Attack on the Bible Unjustified: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_... Before the 70s, very little was known about the Bible, but since then, modern technology has helped us solve many mysteries of the Bible. You saying this does not outweigh the facts. As for unbelief and liberality, that is another subject of itself. Evidence for supporting the Bible is much more available today than it ever was, but when taking into consideration the standards at which many families are living, and the growing population rate, it is not surprising to see the numbers of the new generations leave behind the many biblical principles that once existed.
quote: The Bible is not just one book. It is composed of almost 70 books, and most of them written by different authors. There are books written as historical documents, and there are books written for faith. They correlate. The Bible has much more historical authenticity than popular scholars have been willing to grant in the past.
quote: Actually, 90% of what I said wasn't alive until starting in the late 1970s.
quote: Could be, but it hasn't been disproven either. It was an idea. It does not negate the fact that there was a large Canaanite population in Egypt, of which inscriptions make it very clear there was. Interesting how you critics discredit the Bible for not naming who the Pharaohs were, but yet you don't even acknowledge that the Egyptians failed to tell us who the "Hyksos" were, who these "Canannites" were, or who these "Apiru" were. They don't tell us. Why not? Perhaps they're hiding something? Something that might lead us to conclude they met a fate at an Exodus crossing? Oooff...better not go there  Based on this, we can feel safe to infer that these names could possibly be referring to an integrated Hebrew population in Egypt as the Bible indicates.
quote: What invasion?
quote: Amazing. So you are saying that since there were Egyptian remains, that is PROOF that these WERE NOT ISRAELITES?? Preposterous! The Israelites are growing up in an Egyptian culture! Let's get real for a change! The fact is, the architecture of these ruins were clearly Hebrew, and there were symbols and inscriptions found in these buildings that were of clearly Hebrew origin!
quote: *chuckle* Here we go again. And does this do a good job at disproving an Exodus? You have no way to prove they were completely different. There are indications you mentioned, but no way to 100% prove it. We are basing our hypothesis on not only clues found on these inscriptions, but also common sense and reason based on a pattern of careful calculation. Egyptians were notorious for recording a lot of symbolic symbols seemingly representing various relationships between people, but in many cases was purely symbolic to fit into a belief system. So many mysteries exist within Egyptian records, that it is pretty much impossible to say for sure: "so and so was the brother or sister of so and so, or so and so was the son or daughter of so and so." You have to interweave reason and common sense with these records, not just let these records stand on their own.
quote: What archeological evidence? Did you even read the article concerning how severely flawed traditional dating is? I provided like 10 massive points that Moller provided in his book clearly showing how traditional dating could be 1-2000 years off depending on how one views the constellations, etc. How dare you blatantly make such ignoramus statements with such confidence. Face reality.
quote: Access denied Access denied Access denied Access denied Care ta read? You have no case.
quote: Really? Says who? "of course" says the critics!
quote: "ANY" archeologists? Moller is listed in the top 50 creationists that challenge evolution, btw.
quote: Ah, but his stuff is being taken seriously. This stuff is relatively new, and it clearly states in The Exodus Case series clips that there are Egyptologists beginning to agree with Moller. Moller, in fact, does a hard-core investigation into the life of Imhotep, and proves without very little doubt that Imhotep was the same individual as the Biblical Joseph. Evidence upon evidence, line upon line just add up that Imhotep was Joseph, saving the land from a 7 year famine. There are numerous inscriptions that point to Joseph...NUMEROUS! I'll just list one. Imhotep is recorded at dying at 110 years old. Joseph is recorded as dying at 110 years old. I'll be providing Moller's analysis on Joseph as well later sometime. It is almost incontrovertible Another reason why I am obliged to take Moller and Wyatt seriously, is because Wyatt has been the only archeologist to discover how the Pyramids of Egypt were built. He was the one that constructed the lifting device, made a full scale model, and scientists from around the world came to see his model (based on the devices drawn in inscriptions, and the supporting holes found on the sides of the pyramids). When these scientists saw Wyatt's demonstration, they were aww stricken! They said to themselves "why did it take this long to figure out such a simple solution for lifting the heavy stones that were put in place for the pyramids?." No one that I know of was able to prove Wyatt wrong on his pyramid-building theory. He was the only archeologist to figure this out, and I could provide you all the inscriptions you like to prove that the lifting device that Wyatt assembled was the SAME style of device the Egyptians used to erect their pyramids.
quote: I thought it was the four spoke gilded wheel that suddenly disappeared? (of which, btw, the Wyatt team has confirmed that they know where it is). Here is a clear photo of a coral-eaten-away 8 spoke chariot wheel:
The pie shape requires 8 spokes, as identified by the coral lines. One spoke is broken.
quote: Then you have a different approach as how to approach theology then. I take God, the Bible, and the events described in the Bible as literal. Based on this, I believe that God reveals His secrets through these archeological finds to help solidify faith. These discoveries have been a great benefit around many of the unseen. I know stories of entire families who gave their lives to Christ as a result of these archeological discoveries. Daniel 2:14 says: "He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." Daniel 2:28,29: "But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass." Although this is speaking of dreams, the concept that God reveals His secrets still stand. These discoveries are proving themselves to the unseen...believing people who can digest this stuff. They are nothing but pearls before swine's flesh for those unbelievers of which can do nothing but ridicule it, for the veil over their eyes preventeth them. As for miracles, this is the place were typical scholars miserably fail in. An objective approach is to try and figure out might have occurred to cause the results of a various find. If there is no naturalistic explanation for it, we automatically are forced to leave the doors open that a possible miracle could have occurred. The idea that a miracle cannot occur is based on the assumption that there is no God. But if the assumption rests that there might be a God, then one must conclude that miracles are possible. If an archeological find poses no naturalistic explanation, scholars must be willing to be open to this possibility.
quote: Your "reeds" argument holds no water. It is quite baffling as well as ridiculous that you can so adamantly hold on to such a little "piddly-insignificant" argument to the overall point that has been presented. Names derive from initial predetermined reasons, and in most cases evolve over time leading to insignificance in many cases as far as their origins are concerned. Since your reasoning warrants in-depth explanation, instead of pointing you back to all that Buzsaw said, I'll approach it from a different angle and see how you can cope with Moller's points. Why he even answers your question before you even asked them! 32. WHERE IS THE RED SEA SITUATED? The people of Israel are now on the way to the desert. They are on their way to Midian and to Horeb (Mount Sinai, God's mountain). We also know that it is most likely they are going in a south-easterly direction. We do not know exactly which way they choose, but we know that they finally arrive at the Red Sea. Where does the red Sea lie? This is an important question for the Exodus, and several different hypotheses exist: mainly because not everything has tallied earlier. The Red Sea is the name of the water separating Africa from the Arabian peninsula. In the northern part of the Red Sea has two arms; the gulf of Suez to the west of the Gulf of Aqaba to the east of the Sinai peninsula, which today separates Egypt from Saudi-Arabia (figure 289). Figure 289: Where is "Yam suph" (or "Jam suph") or as we call it, the Red Sea, located?
Earlier we have said that the Gulf of Suez is unlikely as far as the journey through the Red Sea is concerned, for many reasons, amongst others because today it divides Egypt (or Egypt and its sphere of interest), into two parts, as it did 3450 years ago. That here the Bible refers to part of the Red Sea called the Gulf of Aqaba, which separates the Sinai peninsula from present day Saudi-Arabia, can be considered likely for the following reasons: 32.1 The Target of the Journey The people of Israel are on their way to Mount Horeb/Sinai which lies near the home of the priest Reuel in the land of Midian, where Moses spent his forty years of exile. In all probability these places lie on the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqaba, in northern Saudi-Arabia. Editors note: The above paragraph is based on a ton of material that was already covered, discussing the events revolving around the departure, how long it took to get to Soccoth, the various implications of the Passover, and the rounding up of the children of Israel, and the type of organization of which they used 32.2. The Book of Kings In the first Book of Kings it is narrated about King Solomon's fleet: "And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezioingerber; which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom." (1 Kings 9:26) Eloth lay near present day Eilat on the northern point of the Gulf of Aqaba. In the first Book of Kings, in other words, the Gulf of Aqaba is called the Red Sea ("jam suph" in Hebrew). It is also known that the Gulf of Suez was called the Red Sea ("jam suph") (Ex. 10:19). However, what is important to point out is that in the Bible the Gulf of Aqaba is also called the Red Sea. 32.3. The Book of Exodus In the biblical text it says: "But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt." (Ex. 13:18) the people of Israel went through the wilderness and arrived at the Red Sea. Josephus expresses it in the same way, the people of Israel went through the desert (JA 2/15:3). Through the present day Sinai desert to the present day Gulf of Aqaba (Red Sea). In the English translation it is even more clear where the same text is translated: "through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea". This wilderness (or desert) surrounded by the Red Sea, "the wilderness of the Red Sea", corresponds most likely to the Sinai peninsula of today. 32.4. The "Jam Suph" Issue A number of hypotheses are supported by the thought that the Red Sea is called "jam suph" In Hebrew. This could possibly be translated as the "sea of rushes" (or reeds), and as there are no rushes in the Red Sea but there some to be found in the lakes in northern Egypt, then this translation is put forward. The important point is that "jam suph" is the name of the sea which we call the Red Sea today, including both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba. This is what the biblical text say quite clearly. The hypotheses which suggest that the people of Israel passed over on some sandbank of a lake at low tide meet obvious difficulties, not only with a number of passages in the Bible and other documents, but also the fact that the entire Egyptian army of a quarter of a million soldiers and thousands of horses were drowned when the tide turned. The difference in tide levels in that area is about 30 cm, and it applies only to the sea areas. In addition, why should the whole Egyptian army go through the water when they could ride around the lake much faster? None of these hypotheses are based on archeological discoveries, but are characterized by writing desk theories, where the whole picture does not tally. When the map does not show what one is looking for, it is tempting to change the map, instead of asking if one is looking in the wrong place. 32.5. The Meaning of a Name is Often Not Relevant Later in History An example of which shows the limitations of analyzing the name of a place can be illustrated with the following: A Viking from Scandinavia was called Jar. He had a settlement in an occupied area of England by a sea gulf ("vik" in Swedish). The settlement was consequently called Jarvik (the Gulf of Jar). In modern times this name has become York. Later on emigrants took the name with them to America were the name was given to another new settlement, New York. (Figure 291: New York city: a Viking settlement or just a Viking name?) The important hting is to know where a place lies, the original meaning of the name may have disappeared or changed during the thousands of years that have passed. 32.6. In Summary There is good reason to assume that part of the Red Sea mentioned in this context, is part which we call the Gulf of Aqaba today. The question is why this way was chosen. There are three reasons: 1. The people of Israel, at God's command according to the text, were to journey to Horeb to worship. In order to journey there they had to go through the desert to the northern point of the Red Sea (of the Gulf of Aqaba), where present day Eilat is situated, and then go southwards following the east coast of the Gulf of Aqaba. 3. this is the most practical (not mountainous), and quickest way to reach the northern point of the Gulf of Aqaba. Moses had taken this route himself on several occasions, and it was a known trade route. 4. The most important reason, however, is that the Bible claims that the Lord himself guided the people day and night. --------------------------------------------- So I think that pretty much settles it. Your "see of reeds" argument is null and void of reason. Sunk, toast, zing-zang-done.
quote: Agreed and nuff said that you know almost 0 of Moller's understanding of ancient Israel. You admitted above that you don't know what Moller really believes by attributing the idea of the "Apiru" being Israel to him, when he doesn't even address this issue once anywhere in his book. His hypothesis rests mostly on ideas revolving around the Hyksos--of which I have not even provided on this board.
quote:quote: Smart one Brian. That really coincides with the various versus that describe the "mighty depths of the sea" of which the Egyptians drowned. Yeah really. "...the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea." Ex. 15:8 Depths + Sea = "lakes"??? Hmm...I didn't know that lakes were called "sea" and that these "lakes" were "deep". Interesting. Thanks for the enlightenment Brian. You're very smart! "...so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness." Psalms 106:9 Oooh...it's getting even better! "Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" Isaiah 51:10 And even better! Wow, Moses sure must have been wacko to record "depths of the sea" instead of "shallows of the lakes"...rofl...it gets sillier as we go. "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters." Micah 15:10 We are talking about the mighty depths of the Gulf of Aqaba. "And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters." Nehemiah 9:11 "Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters;" Isaiah 43:16 I would think twice before attributing these phrases to the northern lakes of Suez, let alone this argument already being addressed in the above chapter by Moller.
quote:quote: The Gulf of Aqaba makes almost every bit of sense, whereas lake Sirbonius makes no sense whatever. Too many missing bread crumbs for this to be the place.
quote:quote: Don't be playing sly with me. You know very well that I was playing on your terms. You don't like it when I mention God in the picture, so I tried to do you a favor and provide you with a secular answer. However, God does intermingle science with is works. It isn't just always "pure magic". I believe God had already had a place for the crossing prepared. The sand that is at the bottom of Aqaba is a sturdy-gravelly sand if which was dried up, would be easily walkable.
quote:quote: This point is thoroughly addressed the above fastandfar.PDF file link I gave you. I would go read it right now. This "three days walk" distance that God originally prescribed for the children of Israel was talking about what would have taken them to a place in the wilderness where God would meet them to lead them completely out of Egypt, before they crossed the wilderness. The verse that you are using is one verse that has been easily misinterpreted. I believe you are speaking of Numb. 33:6-8, correct? In order to understand this verse correct, it would be first necessary to know where Etham might have been situated. Etham was another encampment area BEFORE the people of Israel pitched camp by the Red Sea. "And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness.;" Ex. 13:20 Succoth would have been on the Egyptian border while Etham was much further away. Now here is the other place in the text which also names Etham: "And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness. And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from Pihahiroth, and passed through the mides of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah." (Numb 33:6-8) Praphrased by me from Moller:"These passages may seem strange since they pitch camp in Etham, then later pass through the sea of Pi-Hahiroth, and then land in Etham again. But if we look at a map it is easier to understand. Etham was probably an area of land which consisted of the north of the Gulf of Aqaba and down along the coastal areas. Then the Bible passages fit in very well, since the area of the land called Etham probably included both the coastal strips." (figures 292-295). Moller:"Etham may correspond to Edom (current name for part of this area) which means red. This could then explain the name "Red Sea". The red colour comes from the red or pink-coloured rock species which surrounds the Gulf of Aqaba, which in the light of the setting sun becomes bright red. That the area which became red surrounded both coasts of the water (Gulf of Aqaba) seems logical. The people of Israel come via the "southern road", which was a known route for caravans and troops. In figure 304 this "southern road" can be seen as it is today. Furthermore, the southern road was south of the dangerous area which the Philistines controlled. At the same time the route went through the northern part of what we know today as the Sinai peninsula, which means that one avoided the mountains in the centre from the Sinai peninsula. These rocky massifs are very extensive and reach heights of around 2000 m." quote:quote: This is why they took the "southern road" AFTER they passed Succoth, and then entered the Sinai Peninsula. Initially they headed eastwards. They went east from Goshen to Succoth, then they took the "southern road". What is this so complicated to understand?
quote: How so? I see far more problems crossing Suez than Aqaba. You seem incapable of being able to grasp the simplicity that they initially headed to Succoth by going east, then turned onto the "southern road". To tell you the truth, it would be of great benefit to you if you would purchase the book for it provides a lot more detail as to the direction employed in comparison with each verse (including the verses which seem to indicate otherwise) in the Bible, and as you take the journey along with Moller, you will see step by step how this wonderful picture starts to paint before your eyes. It is a truly wonderful experience.
quote: You can use that argument if you are coming from the approach that Yahweh guided them that way, but the fact that they were entangled and "shut in" between the mountains nullifies this theory. The name "Pi-Hahiroth" is translated as "mouth of the gorges", indicating "a caves mouth" which could mean the way out of the Wadi Watir valley, surrounded by high mountains, to the flat area which is Nuweiba. On top of all this, the fact that the traditional Mt. Sinai, in the Sinai Peninsula is not the highest mountain in the region as Josephus clearly states also nullifies this theory. The only thing that stands out with Jebel Musa is that it is a mountain, that is all. Virtually no evidence of Hebrews encamping in the area. The plain at the foot of the mountain doesn't fit the biblical description, and can only hold no more than a couple hundred thousand people. As for the Jebel Al Lawz description, the surrounding area has a host of clues.
quote:quote: This comment isn't even worth addressing, since it is one that is filled with a lot of prejudice and hatred against the word of God. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Oh but yes, I forgot, forgive me. You dont believe in the Bible so this wouldn't apply to you. But you're still acting like a fool 
quote:quote: It's called "the height of deception" Brian. I personally feel you are deceived, and the prince of evil is behind it all. I know this sounds strong, but it is the truth. I don't care how crazy you think I sound, but it is the down right truth, and I must not hesitate to tell you that this is how I feel. The information I have constructed from Moller's book and on the Internet is bringing more conversions of other young fellows as yourself (who have a deep interest in the studies of science, archeology, and history), and are amazed at this information. Only people such as yourself who have cultivated the tendencies of tearing up anything that may seem related to a religious theme come to the place where they feel "strengthened in their stance". But it is a false sense of security. It is just like Pharaoh, he cultivated the thoughts of not letting the children of Israel go, so the cultivating of it strengthened him in his stance. So of course, your cultivation of your ideas against this only strengthens your stance as would be expected. I've been thanked before, and I know for a fact that your problem is only due to yourself, not due to the information. In reality, you have a problem with God, not the info I provided. Like I said, these wonderful archeological discoveries are being proven to the unseen, and it is these "unseen" who will be God's final people who will stand and vindicate Christ's character to the world during the great time of crises. This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-08-2004 09:32 AM This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-12-2004 10:42 AM ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days)  Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I told you a hundred thousand times already that Moller's book is NOT ABOUT EGYPT's chronology. So why is he saying that the Exodus was in 1446 during Thutmosis IV’s reign, or Amenhotep III’s reign? How can Egyptian chronology have nothing to do with it? The Exodus needs a background to happen in, Thutmosis III’s reign is no good as Egypt was so powerful, the Israelites had nowhere to go, so this hypothesis has to re-invent Egyptian history, and it makes a total and utter mess of it.
It is about the Exodus, and provides an additional-summary-chronological hypothesis (of which a separate book must be written about) so that we may see what Pharaohs may have ruled at this time. We know who the pharaoh was in 1446 BCE, we do not need ot rewrire anything, Thutmosis III’s reign date is secure.
Moller has thoroughly documented and provided scientific analysis for the bones at the bottom of the sea, the petrification of these bones, and the material makeup of the various structures found at the bottom of the sea. He does a superb job in delving into the measurements of the so called "land bridge", the location of Midian, and he has a total of 71 historical and archeological references from various acclaimed sources around the globe. And how does he link these bones to the Israelites escaping from Egypt?
Wow, how brazen for you to say that. Biblical archeology did not die in the 1970s. It’s a fact, it is now called Syro-Palestinian Archaeology, there’s no such thing as biblical archaeology. It had to be abandoned because the extreme bias of the Christian ‘archaeologists’ were misrepresenting the material evidence.
Evolutionists and skeptics continue to say this, when in reality, they are fooling themselves. The reality is that the most prominent archaeologist and defender of the Bible today, William Dever, is hardly a sceptic, he lectures on Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and the Bible MAY be used at some stage, and then again it may not. This isn’t anything I have made up, it is a fact, that you didn’t know this shows that you do not know the subject. ‘Biblical archaeology’ is a dead discipline, go to a library and look for a book on ‘New Archaeology;, or search the Net for ‘New Archaeology’ I don’t have tome to give you a lesson on the history of near eastern archaeology.
In fact, it is sine the 1970s that various biblical archeological sites have added new questions, and answers to the Bible have become more realistic. Read this article for example: Herzog's Attack on the Bible Unjustified: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_... I am familiar with Shanks, but there is nothing here that mentions new archaeology, in fact this link supports what I am saying. It shows that there are severe problems, you should have read it. Even Shanks declares Take, for example, the Exodus. We don't need Professor Herzog to tell us that 2 million Israelites did not cross the Sinai on their way out of Egypt, despite the biblical implication as to this number (Exodus 12:37). Why do you and Buz continually post links that undermine your own arguments?
Before the 70s, very little was known about the Bible, You are joking here aren’t you?
but since then, modern technology has helped us solve many mysteries of the Bible. Yes it has helped us solve them but not in the way you think it has. Since the mid 1970’s the vast majority of archaeological evidence undermines the primary history books of the Bible.
You saying this does not outweigh the facts. What I am saying are the facts.
As for unbelief and liberality, that is another subject of itself. We are all entitled to believe what we want to, it becomes unacceptable of course when we force these views on to others.
Evidence for supporting the Bible is much more available today than it ever was, but when taking into consideration the standards at which many families are living, and the growing population rate, it is not surprising to see the numbers of the new generations leave behind the many biblical principles that once existed. This is called progress, it is called progressing out of the darkness that the Bible inflicted on the western world for centuries. Societies develop, knowledge evolves, and our knowledge of the real world and the biblical world shows that we have to reinterpret the Bible to fit with reality. We know that people do not live for 969 years, we know that there was no worldwide flood, we know there was no Exodus, and we know that there was no Davidic Empire. Societies grow in the same way that humans do, when we are children we can accept these fairytales as being true, but when we grow up, we need to face reality and realise that the biblical tales are not an attempt at transmitting accurate reliable information. They are didactic narratives, when you realise that you will see how amazing the Bible is.
There are books written as historical documents, and there are books written for faith. They correlate. They were copying each other, lol, what do you expect?
The Bible has much more historical authenticity than popular scholars have been willing to grant in the past. But the books that concern us in this debate are not historical books, they are myths and legends.
Actually, 90% of what I said wasn't alive until starting in the late 1970s. The ‘Apiru, Hyksos, Tell el-Dab’a, Red Sea crossing, Amarna invasion, have all been dead for decades.
(‘Apiru) Could be, but it hasn't been disproven either. Yes it has, read the literature.
It was an idea. It does not negate the fact that there was a large Canaanite population in Egypt, of which inscriptions make it very clear there was. No one is disputing that there were Canaanites in Egypt. The problem for you is to prove that there were Hebrews amongst these Canaanites, you haven’t done that, and to be fair, no one else has done it either.
Interesting how you critics discredit the Bible for not naming who the Pharaohs were, A basic historical account would mention the main player, the BIbel isn’t a history book though.
but yet you don't even acknowledge that the Egyptians failed to tell us who the "Hyksos" were, They did tell us, you just don’t know where or when.
who these "Canannites" were, They did tell us.
or who these "Apiru" were. They did tell us.
They don't tell us. Why not? Perhaps they're hiding something? Well since they did tell us, and since we know they were there, then they weren’t hiding anything. Why not think logically for a minute. We have these large populations living within Egypt, yet Egypt managed to keep this disaster quiet, why did the foreign groups in Egypt keep quite, why did the Israelites keep quiet, why didn’t anyone notice the millions of Israelites?
Something that might lead us to conclude they met a fate at an Exodus crossing? Oooff...better not go there Yes, you best stay away from the Exodus, it was in a bad enough mess before you started talking about it! 
Based on this, we can feel safe to infer that these names could possibly be referring to an integrated Hebrew population in Egypt as the Bible indicates. ‘Could’ and ‘possibly’ based ONLY on what the Bible says. No one has ever provided any evidence that a group that was in Egypt can be identified with the Hebrews or the Israelites, if it wasn’t for the Bible no one would even think for a second that the Israelites were in Egypt, that’s how much evidence there is for the millions of Israelites.
[qs] What invasion? [qs]
The invasion that you spoke of in post 159, the same post that you mentioned the Amarna letter proving that there was Israelites in Canaan. Are you popping too many painkillers or something? But anyone who knows the history of the Amarna Letters and the now defunct ‘Biblical archaeology’ knows that the erroneously claimed invasion in the Letters were linked to the Joshua conquest myths.
‘Tell el-Dab'a does have Egyptian remains.’ Amazing. So you are saying that since there were Egyptian remains, that is PROOF that these WERE NOT ISRAELITES?? Preposterous! The Israelites are growing up in an Egyptian culture! Let's get real for a change! It was you who claimed that ‘none of these remains were Egyptian’ not me! LOL I was just pointing out that you have used another substandard source. None of the remains were Israelite.
The fact is, the architecture of these ruins were clearly Hebrew, and there were symbols and inscriptions found in these buildings that were of clearly Hebrew origin! Now this is where I have to call your bluff, if you are going to bluff then try it with someone else. This is complete trash. There are no Hebrew symbols or inscriptions at Tell el’Dab’a. Also, which particular houses are you talking about at Tell el-Dab’a, what are their reference numbers and what houses in Israel aare identical to these houses. You are very good at saying ‘clearly this and clearly this’ but you very seldom support why they are ‘clearly’ anything. You have claimed this several times, and have never given any references to support it. I have Beitak’s book here, and he never mentions Hebrew symbols and inscriptions, now back it up or retract it.
*chuckle* Here we go again. And does this do a good job at disproving an Exodus? It does a pretty good job of showing how hilarious your sources are. If your sources are making up garbage like this then chances are the rest of the hypothesis is about as clever.
You have no way to prove they were completely different. Yes we have, in fact, Paul and I have provided sources that prove beyond all doubt that they weren’t the same people.
There are indications you mentioned, but no way to 100% prove it. Indications, like a father talking to his son when they are meant to be the same person, what world do you live in?
We are basing our hypothesis on not only clues found on these inscriptions, but also common sense and reason based on a pattern of careful calculation. You haven’t mentioned a single inscription that even suggests they are the same person. Another unsupported claim.
Egyptians were notorious for recording a lot of symbolic symbols seemingly representing various relationships between people, but in many cases was purely symbolic to fit into a belief system. Such as?
So many mysteries exist within Egyptian records, that it is pretty much impossible to say for sure: "so and so was the brother or sister of so and so, or so and so was the son or daughter of so and so." You have to interweave reason and common sense with these records, not just let these records stand on their own. It isn’t as complicated as you wish it was, they left a huge amount of records that are very reliable and consistent. Stop being so gullible.
What archeological evidence? Did you even read the article concerning how severely flawed traditional dating is? Moller is telling you it is flawed, it is nowhere near as bad as that, maybe 50 years maximum. How can it be 2000 years LOL.. And if dating is so bad, how can we believe Moller’s very precise date of 1446 BCE ?
How dare you blatantly make such ignoramus statements with such confidence. Face reality. I make them with confidence because they are true.Moller is trying to muddy the waters to make his hypothesis sound plausible. You are very nave.
The Gulf of Aqabah is too far away to be the crossing. Access deniedAccess denied Access denied Access denied Care ta read? You have no case. Read them, they say nothng about nomadic groups and how far they can travel. However, once again you totally miss the point. I was using YOUR criteria, YOU said that The Gulf of Suez is too far south to be the sea, you said it was insane, yet you prefer a site that is further south LOL, Gee-whizz Lysimachus, try being rational for a second.
The "Hebrew house" argument is unsupported. Really? Says who? "of course" says the critics!quote: If you ever get around to posting what the evidence is for the ‘Hebrew house’, then I will tell you. You have NEVER stated what a ‘Hebrew House’ is. I think I know that you are on about but I don’t want to presume anything. So what is a ‘Hebrew House’?
"ANY" archeologists? Moller is listed in the top 50 creationists that challenge evolution, btw. ROFLMAO, ah now the truth comes out. Your so-called ‘objective scientist’ that just happened to read about Wyatt’s discoveries and decided to check them out is nothing other than a fruitloop creation scientist! Now it all makes sense. Objective scientist, I wish you had told us this weeks ago, we could have saved a lot of time.
Ah, but his stuff is being taken seriously. Why are you bleating about no archaeologist taking it seriously then.
This stuff is relatively new, It is 25 years old for goodness sake. Numbnut Wyatt was peddling this mess in 1988!
and it clearly states in The Exodus Case series clips that there are Egyptologists beginning to agree with Moller. What do you expect them to include, I bet these Egyptologists are leaders in the field.
Moller, in fact, does a hard-core investigation into the life of Imhotep, and proves without very little doubt that Imhotep was the same individual as the Biblical Joseph. Dear God. 
Another reason why I am obliged to take Moller and Wyatt seriously, is because Wyatt has been the only archeologist to discover how the Pyramids of Egypt were built. Wyatt wasn’t an archaeologist, he was a nurse, his archaeological training was zero.
He was the one that constructed the lifting device, made a full scale model, and scientists from around the world came to see his model (based on the devices drawn in inscriptions, and the supporting holes found on the sides of the pyramids). When these scientists saw Wyatt's demonstration, they were aww stricken! Nameless and faceless scientists no doubt. :
Then you have a different approach as how to approach theology then. I take God, the Bible, and the events described in the Bible as literal. This is what is blinding you to reality and why you make so many fundamental errors in regard to history and archaeology. Your extremely blinkered approach is stopping you from understanding the disciplines involved. People who take the Bible literally have some serious psychological problems, thank goodness there are so few of them in the UK.
Based on this, I believe that God reveals His secrets through these archeological finds to help solidify faith. Well as you do not understand archaeology and you are unaware of 99% of the finds over the last 100 years I fail to see how you can come to this conclusion.
These discoveries have been a great benefit around many of the unseen. Is your faith so weak that you seek evidence to support biblical events, you do not think that the Bible can be trusted, why are you even looking for external evidence?
I know stories of entire families who gave their lives to Christ as a result of these archeological discoveries. Really, that’s terrible. I certainly wasn’t a Christian because of inscriptions and ostraca, I was a Christian because Jesus died on the cross so that my sins could be washed away with his blood, so that his resurrection promised me eternal life. These must be very weak Christians you know, I think that is awful.
These discoveries are proving themselves to the unseen...believing people who can digest this stuff. Well since literalists aren’t exactly known for rationality, what is the surprise here? I will answer the 'yam suph' info AGAIN, when I have time. Catch you later, Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member (Idle past 424 days)  Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: *sigh*okay, please, please try to understand me. I never said it had nothing to do with it. I simply saying that the book covers a broad subject revolving the Exodus, but does not center on the Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty. The dating of 1446 BC is another subject, of which he does go into. An entire chapter is dedicated to this dating. But my point is, a separate book would have to be written in order to discuss the many details associated with the 18th dynasty chronology. That is all. Hopefully, he will write such a book, but the central theme is the Red Sea Crossing of the Exodus. It starts from Abraham in Ur, to Joseph, to Moses, to the Red Sea Crossing, to Mt. Sinai, and then ends by discussing the tabernacle the various precious stones found in the area that the priests used. So it covers a broad topic. He went into a great amount of detail concerning Joseph, The Red Sea Crossing, and the dating of the Exodus, but those topics did not require near the amount of coverage that a topic on the Egyptian dynasties would require.
quote:quote: That is the whole issue here. We don’t believe the date is secure based on the fact that a total of 25 years uncertainty rest within the calculations.
quote:quote: I really don’t know why you are asking this question, but I have a funny impression you never read my first two articles very carefully (first two articles I posted on this forum). Based on the hypothesis that the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Aqaba, and since several coral-wheel shaped formations have been found, we believe that bones that were founds were the remains of the Egyptian army. Petrified human bones, cattle bones, and horse bones have been excavated and carefully examined. We believe these bones to be the remains of the Egyptian army that perished under the Red Sea by the command of God. The human bones, well, would obviously be the soldiers/priests/officers. The horse bones are a no-brainer (not just horse bones, but horse hooves as well). The cattle bones were most likely the food the Egyptians brought along and be slaughtered should the need arise. About 19 clear photographs of these various bones (the ones excavated from the land bridge) are provided in the book (would require a lot of scanning, but I’m willing to go through the work if you really want me to).
quote: A lot of Christian archeologists have misinterpreted data, no doubt. Based on my research, they both make dire mistakes often in their claims. The ideas of Wyatt (elaborated and built up by Moller) are unique and original. Traditional Christian archeologists do not agree with Wyatt or Moller, and cling to the old ideas that non-Christian archeologists have proven wrong. The reason why traditional Christian ‘archeologists’ have to abandon their ideas is because they will not subscribe to Wyatt’s and Moller’s ideasthe true Christian archeologists, and will continue to be disproved until they decide to rely on the archeological physical remains (chariot wheels, Mt. Sinai, Noah’s Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah). Traditional Christian archeologists have tried time and time again to try and prove the authenticity of the Bible without these remains to back them up. If these remains (of which point to a biblical event) don’t line up with traditional dating, then one must be open to the possibility that there may be a flaw in the dating approach.
quote:quote: Yet again, as I said, these Bible defenders will continue to get nowhere until the subscribe to the true evidence presented by the W.A.R foundation, and the research by Moller, Vivike Pontien, and a number of other Egyptologists who are agreeing. I bet you any money William Dever disagrees with Wyatt’s theories. That is why he will continue to be discredited for his Bible Archaeology. The bottom line is, most Christian archaeologists have not necessarily always been doing true Biblical Archaeology. This is why the phrase A ‘True’ Biblical Archaeologist has been coined for Ronald E. Wyatt. Tell me, does this so called New Archaeology successful answer and address the remains found at the bottom of Aqaba? Does it solve the boat-shaped formation located in the mountains (plural) of Ararat in eastern Turkey? Does it successfully solve the millions of sulfur balls imbedded into ash-turned buildings located in the southern part of the Dead Sea? Does it successfully solve the burn rings and all around these cities? They are all ash, and the bible says that these cities were completely turned to ash:
Josephus' description perfectly describes what can be seen in these five ashen sites. All whitish in color, the shadows and shapes display all the visual characteristics of ancient cities and walls:
This stuff is just an example of the many things New Archaeology has not been able to give us logical answers for. I’ve read some articles before on why they feel these sulfur balls exist in this area, and the reasoning is the most stupendous reasoning I’ve ever heard. They can’t even submit that these shapes are clear shapes of ancient walls/cities. I’m sorry, but New Archaeology doesn’t impress me. It may be popular, and it may be successful, but all I can say is my heart goes out to those who fall under its spell.
quote:quote: I read it, but you missed the point of why I provided it. I knew it mentioned those things, but it still goes to show you that many modern-day archeologists such as Herzog have a grudge against the Bible, and are willing to do anything to downplay it even if it requires exaggerating by stating there were no Israelites in Egypt. It goes to show you that you can’t trust men who aren’t willing to view archaeology objectively. We, on the other hand, see striking comparisons between various individuals of the Bible and those written in ancient records, and cannot simply ignore them as do your pet scientists.
quote:quote: Why would I be joking over such a serious issue? For example, just take a look at any old biblical book from the 40s (I have plenty books that are about to fall apart), and you should see them rant on how about how sure they were that Rameses II was from the Exodus. The discoveries of Ron Wyatt didn’t come until 1978, and it was on the news all over the United States, including CNN and 20/20. Did you know that when Ron Wyatt and his team were interviewed, nobody told him they didn’t believe him? The number one archaeologist from Turkey agrees with Ron Wyatt that he truly found Noah’s Ark. However, the media simply hopped to the next news source. Deep inside they knew this stuff to be true, but the unbelieving attitude of many prevented them from giving much attention to the subject. All criticism was quiet for a while, until finally in the mid-90’s, all this garbage and lies started to come out about Ron Wyatt and his discoveries. A lot of it was initiated by the Standish brotherssupposedly God fearing men (Seventh-Day Adventists, the same as Ron). From the very beginning, the Standish brothers were very skeptical, and Russel Standish only spent 4 hours out of Ron’s entire life talking to him in person. Colin Standish on the other hand never once bothered to go talk to Ron about these discoveries and inquire for himself, and they only lived a couple hours away from each other. A lot of the criticism we see today was built upon old criticism that has already been well refuted. However, you really never see original criticism against his discoveries. It’s always the same old stuff that they keep bringing up over and over and over again.
quote:quote: But the new valuable data is being revealed to the unseen, data that never existed before the 70s. It is hidden in the shadows, available for any person who is sincere, honest, and hungry for truth. One example is, based on the articles I provide in the forums (these as well as others), people ever so often email me and thank me for the wonderful info I have provided. There are many eyes reading this stuff, but are not buying into the comments of the critics. It is mainly the critics who post and respond to these things, that is why it looks like the majority of you are against it. But the unseen have a deep appreciation for it.
quote:quote: Figures
quote:quote: Enough to come out and tell me you disagree with me, instead of always coming across as if I’m dead wrong? You are entitled to your opinion and to disagree. I pray I’m not forcing these discoveries on anyone. I only want to share them for others to decide and come to their own conclusions. What I don’t like, however, is when I’m trying to get a message across to other people who want this stuff, atheists come along and try to tear it apart. Forums should be designed to discuss things objectively, not to prove the other guy wrong. Forums have a tendency to waver peoples once solid beliefs, until they become so confused they just give up and say I don’t know what I believe!.
quote:quote: This progress is what the inspired writings have predicted a long time ago. The increase of wickedness is never built on an obvious assent. It is concealed well under the enemies’ hands. The world will some day know that this progress is what will eventually one day lead world nations to national ruin. Scientists to not know that man did not live for 969 years. There are over 200 accounts of a Universal, Gobal flood as made record of by various cultures, assorted myths, legends & languages from different ancient civilizations from around the world. Why is it that coincidentally, they all acquired such a legend? It’s because there is reality to it. These legends didn't develop out of thin air. They are related to an event that got handed down through the centuries. We also know there were giants, men of 14 feet in height. My friend Andrew has an actual finger bone from one of these giants in Canaan. Men were much larger in size the closer back to the flood you get. The green-house effect provided a much more potent living atmosphere, and men could have easily lived longer with the quality of oxygen level that existed. It has been proven for example that T-Rex’s lungs could not function properly with the oxygen levels we have to day, and would require a much ore potent atmosphere with much higher oxygen levels. It has been demonstrated that flying dinosaur birds could not have lifted off the ground in the current atmosphere, but the enhanced atmosphere due to a greenhouse effect would allow the capability. Just the fact that 70-80% of our planet is covered in water is an obvious testimony that the globe was in fact completely covered in water. The continents of which we live on are actually massive mountain elevations, and the explosion of Mt. St. Helens was one example that startled evolutionists around the globe. Things evolutionists for years thought must take millions of years were now being discovered to transpire over a few short years. We no longer are protected from the suns’ UV rays because the earth was cursed for the third time from the wickedness of man. All that was once created perfect was not degenerating into imperfection. The earth’s water vapor canopy collapsed, the fountains from the deep came up, and a world wide flood was formed. The massive mountains we see today, such as Mt. Everest are a result from this flood. The forming of the Grand Canyon, the forming of the many other famous canyons and mountains, all have significant evidence of water erosiondemonstrating there was indeed a world wide flood. The bible isn’t fiction, it is real. Though one can rely on faith alone, one does not need to if they do not want to.
quote:quote: If this statement is represented by all of your sort, it is no different then calling the kettle black.
quote:quote: King Richard The Lionhearted was a legendary hero, yet many of his legendary books are recording only the facts of his life, not the fiction. I’ve read some of them. Characters from the Bible have become legendary, and that is why new stories outside of the Bible have been made up about them. But what was recorded in scripture about these characters was only fact.
quote:quote: Is that why popular scientists have been able to give direct answers as to the chariot remains found under the Red Sea? I will admit that mystery surrounds the Apiru, Hyksos, and Amarna invasions, but the idea that they may not have been Israelites does not negate that there was an obvious event that no naturalistic explanation has been able to give as to the chariot wheels at the bottom of the sea, and the blackened peak at Mt. Sinai (Jebel Al Lawz). The Red Sea Crossing did die when archeologists decided to label it fiction based on the fact that they could find no archeological evidence. The reason is obvious. They kept looking in the Suez regions, and found nothing. This lead many scholars around the globe to conclude that it must be fiction. Until one serious scientists decided to read the Bible a little more carefully and figure out that this sea that was being spoken of was not just a small lake. The Bible makes it clear that the Israelites were OUT of Egypt BEFORE they crossed the Red Sea. On the western shores or on the bitter lakes of Suez, you are still in the borders of Egypt proper. So finally we believe we figured it out. Scientists have been looking in the wrong places, and therefore coming to the myth conclusion. This is WHY it has been DEAD Brian! Now the Gulf of Aqaba points us OTHERWISE and raises NEW QUESTIONS about the Exodus!
quote:quote: I have and do read this literature. Nothing in it so far stands out as ultimate evidence against it that I have seen. Nothing spoking gun to convince me against it.
quote:quote: Neither have inscriptions or historical sources been able to help us determine what race these Canaanites in Egypt were. However, we do have one source that does tell us what they were, the Bible. But no other sources are able to place a name on them.
quote:quote: It lists the names of the kings of Babylon, Persia, Assyria, and even many battles that were recorded in history. It even lists each name of the kings of Judah and Israel, and many forts, cities, and locations that even the regular historical records recorded. The main players are generally mentioned throughout the book, but there are those times when the Bible poses those ambiguous moments that require a little more research. The above paragraph is very similar to non-biblical historical records.
quote:quote: How do you know? I don’t believe for a word that everything was recorded.
quote:quote: Who were they? Give me 100% proof that these Canaanites had names of particular races, and that there is evidence that there was the presence of these particular races living in Egypt.
quote:quote: Are you trying to wear out my fingers? Instead of having me waste my time by answering these unsupported quotes, why don’t you just make it a little easier on me by providing me the data that gives the answers as to who these Apiru and Caananites really were?
quote:quote: Dido from above.
quote:quote: Good luck at trying to convince me
quote:quote: quote:quote:The invasion that you spoke of in post 159, the same post that you mentioned the Amarna letter proving that there was Israelites in Canaan. Are you popping too many painkillers or something? Yes, I take one hydrocrodon painkiller every 3 hours, unfortunately. But why are these discoveries by Beitak of Tel-el-Daba considered recent discoveries then? I can feel safe to say that although it is difficult to prove the existence of the Israelite race, per say, that they obviously did live there seeing the Egyptians were so ambiguous about really identifying these Canaanites. The letters from the kings in Palestine that plea for the aid of Akhenaton also do not indicate who these invaders were. This lines up perfectly for scripture, since the scripture is very clear that the many kings of Palestine were sorely afraid of the onslaught of the pursuing Israelites, and it was about this time (100 or so years after Amenhotep III) that these letters cometallying with around the time the Israelites were taking city after city. I close my eyes and I visualize a chain of events, and these chain of events are tallying nicely with the Bible. Since historical sources fail pin-point the precise race, place, and explanation for various events, I thank God the Bible exists to fill in the holes!
quote:quote: And it was YOU that claimed there WERE Egyptian remains. And although I don’t believe this, I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that even if you were right, it doesn’t negate the strong possibility of this town to have been a Hebrew dwelling. Also, the Exodus Revealed (video made in 2000) video specifically stated that there now is doubt that these were the remains of a Hebrew dwelling place. It not only showed in detail the shapes of these buildings, but the lining of the inner rooms of which clearly had symbols of Hebrew origin. There were other buildings found in Canaan (of non-Hebrew origin) that were found to be similar, but the ones found in Israel were identical to the ones excavated at Tel-Al-Daba. I have serious doubts as to what these ungodly infidel led critics are saying, since they are clearly set on doing whatever it takes to discredit the Bible. If Bietak had claimed that these buildings were of another, non-Hebrew origin (say Syrians), I have this funny gut feeling that the critics wouldn’t have even bothered trying to disprove it. But when it comes to anything biblically oriented, they come alive!
quote:quote: You clearly do not want to get my point. You pick on one word and then totally lose track of what I’m really trying to say. I’ll take back the word inscriptions, but based on the video there clearly were drawings inside the buildings, and I saw them quite clearly on the video. It was said that all of this, the buildings and symbols, were of clearly Hebrew origin. The fact that you are desperately trying to pick apart my words show that you are not interested in the big picture I’m trying to offer, rather, a vendetta against anything Biblically oriented.
quote:quote: What if your sources are the ones making up garbage? You aren’t possibly inferring that Moller’s sources are garbage? His sources come from acclaimed authors of books from places such as London, Berkeley, Cairo Museum, other Museums, Chicago, New York, and many other places.
quote:quote: You and Paul only provided sources that may help one to arrive at altered conclusions, but not even close to beyond all doubt. Not even near to doubt alone. The only sources you have provided are sources which indicate there is real no way of knowing for sure when relying solely on historical sources without the aid of the Bible.
quote:quote: First, let me refer to what makes us believe that perhaps Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II could be the same person. You critics love to use dates to discredit ideas, correct? Well what I’m about to do is use number of reigning years to discredit the idea that they were two different people, and that this number of reigning years for each one of them is an indication that they could be the same person. I will requite what Moller says, and I ask that you pay close attention to the number of reigning years of Thumosis II, III, and Amenhotep II: ---------------------------------------- 16.1 Who takes Moses’ place when Moses flees? Moses flees in tremendous haste from Egypt when he is 40 years old. The question then arises concerning who became Pharaoh when Moses disappeared from the Egyptian leadership and his future place on the throne. The pharaoh at that time, Amenhotep I, was old and during 22 years had prepared for Moses to take over the throne (see figure 245). What was to happen to this acute situation? In Memphis there was a man who had been prepared to become co-ruler with Moses when Moses ascended the throne. Probably this man was promoted to become co-ruler with Amenhotep I with the same name (rank/title) as Moses, Thutmosis. Documents show that he received his position in his 22nd year. A co-ruler begins to count his years when he receives the position of co-ruler. This year then becomes the first year. Here we have a person who attains his position in his 22nd year with the same Egyptian name as Moses (Thutmosis)! It should be noted that the number of years may be counted from when the person becomes heir to the throne, crown prince or co-ruler. Then, when he becomes emperor he begins to count his years again. This leads to two lengths of rule, each as a different god authority. This is the reason why Thutmosis III states his reign as 54 years, while Amenhotep II’s is 26-32 years (depending on the source). Thutmosis II, who is the one who takes Moses’ place, is distinguished in that there is no trace of him as he rises in rank but he suddenly becomes co-ruler in his 22nd year (figure 245). Editors note: Pay CLOSE attention to the above information! Note how the reigning years are lined up. What happened when Moses was suddenly forced to flee the country, was that the Egyptian authorities were obliged to find a replacement who could embody the god Thot (with the title/rank Thutmosis). In order not to break the line of succession, the successor assumed the role of Moses and the years he had had in that post. Usually when a member of royalty died the god flew up the heavens and was later reborn in the person who received the same position after a time. In this case no-one died and an immediate transfer was necessary. Everything that belonged to Moses was probably transferred to this new person (Thutmosis) and things continued without a break. This new person is called Thutmosis III. Presumably however, most of the statues said to represent him really represent Moses. Editors note: This is a high probability, as there is a clear connection between Nefure and Senmut (aquiline nose) and Hatshetsup and Thutmosis II (aquiline nose). It is clearly said that Senmut had a high-bridge (aquiline) nose. Note the difference between Hatshepsut’s nose (Moses’ stepmother) and the nose of Moses (Thutmosis II) at the Deir-El Bahri temple in figures 239-240 (figure not available). A long wall at Deir-El Bahri illustrates how Hatshepsut touches the hand of a god (=sexual relation). The next illustration shows here being pregnant, followed by a series of illustrations of a small boy growing to become a teenager. This is according to the tradition to explain an adoption. The hypothesis of this book is that Hatshepsut’s son was Moses. This tallies perfectly with the falcon bird above both Hatshetsup and Thutmosis II: Figure 238: Horus (the falcon), Hatshetsup (right) and Thutmosis II was brother and husband to Hatshepsut. According to the hypothesis of this book, Thutmosis II was adopted son (Moses) of Hatshepsut, expressed as mother’s brother in Egyptian tradition. This shows a STRIKING relationship between Senmut (meaning mother’s brother) with Nefure and Hatshepsut and Thutmosis II, as goes another inscription: Figure 240: Horus (the falcon), Thutmosis II (upper left) and Hatshepsut (lower left) at Deir El Bahri. According to Egyptian custom, Thutmosis II (Moses) was his mother’s brother (see the text) and in this way heir to the throne (brother), but was also adopted. Mother’s brother which is the meaning of Senmut. ADDITIONALLY, it is striking to see the correlation that both Thutmosis I and Amenhotep BOTH had no male heirs to the throne.) Thutmosis III was said to have reigned for 54 years, however 22 of these years were really the years Moses had in position of Thutmosis. If these 22 years are subtracted from the 54 years, then that makes 32 years in power! In on text it is stated that Thutmosis III passed away after a rule of 32 (some say 54) years. The connection between these years is shown here, otherwise it is very complicated to understand since it is difficult to find a point of reference from which to start counting. This person, who reigned for 32 years as Amenhotep II before he died and was succeeded, was a great and mighty ruler in Egypt, the super power at the same time. Moses’ foster mother, Hatshepsut, lived for many years after the flight of Moses and is called queen on the monuments in the later years of the reign of Amenhotep II, only Cleopatra being more well-known among women in leading positions in Egypt.------------------------------------- No doubt, there are obvious indications that there could be a father-son relationship. But based on other contradictory evidence, it leads one to assume that perhaps these writings of a father-son could represent a transition meaning, Thutmosis is reborn to a higher god, Amenhotep. Additionally, I still wonder what makes scholars so certain that the name Akheprure was a name solely belonging to Amenhotep II, and that Menkheperre solely belonged to Thutmosis III. Just the fact that there are issues concerning the Menkheperre/Thutmosis III name relation leads me to questions: http://www.kent.net/...edDynasties/Menkheperre_Thutmose.html
quote:quote: We are speaking of the main inscriptions we are familiar with regarding these kings. You provided the description of these inscriptions yourself, and the fact that these two kings are side by side to me could indicate a transitional representation of two different reigning positions of this Pharaoh. For example, Thutmosis III is seated BEHIND Amenhotep II (which would seem strange, since wouldn’t you put the father in front, as the primary figure?). To me this could be indicating a transition, of Thutmosis II (behind) transferring to the next position (Amenhotep II) in front. Not only this, although I have not provided a single inscription, I have provided patterns based on these inscriptions. The pattern of ruling years of these Pharaohs that was mentioned above to me is one indication. Another indication of which I lean upon is that the remarkable story that is told on the Sphinx inscription between the paws of the Sphinx that One day Thutmosis IV fell asleep in the shadow of the Sphinx and dreamt that the sun god came to him, and said that if he removed all the sand from around the sphinx he would become king. Now carefully take a look at how the story reads: "Now the statue of the very great Khepri (the Great Sphix) restin in this place, great of fame, sacred of respect, the shade of Ra resting on him. Memphis and every city on its two sides came to him, their arms in adoration to his face, bearing great offerings for his ka. One of these days it happened that prince Tuthmosis came travelling at the time of midday. He rested in the shadow of the great god. (Sleep and) dream (took possession of me) at the moment the sun was at zenith. Then he found the majesty of this noble god speaking from his own mouth like a father speaks to his son, and saying, 'Look at me, observe me, my son Tuthmosis. I am your father, Horemakhet-Khepri-Ra-Atum. I shall give to you the kingship (upon the land before the living)...(Behold, my condition is like one in illness), all (my limbs being ruined). The sand of the desert, upon which I used to be, (now) confronts me; and it is in order to cause that you do what is in my heart that I have waited." Notice that his name is ALREADY Thutmosis, and he dreams this dream that he WILL become KING! If Thutmosis IV is the title of supreme Pharaoh, king of Egypt, why is his name already labeled as Thutmosis BEFORE he BECOMES KING??! To me this clearly indicates a transition from a position of co-regency (Thutmosis) to kingship (Amenhotep). The term prince Thutmosis is used, and the god calls him Thutmosis by name before he predicts him to become king. You may argue and say that Thutmosis was not a title, but a name. However, it is more likely that if his real name was Menkheperure, then the title Thutmosis was given once they reach they reach the stage of coregency. Thutmosis would be a god title for the god Thot, while Amenhotep would be the god title for the god Amen (or Amun). Just the fact they are considered the Thutmosid rulers would indicate a title. quote:quote: Such as the illustration of Hatshepsut being pregnant. In J. Tyldesley’s book (1998) Hatchepsut, the Female Pharaoh, it says Senmut’s shrine omits the customary earthly and funerary feasts and includes instead a depiction of Hatshepsut being embraced by the crocodile-headed god Moses origin was that he was found in the Nile river, where the crocodiles were found. Hatshepsut was probably the childless woman that found Moses in the river. Therefore she was in a symbolic way blessed by the god(s) related to the Nile river. A long wall at DeirpEl Bahri illustrates how Hatshepsut touches the hand of a god (=sexual relation). The next illustration shows her being pregnant, followed by a series of illustrations of a small boy growing to become a teenager. This is according to the tradition to explain an adoption. The hypothesis of this book is that Hatsepsut’s son was Moses. There is also an inscription here at Deir-El Bahri that shows Hatshepsut pregnant. This would be indicated by a gift from the gods. According to tradition however, this would represent her son Thutmosis III. But this would be unlikely seeing he is distinguished in that there is no trace of him as he rises in rank but he suddenly becomes co-ruler in his 22nd year.
quote:quote: N. Reeves and R.H. Wilkinson (1996), in there book, The Complete Valley of the Kings, p 01, state thus: The family relationships of the Thuthmosid rulers are a genealogical nightmare. Is there no reason to make that statement? I would say it is more complicated than most scholars like to imagine.
quote:quote: Beh, that’s what you want to see. The truth is, I think your vision is severely narrowed. You need to expand your vision and see a chain of events (pattern) that is clearly linking history with the Bible in a very fascinating way.
quote:quote: But they do speak of the three days travel of which you spoke of, correct? Those links were intended to help you understand when those three days could have taken place. But, if you don’t like their interpretation, Moller’s interpretation is somewhat different. The fact is, we can in no way for sure say that when the Bible refers to three days, that in three days they crossed the whole Sinai Peninsula. 39. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE THE EGYPTIANS TO CATCH UP WITH THE ISRAELITES? The people of Israel had permission to go three days journey into the desert to sacrifice and worship (Ex. 8:27). It is not indicated if Pharaoh knew where they were going, except that they were going into the desert to sacrifice and worship. We can therefore assume that there was no particular reaction during the first three days. Moreover the Egyptians were fully occupied with all the disasters which had hit them. Not least, every family, including Pharaoh had a funeral to arrange. 39.1. To Report to Pharaoh But Pharaoh was the leader of a super power and he was without doubt both energetic and surrounded by a well-trained army. It is likely that he sent out spies to travel with the people of Israel, or to follow them at a distance. When the third day draws to a close and the people just continue their journey, these spies must have reacted. If some of them immediately ride back to report to Pharaoh we can assume that they rode quickly as possible in that terrain. The spies could also have sent signals between the possible watch towers along the route. Figures 323, 324: High mountains enabled rapid communication between the mountain peaks: in the daytime with mirrors or smoke signaling and at night by signaling with fires. And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night. (Ex. 13:21) 39.2 How Fast Did the People of Israel Travel? If the people of Israel journeyed day and night for three days, this corresponds to six days of travel on foot. We must not forget that they had a pillar of fire by night, and continued to walk both day and night, according to the text. Editors note: We must not forget that at this point, God was eager to help the Israelites move as quickly as possible, and therefore gave the Israelites strength to walk day and night. It could also be assumed that they had wagons, donkeys, oxen, and I’m sure some horses. Families would most likely take turns back and forth by resting on an animal or wagon while the other walked. The Bible also makes it very clear that he caused their sandals and clothes to not wear out. The horsemen who ride back cannot ride by night since they only have the daylight on which to depend. In the thick darkness which prevails in the area, no transport can be carried out at night. Nor can they urge their horses on too much in the heat, which prevails during the day in this desert area. But of course the horsemen can travel much more quickly than the people on foot. We can assume that these six days of travel on foot could be done in two days on horseback. Thus when these horsemen return to Pharaoh, a further forty-eight hours has passed, and the people of Israel have put behind them the equivalent of four days more travel. By the time the horsemen reach Pharaoh, the people of Israel are 4-5 days journey (on foot) into the desert, corresponding to 8-10 day distances. 39.3. The Reaction at the Court of Pharaoh How does Pharaoh react to the news that the people of Israel are not going to return? Pharaoh mobilizes the whole of his army. As has been mentioned earlier, according to Josephus, this was an army of great power, even by today’s standards. 600 selected war chariots and all the chariots in Egypt, plus the 50,000 soldiers belonging to them. 200,000 infantry soldiers. All the troops were armed. A week is a very short time to mobilize such an army. In addition to putting in order all the fighting equipment, there were two things that determined how long the mobilization of the army would take: The aftermath of all that happened in Egypt regarding the plagues, including the death of many officers and administrators. The likelihood of speedily assembling necessary stores, including water for both horses and men, in view of the amount needed and also of the fact that the resources of the entire country had been laid waste. This must have been a very difficult and complicated enterprise. But if we assume that: The majority of the army was stationed in the eastern border area All the equipment was in place and could be put in order quickly They had stored supplies for a big military operation The deaths among all the officers, soldiers and administrators did not affect the mobilization to any great extent. If we add to this a great anger and lust for revenge, then perhaps the mobilization of a powerful army could be managed in a few days. This is a very short time since they were not prepared for it, and it was a military operation entailing a quarter of a million soldiers who needed to have everything with them for transport, maintenance and battle in the desert area. ------------------------------ 39.4 How Fast Did the Army of Egypt March? During these days of mobilization the people of Israel managed to journey further away. With the days travel they had already managed to accomplish, the people of Israel were not far out in the desert. The speed of the Egyptian’s march was not determined by the horsemen, but by how quickly the stores could be transported. Presumably this was done by oxen and wagons, and in the desert climate this type of transport is not much quicker than going by foot. But let us suppose that the army could travel, at any rate, twice as quickly as the people of Israel. Then they covered two days journey on foot in one day. The people of Israel went at half that speed, but one the other hand they traveled both day and night, i.e. two days journey on foot in twenty-four hours. It would take a very long time to catch up with the people of Israel, and the decisive factor is if and when the people of Israel pitched camp. We can calculate with various figures but all is guess work. The simple conclusion is that the pursuing army had great difficulty in catching up with the people of Israel, unless the people of Israel stopped and pitched camp. If we assume that the people of Israel at a speed of two km an hour, and journeyed five hours each day and five hours each night, they had 14 hours to rest every twenty-four hours. Thus they could move themselves about 20 km every twenty-four hours. In this case, buy the time the Egyptian army began its march, the people of Israel would have been able to reach any place in the wilderness of the Red Sea (today’s Sinai peninsula). Roughly speaking, from then on both the Egyptian army and the people of Israel covered the same distance each day. The conclusion is that the people of Israel could have reached anywhere they chose within the area we call the Sinai peninsula today, since at its widest it is 230 km (if one draws a straight line between present day Suez and Eilat). The critical stage arises at the point when the people of Israel pitch camp, while the Egyptian army continues its march (figure 305). Figure 305: The probably route of the Exodus is shown with the green line.
39.5. In Summary How far do the people of Israel manage to move before they are overtaken? Calculated from the area where it is considered that Succoth was situated (close to today’s Suez canal), which was the starting point of the Exodus, the people of Israel could have crossed the Sinai peninsula with a good margin and reached Nuweiba without the Egyptian army having much chance of catching up. 40. HOW DO THE EGYPTIAN ARMY AND THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL MEET? According to the biblical text, the Egyptian army catches up with the people of Israel at the encampment on the coast of the Red Sea: But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Phahiroth, before Baalzephon. (Ex. 14:9) The people of Israel discover the Egyptian army when it is very close, which may imply that the Egyptians were hidden until they were almost on them: And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them (Ex. 14:10) This agrees with the assertion that the Egyptians emerged from a valley surrounded by mountains, which also fits the suggested locality, Nuweiba. The speed is implied when the Bible says that the Egyptian army marched. It was not a question of horsemen galloping, which supports the hypothesis regarding the length of time the Egyptian army needed. Also, the fact that they did not catch up before the people of Israel pitched camp at the Red Sea, shows that the Egyptian army could not keep up a fast pace. ------------------------------------
quote:quote: Who says a Hebrew house has to be defined? If the researchers tell us that the architecture found at Tel-el-daba was identical to the architecture of Hebrew homes found in Israel, then I am willing to take their word for it, as should you. You were willing to take the authors word for it when he described the inscriptions in words about Thutmosis and Amenhotep, were you not?
quote:quote: Let me rephrase that. He’s not considered a Creation Scientist in any sense of the word. According to the net, he’s labeled a Research Scientist and Professor of Environmental Medicine. He is a Research Scientists that considers himself to be a Christian. He is an objective scientist who is a Christian and believes in God. This does not mean that his Christianity and scientific research are correlated. One may be born a Christian, but still enter a scientific field with objective purposes. Moller makes this very clear at the beginning of his book. He clearly states that the data presented is open to interpretation, and that you are the judge. The book he wrote is based on the fundamental hypothesis: the Bible texts dealt with in this book (Genesis 11:27 to Exodus 40:38) are a true historical document. But let me take back what I said. For some strange reason, I felt sure I saw some article that spoke of Moller being among the top 50 creation/Christian scientists that challenge Darwinism, but I did another search on the net, and run into no such thing. I think my mind could have been playing tricks on me, since it wasn’t too long ago that I was reading an article about top 50 creation scientists, and then later found Moller in this list: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/EvolutionPolls.pdf (under 127 National and International scientists, number 79), as voting for objectivity, and that evolution does need to be taughtCareful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
[quote]quote: Why are you bleating about no archaeologist taking it seriously then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
