"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Because extraordinary care was likely taken so it didn't. Egypt is relatively isolated from the North and East by water, leaving a limited border of Egypt proper to secure. The ports were likely secured also.

Come on now Buz. That's hard to imagine. Two Million people Buz. Loss of a Pharoh Buz. Loss of the Army Buz.Assyria and Nubia as well as all the other world powers in the area would have noticed that.If they were successful in getting the word out to keep it secret, the internal documentation would be even more obvious.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Questions for Brian, Paul, Jar and others:1. Do you believe the wheels photographed in the Gulf of Aqaba actually exist at Nuweiba or do you think the video is a fraud?2. If you believe they exist, why, in all this wide world should they just happen to be found near the other corroborating things relative to the Biblical account and what BETTER, explanation could you offer, other than the ridiculous notion that they were scattered across Nuweiba from an ancient ship or the other ridiculous notion that they were prepared and planted by Wyatt?

Question 1.Right now there is absolutely no way to tell. There is the video but absolutely no evidence.Question 2.There is no corroborating evidence that has been shown so far.The issue has always been that there is nothing except conjecture and assertion with what has been presented so far.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi, Jar. You only have to see the light coral growth on the 'wheels' to know they are recent artifacts. Even the shipwrecks around the world in tropical areas become completely enclosed in coral reefs within a couple of hundred years. The only possible reason for the 'wheels' to be so lightly encrusted is for them to have been exposed recently by a shift in currents, or storms. If this had happened, you would expect obvious signs of disturbance on the sea bottom (gutters gouged out, coral blocks overturned,scouring around fixed objects). Storms have a habit of recovering buried objects, but this discovery 'could' be in the interim period. Even in pure sand areas, shifts in the bottom tend to swallow up any object, man-made or natural, within a short period.
Edited to remove etc :-)This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 07-10-2004 05:12 AM

i'm gonna go off topic for a sec, but it ties in.out in the carribean, they kept finding these classical greek sculptures. "evidence for atlantis!" all the crackpots screamed. they were in relatively shallow water, too. you could go dive and see them for yourself. how in the world had they gotten there?turns out that rennaissance ships routinely used old, unwanted, greek-style sculptures for ballast, and had to dump them at a certain point in the transatlantic journey.a wheel at the bottom of the red sea means nothing. it's extremely plausible that it's from a ship of some kind.

1) I don't know. That is why I want to hear from independant experts.
The possiblity of fraud is very real in this case so I am not making any definite decison on this without further data.2) The idea that a guy known for incorrectly (or outright dishonestly) claiming to have found "evidence" of Biblical sites and who is very likely to have "planted" evidence in thwe past would do so in this case is far from ridiculous. Given the extreme difficulty in extracting any real evidence on the alleged "chariot wheels" I think that there is no point in going into the other "evidence" - it'll probably come down to "Wyatt says so" or "Moller says so" at best.However given the fact that the only way to fit Wyatt's "evidence" into Egyptian history seems to involve a wholesale rewrite - with hopelessly inadequate evidence - or even obvious falsehoods like the supposedly "unique" pattern of names in the 18th Dynasty then the whole case looks rather shakey. When we consider that this is the ONLY area where we can compare the ideas of Wyatt and Moller against independant experts - and the case looks very, very weak. There is no reason to suppose that the rest of their case would stand up any better if we find egregious errors on those matters that can be checked. SO there are adequate grounds for dismissing the claims of Wyatt and Moller unless and until better evidence comes to light

Obviously not. If Egypt had sealed it's borders (with all the army dead ???) that would have been noticed. If merchants and diplomats and messengers had been detained in Egypt that would ahve been noticed. And the borders would have to have been sealed near the start of the Plagues or those would have been noticed. And then there's this body of 2,000,000 Asitics wandering around claiming to have escaped from Egypt and boasting about the disasters their God did to demonstrate his power. Did the Egyptian army follow the Israelites killing everyone who talked to them ?Amd there's another problem. The whole point of the Ten Plagues are to demonstrate God's Power. It isn't a very effective demonstration if the Egyptians can cover it up like that - your explanation has the Egyptians beating God on that part.No, it makes no sense that Egypt could have kept it secret.

Another reply to Brian - and I notice that you are repeating some things that have already been shown false - as well as ranting that Wyatt and Moller should be treated as more credible than qualified experts BECAUSE they are biased. But when we see the sort of errors that that bias produces surely no rational person could accept such a reason.But lets look at this little argument - which again shows just how little you know about about Egyptology - or at least how little you care about the facts. Now I already pointed out one resource on Pharoah's names - and you indicated that you knew about them earlier.The fact is that "Thutmosis" is the nomen - the birth name - while "Menkeperre" is the Throne name - WHICH IS ASSUMED ON BECOMING PHAROAHIn other words the inscription makes perfect sense under the usual interpretation. His name is Thutmosis - and Menkeperre is another name which he will take in the future. But NOT until he becomes King. So in the view of conventional Egyptology - which you seem happy to accept for other Pharoahs - of course he would be addressed by his name, Thutmosis. Menkeperre is not his "real name" - until he becomes Pharoah it is not his name at all so of course that would not be used and it is absurd to suggest otherwise.So your claim that this supports Wyatt is based on yet another rewrite of Egyptology - not content with substituting a title for the nomen, now you substitute the Throne Name for the nomen to try to support the original claim. Yet of course you produce no evidence for this fantastic claim. It seems to have been simply invented just to try to find "evidence" for Wyatt's orignal claim. It certainly demonstrates that any claim on your part to have "evidence" cannot be believed.I will add that it certainly seems to me that the text suggests a name rather than a title so if it supports any view then it clearly supports that of conventional Egyptology over that of Wyatt and his followers.(And I note that if "Thutmosid" were based on "Thutmosis" being a title - then it would indicate the SUPERIOR rank - not, as Wyatt says, the inferior position of co-regent. Your suggestion is not even a plausible surmise - and shows just how far you will invent "evidence" - did you even think of LOOKING for where the "Thutmosid" name came from and trying to find out why it was applied ?)I strongly suggest that you make an effort to at least get the basic facts right. So long as you make such egregious errors you only discredit your case.

Nighttrain,

quote:

---

Storms have a habit of recovering buried objects, but this discovery 'could' be in the interim period. Even in pure sand areas, shifts in the bottom tend to swallow up any object, man-made or natural, within a short period.
Edited to remove etc :-)

---

True, however, it must be remembers that probably most of the Egyptian remains have been buried under the sand, or swept off into the Elat and Aragonese deeps off the sides of the ‘land bridge’. The Bible tells us that Egypt took all the chariots of Egypt, and the very fact of what you mentioned explains why we find so few, so the condition of which we found them in jibes perfectly with the theory that it happened approx. 3450 years ago. And, since it I has been thoroughly pinpointed that the only time Egypt had 4 spoke, 6 spoke, and 8 spoke wheels simultaneously during the reign of Thutmosis IV, leads us to conclude that these wheels (based on the pie shapes, diameter, and circumference, could NOT have been during the Intermediate Period of Egypt. Go back a few pages and read my post on dating the chariot wheels.Arachnophilia,

quote:

---

a wheel at the bottom of the red sea means nothing. it's extremely plausible that it's from a ship of some kind.

---

You’re right, a wheel at the bottom of the red sea does mean nothing, and it would extremely be plausible that it is from a ship of some kind. However, it seems that you must have been absent, for this very comment has been addressed like a thousand times. There just isn’t ONE wheel. Divers have found chariot wheel, and body shaped objects on BOTH costs STRAIGHT across from one another. In Moller’s book, he has two sections. 1. Chariot remains found from the West Coast off Nuweiba, and found not only a few clearly identified chariot wheels, axels, twisted wreckage, and piles that seem similar to heaps of bones and debris, but found them RIGHT ACROSS NUWIEBA BEACH. 2. A second diver, Viveke Pontien and her team, who received the rights to dive off the Saudi Coast (East Coast), dove and found the same types of coral chariot shaped remains off of that coast TOOO! So you see, we have a PATTERN hear that clearly reveals this was this is no ship wreck. We find no wreckage whatsoever relating to that of a ship, only wreckage of that of a great caravan like in a straight line that reveals wheels shapes, human bones, HORSE BONES, CATTLE BONES. THIS SHOULD LEAD NO ONE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS RELATED TO A SHIPWRECK! Period.*whew*I’ve never thought it would be so hard to get it through to the cabesa.PaulK,

quote:

---

However given the fact that the only way to fit Wyatt's "evidence" into Egyptian history seems to involve a wholesale rewrite - with hopelessly inadequate evidence - or even obvious falsehoods like the supposedly "unique" pattern of names in the 18th Dynasty then the whole case looks rather shakey. When we consider that this is the ONLY area where we can compare the ideas of Wyatt and Moller against independant experts - and the case looks very, very weak. There is no reason to suppose that the rest of their case would stand up any better if we find egregious errors on those matters that can be checked. SO there are adequate grounds for dismissing the claims of Wyatt and Moller unless and until better evidence comes to light.

---

Bah, the proposed dynasty by Wyatt and Moller is really insignificant when it comes to identifying an Exodus event. This proposed theory is only an auxiliary theory that can tie into the Exodus, but does not negate the fact that the Exodus could still tie in other ways. We can still leave it that the Exodus took place during the reign of Thutmosis IV, and still come up with a different chronology. Remember, based on the long list of presented facts relating to the great potential of misdating, it is possible that Thutmosis IV’s dating could be off by approx. 50 years or so, which could still tally with a 1446 BC. Exodus, seeing that the 1446 BC Exodus itself has about 15-20 years of uncertainty. So tie in the 20 years of uncertainty with the 50 years of misdating the Egyptians, and you have 70 years leeway. We have to remember that a number of experts in the field admit time and time again that the traditional chronology could be way off, and is a genealogical nightmare. These inscriptions can be interpreted in many ways, let alone the problem of properly identifying the subnames of the Pharaohs (Mekheperure, Akheperure, etc.). There are arguments out there that question associating these names with various Pharaohs, so this allows us to plenty of room to take this chronology and tie it in with the Exodus by rewriting it. Our theory does have some holes, and some areas are unexplainable that seem to indicate that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II for example could be different people, but since there are so many unexplained mysteries with the traditional proposed chronology (not being able to properly identify the mummies, discovering one pharaoh in the sarcophagus of another pharaoh, and not being able to properly identify love relationships (mother/son or man/woman) ), it does not warrant us to be any less correct. Personally, though there are some unexplained mysteries, I feel this chronology to make the most common sense. (by the titles, names, and reigning number of years, and inscriptions such as Tut admitting Amenhotep III is his father, etc. etc.).

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

(And I note that if "Thutmosid" were based on "Thutmosis" being a title - then it would indicate the SUPERIOR rank - not, as Wyatt says, the inferior position of co-regent. Your suggestion is not even a plausible surmise - and shows just how far you will invent "evidence" - did you even think of LOOKING for where the "Thutmosid" name came from and trying to find out why it was applied ?)

​

I strongly suggest that you make an effort to at least get the basic facts right. So long as you make such egregious errors you only discredit your case.

---

Sorry, I've spoke to others on this issue, and many agree with me that the name Thutmosis could be a title. I'm sorry, but it just wouldn't seem to make sense to call the Pharaoh's by their person names once they are in the kingly position. We see these names Amenhotep and Thutmosis' right after another, and seeing that Thutmosis stands for "Thot" a lower god, and Amenhotep for "Amen" (or Amun) for a higher god, it would seem more logical to assume that these names are titles, and that Thutmosis IV had his title before he became supreme Pharaoh, transferring from coregency to Pharaoh. This is a no-brainer, but yet you keep trying to make it complicated. There is no "inventing" of evidence here as you would love to accuse me of, but only "interpreting" evidence that is already there. You people have "interpreted" that the name "Thutmosis" is the personal name of the Pharaoh, I on the other hand have seen on evidence that would lead me to believe that. Thutmosis would seem more likely to be a title for Pharaoh under the context of "pero", or "big house", but not yet Pharaoh of all Egypt. Since the Egyptian empire was as big as it was back in those days, it would seem logical to have one coregent Pharaoh ruling in Memphis, while the main Pharaoh ruled at Thebes in order to keep the empire organized. (somewhat similar to what happened in Roman times).So no, we are not inventing, but "interpreting" data differently.You have no proof. Just "inperpretation" as we do. And by the way, you are wasting your time trying to use these piddly arguments about the 18th dynasty to descredit the Exodus, and it ain't gonna happen!This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-10-2004 10:16 AM

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

Obviously not. If Egypt had sealed it's borders (with all the army dead ???) that would have been noticed. If merchants and diplomats and messengers had been detained in Egypt that would ahve been noticed. And the borders would have to have been sealed near the start of the Plagues or those would have been noticed. And then there's this body of 2,000,000 Asitics wandering around claiming to have escaped from Egypt and boasting about the disasters their God did to demonstrate his power. Did the Egyptian army follow the Israelites killing everyone who talked to them ?
Amd there's another problem. The whole point of the Ten Plagues are to demonstrate God's Power. It isn't a very effective demonstration if the Egyptians can cover it up like that - your explanation has the Egyptians beating God on that part.

​

No, it makes no sense that Egypt could have kept it secret.

---

You have to remember that Egypt was a massive empire. Even after it's catastrophe, it recovered rather quickly during the next 100 or more years. The word may have gotten out, but remember, this was a grand miracle, and it is likely that the canannites who were to receive the message (from a merchant) or whoever, could have considered them "loco" or "mad". This was something hard to believe, even if it did happen, they were not going to take the risk and attack Egypt, for feer they were wrong and these people were "mad". Especially seeing that this miracle went against their beliefs system, and that they would have to accept the God of Jehovah. I have no doubts that the rumors did spread, but I doubt they went too far, and if they did go too far, probably many ancient civilizations took it as a hoax, or not very seriously.

---

~Lysimachus

That is really really feeble.
You are just inventing more fantasies to try to explain away the evidence.The Pharoah's kept their birth names and also assumed other names - such as the Throne Name and the Horus Name to honour or to identify themselves with other gods. Tuthmosis is a nomen - a birth name. You tried to insist that a Throne Name - Menkeperre - was really a nomen to try to support the idea that Tuthmosis was a title. Even a simple look at any of the web pages about Thutmosis IV would have told you that that was a non-starter.Now maybe it seems "logical" to you to ignore the facts and to invent reasons as to why "Tuthmosis" could be a title but really it is a very silly thing to do if you actually care about the truth. Are all the nomens attached to all of the Pharoahs titles ? Even in the 18th Dynasty ? What about Ahmose or Hatshepsut ?Now if you HAVE seen evidence that Thutmosis was a title then it is past time you produced it. However I suspect that you have "seen" it in just the same way that you "saw" the "unique" pattern of names in the 18th Dynasty.Face it - Wyatt's "interpretation" of the 18th Dynasty is indefensible. Without that you cannot combine the end of the reign of Thutmosis IV with that of Amenhotep III. Without that the feeble circumstantial evidence of an Egypt hit by disasters at the supposed date of your chariot wheels goes, too.

You are forgetting merchants and messengers - and perhaps even diplomats. You just can't hide massive disasters affecting an entire nation.

Don't forget spys, informers, bards or storytellers...

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion