"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Unbelievable. I must commend Buzsaw for doing a marvelous job at defending the Aqaba evidence. Brian and PaulK are squealing for grounds to stand on, and it just isn't working. The ‘big picture’ is just too overwhelming.

quote:

---

This question is more for young earthers than for Buz, but how does this line up against the geneology time-telling method for biblical literalists? (i.e., add up the life span of everyone in the Bible and get roughly 6000 years.) Do the dates jive?

---

As for dating everything on a global basis, I am no expert. But The Exodus Case (book) does a marvelous job at explaining the uncertainties of dating civilizations:I feel confident enough to address this point and tell you right out that non-Christian scientists have severely erred in their dating methods of ancient civilizations. First off, I'm going to use the Egyptians and Joseph as an example:By calculating the time in Egypt with the help of indications found in the books of Genesis and Exodus, and the fact that Joseph was 30 years old when he was appointed ruler in Egypt, the life of Joseph can be dated around 1745-1635 BC. The measure of uncertainty regarding this date can be in the order of 10-30 years. In the last 2000 years the measure of uncertainty is around 4 years (our modern era after the birth of Jesus), and there are uncertainties in the above calculation, e.g. when a sovereign dies in the second year of his reign, does this mean after 13 months or after 24 months? This type of uncertainty can generally be corrected, but when it is a matter of a number of steps in the calculation then one should add a decade or two to allow for the factor of uncertainty.The books of the Bible together with other historical sources (concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s entry into Jerusalem) give us the basis for a relatively well-founded time-axis. Considering that this spans almost 1800 years plus 2000 years of our modern era, in all almost 4000 years, one must realize that these are very precise estimates.So what can we say about the points in time which are given regarding the history of Egypt? To put it simply, the basic material is very difficult to use for exact estimations. There are several reasons for this:1. It is not all clear it is not all clear how many people have actually been rulers in Egypt. When several names occur, it could mean that there are a number of different people, or several people who are given different titles in different contexts, or they could refer to one and the same person. As it can be seen from the example of the Swedish royal family and all the names which can be used, uncertainties easily arise. We also know that the Egyptian rulers had many titles. One example is given:and I asked him who was the Chamberlain the Ibis, the Chief Lector Priest Imhotep, the son of PtahIn this example four different names for one person have been used at the same time. Another example is Tutankhamun, who had at lest five different names: Tutankhamun, Nebkheprure, Renpkhau sehetepnetjeru, Neferhepu, segerhtawy and Kanakht tutmes.The knowledge we have of the names and titles of each ruler, his family and ministers, during the several thousand years, leave room for a great deal of uncertainty.2. In one inscription seals have been preserved as a sort of Egyptian royal line. It should be noted that the inscription is not complete (it is damaged), and it may be that several seals belong to the same person. It is natural to assume that a person changes his seal as he moves on from being the heir to the throne to join ruler with the pharaoh, and later becomes Pharaoh. It is not unlikely that several people, other than the sovereign, are named in this type of tabulation e.g. the monarch and the heir to the throne. Altogether this gives rise to a great deal of uncertainty in establishing dates.It should be noted that the joint ruler, before taking over as Pharaoh in Thebes, was Pharaoh in Memphis. In other words, there could be two pharaohs in office at the same time, one being superior (Thebes) to the other (Memphis). Several texts speak of Egyptian leaders in the plural, Egyptian kings. One example is the bible text of Jeremiah (Jer. 46.25).3. The language is a further difficulty, partly because it is based on symbols and not on letters in the ordinary sense, and partly because it is a dead language. This leads to problems of interpretation and understanding. There is an inscription with the same text in two different languages(with two varieties of hieroglyphs) which is fundamental for an understanding of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, the so-called Rosetta stone. It should be noted that the only or two of all the pharaonic seals are included in this inscription.4. The main source of information regarding the history of Egypt is found in the graves of the pharaohs. With only a few exceptions all these graves have been plundered. This means that certain information is brought to the fore because more is known about that particular example, while there are long periods of time about which there is little knowledge.Tutankamun has been brought to the fore very markedly, and his beautiful and valuable death mask (in gold and the semi-precious stone turquoise) has become a modern symbol for Egypt. The reason for this is that Tutankamun’s grave was one of the few that had not been plundered, and therefore contained all the valuable objecrts of gold. In addition, everything else that a royal personage would take with him on his journey of death was intact. On the other hand, the degree of magnificence with which Tutankamun was surrounded is surprising in view of the fact that he was only around 18 years old when he died.The importance accorded him today is due not to his political significance, his long reign, the knowledge of him as a great leader in history or anything of this nature, but to the fact that his death mask and other items in the untouched grave were so magnificent and had not been stolen (approximately 700 objects were found in the grave). The next question one can ask oneself is if this was the rule for all royal burials or only for Tutankhamun, since there is so little with which to compare it as most other graves have been plundered.5. In ancient times Egypt was divided into upper (southern) and lower (northern) Egypt, upper and lower respectively were in relation to the river Nile. These two regions had their own pharaohs, but during certain periods of time the land was united. During other periods the Nile delta had its own pharaoh or king. Combined with the lack of knowledge concerning certain periods, this makes dating very uncertain.If one calculates dates for Norway and Sweden during the last two centuries based solely on the lines of kings, one meets problems for two reasons. For one thing, the king of Norway was in exile during the second world war (which the Swedish king was not), but above all Sweden and Norway formed a union during the period 1814 to 1905, when the king of Sweden was also king of Norway.After a long period of time, and with very limited information factors such as these can lead to great uncertainty in calculating dates.7. Pharaohs who fell from grace, or in other ways did not fit in, have been removed from various inscriptions listing cartouches (royal seals) from different pharaohs. It is common to find notes in the literature on how certain statues, inscriptions etc. were systematically destroyed by rulers in Egypt. This falsification of ancient history naturally makes things very difficult, when it is a matter of obtaining a clear picture of different eras up to 5000 years ago.8. There are several different opinions about epochs in time and chronologies with regard to Egypt’s pharaohs. This in itself indicates that the chronologies contain uncertainties.9. One example of uncertainty is mentioned when discussing how long Pharaoh Djoser reigned. Djoser is regarded to have reigned for 19 years. At the same time the Step Pyramid in Sakkara (Djosers mausoleum) was constructed and built by Imhotep. Probably Imhotep attained his position a number of years after Djoser had attained to his position, so the actual time for construction, organization, and building of this extremely large edifice was perhaps only 10 years.In one comment surprise expressed that the first pyramid could be built in only 19 years, but the question as to whether the dating is completely correct is not raised. Nor is the method indicated by which the date was determined. Djoser is said to have several names; Djoser, Zoser, Netjeri-khet and Tosorthos, which can also create uncertainty. Nonetheless, the exact period of Djosers reign is given to the year (2668-2649 BC) in spite of the fact that there are only a few references to Djoser, and that it concerns events of approximately 4600 years ago, according to Egyptian chronology.10. A further aspect of the uncertainty involved in calculating the dates of the early Egyptian dynasties is presented in E.A. Wallis Budge’s book (most recent revision 1989. The following passage is found in this book:The dates that he and others have assigned to the first dynasty depend upon the numbers of the years that they have assigned to these two intervals. But these dates — Lepsius BC 3892, Lieblein BC 3893, Brugsch BC 4455 or 4400, Meyer BC 3315, Breasted BC 3400, Hall BC 3500 — are only indexes to the opinions of those who propose them, and it is quite possible that every one of them is wrong in point of actual fact. The material for fixing with certainty the date of the first dynasty does not exist at present.The span of time indicated for this point in Egyptian history varies considerably between the authors mentioned, 1140 years to be prices. Wallis’ book gives several examples of extensive differences in estimated dates and mentions that the Egyptians did not keep their own chronologies in the way that we do, and therefore generally speaking it is difficult to draw specific conclusions about dates and periods of time.The reign of Pharaoh Djoser was during the third dynasty. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the dating because of the reasons given above, and therefore it is difficult to compare them with the comparatively exact time-axis which the biblical texts set up.It should then be more important to relate events to each other, and this also gives a greater degree of certainty when the older Egyptian dynasties are discussed. For example, it may be that dating done with the help of constellations of stars (discussed earlier) could change the Egyptian time-axes with around 1000 years, depending on which constellation cycle one chooses.There is a much greater degree of precision in the statement that the events regarding seven years of famine occurred during the r3eign of Djoser, when Imhotep was the second man in the realm of Egypt, and that this period of famine was connected with a sort of contract agreement with God.The answer to the question whether Imhotep and Joseph were alive during the same period of time (in other words were the same person), cannot be given on the basis of calculations of the exact years because of the lack of Egyptian time-axes which, in a way that inspires confidence can indicate the dates of the older Egyptian dynasties. On the other hand, events during the reign of pharaoh Djoser show a remarkable number of similarities with descriptions in the Bible (in the books of Genesis and exodus), similarities which do not exist with other pharaohs.(sources: The Exodus Case by Lennart Moller)To sum it up, the scientists which are providing your information regarding dates are either lying to you, or do a great job at deceiving themselves. Don’t even use the dating argument anymoreevolution scientists will forever continue to delude the people into thinking that ancient civilizations are older than they really are, and sadly, many of you are in that bunch.

quote:

---

Thirdly, it was a lot more than 600 chariots that were allegedly lost, it was every single chariot that was in Egypt! .

---

There is a strong current in the Gulf of Aqaba, and we are lucky to find the remains that we do. It is only logical to conclude that of all the chariots and horses buried, few remains exist. The larger portion of remains were most likely buried under the sand or swept off the edge of the underwater landbridge. It would require equipment (that of what was used for the Titanic) to go to these depthsin which one day we hope to do.

---

~Lysimachus

Buzsaw,

quote:

---

I don't recall anything in the video or what I've read about melted plants. My understanding is that there is no typical volcanic rock either in the mountain top or in the area. For one thing, the mountain appears burnt only at the top as the scriptures state with no sign of lava rock ever flowing/falling down the sides. Morris has, imo been unfairly reluctant to acknowledge anything pertaining to Wyatt. My thinking is that he is not willing to admit his own errors in some archeological work he has been involved with in the Mideast, some of which has not produced anything significant. This is not to say that much of what he and his ICR has accomplished is not good.

---

Just wanted to point out something there Buz. In Moller's book, "The Exodus Case", he highly acknowledges Wyatt, and accredits him to finding all (or at least most) of the discoveries mentioned in the book. In fact, he speaks very highly of him in the book. So I'm not sure where you are deriving this from. Have you read any of the book?

---

~Lysimachus

I might also add, buzsaw, "The Exodus Revealed" video and the three hour series "The Exodus Case" videos are completely different videos. Moller made his own series.I spoke to Andrew Jones (one of the guys who were part of Ron's team) and said that you are wrong in saying that those are "clips" from the Exodus Revealed video. These are different:Mahoney Media – Page not foundThis three hour series follows a scientific and forensic investigation into the alleged events found in the Book of Exodus which chronicles the exodus of Moses and the early Hebrews out of Egypt. The series will include three, one hour programs including Joseph, The Interpreter of Dreams; Moses, Prince of Egypt, Prophet of God; and The Red Sea Crossing.WOW, I HAVE GOT TO GET THESE VIDEOS TOO! LOOOOOOK AT THE CLIIIIPPPPS!This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-01-2004 09:34 PM

---

~Lysimachus

Hmm...they do not seem to be available in video yet. They are designed for television, but no indication if they are purchasable. Anyone know if you can purchase this 3 hour series online anywhere on video?Thanks.

---

~Lysimachus

Buzsaw, it appears that I missunderstood you. Sorry for the confusion.

---

~Lysimachus

Hi guys, I'm finally able to take a few peaks on the computer since my energy has increased a bit. My leg still hurts and there are pins and screws through it. Twas indeed an unfortunate incident. Rainy day + walking on overhanging logs don't mix. I'll be in this cage like cast for 3-4 months. My injury is called a "tibia plateau fracture", where my bone cracked just below the knee. I had to have incisions cut on the sides to allow the muscles to expand(swell), otherwise the muscles would have died and my leg would have had to be amputated *shivers at the thought*. However, I am thankful to God for one thing. That I am not paralyze, or that it was just my leg and not my back or neck. The reason I believe God helped me was that if I had not stretched out my right leg the way I did during the fall, I could have landed on near by tree stump on my back. I'm so relieved to know that my leg is most likely going to be okay, since according to physicians, my wounds are healing rather fast--faster than expected. Anyway, to answer a few points:

quote:

---

At a minimum you need to be able to show...

---

Since I am unfortunately able to spend much time on the computer and require plenty of rest, I will therefore proceed to answer the "hypothesis" answers to your questions, but will not, however, be able to delve to the statistical and archeological reasons as to why we come up with these hypotheses.

quote:

---

1. That there were Hebrews in Egypt sometime before 6 BC.

---

According to the Exodus Revealed video, computer graphic illustrations as well as photographs show that new ruins (building foundations) have been excavated in the land of Goshen...all of them were completely Asiatic, with no Egyptian style. Later, Hebrew buildings discovered in Israel were shown to have been built of the exact same style and architecture as those of the ruins found in Goshen. Even the Amarna letters indicate that there were Israelites in the area. You can even see in Egyptian inscriptions that the Egyptians have paintings of Asiatic slaves while the Egyptians have the whip in their hand.Pharaoh Merneptah is know to have stated in one of his letters "...Israel is laid waste", indicating that Israel was now in Palestine by this time.

quote:

---

2. That there was a character called Moses.

---

You'll have to see the chart sometime, but we believe that Thutmosis II was Moses. He was co-regent along with Amenhotep I, but then when he was thrown out of Egypt to dwell in the land of Midian for 40 years for killing the Egyptian, Thutmosis III took Moses' place as coregent, and ascended the throne as Amenhotep II. Amenhotep II (aka~Thutmosis III before he was Pharoah) became Pharaoh during the 3rd year of Moses’ dwelling in Midian, and died on the 32nd year of the 40 years during Moses’ stay in Midian. Thutmosis IV, who was Amenhotep II's successor, took the throne and became Amenhotep III. Tutankhamun was Amenhotep III's first born son, who probably was a victim of the 10th plague of Egypt. Moses would have become Pharaoh had he not been thrown out of Egypt. We believe that Senmut was Moses, heir to the throne, and Thutmosis I as co-ruler with Amenhotep I. There is also plenty of evidence that suggests Senmut was a male child who as heir to the throne, and he has numerous characteristics from Egyptian literature that are incredibly similar to that of Moses of the Bible. As you read the book and analyze traditional Egyptian history, you will find that much of this makes sense. But do realize that what I am stating is extremely brief. Just trust me; there is enough information out there to come to these conclusions. It would require me posting a book in order to take every possible question into consideration.

quote:

---

3. That there was an Exodus at all.

---

This is when you have to follow the bread crumbs. It's an overall picture that you can visualize here, and you must see the Exodus Revealed video in order to put the whole puzzle together in your mind. Once the puzzle fits, it is most certainly spine chilling. The reason why so many have concluded the Exodus to be myth for so many years is simply for the fact that archeologists have been looking in the wrong places, find no evidence, so therefore have no choice but to concluded that the Exodus must have been nothing other than legend.

quote:

---

4. That Egypt lost a Pharoah.

---

This too is well documented in the book, The Exodus Case. We believe that Amenhotep III (aka~Thutmosis IV as co-ruler pre throne ascension) WAS the Pharaoh of the Exodus. It may be interesting to note that Amenhotep III's mummy is not found in his sarcophagus, but yet his wife's mummy (Queen Tiy) was identified in another tomb. There was a mummy, but Amenhoteph III's mummy is highly believed to not actually be his true mummy according to most Egyptologists, but rather they had to use some other mummy as a replacement. Both Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his son Tutankuman died within a couple weeks. An interesting letter from Amenhotep III's old wife (before queen Tiy), Ankhesenamun, to the Hittite king Suppiluliumas as been preserved:"...When the people of Misra (Egypt, authors comment) learned the destruction of Amqa, they were afraid, for to make matters worse their master, Bibhuria had just died and the widowed queen of Egypt sent an ambassador to my father and wrote to him these terms:

​

My husband is dead and I have no son. People say that you have many sons. If you send me one of your sons he will become my husband for it is repugnant to me to take one of my servants to husband. When my father learned this, he called together the council of the great: Since the most ancient times such a thing has never happened before.

​

He decided to send Hattu-Zittish, the chamberlain, Go, bring me information worthy of belief; While Hattu-Zittish was absent on the soil of Egypt, my father vanquished the city of Karchemish. The ambassador of Egypt, the lord Hanis, came to him. Because my father had instructed Hattu_Zittish when he went to the country of Egypt as follows: Perhaps they have a prince they may be trying to deceive me and do not really want one of my sons to reign over them; the Egyptian queen answered my father in a letter in these words;

​

Why do you say they are trying to deceive me? If I had a son, should I write to a foreign country in a manner humiliating to me and to my country? You do not believe me and you even say so to me! He who was my husband is dad and I have no son. Should I then perhaps take one of my servants and make him my husband? I have written to no other country, I have written to youHmmmthis letter sounds interesting indeed, does it not? Finally Suppiluliumas believes her and sends a son, it is known what happened to him. This letter is remarkable because Pharaoh Amenhotep III’s widow says that her husband is dead (drowned in the Red Sea), she has no son (Tutankhamun died at the Exodus), and there are only servents left in the country (leaders, ministers, priests, officers drowned in the Red Sea). Bibhuria is probably a linguistic variation among the Hittites for Neb-maat-Re, one of the names of Amenhotep III. Further, this excludes Tiy as being the widow since she had another son, Akhenaten.Bear in mind that it is of utmost priority for Egypt to keep their great disaster a secret to the world. Should the Hittites, or any other Canaanites find out of the great catastrophe that struck Egypt during the Exodus (loss of firstborn and whole army), Egypt would become in great danger of invasion, for foreign nations might see this as an opportunity to strike. But, as we all know, Egypt did a marvelous job at keeping secrets. This is why Egyptologists today still cannot agree on many aspects of Egyptian history, because so many inscriptions were chiseled out, for Egyptians were known to record only their victories and accomplishments, but when it came to disasters, Egypt would hide as much of this information as they could.We must realize that at this period and point in time, the Hittites are a potential threat to Egypt. There is every reason in the world for Egypt to hide for as long as possible the fact that the army has been destroyed! The countries existed in relative isolation from each other, it was desert land between them and there were still border posts guarding the borders. After a time, when there is a risk that the truth will leak out that there is no longer a great and mighty army, then this letter can be an invitation to create an alliance (through marriage) with the Hittites before they fully realize what has happened. Obviously the Hittites are surprised (nothing like this has ever happened before) about the letter and send a messenger to look into the matter.At the same time this is happening, the cities in Palestine which belong to Egypt are having problems. The Tel-Amarna letters show that among other things these cities were threatened by the Hittites. They begged the Pharaoh in Egypt to send troops, but as it says in one of the letters written during this period, no help came. The situation was become untenable and Egypt was still incapable of sending troops. A strong Egypt with its mighty army could easily have supported its subject cities in Palestine.So, would you not find it rather suspicious that it is at this point in time (SOON AFTER THE EXODUS) that Egypt does not come to the aid of their allies, the Palestinians?! It was because Egypt was crippled, and it wouldn’t be until Rameses II that Egypt would climb back up to one final height, and then crumble again.We can see that these events altogether show that something dramatic most definitely occurred in Egypt at this time. These events were the beginning of the end of the 18th dynasty and include several different incidents which can be connected with each other; letters which state that only servants are left in the country; the time of and reason for Tutankhamun’s death; and the absence of help for the cities subject to Egypt. Similarities to these events described in the Ipuwer document are striking.Who formerly could have plundered Tunip without being plundered by
Thutmose III? and there is no help for us. For 20 years we have been sending to our lord the king, the king of Egypt; but there has not come to us a word — no, not one!After the powerful Thutmose something happened that destroyed the super power of Egypt and left the colonies without support.Friends, there is enough evidence to suggest that the grand Exodus did actually happen. The dots are slowly being connected, and things are beginning to make sense as never before. Scientists around the world are beginning to realize that there was more to Ron Wyatt’s discoveries than they had originally supposed. Ron Wyatt is passed away, and his discoveries are only living on, but are IMPROVING! Even various enemies of Wyatt are coming to the same conclusion. Once Mollers’ new series are aired on Television for the first time (since they have not been shown yet), the world will begin to start seeing things in a new light they never before viewed in. Regardless of the credentials any of these scientists have, the data is well documented and presented, and this cannot be denied. If a pigmy were to show me the world was flat, and he provided me ample reason as to why he believed so, I would be obliged to give him a fair hearing. But it is encouraging to know that more and more scientists around the world are beginning to acknowledge the compelling evidence associated with the Exodus.

quote:

---

5. That there is a plausible reason that the other World Powers at the time did not react.

---

The above response provides plenty of plausible reasons why the other World Powers did not react. These other World Powers were a great distance from Egypt, and Egypt kept themselves isolated for quite sometime after the Exodus event.

quote:

---

6. That there is some plausible reason no one even noticed.

---

Same as above. But not only was Egypt doing everything in their power to keep it a secret. These other World Powers were now preoccupied trying to fend off the oncoming Israelites who were conquering Canaan. Countless letters from the Canaanites for help came to the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton, but he did not respond nor do anything about it. Why didn’t he do anything about it? Three reasons could be easily suggested:1. Egypt’s military was still weak, and it had not yet climbed back up high enough to be capable of helping the Canaanites.2. Pharaoh Akhenaton was obsessed with his sun-god, the Aten.3. Pharaoh Akhenaton knew better than to take on the Israelites. He knew what happened to his father Amenhotep III when he attempted to chase down the Israelites, and Akhenaton wasn’t going to take that risk in defending Palestine from the oncoming Israelites. Going after the Israelites was now known to the Egyptians as a no-no.Friends, as you read the material I’m providing, things start to make sense, and a broad picture starts to grow. Try and perceive the logic behind this, and you just might very well start too view the Bible from a different perspective.Archeologists and scientists alike are beginning to realize more and more that the Biblical account is much more historical than supposed, and fiction and legend is beginning to wane as new discoveries are being revealed.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-17-2004 11:50 PM

---

~Lysimachus

What are you guys talking about? The Exodus Revealed video was not done by Moller, and I gathered much of this information from the video. The video was done by Questar, and Moller was not mentioned until they came to the crossing site. The video speaks of the Amarna letters as being the GREATEST proof of the Israelites dwelling in Canaan, so how can you say that the Amarna letters are the greatest proof against it? This doesn't jibe, and leads me to believe that is just how you interpret it.The Amarna inscriptions speak of the "Apiru" invading Canaan. The word "Apiru" is of Hebrew origin, and are most likely the Israelites.Also, I might add that Moses was prince Moses, co-ruler. During this time of coregency, they are called "Thutmosis". Obviously it does not seem that any of you comprehend this. They are NOT Pharaoh. It doesn't matter how young they are, the TITLE still exists! I will have to address each of your points more thoroughly at a later date, but you guys are obviously basing your ideas that Moller is wrong simply because other sources state otherwise. Well let me tell you that these other sources have a great degree of uncertainty in them as well, since Egyptian history was vary vague. I said from the beginning that this was a hypothesis.Another thing, Moller was not into this for money. He was a scientist that originally went to investigate and analyize Wyatt's finds with a very critical approach. He came to the conlcusions that these finds had more merit to them that had been supposed, so therefore wrote his own book to support these hypotheses.Also, no one is reading anything the way anyone wants to see it Paul. Moller nowhere states that this is fact. He is simply drawing a broad broad picture, showing how the various events that took place in Egypt seem to reflect a major disaster that struck them around that time...1446 B.C. the approximate date of the Exodus.And yet another thing, who said Hatshepsut is out of the story? Hatshepsut was Moses' Egyptian MOTHER. She plays a prominent role in this WHOLE Exodus case!If the Bible speaks of Hebrews living in Egypt, there is something wrong in helping to put the story of the Exodus together by inferring that these so called "Asiatics" that lived in Egypt consisted of Hebrews. Nothing! The reason why is because the Bible is a historical book, and we can take what it says literally and fuse it with the writings of other books and inscriptions. You are relying COMPLETELY on the writings of inscriptions and other books WITHOUT the aid of the Bible, and that is absolutely and 100% completely biased. The Bible needs to be a reference book on your shelf, not a book to try and see how it contradicts other writings. Perhaps it is the other writings contradicting the Bible?---of which was composed of many many books, not just one.But let us get this thing straight about the gods and the names of Pharoahs. Quoated from Ron Wyatt's "Exodus to Red Sea" Article:THE KINGS OF THE 18TH DYNASTY "The kings of the 18th Dynasty are stated by historians as being named either Amenhotep and Thutmoses. But, there is a big problem with this fluctuation between names. The pharaoh was considered the earthly embodiment of the main god and his name reflected the supreme god of his royal family. Does it make sense to anyone that one king would consider Thoth (Thutmoses) the supreme god while the next considered Amen (Amenhotep) the supreme god, and continue to alternate gods through a succession of several kings? Of course not. As we read earlier, the list of dynasties and kings that the Egyptologists base their information on is quite inaccurate. The inscriptions found in temples and tombs indicate that the "Thutmoses" name is indicative of one of the offices of the pharaoh, just as was the "Amenhotep" name- and that each pharaoh was both a "Thutmoses" as well as an "Amenhotep" as he advanced in the royal line from co-regent to emperor. From our research, it appears that the crown prince received his "Thutmoses" title upon being appointed co-regent, and then became "Amenhotep" in addition to his earlier names, when he became emperor. Let me stress that it appears that this is the order he received each name; however, it may possibly have been reversed. But we have no doubts that each ruler possessed both names. And each ruler left inscriptions relating to his reign in both names - sometimes he referred to himself as Thutmoses, while at other times Amenhotep. Each individual king left inscriptions in both names, dating his regnal years sometimes from the date of his co-regency and sometimes from the date of his emperorship. We don't fully understand the "rules" governing these practices yet."In my opinion would be quite foolish to rule out this possibility. There may be evidence suggesting that Thutmosis and Amenhotep are not the same person, but then at the same time there is! This goes to show that Egyptian history is vary ambiguous. Not even I am completely ruling out the possibility that they may have been two different people. But based on the fact that there is evidence from both sides only shows us that, afterall, we can't rule out the Exodus as an impossibility!PHARAOH "RAMESES" "Yes, most people think of the pharaoh of the Exodus as "Rameses". And why not? The name "Rameses" is mentioned in the Bible as early as the story of Joseph. Was there a "Rameses" in the 18th dynasty? Yes... but that was more a title than a name - much like the title "pharaoh". Not only was "Thutmoses" also to become "Amenhotep" - he, as main emperor of all Egypt, was also titled "Rameses". If you will recall, in the story of Joseph, the land of Goshen was also referred to as the land of "Rameses": "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded." Genesis 47:11 Egyptian evidence shows that every native Egyptian king from the time of the so-called 5th dynasty was titled "Son of the Sun" or "Rameses" in addition to his other names. This has caused massive confusion among the Egyptian scholars, who have zeroed in on one particular pharaoh, "Rameses II", and proclaimed him the "greatest pharaoh of all Egypt". All one needs to do is go to the museum in Cairo and view the four statues of "Rameses II" in the main entrance hall- each one is clearly a different person. The inscriptions referring to "Rameses" refer to many different pharaohs. Also, let's go back to the inscription of Hatshepsut in the section on the Hyksos - remember that she said these people lived "in ignorance of RE? This inscription makes its quite clear that whoever lived in the delta (Goshen/Rameses) region, did not worship the native Egyptian god, Re. "Re" is the "Ra" of "Rameses" - and this verifies the supremacy of "Re/Ra" during the time of the 18th dynasty - and that "Rameses" would indeed be one of the titles of the pharaoh."Once again, when one stumbles on so many archeological sites such as the Red Sea Crossing (chariot, human, horse, and cattle remains, all on underwater landbridge), then discovers that the true Mt. Sinai could only have been on the east side of Aqaba, since Midian has ALWAYS been on the east side of Aqaba, and we know that Sinai (or Horeb) was located in Midian, and then when one realizes that Goshen is way above the Suez, and in order for the Exodus to have taken place at Suez the Hebrews would have had to insanely turn south and then cross Suez, we can to some degree logically fit Egyptian history to correlate with these events. Here we have the evidence...Mt. Sinai, the blackened peak, the split rock, the 12 alters, the 12 bitter springs, the QUAIL in the area, CORRIENDER SEED...and the list goes on and on! In fact, the list of facts that the crossing was at Aqaba is so immense that any few verses that seem to indicate it was at Suez don't hold a grain of salt. We are here investigating archeology, and there is absolutely no way one can just sit and completely ignore this stuff.Saying that we are basing our evidence on just a couple chariot wheels at the bottom of Aqaba is rather imprudent if you ask me. In fact, the chariot wheels are just a capstone to the long list that leads us to believe it was Aqaba. But more than a couple wheels have been identified. In the video, there were at least 8 or 9 clear identifiable ones! The other remains were parts of chariot wheels....sometimes you could clearly see the shape of chariot bodies. Also, the way the coral is scattered around is unnatural. We have these odd shaped coral formations scattered ALL THE WAY FROM THE WEST SIDE OF AQABA TO THE EAST! They dot ALL along the landbridge across the Nuweiba beach! I even saw photos of what appears to be the heads of skeletons. These chariot wheels are so clear...even with the coral growing on them! There is absolutely no apparent reason for these chariot shaped corals to be scattered randomly across this landbridge!!! You'd have to really blind yourself to ignore the evidence!I have not heard any of you ONCE mention that these evidence could suggest a possible Exodus. You guys are so closeminded and shut to this information that you will never see no matter how much is presented. God is trying to help you see something, but you refuse to see it. This approach is only making your case more and more hopeless by the hour, but I strongly suggest that you break out of it before it is too late.Here is a good explanation as to why Thutmosis III took Moses' place:THE MAN "WHO TOOK MOSES' PLACE" "When Moses fled Egypt at age 40, the emperor, Amenhotep 1 was very elderly - he had been preparing Moses for the throne for the past 22 years. Now, there was a big problem. Who would now be the future king? In Memphis, a young man was being groomed to be appointed co-regent for Moses when he became emperor. This young man was immediately elevated to the rank of co-regent and given the same name of Thutmoses. The records show that he assumed the throne on his year 22. Now, this is a strange statement and tells much more than one might at first notice. A co-regent, or royal heir-apparent, begins counting his years when he is designated as the "heir-apparent". That becomes his year one. Here, we have a man assuming office in year 22 and he assumes it under that same name as Moses had. Keep in mind, that as the royal heir assumes each stage of office, "heir-apparent", crown prince and co-regent, he also in some places counts his years from that particular appointment. This is why the years of "Thutmoses III are given as 54 years, while the years of Amenhotep II are given as 26 to 32 years (depending on what author you are reading). The problem with Thutmoses III, who took Moses' place, is that there are no records of his rise through the ranks. He just suddenly appears in year 22 as taking the throne. Now, what happened here is that when Moses fled, in order to continue the reign of the earthly embodiment of "Thoth" in the "Thutmoses" co-regent, this man simply assumed the years that Moses had held that position. In other cases, when a royal personage would die, the god is said to "fly to the heavens" and then re-descend into the body of whoever becomes the next earthly embodiment of the god. In this case, there was no death- there had to be an immediate transfer, which is exactly what took place. Everything that had belonged to Moses was simply figuratively transferred to this "new" "Thutmoses" and things went along without missing a step. This man is now referred to by scholars as Thutmoses III. All of the statuary attributed to him are actually the statues that were made of Moses. And it was to this Thutmoses that scholars attribute 54 years of rule. However, 22 of those years belonged to the man he replaced, Moses. And the historic evidence proves this, too. If we subtract the 22 years from the 54 year total, we are left with 32 years. Now, instead of going through all the evidence, let's just read what one historian has to say about this Thutmoses III: "He passed away after a rule of thirty-two (some say fifty-four) years, having made Egyptian leadership in the Mediterranean world complete." This is from "The Story of Civilization" Vol. 1 by Will Durant, (1954) p. 155. And it truly was 32 years later when the man who became emperor after taking Moses' place, died. Amenhotep II was perhaps the greatest ruler Egypt ever had. By the time of his death, Egypt was truly the world power and the wealthiest nation. Hatshepsut remained alive for many years after Moses fled, and is named as queen on monuments very late into this king's rule."Now let us delve into who really was the Pharaoh of the Exodus:THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS "Upon Amenhotep II's death, his co-regent for 29 years, the 4th Thutmoses, became Amenhotep III. Upon his becoming emperor, he appointed his young son, Tutankhamen, as "crown-prince" and for the next 8/9 years, this pharaoh ruled Egypt. He inherited the throne at a time when Egypt was well established as the world ruler. All he basically had to do was sit back and collect the foreign tribute as it arrived. Egypt had military troops stationed in all the vassal territories and maintained their empire peaceably. In his inscriptions, this emperor makes claims to be a triumphant warrior, but these references are to the time of his co-regency, when he accompanied Amenhotep II in his triumphant exploits. But most interesting about this man is the fact that historical data shows that he actually had no claim to the throne. He was not the first-born of the pharaoh, which was the standard mode of becoming emperor. The well-known "sphinx stele", still present between the paws of the sphinx at Giza, tells the strange story of how Thutmoses IV fell asleep one day in the shadow of the sphinx. He dreamed that the sun god came to him and told him that if he would clear away the sand from around the sphinx, he would make him king. This elaborate story would not have been needed if he had been entitled to the throne as rightful heir. But, it appears that Amenhotep II was also without a royal son. The inscriptions always call the new king the "son" of the previous king, but this is figurative- as referring to Osiris and Horus. But keep in mind that this new pharaoh was not the first born of the last pharaoh. This is important because this new king, Amenhotep III, was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Think about this- all the firstborn were killed by the Angel of Death; if the pharaoh had been a first born, he would have died that night! So it is very important that we establish that this pharaoh was not a firstborn. After reigning as emperor for 8/9 years, we reach the 40th year after Moses had fled Egypt. Remember, the pharaoh who took Moses' place reigned 32 years. Then, this last pharaoh reigned 8/9 years. This equalled the 40 years Moses was in the wilderness of Midian. At this time at the end of the 40 years, Moses returns to the court of pharaoh Amenhotep III as commanded by God. And soon, the plagues began to fall upon Egypt. When the plague of the death of the first born fell by the hand of the Angel of Death, the pharaoh was not striken- but his son was: EXO 11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. Above is a photo of Tutankhamen. This son was the young crown prince known to us all as "King Tut". However, the name is misleading, for we know he was never pharaoh, just crown prince. And while the historians all argue over who his father was, in an inscription on a statue of a lion dedicated by Tutankhamen to the temple of Soleb, he calls Amenhotep III his father. Remember, Amenhotep III was also named Thutmoses IV."I think the above might have answered your question Brian sbout the Sphinx Stele.Now let us keep reading to see that, perhaps we can paint Egyptian history with a very different chronology? Perhaps it isn't so wise to rely solely on traditional Egyptian history, with which even popular Egyptologists around the world admit that it is very confusing?This should answer any questions concerning the mummy confusion that Brian raised earlier:THE ROYAL MUMMIES "Another confusing factor in the identification of the kings and queens is the overabundance of royal mummies. In other words, although Thutmoses III and Amenhotep II are the same man, there have been found mummies for each name. Does this shoot down our theory? No, not in the least. First of all, it is necessary to have an understanding of the ancient Egyptian beliefs concerning death. At death, they believed that a body was necessary for the ba, the ka and the akh to survive. These were, loosely translated, the various "spirit forms" which made up the psychic person and survived after death. However, in cases where the person was unavailable for burial, etc., any body would suffice as long as it was labeled with the name of the deceased. They believed that as long as a person's name was being spoken, or was on the walls of his tomb, his immortality was assured. The name was the most important factor. The following is from "Mummies, Myth and Magic in Ancient Egypt" by Christine El Mahdy (1989) p. 13: "The tomb, the mummy, the equipment, the paintings and reliefs were all designed to help preserve the name of the individual. the greatest horror was to have your name destroyed, cut out from a wall." (Emphasis ours) If the mummy of the actual individual was so vital, why would they fear the desecration of their name? Because it was the key, in their belief, to their immortality. The mummy was important, as were the statues of the deceased. But the mummy could be supplied in a pinch- no problem. Since it was considered a sacred duty of each king to protect the burials of his ancestor-kings, if a king couldn't find a mummy for a particular king, he would provide one as is written in numerous inscriptions. Mummies have been found which the excavators claim to be the mummies of each of the Amenhoteps and each of the Thutmoses. However, a careful examination of all evidence leads one to conclude that the only mummies which are of the actual 18th Dynasty pharaohs in question are the mummy of Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II. Amenhotep I (Thutmoses I) was found in his own tomb, as was Amenhotep II (Thutmoses III). Amenhotep I's mummy was never unwrapped but was x-rayed- and it revealed several genetic peculiarities which were shared by the mummies of several of his ancestors. The most obvious of these was the fact that he had the same type of malocclusion - a very prominent protrusion of the top front teeth - almost an overbite. This genetic feature was seen in all his female relatives - sister, mother, grandmother and daughter. We believe the only authentic mummies of the 18th dynasty kings to be those of Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II. Of course, there wouldn't be a mummy for Amenhotep III as he drowned in the Red Sea. Nor would there be a mummy of Thutmoses II since he was Moses. The others, which are said to be Thutmoses I, III, IV and Amenhotep III we believe to be mummies supplied by later kings, as they were all found in other tombs, in other sarcophaguses, and as they were simply not royal burials. Here are a couple of examples of the evidence which shows these mummies to be extremely doubtful. These concern the mummy said to be that of Thutmoses 1, who is known to have ruled a minimum of 21 years by existing inscriptions: "However, several eminent physical anthropologists who have seen these x-rays have been absolutely convinced that this mummy is that of a young man, perhaps 18 years of age, certainly not over twenty." "X-Raying the Pharaohs" by James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks, (1973) p.131-2. The fact that this mummy is far too young to be this king is evidence enough. But now, let's go back to when the mummy was actually identified as Thutmoses I: "Among the mummies discovered at Deir-el-Bahari was one, which on account of its having been found in a coffin bearing the name of Pinozen I of the XXIst Dynasty, was formerly supposed to be the mummy of that king. Maspero, however, formed the opinion that it was the mummy of Thutmoses I on account of the facial resemblance which it bore to the Pharaohs Thutmoses II and III" "Egyptian Mummies" by G. Elliot Smith and Warren R. Dawson (1924) p. 91. This mummy was identified as Thutmoses I, because he seemed to favor the other mummies. Not a strong basis for identification. Plus that fact that the mummy said to be Thutmoses III was also determined to be far too young- plus the fact that he was just barely five feet tall. Then, there is the mummy of Thutmoses IV, who was extremely emaciated and identified as just barely 30 years old. It doesn't even take careful study to realize that these mummies are "impostors"."Looks like Wyatt is doing a pretty good job at providing sources. I trust you trust him, at least to some extent.THE "EGYPTIAN WATERGATE" "The year is about 1446 BC. The Egyptian pharaoh, his army and all the members of all the priesthoods have left in great haste. They are enraged that their entire slave population has fled, even though less than a week earlier the pharaoh and his ministers had virtually begged them to leave. The Egyptians lavished the great multitude of slaves with objects of gold, silver and precious stones as supposed "payment" for all the work they had done as slaves. EXO 12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: 36 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians. The Hebrew words in this text that are translated "borrow" and "lent" are the same word, "shaal". And this word simply means "ask", "demand" "request", "give", etc. Only 6 times in the entire Bible is it translated "borrow" and 2 times as "lend" or "lent". But 87 times it is translated "ask" and in excess of 60 times is it translated to read other words which mean simply "ask".

​

The verses are telling us that they "asked" for these things, as God had told them to do so they would not be a destitute nation. And the Egyptians were quite happy to comply with whatever they asked. The fear of God was in the Egyptians after the terrible plagues which had befallen them by the Hand of the Israelites' God. Back home in Egypt, the entire country is trying to recover from the catastrophic destruction the country has suffered as a results of the plagues brought by the God of the slaves, "I AM".

​

Every family is in mourning for the loss of their first born. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been experienced by these people. The crown-prince, the young boy, Tutankhamen, is being mourned by the entire nation and preparations are being made for his burial. But mostly, all is at a standstill until the pharaoh, the ministers of state, the army and the priesthoods all return with the slaves. Throughout the land, the continuous sound of mourning can be heard from sun up to sun down, and even throughout the night. The pharaoh, as soon he ascended the throne 8/9 years earlier as emperor, had taken as his "great wife and queen" a lady of foreign blood by the name of Tiy. When he had been co-regent in Memphis, he had been married to a royal daughter, as was tradition.

​

It was this royal lady who had given birth to his firstborn, Tutankhamen. But it was the "common" foreign wife whom he elevated to "great king's wife and queen" as soon as he was "boss"- and this lady was to play a big part in later events of Egyptian history after the Exodus. But now, back to the story at hand. Soon, word arrives at the palace in Memphis that is too fantastic to be believed- the entire Egyptian army, all of the priesthood and the pharaoh himself have all perished! All drowned in the Red Sea while in pursuit of the slaves! The confusion, grief, fear and agony of the entire country is impossible to imagine. But very quickly, it becomes utmost in the minds of those remaining that knowledge of what has happened must be kept secret.

​

The previous emperor had secured the position of Egypt as the world power. All nations feared as well as respected Egypt. They all, for the most part, brought their tribute regularly to the palaces, and Egypt had want of absolutely nothing. She had no need to ever go to war for the nations feared her great army. If word of what happened here became known, Egypt could lose her control over her vassal territories and that would mean financial disaster. There is a miraculously-preserved record of the last official correspondences of the pharaoh who drowned in the Red Sea, as well as correspondences with the later pharaoh, and even Tiy. These are contained in the group of tablets found in ancient Amarna, called the Tel-Amarna Letters. In these were found correspondences to this pharaoh of the Exodus, Amenhotep 3, from the Babylonian king, Kadashman-Enlil and the Mittanni king, Tushratta, which serve to verify other world events of this time. The greatest contender for world power, after Egypt, at the time of the Exodus was the rapidly emerging Hittite Empire. And the greatest Hittite king, Suppiluliumas, had just taken the throne a few years earlier. The Egyptians were sitting ducks if word leaked out... Time passed; the Egyptians tried to pick up the pieces and go on with their lives, but it was difficult. The only thing they had in their favor was the fact that they were so isolated from the rest of the world. No one could enter the country without being detected far before they arrived. Careful precautions were taken to see that the true situation was not discerned by others. There was but one person in Egypt who had the royal right to seat a new pharaoh- this was the original great royal wife of Amenhotep 3- the mother of Tutankhamen.

​

But, her situation was not an easy one. Remember, when her husband took the throne as emperor, he took a non-royal wife and she became his favorite. "My Husband has died and I have no son!" The true, royal wife of the royal bloodline took the only step she knew to take to secure strong leadership for the country and provide protection and security for Egypt. She wrote a letter to the Hittite king. We can learn about this in an inscription left behind by the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas' son: "...When the people of Misra `My husband is dead and I have no son. People say that you have many sons. If you send me one of your sons he will become my husband for it is repugnant to me to take one of my servants to husband.' When my father learned this, he called together the council of the great: `Since the most ancient times such a thing has never happened before.' He decided to send Hattu-Zittish, the chamberlain, `Go, bring me information worthy of belief; they may try to deceive me; and as to the possibility that they may have a prince, bring me back information worthy of my belief.' While Hattu-Zittish was absent on the soil of Egypt, my father vanquished the city of Karchemish... The ambassador of Egypt, the lord Hanis, came to him. Because my father had instructed Hattu-Zittish when he went to the country of Egypt as follows: `Perhaps they have a prince, they may be trying to deceive me and do not really want one of my sons to reign over them.'; the Egyptian queen answered my father in a letter in these words; `Why do you say `they are trying to deceive me?'If I had a son, should I write to a foreign country in a manner humiliating to me and to my country? You do not believe me and you even say so to me! He who was my husband is dead and I have no son. Should I then perhaps take one of my servants and make of him my husband? I have written no other country, I have written to you..." There is more, but for the sake of space, we will just tell you what happened. Suppiluliumas finally believed her and sent a son. However, that son never made it to Egypt. No one knows what happened to him exactly, but we do know what happened next. However, before we leave this most important letter, we must point out that the most convincing evidence of all is the fact that the queen who wrote the Hittite king makes it quite clear that all who remain in Egypt are her "servants"! Is this not a perfect description of the situation that would have resulted after all the royal ministers, priests and army had drowned in the Red Sea? The scholars assign the name of the dead pharaoh "Bibhuria" as being that of "Tutankhamen", for one of his names was "Neb-kheper-ru-re"; however, we believe it should be transliterated "Neb-maat-Re", which was one of the names of Amenhotep 3. Either way, the evidence is equally strong. Either the royal wife or the royal daughter (who was symbolically "married" to Tutankhamen) of the dead pharaoh would have retained the royal right to do this. So it really doesn't matter which wife wrote the letter as far as the evidence goes."RIVALRY FOR POWER "Meanwhile, time passes in the devastated Egypt. Petty quarrels arise between the true royal wife and the favored foreign wife of the dead pharaoh. It becomes a power struggle- but one that must remain confidential in order that the outside world not realize the vulnerability of Egypt. There is not clear evidence as to the exact events which next occurred, but there is enough evidence to generally know. The winner in the power struggle was the favored, foreign wife, Tiy. She took a man as her husband who was named "Eye" or "Ay" - a man who left behind evidence that he assumed the role of pharaoh for about 3 to 4 years, but a man who is not later recognized as a true king of Egypt in inscriptions of later kings. It was this man who officiated at the burial of the crown-prince, Tutankhamen.

​

The evidence clearly shows that Tutankhamen was buried very hastily and that most of the items of his burial were not originally his. The names had been changed from that of his father to his- remember, his father had drowned in the Red Sea and had no burial. "Akhnaten" Tiy was still the power behind the throne, even though Eye was "officially" the pharaoh. And within 3 or 4 years, she had elevated her son to the throne, as soon as he was old enough. He was known initially as "Amenhotep 4", but is best known today as "Akhnaten". He was a true son of the dead pharaoh, but as his mother was of foreign descent, he was not a legitimate contender for the throne. Only in a situation such as Egypt was in at that time could he have ever taken the throne. And while history records Akhnaten as being the pharaoh, it is evident that it was really his mother who was directing from the background.

​

Those of you who have done any research on Egypt are obviously aware of Akhnaten, and that Egyptologists credit him with shifting the religious system of ancient Egypt from one of many gods to a system of monotheistic worship. And to a degree, this is true. Let's return to ancient Egypt and the events there... Tiy, who is now wed to Eye, or Ay as some spell it, finally places her son in the role of emperor. For a while, he is known as Amenhotep 4. He is obviously quite young- one letter found at Amarna from Tushratta, the Mitanni king, tells him to be sure and listen to his mother. The ancient inscriptions and statues depict him as a strange, pot-bellied man married to a beautiful wife named Nefertiti, with a large family of young girls. But in fact, the evidence seems to show that all of this was in fact a cover-up; a made-up story to lend credibility to the fantasy that Egypt had a strong pharaoh calling the shots. The chronology of the ancient records give this fact away by conflicting accounts of the ages of his children, as well as other chronological blunders.

​

With no priesthood left for the worship of the numerous gods of Egypt, Tiy institutes, through the so-called authority of her son, the pharaoh, a reorganization of the religious system. All prior gods are forgotten. After all, hadn't they all failed miserably when pitted against the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? It is the god called "Aten" that is now worshipped- but, in fact, this "Aten" is just another form of the old sun-god, "Amen" and "Re". And apparently, "Aten" was the god of Tiy's native land. Since records show that Tiy was worshipped as a goddess in Nubia, and Aten was the Nubian god, we feel safe in assuming she was of Nubian descent. Also, the art-style of this period reflected the Nubian style. The old capitals of Memphis and Thebes are forsaken by the new ruling house and a new capital is built at a site between the other 2 cities. It is called "Amarna". And it is here that Tiy, Eye (Ay), Akhnaton and his "family" all reside. After a few years, the tomb of Tutankhamen is reopened and new furnishings are placed in the tomb- new items which contain the name of the new pharaoh in order to please the gods according to their beliefs. All of these sort of actions are taken for a dual purpose- to comply with their religious beliefs which require each emperor to care for the burial of their ancestors, and also to cover-up the true events which took place. The shame that Egypt suffered at the tremendous losses at the Hand of the Great, I AM, were to be carefully obliterated from any surviving Egyptian records.

​

Meanwhile, in Palestine, the Egyptian vassals are in trouble. The Tel-Amarna Letters show that these cities, which were under Egyptian control, were being threatened by the Amurru and the Hittites. They pleaded with the pharaoh to send troops, but as one letter stated, no help had been received for 20 years. The situation was deteriorating fast. The Egyptians still had no army to speak of. After all, every trained military man had been lost in the Red Sea, and with no military leaders, even an army of able soldiers would be virtually worthless without proper leadership and training. In time, the Egyptians finally rebelled against the strange leadership which had sprung up under the guidance of the foreign queen, Tiy. Evidence shows that the entire Amarna family probably died as a result of a plague. Whatever really happened, the events which took place in ancient Egypt back then are a strong testimony to the Biblical record- no matter how hard the historians may try to interpret them otherwise. "The Omen of the Sun" The evidence we will deal with in this scenario is something which takes us into the time that the great multitude finally entered the promised land. Remember the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas who received the letter from the Egyptian queen? Murshilish, his son, left a record of an event which occurred in his 10th year- and it is important to establish about when this event would have occurred. The reign of Suppiluliumas is known to be in excess of 30 years and that he came to the throne just before the Exodus. We know that after he died, another son took the throne for a very short period of time, but died of a plague.

​

The records show that this first son held the throne less than a year. Therefore, if Suppiluliumas died about 30 years after the Exodus, his next son died within that same year, and the son writing of this event reigned 9 full years and was in his 10th when it occurred, this would place the time of the event at about 40 years after the Exodus. I know this is getting complicated, but its important to show when the 10th year of Murshilish would have been. The event of which Murshilish wrote was "an omen of the sun" that was so sinister that the dowager queen, Tawanna, interpreted it as portending the eminent disaster of the entire royal house. What was this "omen of the sun"? Scholars want to assign it to being an eclipse, but many historians deny that possibility. The fact is that these ancient peoples were all well familiar with eclipses- they possessed the ability to calculate when they were to occur. There is but one event which perfectly fits the description of an omen of the sun, sufficiently frightening enough to cause the queen to view it as an evil omen- an omen that occurred about 40 years after the Exodus-- and we can read of that event in the Bible: JOS 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

​

The "long day" of Joshua, soon after they had entered the promised land after 40 years of wandering, is recorded in the records of the Hittite king, Murshilish! "The Plagues of the Egyptians" Murshilish provided another evidence for us, which verified another Biblical fact- let's go to the Scriptures, where Moses is speaking to the people after they had come out of Egypt: DEU 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; Moses tells that the Lord will cast out the people who inhabit the promised land, and that the Hittites are among those who will be cast out. Now, let's go back to the same chapter in Deuteronomy where Moses tells them how the Lord will accomplish this: DEU 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee. What exactly were these evil diseases of Egypt? DEU 28:27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. Whatever these diseases were, we know for sure that they were fatal. Now, let's read what Murshilish wrote in his "Plague Prayers", a prayer to the Hittite storm-god- and remember, Murshilish was Hittite king at the time Joshua led the people into the Promised Land: "What is this that ye have done? a plague ye have let into the land.

​

The Hatti land has been cruelly afflicted by the plague. For twenty years now men have been dying in my father's days, in my brother's days, and in mine own since I have become the priest of the gods....My father sent foot soldiers and charioteers who attacked the country of Amqa, Egyptian territory. Again he sent troops, and again they attacked it....The Hattian Storm-god, my lord, by his decision even then let my father prevail; he vanquished and smote the foot soldiers and charioteers of the country of Egypt. But when he brought back to the Hatti land the prisoners which they had taken, a plague broke out among the prisoners and they began to die.

​

When they moved the prisoners to the Hatti land, these prisoners carried the plague into the Hatti land. From that day on, people have been dying in the Hatti land." The Hittites caught the plague from the Egyptian soldiers who were stationed in Amqa, Egyptian territory above Lebanon. And those who contracted the plague, died. Again, we can read a contemporary account of the events exactly as stated in the Bible!"JERICHO "We will conclude our discussion of the Exodus with the evidence found at Jericho. In the past few years atheistic archaeologists have tried to discount the original work done at Jericho, which showed clearly that it was destroyed in precisely the manner described in the Bible by Joshua, and also the ironclad evidence that proved who the kings of Egypt were at the time of the Exodus. Due to lack of space, we must recommend that you obtain the book "New Bible Evidence" by Sir Charles Marston (1934) to read about the tremendous amount of information which verifies the destruction of Jericho at about 1407 BC. We will however, give one quote as an example from page 135 "So great was the importance of verifying the date of the destruction, that in 1930, Professor Garstang and his wife cleaned and examined no fewer than sixty thousand fragments from the strata of the burned city. At the expedition the following year (1931), another forty thousand fragments were treated in a similar manner. They attested to the same date, that of the middle of the late Bronze Age (1400 BC) before the infiltration of the Mykenean ware." But equally exciting was the discovery of the cemetery of this city, as we read on page 136: In due course a number of tombs were opened that proved to belong to the century 1500-1400 BC and included royal tombs of the period. There were found a succession of eighty scarabs bearing the cartouches of the eighteenth dynasty Pharaohs.In one was unearthed scarabs bearing the joint names of Princess Hatshepsut and Thotmes III (1501-1487 BC) and in another two royal seals of Amenhetep III...As the series of dated scarabs all come to an end with the two royal seals of Amenhetep III, there is evidence, quite independent of the pottery, that the city also ceased to exist during that period." Amazing, isn't it, that all this fantastic evidence is hidden deep within old books collecting dust in libraries? But it IS there! And we have only touched on the basics of this information--there is much more out there. Summary We realize that it isn't necessary to salvation that we know all these things about ancient history, but I personally can say this: no matter what, NOTHING can ever shake my faith in the Biblical account because I KNOW it is completely and totally factual. And God has preserved all these evidences of His Truth that NONE of us should have any reason for doubt. There was a particular time when Ron was discouraged in this work. And at that time, he read a verse--a verse that kept him going all these years: ISA 45:3 "And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by name, am the God of Israel." Even though Cyrus was being addressed in this verse, it is a promise to us all. He will not leave us in doubt. Recommended Reference Reading Archaeology and the Bible by George A. Barton New Bible Evidence by Sir Charles Marston A History of Egypt by James Henry Breasted "Ancient Records of Egypt II" by * "Life in Ancient Egypt" by Adolph Erman "The Ancient Egyptians" by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson "The Monuments of Senenmut" by Peter F. Dorman "X-Raying the Pharaohs" by Jas. E. Harris & Kent Weeks "Egyptian Mummies" by G. Elliot Smith & Warren Dawson "Mummies, Myth and Magic" by Christine El Mahdy "The Ancient Near East, Vol 1" edited by James B. Pritchard "Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol II" by Miriam Lichtheim "Records of the Past, volumes 1-6" edited by A. H. Sayce "Tutankhamen" by Christine Desroches-Noblecourt "The Scepter of Egypt, vol II" by William C. Hayes "When Egypt Ruled the East" by George Steindorff & Keith Seele "History of Ancient Egypt", volume 2" by George Rawlinson "Akhenaten" by Cyril Aldred "Akhenaton the Heretic King" by Donald B. RedfordAfterall, it seems that Ron did know his stuff. He did extensive research in this area, and I commend him for it. Some good sources there.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-18-2004 06:20 PM

---

~Lysimachus

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

~Lysimachus

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

---

~Lysimachus

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

​

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

​

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

---

~Lysimachus

Note: The following information may answer many of the other questions raised in this thread which I did not have time to address, including Brian's long replies.

quote:

---

Simply attacking the experts becuase they disagree with you and instead demanding that others should share your biases will convince nobody who does not already agree with you. Simply insisting that others must agree with you no matter how weak your evidence is foolish.

---

I don't need you to tell me this. I don't insist anyone to agree with me, only reason, logic, and what God would have them agree with. As of me, I am nothing but an informer to provide critical data that should not be ignored. You can throw it in the garbage and lose out on the wonderful blessing these archeological discoveries have to offer, or you can accept them and rejoice together with us that there is a living saviour who guided these mighty great books of the Bible. I have been sharing this information with many people unchristian as yourself, and many are amazed and astonished by these finds. It enormity of topics has created a blinding atomosphere, therefore are unable to judge with your own mind without the influence of so many other topics. What I fear is the more I write, the harder you become. I entreat you my dear friend to really think things through.

quote:

---

I have already told you the problem with identifying Moses with Senmut and Tuthmosis II. Senmut is active in Hashepsut's reign as regent, after the death of Tuthmosis II. Or in Wyatt's chronology after Moses flees to Midian. Moses has to be in two places at once for Wyatt's idea to work. Identifying Hatshepsut as Moses adoptive mother is also a problem as she is sister and wife to Tuthmosis II.

---

No, you are wrong. You are stating these things as fact, and even Egyptologists are not sure of this. You make yourself a fool when you state these things as fact, and not "possible explanations". I see you yet have a great deal to learn that many aspects of Egyptian history, especially in the particular subject at hand, has been very difficult to accurately write. There is no direct proof that Thutmosis II was dead. Our theory states that he wasn’t, yet you continue to assert the other theory of which you prefer over our theory as "fact", and I'm sorry, but this cannot and shall not be done. The inaccuracy of Egyptian history allows us flexibility to create our own hypothesis.Note: The following information may answer more of your additional quotes from your last post.In order for you to comprehend the amount of flexibility that exists in interpreting Egyptian history/chronology, you must see our hypothesis in greater depth along with famous authors of Egyptian history have to say.According to Josephus, Moses was only heir to the throne, general in command of the Egyptian army, and there are many pharaohs who are mainly unknown. However, Moses was a very prominent person and it can be assumed (just like all the Egyptologists can assume) on good grounds that the life of Moses was documented in various ways as the lives of all other important people were documented in Egyptian society.There are two important questions. On the one hand what Egyptian name could Moses have had, and on the other whether any historical information about this person has been preserved. AS we will see, the hypothesis is that Moses DOES appear during the 18th dynasty. It should be noted here that the dynasties of Egypt area relative concept but they have come to be considered as indicating different eras of time. The dynasty concept will be used for the sake of simplicity but it can be worthwhile to see what Breasted (34) writes about the dynasties as a CONCEPT: A more or less arbitrary and artificial but convenient subdivision of these epochs, beginning with the historic age, is furnished by the so-called dynasties of Manetho. This native historian of Egypt, a priest of Sebennytos, who flourished under Ptolemy I (305-285 BC), wrote a history of his country in the Greek language. The work has perished, and we only know it is in epitome by Julius Africanus and Eusebius, and extracts ob Josephus. The value the work was slight, as it was built up on folk tales and popular traditions of the early kings. Manetho divided the long succession of Pharaohs as known to him, into thirty royal houses or dynasties, and although we know that many of his divisions are arbitrary, and that there was many a dynastic change where he indicates none, yet his dynasties divide the kings into convenient groups, which have so long been employed in modern study of Egyptian history, that it is now impossible to dispense with them. Tyldesley (35 have the following comments related to the 18th dynasty: The surviving archeological evidence is therefore strongly biased toward religion and death; we have for example, two tombs, three sarcophagi and several temples built by Hatshepsut, but little trace of the palaces where she lived her life. Overall we are left with the misleading impression that the Egyptians were depressingly gloomy and morbid race. And further, in general comment to the Egyptian history: we should never lose sight of the fact that the written record is INCOMPLETE, randomly selected, and carries its own biases. The monumental inscriptions, for example, are basically a mixture of religious and propaganda texts which tell the story that the king him — or herself wished to convey, and which cannot be taken as literal truth. The translators of these inscriptions are faced with problems not just of accuracy but of interpretationAnd a comment to Egyptian chronology: However, there was no ancient equivalent of our modern calendar, and year numbers started afresh with every new reign. And a final comment on Egyptian names: Manetho, working in approximately 300 BC, compiled a detailed history of the kings of Egypt. This original work is now lost, but fragments have been preserved in the writings of Josephus (AD 70), Africanus (early third century AD), Eusebius (early fourth century AD) and Syncellus (c. AD 800). These preserved extracts do not always agree, and the names given are often wildly incorrect, but students of Egyptian history still acknowledge a huge debt to Manetho, the ‘Father of Egyptian History’.So there you have it. You cannot rely on the sources of which you gathered your information stating that Senmut was after the reign of Thutmosis II.Before we continue, you need to understand who the Pharaoh’s were during the time of Moses. During the 18th dynasty the Pharaohs are said to have been called or entitled Amenhotep or Thutmosis. This hypothesis can be questioned as the name alternates between Amenhotep and Thutmosis. The pharaoh was the embodiment of the most important god and this god was then the highest god for the entire royal family reigning at the time. Since the pharaohs during this dynasty belonged to the same family it is hardly likely that one pharaoh would consider Thot (Thutmosis) was the highest god while another pharaoh considered Amen (Amenhotep) the highest.Inscriptions found in tembles and graves imply rather that Thutmosis is a name (title) which a pharaoh might have, and in some way Amenhotep was a further title. It is probable that several pharaohs had the title of both Thutmosis and Amenhotep depending on the stage at which they were in their careers.The general understanding of this period has confused many scholars, one stating in a comment on other Egyptologists as they are unaware of the complexities of the Tuthmoside succession (34).It may be that the co-ruler was Thutmosis during the time he reigned together with Pharaoh who was Amenhotep. When the co-ruler had to be content with a lower god title (Thutmosis). This understanding seems to make a great deal of more sense compared to the traditional viewpoint held that they were separate pharaohs.To this we can add that the sun god Ra was over the other gods and sequently pharaoh could also add this title to his row of designations. In this context Ra becomes Rameses. Rameses was a title used by many pharaohs, they were all an incarnation of the sun god, as the son of the sun god, or Rameses. This creates some confusion when Rameses II is pointed out as the great pharaoh with all the temples, statues and much more. Particularly when one looks at the statues representing Rameses II. They seem to represent different people. What one should also note is that inscriptions mention the title Rameses on many statues, temples and graves but not with the specification II. That is a later idea.The following is a hypothesis concerning which pharaohs reigned during the time of Moses, with their double names according to where in their careers they found themselves at different times.Is there any information in the biblical texts which can be linked with the hypothesis presented according to the following table about the successions to the throne?:Once again, copy/paste this link in your browser to see this table and compare. Carefully analyze again it if you would:http://www.geocities.com/lysimachus_22/pharaohchronology.jpgIt is likely that there is a link. In the First Book of Kings the biblical text is as follows: And it came to pass in the four hundredth and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.(1 Kings 6:1)Here we have a very precise indication of the dat4e of the beginning of the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. Most often the fourth year of king Solomon’s reign is given as approximately 966 BC (ref. 36)(. If one counts back 480 years form the year mentioned, this places the Exodus approximately 1446 BC. Can this date be verified?In the Encyclopedia Britannica (2) the following stands: The next date is given by a medical papyrus, to which a calendar is added, possibly to insure a correct conversion of dates used in the receipts to the actual timetable. Here it is said that the 9th day of the 11th month of year 9 of King Amenhotep I was the day of the helical rising of Sothis, i.e. 1538 BC. This date, however, is only accurate provided the astronomical observations were taken at the old residence of Memphis; if observed at Thebes in Upper Egypt, the residence of the 18th dynasty, the date must be lowered 20 years, i.e. 1518 BC.This chronology is described more closely in Chapter 44 of The Exodus Case (drawn up long before reference 2 was found) shows that the year nine for Amenhotep I occurred around 1519 BC which coincides AMAZINGLY with the approximate date 1518 BC from reference 2. Here an astronomic observation can be linked with the chronology mentioned in the above table (pharaohchronology.jpg) and with great precision place the 18th dynasty within the period of time used in this study.The following hypothesis is based on the chronology in the table I provided and therewith the astronomic observation in reference 2.So the next question is, who was Pharaoh’s daughter? By Pharaoh’s daughter is meant here the person who found Moses in the reed basket in the Nile and who later adopted him according to the biblical text in Exodus 2:1-10.The question then arises if, during the 18th dynasty, there was a Pharaoh who had no son who could inherit the throne but who had a daughter who played this role. Thutmosis I/Amenhotep I tallies with this description. He lacked a male heir but had a daughter who is very well-known in the history of Egypt. Her name was Nefure AND Hatshepsut. In earlier inscriptions when she is a princess she is referr3ed to as Nefure. Later when she becomes queen probably her name/title changes to Hatshepsut.According to this hypothesis, when Moses was born Amose reigned and lived in Thebes. Thutmosis I lived in Memphis and acted as co-ruler. Both of them could be called Pharaoh. Pharaoh comes from the word pero meaning big house, which implies that the title was a mark of power and influence. Thutmosis I was probably the one who acted as Pharaoh in Memphis and who was the father of Nefure, the person who most likely found Moses and adopted him.On several statues a young women with a little child is to be seen: The wording on these statues indicates that it is Nefure and Senmut. The child is wearing a royal ornament on its head indicating royalty, in this context a future heir to the throne. An heir to the throne was always a man, hence these statues represent a little boy.Nefure is known as a princess and the daughter of Pharaoh Amenhotep I. It is then probable that it is princess Nefure who found the baby Moses in the Nile reeds and adopted him to have an heir to the throne. Other hypotheses claim that these statues represent a man (Senmut) who is responsible for the child Nefure, which the statues do not imply since it is difficult to understand how the older person in these statues can be seen to represent a man.Similarly it is unlikely that the child was a girl as this would be contrary to the custom in Egypt that the heir to the throne was always a man.Senmut is an important name for Moses as it has special meaning, namely mother’s brother. This name goes back to the Egyptian gods (and royal family according to the Egyptian custom) Osiris, Isis and Horus. In this family in a complicated way, the son of Isis, Horus, becomes his mother’s son and his mother’s brother since he was a reincarnation of Isis’ dead husband, who in turn was Isis’ brother. In other words, Horus was also the brother of Isis (his mother’s brother). This was to show that Isis was the rightful heir to the throne in spite of the fact that his father was dead when he was born.In the SAME WAY Moses needed to have a rightful identity in order to be heir to the throne. His adoptive mother is thus depicted with Moses, who is then called his mother’s brother (Senmut) and thereby receives the right to inherit the throne since his mother is the bearer of this right (although she cannot become Pharaoh). It is another way of saying that Moses, in the same way as Horus, was born into the royal family without a father. In this hypothesis Senmut is not a formal name for Moses but could perhaps be translated as adopted son in our everyday language. In another bible passage (Heb. 11:24) it is related that as an adult Moses refused to call himself the son of Pharaohs daughter, which is understandable in view of his adult life.There is an interesting comment about Senmut in the literature (37); It is probably that Senmut abused his power and that at a particular point in the reign of Hatshepsut he fell into disgrace, as demonstrated by the damage done to most of his monuments. This is EXACTLY what happened to Moses according to the Bible text: From an Egyptian perspective he fell into disgrace when he escaped from Egypt and it is obvious that a person, the heir to the throne, doing this would have everything in terms of monuments, statues, scrolls etc., destroyed. A person doing what Moses did, must, according to Egyptian traditions — be erased from the history.Now is where the references come in which I provided comparing the characteristics of Senmut from Ref 35 in relation to Moses as described in the Bible texts and in many cases in relation to the descriptions by Josephus.It is also interesting to note that the temple Deir-El Bahri was built by Senmut (Moses) for Hatshepsut (Moses’ stepmother).And, as you correctly state PaulK, it is also said that Thutmosis II was brother and husband to Hatshepsut, but according to this new hypothesis, Thutmosis II was the adopted son (Moses) of Hatshepsut, expressed as mother’s brother in Egyptian tradition. According to an Egyptian inscription, Horus (the falcon), Thutmosis II (who is in the upper left) and Hatshepsut (lower left) at Deir El Bahri. According to Egyptian custom, Thutmosis II (Moses) was his mother’s brother, and in this way heir to the throne (brother), but was also adopted. Mother’s brother which is the meaning of Senmut. Although there is and will always be missing links to accurately prove all of this, it unquestionably can be a plausible explanation for this hypothesis.The Bible relates that Moses’ biological mother was allowed to breast-feed Moses, very probably she was allowed to bring him up until he was considered old enough to begin his training at the palace. And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses (Ex. 2:10)Probably at the same time his Egyptian maternal grandfather, Thutmosis I/Amehotep I, became the ruler of all Egypt, which meant that they moved to the palace in Thebes. When Moses was about 18 years old he probably was appointed heir to the throne with his foster mother, Nefure, as regent. Probably from this point in time Nefure was called Hatshepsut and queen. Senmut (Moses) had several titles as superintendent of the grain stores, of the lands, of the livestock (37).A women could not embody the gods but could be the wife of a Pharaoh and, if there were no heir, could carry out the functions until an heir had reached a mature age. In Hatshepsut’s temple, Deir El Bahri, there is a wall where the birth of the heir to the throne is portrayed. Certain hypotheses claim that this is the birth of Hatshepsut, which becomes complicated since the child is a boy which one source tries to explain by saying that the one who made the inscription was confused. Another illustration on this wall shows the child in Hatshepsut’s arms!A number of hypotheses claim that Hatshepsut declared herself to be king, which is based on the inscription king Hatshepsut Xnem Amen/MaatKaRe. This claim is that this is Hatshepsut with further additions to her name. Hatshepsut Xmnem Amen means Hatshepsut united with Amen. Amen is the principle god during the 18th dynasty and another name for the son god (Ra). The name means that the king with his name is the product of Hatshepsut in union with the god Amen, or the offspring of the union between Hatshepsut and the god Amen.According to the hypothesis of this study, this king, or rather heir to the throne, was Moses with Hatshepsut as his co-ruler. When someone is appointed heir to the throne, then inscriptions refer to this person as king. Moses was very closely connected to Hatshepsut since she was his only link to the royal family. In order to justify his accession to this elevated position it was important to observe protocol at every step so that Moses would be accepted in the existing system.Note: It is said that Senmut had a high-bridge (aquiline)( nose. Note the differences between Hatshepsut’s nose (Moses’ stepmother) and the nose of Moses (Thutmosis II) at the Deir-El Bahri temple. You can see the comparison in the figures which display Hatshepsut and Thutmosis II together, in which Hatshepsut (left) and Thutmosis (right) are at Deir-El Bahri. Thutmosis II was probably Moses. The image cannot be displayed on the web because I am unable to find the inscription on the web.

​

A long wall at Deir-El 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 study is that Hatshepsut’s son was Moses.And so the next question can now be officially asked, who was Thutmosis II? When Moses is finally appointed co-ruler at the age of 33 years he becomes Thutmosis II. What happens later when Moses is 40 years old is already dealt with in scripture.Near to Thebes there is a beautiful building called Deir El Bahri, which, according to this hypothesis, was the temple Moses built (as architect) for his stepmother Nefure. Above this building there is a grave (grave number 71) with a statue that was never completely finished. This statue is carved out of the rock and depicts a woman holding a little child. With the hypothesis presented in this study, it is logical that this represents Moses in the arms of his stepmother Nefure.This building was probably begun when Moses was about 18 years old — it was probably then that he was appointed heir to the throne with Nefure as regent. The names found in this grave are Nefure and Senmut!Immediately under this grave a chamber has been found in which there are two mummies with the names Hatnofer and Ramose, most likely the Egyptian names for Moses’ biological parents. Here one can see that Moses was given a god-like position in Egyptian society by giving his biological father the name of Ramose, since Ra was the greatest god among the Egyptians.Hatnofer was embalmed and received a royal burial, indicated by the fact that she received this place as her burial place and that her death occurred when Moses was between 18 and 40 years old. Since the building was begun when Moses was around 18 years old it is likely that Moses’ mother died when Moses was between 25 and 40 years old. She can definitely not have had this burial after Moses became 40 years old when a sentence of death was pronounced against Moses and he had to flee the country. Moses’ father, Ramose, probably died before Moses was 18 years old since he received a more simple burial and was placed at Deir El Bahri after having been moved from another grave.Moses’ grave was never finished and no-one was ever buried in this chambera very highlighting factor in our hypothesis, since there is no correct mummy for Thutmosis II or Senmut. This was probably the second burial chamber built for Moses and in this case would represent the royal grave. When one goes down into this grave it can be seen that it is unfinished and those who carved the reliefs stopped at a certain point and it looks as though they had just finished their work for the day! Nearby there are plans for future work with inscriptions drawn in black texts on the wall. This would only make sense, since Moses never died in Egypt.It can be noted that in Egyptian graves the dead person was depicted in different situations with his wife and others in the family. In this burial chamber the dead person (Moses) is depicted SOLELY with his parents, Hanofer and Ramose. According to the Bible, Moses had no family of his own when he lived in Egypt.As we can see, things are starting to make more and more sense, and the puzzle of the Exodus is ever more fitting.So, the next question that would have to be asked is, 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.Note: A beautiful illustration is provided in order to visualize but I am unfortunately unable to provide it online at this time.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 c0-ruler in his 22nd year.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.Thutmosis II 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.So who does Thutmosis II represent? The statues and images in ancient Egypt show an amazing portrait-like resemblance. All the people depicted are not idealized, but they often have not just one but several characteristics, both positive and negative. Examples of this are Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had a very peculiar build, others are dwarves, have physical features such as obesity, varying skin color, height and, to say the least, are very different in appearance. Even when army units were made as statuettes, all soldiers were different. This is mentioned as background to the well-founded assumption that artists and sculptors tried to achieve a portrait-like resemblance.The following observations are speculative but may be interesting to note. The Egyptians, and in particular the leaders have certain traits in common. One such trait is that they have straight noses. Typical Egyptian pharaohs ALL had straight noses!In this study, the hypothesis that Thutmosis II was Moses is stated. So what do the statues of Thutmosis II look like? Moses was not an Egyptian, as far as his genes were concerned, but a Hebrew! Sometimes Hebrews can be described as having more of a hook noste than others. It is interesting that the statue representing Thutmosis II has a more distinct hook nose compared to other statues, as can be seen below: Do not forget to take into account that there are notes that Senmut had an aquiline nose, and that Thutmosis II is depicted with a big nose on reliefs. The statue of Thutmosis II shows that he had a hook nose, typical of the Hebrews If this was done purposely by the sculptor with the aim of making the representation of Thutmosis II as portrait-like as possible, then this means that the statue in the figure probably represents Moses.So now you ask, who was the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus? When Amenhotep II died, according to the hypothesis in this book, his co-ruler of 29, Thutmosis IV, succeeded as Pharaoh with the pharaonic title Amenhotep III. When Amenhotep III became Pharaoh he appointed his eldest son, although very young, as crown prince as was the custom. The young person who received this role was about 10 years old at the time and we know him as Tutankhamun. Amenhotep II later reigns for about 8 years before the time of the Exodus occurs.Amenhotep III is interesting from a special point of view. It would seem that he was not intended for the throne of Egypt since he was not the eldest son through the royal mother, who custom decreed should become Pharaoh. In the Sphinx inscription, which can still be seen between the paws of the Sphinx by the pyramids in Giza outside present day Cairo, a remarkable story about Thutmosis IV is told. 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 kin.This story would not have needed to be told if he had received the right to the throne in a traditional way — by being the eldest son. It may have been that Amenhotep II was also childless, or that for some reason the eldest son could not become Pharaoh. That son could have died young, for instance. For other reasons which we can discuss, we know nonetheless it was very probable Amenhotep III, was the eldest son, while Tutankhamun, heir to the throne after Amenhotep III, was the eldest son of Amenhotep III.Tutankhamun was co-ruler and in an inscription on the statue of a lion, which Tutankhamun dedicated to the Soleb temple, he calls his father Amenhotep III (37), which confirms the relation between these two people!Next, are we able to identify the mummies that have been found? There are many mummies in Egypt and there are also problems in connecting a specific mummy to a specific Pharaoh. One example is the mummy that is supposed to be Thutmosis I who reigned for 21 years, according to inscriptions. The following is said about the mummy supposed to belong to Thutmosis I: However, several eminent physical anthropologists who have seen these X-ray plates have been absolutely convinced that this mummy is that of a young man, perhaps 18 years of age, certainly not over twenty. (39). Several examples can be given, but there are also explanations.1. that the name lived on was of primary importance. The worse thing that could happen, was for the name to be removed from the inscriptions etc. It was not so important that it was precisely the right mummy because the body was dead and it was the spirit that needed a body — any body.2. Many grave robberies (in general most graves have been robbed) have led to the contents of graves being scattered.3. Many mummies have disappeared to be used as medicines. An ingredient in many European prescriptions in the Middle Ages was part of a mummy as they were held to a have a magical effect.4. Later pharaohs who restored graves that had been plundered, put in another mummy.Thus, there are many uncertainties regarding the identity of mummies that have been found. It is probably on the mummies of Amenhotep I, AmenhotepII and Tutankhamun from the 18th dynasty, who are the individuals with whom they are connected. With regard to Tutankhamun, the grave is one of the few which has not been plundered. The mummy of Amenhotep I shows a common genetic defect (protruding teeth) which existed in the family, which means that this mummy can be connected to the 18th dynasty. The other mummies are probably mixed up or placed there at a later date (e.g. after a grave robbery) since they are found in the wrong graves and/or have not received a royal burial.Moreover, according to the hypothesis of this study, there should not be any mummies of Thutmosis II, who was Moses, nor Amenhotep III, who drowned in the Red Sea. Furthermore, according to the same hypothesis, there should only be one mummy from the name pair Thutmosis/Amenhotep since this was one and the same person.As we can see, there is enough ample reason to believe in this hypothesis. You will notice that even according to traditional Egyptian chronology, the writers are very uncertain and do a lot of speculating. Here is a very good website concerning traditional Egyptian chronology: Eighteenth Dynasty of EgyptI want you to notice the uncertainty of their language. A lot of probably’s, most likely’s and could’s are used extensively, but their basis for doing so is on the premise of mere speculation. We have more reason to come up with our theories based on the archeological discoveries revealing the Exodus event actually have taken place! We have enough chariot remains (and a few very well identifiable wheels), human bones, horse bones, underwater landbridge, Solomon’s pillars in commemoration of the crossing, Nuweiba beach, the fact that the Bible describes the Israelites were shut in by the wilderness and the mountains have entangled themNuweiba beach matching the description of the Bible (no such geography exists for the Gulf of Suez), the fact that Goshen was way up north above Suez, and the ludicrousness of speculating that the Israelites would have headed south into Egyptian territory instead of just going east into the Sinai Peninsula and following the southern road. The fact that the Bible plainly states that Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, and Midian is in Saudi Arabia. A pattern is being developed here, and the picture is ever growing clearer.Based on these archeological finds, the proposed chronology correlates nicely with what has been found, and explains the many unanswered questions as to how such an Exodus could have occurred.To see a very good website describing the proposed chronology, take a look at this link:http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/moses.htmSources derived from: The Exodus Case, The Mountain of God, and the World Wide WebThe above link will give you an idea as far as successions are concerned, but the author who put together the table misplaced Amenhotep I as being before Thutmosis I, when in reality, according to the hypothesis presented, Thutmosis I (who was co-regent with Ahmose) became the next Pharaoh as Amenhotep I. Thutmosis I (as co-regent had a daughter named Nefure, and Nefure was the foster mother of the baby Moses she found in the bulrushes. When Thutmosis I became Amenhotep I, Nefure became Hatshepsut (her new name as for co-regent), and it was decided that since there was no male heir, Nefure/Hatshetsup’s adopted son Moses would become co-regent ALONG with her in order for their to successfully be a male replacement after Amenhotep I dies.

quote:

---

There are some weak but valid parallels - mainly with Josephus (the best one is campaigning in Nubia - but even that is hardly decisive). But also problems. For instance Senmut appears to have joined the bureacracy after his army career. In Josephus' account he flees shortly after the one military campaign he is credited with - although his reasons for doing so are not those given in Exodus. Since Josephus also has Moses marrying an Ethiopian princess during the campaign anything other than a rapid flight to Midian goes quite clearly against the assertion that Senmut never married.

---

This is totally out of the question. According the Egyptian accounts, Senmut never married and they had every reason to record it thus, simply for the fact that this is all they knew. The accounts record Senmut as never marrying, and we very well know that as long as Moses was in Egypt, he never did marry. However, after Moses fled Egypt, all Egyptian accounts of Moses terminated, thus not recording his marriage to Zipporah, the Midianite. Moses was much older when he returned, and his wife did not come with him or Aaron when they journeyed back to Egypt. Of course Senmut would not have been recorded has being married. As for Josephus’ accounts where Moses marries an Ethiopian princess, I would like to see these sources, for I have never heard this. But bear in mind that not all of Josephus’ accounts are 100% correct. In many cases he seems to contradict the scripture, so his writings are only to be considered as auxiliary information in order to correctly assemble our hypotheses. According to scripture, Moses never married until he landed in Midian, in Saudi Arabia by Mt. Horeb (Sinai).

quote:

---

Other parallels are very weak - and used repeatedly, inflating the numbers. Equating "low birth" with "slaves" is so obviously weak that it can't be considered significant evidence even if given once. Listing it 3 times is only scraping the bottom of the barrel.

​

Two "parallels" are listed as "not known" and so cannot count as evidence.

---

Yet again, you fail to see a broad picture we are painting here. You muddle around trying to pick apart a few things you think may seem inconsistent, but your reasoning is nothing but the nick of a tooth pick on the overall grand puzzle. These additional parallels are most certainly weak when they stand alone. They are only meant to be auxiliary parallels that support the stronger ones. There is nothing wrong with equating low birth with slaves as for mere speculation in order to assist the many other strong conclusions which cannot be denied. You’re wasting your time by trying to prove these minor points wrong, and completely fail to disprove the strong points. As ripping this minor point apart is going to dismantle the entire theory of the Exodus. I highly doubt so.

quote:

---

Reading statements that refer to Senmut as working as an offical as indicating that he was a member of the royal family is simply perverse.

​

The conventional view of Senmut as an official who rose to great power and had a close relationship and influence over the regent Hatshepsut fits the evidence rather better than Wyatt's version. A fall form grace would be catastrophic in siuch a position - and Tuthmosis III could not be expected to treat Senmut's monuments differnetly form those of Hatshepsut, should they have been spare desecration prior to his reign. Either his fall or his association with Hatshepsut are adequate to account for the attmepts to erase him from Egypt's history.

---

But Senmut is only heir to the throne, and then becomes named Thutmosis II when he becomes co-ruler along with his mother Hatshepsut with Amenhotep I. The event was catastrophic, thus Moses fled to Midian, and Thutmosis III took his place as the next male representative, since only Hatshepsut was still of royal blood line.

quote:

---

On the other hand Wyatt's account has serious problems. Not only does it have to rearrange the family relationships, Hatshepsut's reign is a major stumbling block. Wyatt's account not only has Moses acting as both co-regent and heir AND a high official at the same time, it also has Hatshepsut as regent at the same time as there is a reigning Pharoah and a co-regent. this alone is adequate to dismiss Wyatt's account unless strong evidence can be produced to support it.

---

This is based on the clues we have gathered from the inscriptions. You will have to read all the above again, since this issue is already dealt with. This multiple co-regency makes a great deal of sense if you think it through. Think about it, if carefully read above, you will notice that it is clear that a woman could not embody the gods but could be the wife of a Pharaoh. Nefure/Hatshepsut was the daughter of Amenhotep I, and Amenhotep I had no male heir to the throne! Thus, in order to successfully bring a male heir to the throne, it was agreed for both Hatshepsut and her adopted son Moses to be co-regents together--solving the problem of no male heir. This gives Moses, Amenhotep’s adopted grandson the right to be the next to ascend the throne. However, while Moses was in his co-regency as Thutmosis II, he killed the Egyptian and fled Egypt. He did this because he knew Pharaoh now had a good reason to kill Moses, because the royal court originally did not like him, and had suspicions about him because they knew he was not born of Egyptian blood, and did not like the idea of a Hebrew blooded man taking the throne. Killing the Egyptian gave the royal house every reason to be rid of him. Moses knew this, so thus he fled to Midian. As a result, someone had to take Thutmosis II’s place as co-regency (to fill in the slot of the male heir). Thutmosis III comes in, and this is why there are stories that it was a gift of the God’s how Thutmosis was able to become Pharaoh. He was not a heir through blood, but was someone that was as a replacement. This is all very clear.

quote:

---

So after eliminating the errors and those which do not apply we have:

​

1) Parents of low birth and with no prominent presence in public life - a very weak parallel since there is nothing suggesting that the parents were slaves - and there were many of low birth.

​

2) Apparently served as a general in Nubia. This only agrees with Josephus - it isn't in the Bible and there are details there which do not agree. Josephus has Moses simply appointed General contradicitng Senmut's career where he "rises through the ranks".

​

3) Did not marry - although Josephus has Moses marry an Ethiopian princess he also appears to put Moses flight to Midian (for reasons entirely differet from those in Exodus) sortly afterward which solves that problem. It also eliminates Senmut's bureaucratic career which is listed as a supposed parallel (although it also goes against the identification with Tuthmosis II).

---

These comments have already been addressed earlier.

quote:

---

The first is too general to count for anything. The third is weak and could also be explained by the relationship with Hatshepsut. That leaves only the military action in Nubia - which is weakened by a reliance on Josephus as sole source, by the contradictions with Josephus over his following career (ascending in the bureaucracy over a period of certainly more than ten years, aginst fleeing ot Midian almost immediately) and by the fact that it is not confirmed that Senmut was a general at all - let alone for an expedition to Nubia.

​

All in all it is far from overwhlming evidence and leaves some very serious problems unaddressed.

---

I fail to see why the term general necessarily has to be written. In many cases, princess and high officials were considered general on the battle field. For example, when Wellington was Duke, in many cases they still referred to him as general on the battlefield. If anything is weak, it is your accusation that this cannot fit. You fail to see how misconstrued Egyptian chronology really is, and that there were so many names associated with one person that it makes Egyptian chronology very confusing. In my opinion, the Egyptologists who have put together the traditional chronology of Egypt have it all wrong. Admitting that they themselves are unclear about all of this gives us ample leeway to highly criticize their theories.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-26-2004 02:57 PMThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-26-2004 08:44 PM

---

~Lysimachus

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree PaulK. I interpret Egyptian history very different from yours, and although I admit there are some flaws and seemingly inconsistencies to the hypothesis of which I agree, as there is no way to prove it as 100% fact, there are also a great deal of incosistencies and unanswered questions in traditional Egyptian records.I admit there are some questions you raise that I am unable to answer straight, but there are also a number of questions that I have raised in which you as well have not been able to answer straight.So like I said, let us close the discussion regarding Egyptian chronology, and revert back to the archeology concerning the Exodus.Nonetheless, I hope that you did not just glaze over my post.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-26-2004 02:59 PM

---

~Lysimachus

Ahmose? There must be differences of opinion then among Egyptologists as to who Ahmose was then, because as far as I know the traditional popular viewpoint is that he was a male Pharaoh, founder of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. Egypt: Ahmose I, Founder of the 18th Dynasty and the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt

---

~Lysimachus