"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Imo, this is a non issue. I simply commented on your notion of making an issue about how many chariots were involved. There's room for plenty in the sea, but given that even some our modern Humvies were disabled along the way in Iraq, likely some chariots and horses didn't complete the long rugged journey.

Buzsaw:Would you please take a position and say when the Exodus happened ?Thanks,Willowtree

Hi WT. As I stated earlier in the thread, my position and that of the video is that it is sometime in the 18th Egyptian Dynasty and likely in the 14th century BC. Bishop Usher has it at around 1490 BC and I tend to go with his dates. Dates are important, but regardless of whether we have the date exact, the evidence remains.The video has a separate program about the Egyptian pharoahs and it produces evidence that the captivity ranged from the 19th century until the Exodus if I remember correctly, and Ramesess II as one of the key pharoahs. It fingers a Tutmoses pharoah as the Exodus pharoah. I need to do some study and research on these pharoahs though before making a judgement on which pharoah and the particulars. This thread is not intended to get too much into the pharoah debate, but as to which pharoah ended up in the drink is relevant to our topic.

This isn't possible Buz because Rameses I was the first of the 19th dynasty pharaohs. There were four pharaohs called Tuthmosis, but Tuthmosis III used to be touted as the Exodus pharaoh (as his reign ties in with the dating of 1 Kings 6:1) of the Exodus but this means that Israel should be settled in Palestine around 1400 BC, almost one hundred years before there was any pharaoh named Rameses. It also means that Israel settled in Palestine, a part of Tuthmosis' Empire, it doesn't workAre you sure that the video agrees with this? I wouldnt take the 'Song of Moses' too seriously Buz, you can if you want to of course, but you should be aware that many of the pharaohs' bodies have survived, and their cause of death have been established. Buz, I am not trying to be mean or smart, but if, in your research, you are having difficulty in finding any resources, if you want to e-mail me I will see if I can find them and e-mail them to you. There are an incredible amount of Egyptian archaeological resources at Glasgow uni, plus, I have access to databases, e-journals, microfilms and special collections that date back hundreds of years, so I should really be able to find almost anything.Perhaps if we work together here we can come to some reasonable conclusions ourselves?Brian.

Thanks much, Brian. I have just received a video entitled "Life, Times and Wonders Of The Pyramids And The Cities Of The Pharoahs" and will be viewing it. It might be helpful. I really don't have a lot of time to put into this, but will go from what you've posted and review the Exodus video again to consider where we are apart. I do know from previous Exodus threads that there is a controversy about the pharoahs of this period and time in Egypt's history.I appreciate the offer to email and will keep that in mind.

I find the following information about Akeheperkare, Tutmoses I interesting. His reign ended 1492 BC, about Usher's time for the Exodus pharoah's death and the mummy, according to the following link, ascribed to him, is in question as to being his mummy at all.
The link doesn't seem to work, but at least I've given credit due for the statement.Quote about Akheperkare (Tuthmosis I) http://www.secker.fsbusiness.co.uk/tuthmosis1Could it be that there's after all, no mummy for Tutmoses I because of the failed crossing attempt?

Interesting it is also, that Hatshepsut, the first female pharoah had two brothers who had died, one Tutmosis II who she helped rule until his early death after about 3 years of reign. Was the other dead brother the real intended Tutm II who died in the plague? Was she involved in the dynasty of Tutmosis II because of the devastation? Why, all of a sudden do we have Tutmosis I's two sons dead and their sister receiving the unheard of position of pharoah of Egypt??

I was a Zionist plot, as usual.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just a short interruption of your regularly scheduled program...Howdy, buz.I'd sure love to see your mug back in the women & Christianity thread, if you get a chance any time soon.Thanks!

Greets, madear. As you see, I'm quite engrossed in this matter with my limited time, but thanks for the invite. I'll check it out.

Brian, do you have any thoughts or responses to post numbers 109 and 110 in regards to the pharoahs?

Since the mummy was x-rayed in the 1970s however, the identification of this mummy has been seriously called into question. X-rays revealed the possibility that Tuthmosis had suffered an old pelvic fracture during his life, but it also raised the possibility that this is not actually the mummy of Tuthmosis at all! But has it been proven that the mummy of Tuthmosis I is not his mummy? Even if it isn’t his mummy then to speculate that he was lost in the sea crossing still requires proof that there were Israelites in Egypt before 1492 BCE, and a whole range of other things.A BIG problem is the size of Tuthmosis I’s empire, he led extensive campaigns into Palestine and established control over the region as far as the Euphrates, he was known for his victories over the Hyksos and for bringing peace and stability back to Egypt, it is difficult to see how the Exodus would fit in with this overall picture. And, again the Israelites would have had nowhere to go, Palestine was essentially another part of Egypt. Of course you could argue that if it isn’t Tuthmosis I’s mummy then it could have been lost in the sea, but then again it could be lost anywhere.Also, if you have a c.1492 Exodus then you have a c.1450 conquest of Canaan, and we enter Tuthmosis III’s reign, arguably Egypt’s strongest period.1492 also ignores the 1 kings 6:1 reference and the references to Pitom and Rameses in Exodus 1:11. The ONLY historically verifiable reference in the entire enslavement and Exodus is this reference to the cities of Rameses and Pithom, I really think this is when the search should start. It also fits in with certain destruction levels in Palestinian cities, it would also fit in with the establishment of occupied sites in Moab and Edom, which were not occupied until the 13th century BCE. I really think that the 15th century Exodus has been completely abandoned, if there was an Exodus the 13th century BCE is the most likely date. However, there are also huge problems with this date as well. She was only regent at first, though and not a pharaoh, although she did proclaim herself king. It is interesting, does it help our quest to date the Exodus? She was also married to Tuthmosis II, her half brother. What plague would that be, the ‘tenth plague’ in the Bible? What devastation would that be?She was involved because her husband Tuthmosis II died and the successor Tuthmosis III (by another wife) was too young. But it isn’t all of a sudden, and she didn’t receive anything, she took it. Women always had a high status in Egypt, and there were many queens of Egypt long before Hatshepsut was born, Sobekneferu is one example.Brian.

The video begins with documention of a foreign settlement in Egypt about the right time for this event by an Austrian archeological research team. The excavated ruins have shown that the settlement was built in a format typical with Hebrew arrangements. It's hard for me to cover all the information in this video adequately. It does a quite thorough job from start to finish with a very professional and high quality manner in this video presentation. It also explains how the foreigners were likely refered to by the Egyptians by an Asiatic term rather than as Hebrews which I can't remember without reviewing the video. But if Tut 1 was the man, the Hebrews would've been in Egypt as slaves anyhow and not needing a place to go until the Exodus. Besides that, who of much count would oppose his influence in Palestine?
And of course, after the Exodus they were likely in the area of Midian in the wildernes East of Aqaba for 40 years according to these discoveries. Do we have concrete information on any Tut III activity in Palestine?I'll go with this much for now. Thanks for waiting. I've got so much going on outside that I'm not finding as much time to give this as I'd like. There's other threads I get a word in now and then too which I consider to be worthy subjects.

I think this is guaranteed to be Beitak’s excavations at Avaris, I could be wrong but chances are I am not. The foreign settlement then would be the Hyksos, a term translated as ‘Shepherd Kings’, ‘The rulers of foreign lands’., or ‘foreign chiefs’ They were Asiatic, more than likely they were Canaanites or Amorites judging by the names of some of their rulers, Albright mentions Anat-hr and Ya’qub-hr to support this, with the final part of the name ‘hr’ being read as ‘Al, ‘Ali’ or Eli, which is a divine name in the Bible and is also a name from the Ugarit Texts meaning ‘Baal’ the exalted one (Albright., W 1968 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan Doubleday, New York. page 50) The later Hyksos rulers appear to be partly Indo-Aryan, and one of the rulers had an Egyptian name, Apophis.There is also the fact that the Hyksos formed Egypt’s 15th dynasty, so there really is nothing exclusive or groundbreaking in the video claiming to have found a foreign settlement, this is very basic foundational knowledge of the subject. Now this I am interested in, what do they claim is a typical Hebrew arrangement? I sincerely hope it isn’t the old four roomed house claim, but I will wait further clarification on this claim. I understand, I will keep asking questions that I think are important and maybe you could find the answers in the video. I am sure it does, but that doesn’t affect the accuracy of the claims. I am pretty sure they are talking of Hyksos, given the translations.
Don’t you think it is possible that they weren’t referred to as ‘Hebrews’ because they weren’t Hebrews?What do they think links the Hyksos to the Hebrews? But wasn’t it Tuthmosis I who was supposed to have drowned at the sea during the Exodus? This was part of the Exodus narrative, but Tuthmosis I soldiers were all over the near east, his Empire wouldn’t have ceased to exist just because he died. That’s what I mean, Palestine was under his control and the following pharaoh’s control as well, the Israelites had nowhere to go. Then there is the added problem of Joshua failing to meet any Egyptians when he ‘conquered’ Palestine. According to the Bible, they were at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 of the 40 years, and again there is nothing to signify any occupation at that site until after the 10th century BCE. Yes, a great deal of evidence. For example, there are texts describing his campaigns into Palestine (he led over a dozen campaigns there) mainly to eradicate the remnant of the Hyksos (Bright, John 1972 A History of Israel (revised edition) SCM Press, London page 106)There is a text in Pritchard’s ‘Ancient Near eastern texts relating to the Old Testament’ that describes Tuthmosis III battle at Megiddo around 1468 BCE. I am going into Uni on Sunday or Monday, I will get a photocopy of the text as the book is so big it will take up all the space in my bag.You could check the Net for Tuthmosis’ III victory stele from Karnak.I will give more details on Monday and Tuesday, I am off to a birthday party very soon.Brian.

I know that this is really a stretch, but in all the campaigns that Tut III made into Palestine, do you think that there was any chance, no matter how small, that some equipment might have broken and been left along the way?Is there any possibility that someone might someday find some of the abandoned equipment and mistake that for remnants of the equipment from the great Exodus Army?edited to addReminds me of one of my favorite Bill Mauldin cartoons."You blokes leave an awfully messy battlefield"This message has been edited by jar, 05-29-2004 11:01 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion