"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Nor effectively refuted. For cryin out loud, we have stated repeatedly that Wyatt was the pioneer, dead now and others seeing the credibility of his claims have taken up the research and gone forward with their own work. Get real, man! This's what I mean and what Lysimachus is teed about. You people simply do not seem to care about debating in good faith. You're not atol interested in the facts. You defend your looser ideology, come hell or high water!You people lament about how few creos come to town and why they run off so quick. Lysimachus is already talking of leaving if he hasn't already. I hope not.

And there is indeed a relatively shallow sandbar at Nuweiba considering the rest of the gulf is a virtural Grand Canyon. Right?

If you consider 200 meters as relatively shallow :lol:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I found this link from Anchor Stone International which has the data for Nuweiba. It has determined that there's not a land bridge perse, but a pathway smooth enough and at grades that would allow for passage across for a large number of people. It is important also to consider that the middle deeper part may have been deepended over the milleniums from erosion and gulf currents changing somewhat the topography of the passageway. Just a thought. This link also gives the name of the woman diver who was Viveka Ponten. It also names others from various nations involved in the research, besides Moller's team.
Page not found - Anchor Stone International

BuzHave you seen this link on th Red Sea hydrography? Red Sea Depths

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Alright folks, I’m back from surgery. Yesterday I got my incisions sowed back up and I didn’t get back home until late last night.Brian,Thanks for the comment about chilling down. I’ve chilled down now. I was on the brink of surgery and it was frustrating me that not much of the data I provide sinks in when it is so clear to me.Now to respond to your post (message 191) as I promised:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I suppose because Ahmose was the "starting point", and his co-regent was Thutmosis I.

---

​

Are you sure about this?

​

How does Amenhotep I fit in with this as traditional dynasty lists Amenhotep I as reigning between Ahmose and Thutmosis I?

---

First let me start out by saying that I realized that this whole time I have failed to provide the references Moller provided throughout his book. He has a lot of references which I simply listed as, for example (23), as a just a number in parentheses, but you had no way of knowing that those numbers referred to traditional sources listed in the back of his book. If I have time, I’ll go back through my posts and change those parentheses to the traditional sources instead of just a number.As for Amenhotep I fitting between Ahmose and Thutmosis I, there is no direct traditional proof for this. Aligning the chronology was a complete nightmare and is subject for questioning.The family relationships of the Thuthmosid rulers are a genealogical nightmare. (57. N. Reeves and R.H. Wilkinson (1996) The Complete Valley of the Kings, p 91, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, England) Could an explanation be the theory of chapter 14?[Editors note: The theory I presented concerning the Thutmosis/Amenhotep relationship]The problem is, there is no way to prove either way. However, since the Biblical narrative describes an Exodus event, in order for the chronology to tally with the Exodus event in 1446 BC, the proposed chronology has been provided. But even without an Exodus, enough evidence suggests that Thutmosis and Amenhotep were two kings ruling simultaneously, one in Thebes (Amenhotep) and one in Memphis (Thutmosis). Also, we have direct evidence that there were 4 spoke, 6 spoke, and 8 spoke chariot wheels at the bottom of Aqaba. Thorough analysis suggests that it was only during the reign of Thutmosis IV (of the 18th dynasty) that all 3 types of wheels were used simultaneously. The Director of Antiquities in Cairo confirmed this, and Moller goes in depth as to why these wheels were only used during his reign. Remember, according to the hypothesis, Thutmosis IV was the same as Amenhotep III, and since the wheels line up with Thutmosis IV but are found at the bottom of the sea, and since there is no sign of Egyptian chaos until AFTER Amenhotep III (according to tradition, after Thutmosis IV), the idea that Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III is very plausible, since right after Amenhotep III is when the major decline of Egypt takes sway.

quote:

---

quote:

---

From then on, the names keep going back and forth (all throughout the ENTIRE 18th DYNASTY!),

---

​

Well not quite the entire dynasty, the last four pharaoh’s didn’t have these names.

---

Well sure, as I explained elsewhere, this is where the trend died off. Chaos begins to strike the land at the end Amenhotep III’s reign, and from this point forth it is reasonable to conclude why Amenhotep IV changes his name to Akhenaton (monotheistic god), and why he never came to the aid of his Canaanite allies. It was of utmost importance that Egypt keep it a secret from the world of the chaos they had recently experienced, for if the rest of the world found out, that could have meant the end for Egypt. I explained this in more detail somewhere else, but I’m beginning to get disoriented unfortunately as to where I posted everything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thutmosis, Amenhotep, Thutmosis, Amenhotep, Thutmosis and Amenhotep and so on! Doesn't this sequence seem a bit "fishy" to say the least that these are each individual Pharaohs???? Doesn't it???

---

​

Not at all to be honest, all it means is that these names were popular names of the time. Look how the names Henry and Edward dominate the era around the end of the 13th to the mid 16th century. Kings of England.

---

That link doesn’t work no matter how many times I fiddled with it, but even though there may be a number of names that are popular with a particular era, that doesn’t explain why the names alternated as much as they did for this particular dynasty, the 18th.Take a look at the traditional layout of all the dynasties: Egyptian Kings (Pharaohs)You will notice that the 18th dynasty layout is very unique in it’s alternating between the names. No other dynasty in that link is quite like it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

To tell you the truth, I'm still studying out some of these extra details myself.

---

​

You are still studying yet you are pretty much sold on this idea before you have critically examined the evidence, that is what little evidence there is?

---

I’m completely sold on the idea based on the amount I have studied already, which in my opinion is plenty. There will ALWAYS be more to study on various particular fields. There will always be missing holes of which we are unsure how to fill, and since these are vast subjects that will continue to be debated, there is nothing wrong with being sold on an idea, since it is very unlikely it will ever be proven 100% as factespecially when it comes to Egyptian history. I’m a Bible believing Christian, and to me, the hypothesis presented seems to make the most sense. The idea that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, for example, is the most erroneous theory I’ve ever heard, but the idea of Thutmosis IV/Amenhotep III being the Pharaoh, although may present unanswered questions, seems to fit the time scale and in comparison to what has been found at the bottom of the Red Sea (Aqaba).

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is why Moller is wrong in this area (of which I had derived my sources from, and therefore I change this standpoint).

---

​

It is difficult to assess Moller at all if he isn’t providing references for his conclusions. I am surprised that a doctor doesn’t provide detailed references, I really do not think that Moller would pass a student’s essay if there were no references to support the major claims in it.

---

*sigh*, like I stated, I really erred on this. He provides numerous references, of which is numbers in parentheses refer to on the back of his book. For a while I wasn’t sure what these numbers were, until one point while looking in the back of the book, I saw that the numbers in parentheses refer to a host of references from popular and traditional sources. From now on I’m going to have to restart in some areas and provide the sources. It is going to be a big job going back through all my material and sighting the references.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So it still would not be wrong to have Amen on the top.

---

​

But every pharaoh from the 5th dynasty onward had a reference to Re in one of their names. What we don’t have is any inscriptional evidence that anyone was called both Thutmosis and Amenhotep, your source is very adamant about this yet we have no idea what it is based on? There may well be evidence for this claim, but how do we know?

---

As to the particular part where Moller claims there are Inscriptions found in temples and graves implying that Thutmosis is a name (title) which a pharaoh might have, and in the same way Amenhotep was a further title, I will admit he does not site a reference. However, in his statement after:The general understanding of this period has confused many scholars, one stating in a comment on other egyptologists that they are ‘unaware of the complexities of the Thuthmosid succession’ and provides a references: (35. J. Tyldesley (1998) Hatchepsut, the Female Pharaoh, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England)

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since Ahmose was the starting point, and with the exception of Hatshetsup (since she was female), interesting notes from the Ipuwer Papyrus (i can get these notes for you if you like) indicate that right before the time when the Israelites were getting ready to depart, Egypt experienced a great deal of "chaos" throughout the land,

---

​

I have the a copy of the Ipuwer Papyrus, but you are placing the Exodus around 1446 aren’t you? This is at least 600 years after the period that the Ipuwer text is informing us about.

​

From Pritchard’s ‘Ancient Near Eastern Texts’ p.441

​

Although the manuscript was written in the 19th or 20th Dynasty (1350-1100BCE), the original belonged to an earlier time, perhaps the period 2300-2050 BCE) The language and orthography are ‘Middle Egyptian’ The situation described conforms to that which followed the breakdown of the central government at the end of the Old Kingdom.

---

I’m sorry, but that quote doesn’t convince me. I would like to see some proof that it was middle Egyptian. If anything, although it was written in the 19th dynasty, what was described in the Ipuwer Papyrus were events that took place at the end of the 18th dynasty. These crafty historians are forced to do such thingsto come up with explanations to increase their credibilitybecause they know that the events describe would force them to conclude that such events took place within the time periodof which they are unwilling to admit. The word perhaps is also indicative of the uncertain grounds in which these historians rest when analyzing such documents.24. THE IPUWER PAPYRUSAre there any other sources concerning these disasters which Egypt experienced? There are several reasons why there should be very little information regarding these events. They happened approximately 3450 years ago and there are not many documents preserved from that time. Furthermore, there were two different sorts of people who could write. Only a limited elite in the country were privileged in being able to write, and this important education was probably given to the oldest son (the firstborn). We know from the biblical texts that all firstborn Egyptians died at the Exodus of the people of Israel. If one was not a scribe because one was firstborn then one was a scribe because one was in service with important people in Egypt anyway.These important people belonged to the ruling class as administrators or military officers. The entire Egyptian army was its officers and lower ranks that followed the people of Israel went down in the Red Sea. Of those who remained in Egypt the scribes either had no-one for whom to work or, more probably, the country was in complete chaos.If a country suffers from a great disaster in nature or extensive warfare or something similar, the most important thing is to survive and not to document different events. In addition it may be noted that the whole course of events was hardly something to be proud of. And thus we have a political/historical reason for those in power later on to surround this crises with silence. To these reasons can be added a psychological reason. Very few leaders (perhaps not even one) confess to defeat. We can see this in what happens today, when it is quite clear that a country has lost a war. But for his own people the Leader points to total defeat as a victory.24.1 An ANCIENT PAPYRUSAlthough there are many reasons for not finding any documentation of the dramatic course of events in Egypt, nonetheless the question remains whether there is any written record.There is a document which is probably a description of these events, which Egypt had to experience before the people of Israel were allowed to leave. It is an ancient papyrus document from Egypt. The document was written during the 19th dynasty, the dynasty that took over shortly after the events of the Exodus. The papyrus document is called Admonitions of Ipuwer and is 347 cm long (42. M. Lichtheim (1973) Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 1, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.)[Editors note: heh, I’m actually providing the references]The Ipuwer document is one long description of a society in total crises. It has more the character of a poetic description, with many repetitions, than of a news report.It is debatable whether this is a description of actual events, or merely a fictitious story. One reason that it is said to be fiction, is that the country (Egypt) is suffering total disaster while the slaves have become rich with the wealth of their former owners.Based on the biblical texts this is exactly what happens when all the slaves (the entire people of Israel) take with them all imaginable riches as gifts from the wealthy Egyptians, while the Egyptian upper class has either perished in the Red Sea or remains at home in a situation that can only be described as one of total disaster. According to the biblical texts precisely this argument, which is put forward as an argument against the text describing an event that really happened, is an argument for this text describing the disaster that befell Egypt.The bible tells of the wealth of the slaves (the people of Israel) immediately after the disasters in Egypt: And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men. And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders. 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: 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.From later events at Mount Sinai we know that this people of slaves had silver, gold cups, finest materials and yarn, precious stones, incense and many other things of great financial value.[Editors note: Enough gold and other precious jewelry ff which they were able to make their golden calves]24.2. INTERESTING NOTES OF THE IPUWER PAPYRUSThe Ipuwer document consists of a 3.5 m long roll of papyrus, with a lamentation over the situation in Egypt. With the exception of several brief sections which have been damaged, the document is intact and readable. In this long document there are a number of lines which are of particular interest (42. M. Lichtheim (1973) Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 1, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.)1. Let us go plunder, The mayor of the city goes unescorted.There is no police force if one can plunder. The military were the police of those days. The Bible describes how the entire army was destroyed. There remained not so much as one of them. (Ex. 14:28)2. Foreigners have become people everywhere.The people of Israel, who were foreigners to the Egyptians, increased so greatly that for a time Pharaoh had all newborn boys executed in order to reduce the rate of growth. And the people multiplied and waxed very mighty. (Ex. 1:20)[Editors note: That statement is rather mind-blowing to say the least. It should jolt the senses in anyone that if the Egyptians would say such a thing, that foreigners are people everywhere, it would be logical to conclude that the Biblical narrative of a mass Hebrew population isn’t far off]3. Foreigners are skilled in the works of the Delta.The people of Israel lived in the delta region, were foreigners and were put to work making bricks, building and in different ways doing work for the Egyptians. (Ex. 5)4. What the ancestors foretold has happened.Joseph, who was second in command in Egypt approximately 260 years earlier, had foreseen that the people of Israel would leave Egypt and this is also mentioned as a promise from the Lord in several biblical texts. According to the Bible, at his death (which must have been an important, well-known occasion in Egypt considering Joseph’s position there for about 80 years) Joseph says: I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. (Gen. 50:24-26)So the Exodus was foretold by the minister of state of Egypt.[Editors note: You may argue that this idea may be nullified by the fact that we claim Joseph was during the Hyksos period. Unfortunately, I’m forced to disagree with this notion. (sorry Buzsaw :/ ) We have plenty of evidence suggesting that Joseph was Imhotep of Egypt, Vizier under king Djoser of the 3rd dynasty. We believe that Joseph built the Egypt’s first pyramid, the pyramid of Saqqara. Moller goes in great depths proving that the characteristics as well as the writings of Imhotep match up quite well with that of Joseph in the Bible. To read a good article on the Imhotep/Joseph relationship, here is the link: Joseph . Although this article is quite lengthy and good, Moller does even a better job on expounding on the life of Imhotep (aka~Joseph). I believe the Hyksos are stated as coming after Imhotep/Joseph.]5. We don’t know what has happened in the land.When the plagues fall on Egypt, Pharaoh’s magicians say to him: This is the finger of God (Ex. 8:19).By this they probably meant that it was beyond their comprehension and control. Pharaoh and his magicians had good control of all the Egyptian gods otherwise, not least as Pharaoh himself was regarded as an incarnated god (the sun god).6. Poor men have become men of wealth, Gold, lapis lazuli, silver and turquoise, carnelian, amethyst, ibht-stone Are strung on the necks of female slaves, Gold is lackingAt the Exodus the poor, enslaved people of Israel took with them a large part of the Egyptians wealth.[Editors note: Yet more evidence suggestion of the existence of slaves in Egypt] And they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment. And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36)This people of slaves had silver, gold cups, finest material and yarn, precious stones (including the sorts mentioned by Ipuwer), incense and many other things of high, financial value. This is related in the Bible when the people of Israel had arrived at Mount Sinai (Ex. 25:1-9, 11, 17, 24, 29, 31; 26:1, 6, 7, 11, 14, 19, 25; 28: 15-28 etc.)[Editors note: Again, this relationship made between the papyrus and the Bible is rather remarkable. Any unbeliever of the word of God should not hesitate to acknowledge that there definitely has to be something here]7. The river is bloodThis is an extraordinary comment. Merely stating that the Nile is full of blood, is a statement that is not found in every text. Furthermore it is exactly what the biblical text mentions as one of the hardships which affects Egypt. And Moses and Aaron did as the Lord commanded. He lifted up the rod and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants. And all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. (Ex. 7:20)It is also worthy of note that Ipuwer does not say that the river looked like blood, but was blood. This is exactly as the bible text explain the situation (Ex. 7:20)[Editors note: This should by far be the most STAGGERINGMIND JOLTING statement, that ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THERE IS A CLEAR RELATIONSHIP HERE. THE RIVER IS BLOOD, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN AN INSCRIPTION GET??]8. There’s blood everywhere, no shortage of death.This comment that there was blood everywhere can have bearing on two things. Firstly, mentioned above, that all the waters was turned to blood according to the biblical text. But it can also refer to the extremely fierce hailstorm which kills everything living that is out-of-doors. The latter is perhaps more likely since it also says in the Ipuwer text that there were large numbers of dead. The Bible tells about the hailstorm: And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along the ground. And the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt. So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast. (Ex. 9:23-25)9. Many dead are buried in the river.The comment that many were buried in the Nile, may imply that so many people died in the plagues that it was impossible to bury them all, so they were thrown into the Nile. If this was the case, it was a marked deviation from the usual way of handling and burying the dead and must indicate that it was an exceptional situation with a large number of dead. The Bible relates that in just one of the plagues at least one in each family dies (every firstborn). (Ex. 11:4-10)10. Exhausted are materials for every kind of craft, Lacking are grain, charcoal, irtyw, m3w-wood, nwt-wood, brushwood, Trees are felled, branches strippedAfter the disaster in Egypt there is a scarcity of almost everything, this section shows that crops were scarce and raw materials for craftsmen, especially wood (the signs quoted show that a translation has not been found for the specifies that Ipuwer mentions). Trees have fallen down or been knocked down from the trees that remain standing the branches have been knocked off. The Bible tells of similar consequences to the hailstorm mentioned earlier, which was such as seldom seen. And the hail smote every herb of the filed and brake every tree of the field. (Ex. 9:25)11. Food is lacking, Great hunger and suffering, Ladies say , we want to eat, Women are barren, none conceive, Their bodies suffer in rags, The storehouse is bare.These quotations from Ipuwer show that there was famine. Food is lacking, people suffer and starve, the stocks are exhausted, so the situation is incredibly difficult. The women may be childless because the children have died, or that starvation has made the women infertile and so unable to have children. This is a probable consequence of the disasters that fall on Egypt, described in the book of Exodus chapters 7 — 12.12. See he who slept wifeless found a noblewoman, See, noblewomen go hungry.This comment that upper class women are hungry and seek the company of the lower classes indicates two things. That which provided their income is no more, and the upper class men are no more. The upper classes in Egypt mainly consisted of soldiers, officers and high-ranking civil servants seconded to Pharaoh. The Bible reports that the entire Egyptian army perished (Ex. 14:26-29), i.e. a large group, specifically of men, disappears (around 250,000) in addition to what the entire population has suffered.[Editors note: Once again, we see a correlation here of a massive degeneration of the upper classtallying quite perfect with the idea that a host of Egypt’s finest people are no more]13. Scribes are slain, their writers are stolen, Their books are destroyed.The chaos which prevails in Egypt also implies a hard blow to the whole of Egyptian culture. Scribes are killed and their work scattered in the wind. This may be a reason why, in spite of everything, there is not much written about these disasters. The art of writing was a privileged of the few in high positions of Egypt.14. One says ‘woe’ to the place of secrets, What shall we do about it? All is ruin! Gone is what yesterday was seen, See now, the land is deprived of kingship, See, all the ranks, they are not in their place, like a heard that roams without a herdsman.These secret places which were despised refer to the gods worshipped, the wisemen (priesthood) of that time, the secret rituals, the embalming of the dead and the godlike characters that the Pharaohs represented. That which controlled the whole of Egyptian life, now shows itself incapable of standing firm during the crisis which the country is suffering. The population shows contempt which leads to disorder and chaos. It seems as though the entire leadership of the country has disappeared or is not functioning. The whole of the Ipuwer text is about this chaos, which means that in general nothing functions in Egypt. It must have been something very forceful that could crush the super power of that era so completely.[Editors note: Wow, this just keeps getting more unbelievable. We have an almost exact description here of what the Bible implieswhen the high ranks are not in their placesafter Amenhotep III leads his entire army into the Gulf of Aqaba. His remains as well as the remains of the priesthood and a host of other high officials lie at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba, which is why we find Egyptian bones, horse bones, horse hooves, cattle bones, hub cabs, chariot wheels, chariot bodies, pieces of wheels, rib cages, and many other identifiable skeletal remains---of which the book shows clear pictures of which I have been unable to find on the net. Absolutely breathtaking as well as spine chilling. There is most certainly a supreme God that caused all of this]15. If I knew where god is I would serve himThis is a strange comment. The Egyptians knew very well where their gods were, in which guise they appeared, which areas of responsibility they had and now one made sacrifices to them. But the Ipuwer text does not ask for these gods. The Egyptians knew that all the people of Israel worshipping the One God, and they were obviously no longer in doubt concerning whether it was the gods of Egypt who had the power or whether it was the One God.The biblical texts tell about all the good that Joseph and the people of Israel did in Egypt. Not least the fact that Joseph saved the whole country of Egypt and gave it great wealth. After a time the Egyptians enslave the people of Israel and later, in spite of being given 10 chances to let the people of Israel leave Egypt, when the biblical texts tell of the anger of the One God expressed in very extraordinary events, they force the people of Israel to stay. They cannot hold them back and soon the Exodus begins, the great migration.Finally the entire army of the super power perishes when they try to take back a people of slaves led by a man, Moses, who is only equipped with a shepherd’s staff. It is completely understandable that at last the Egyptians realize they have challenged the One God, and their gods were of no help in the struggle. One can really hear the despair of the text. If I only knew where to find the One God I would serve him.24.3 DATING OF THE IPUWER PAPYRUSIpuwer was a scribe who most probably documented an event that actually occurred. Since the Ipuwer is said to have worked during the 19th dynasty (42), this description many well concern events at the end of the 18th dynasty, which also influenced and probably led to the change which is described as a new dynasty, the 19th dynasty. The event, or events were a disaster for Egypt and their consequences tally well with the descriptions in the Bible.The Exodus, with the events described in that chapter, occurred around 1446 BC according to the biblical texts, which correspond to the end of the 18th dynasty. The Bible’s chronology is described in chapter 44.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

quote:

---

and after the Exodus took place, most royal blood (along with the priests) were destroyed. This caused the successors to the throne to deviate from the usual pattern (names). Instead of members of the reigning family inheriting the throne, it is Ay, an older army officer and counsellor acceds as ruler.

---

​

But if the Exodus was in 1446 you would still have three Amenhotep’s and one Thutmosis to deal with, and thus far we have no reason at all to assume that one pharaoh had both names.

---

I’m not quite sure what you are implying here, but if what you are saying is that according to traditional dating, there are still more of these Thutmosis and Amenhotep pharaohs to go after 1446, bear in mind that the dating of these monarchs automatically gets nullified (and shrunk down) by bringing the names together. Bear in mind also that when you read traditional sources (such as this: Egyptian Kings (Pharaohs)), that the authors continually place pharaohs at dates they are unsure of. For example, under Tutankhamen, the words probably reigned, most likely his father and other phrases that are similar are constantly used. This shows the immense uncertainty that existsproving that you cannot use these sources to try and disprove our theories.But to help reestablish that the dating of the Exodus to tallies well with Egyptian chronology, let us continue to look at what Moller states:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following is a hypothesis concerning which pharaohs reigned during the time of Moses, with their doubled names according to where in their careers they found themselves at different times (Table 5). Is there any information in the biblical texts which can be linked with the hypothesis presented in Table 5 about the succession to the throne? It 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 hundred 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 date of the beginning of the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. Most often the fourth year of king Solomon’s reign is given approximately 966 BC (ref. 36, F.F. Bruce (1963) Israel and the Nations, The Paternoster Press Ltd., Exeter, England., and the chronology in chapter 44). If one counts back 480 years from the year mentioned, this places the Exodus in approximately 1446 BC. Can this date be verified?In the Encyclopedia Britannica (2, The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition (1985), London, England) 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 by 20 years, i.e. 1518 BC.The chronology which is described more closely in chapter 44 (drawn up long before reference 2 was found) shows that 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 Table 5 and with great precision place the 18th dynasty within the period of time used in this book.The following hypothesis (chapter 15) is based on the chronology in Table 5 and therewith the astronomic observation in reference 2.[Editors note: This section was already provided in the Who was the Pharaoh’s daughter section, if you don’t mind going back and reading it, and then comparing it with the table one more time][Editors note: Based on the premise that Amenhotep’s reign starts in 1519 BC, we are now able to look at the following table more clearly and link events:][Editors note: You most likely looked at this chart a number of times, but I’m showing it again so that you can see that the beginning of Amehotep I’s reign of 1519 BC tallies with the chart, and since the chariot wheels found at the bottom of Aqaba (1446 BC), of which all 3 types were only used during Thutmosis IV, the contracted dynasty of which has been presented fits in the slot rather nicely.]

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is your answer as to why there is such a change in the pattern of names.

---

​

I never asked why there was a change of names, all I want is one single reference that supports anyone that called himself both Thutmosis and Amenhotep, the change of name sequence doesn’t concern me at all.

---

But there is no proof indicating that the Thutmosis’ were separate reigning Pharaoh’s from the Amenhotep’s either, so what more do you want? This poppycock of separating them was assembled by historians who were insanely perplexed as how to properly solve the genealogical nightmare of family relationships of the Thutmosid era.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I know what you mean. This is an error made by many countless times over. I think Moller would have had to write a second book focussed solely on the dynasties, but since his book is revolved around the Exodus event (crossing, etc.), I trust there are more sources that have not been provided in-depth. I could email him and ask him directly. I have heard from several that he is honest in his dealings. He never once claims the glory for any of the discoveries that he speaks about.

---

​

I honestly do find this lack of referencing a real concern. One recurring feature of student papers that I assess is the lack of supporting evidence for what is stated in the text. If a student wrote in a paper that I was assessing ‘ Some scholars argue that Jesus was a fictional character, I would have to write on their paper that they should include at least one name and a reference to support this. I am sure that Moller would do this with his students as well, yet he fails to do it in this book? It does cast a shadow of doubt.

---

Beh, this was addressed already. Like I said, I failed to provide the references, not Moller. So you can feel free to cast ALL the blame upon me. How about that?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I too would love to see them.

---

​

So you haven’t seen any evidence to support any of these claims
either yet you seem fairly convinced that they are credible! Why do you uncritically accept these claims?

---

Oh my, do you ever over read into my statements! All research conducted and all references force anyone to have some degree of faith. It is not unusual for one to see a hardcopy of an original inscription. I am not saying anymore than that I would love to see the inscriptions myself, but one must have faith that such evidence exists, because not always is it possible describe or provide every detail that exists on various inscriptions. I have faith in what Moller is saying, and he did provide a reference (35).

quote:

---

quote:

---

Bear in mind that you won't find any photos online of Thutmosis II's statue. You know that Ron and other supporters had to go to the museums in Egypt themselves and take these photos because historians/egyptologists/etc. have not been willing to reveal a lot of things?

---

​

So it is a conspiracy theory now, why on earth would Egyptologists hide anything?
Surely you do not just take Ron’s word for this do you? Why doesn’t he give the names of the inscriptions?

---

You’d be surprised how much really does get hidden from the public when it comes to the Bible. As for the inscriptions, I believe ref 35 might provide them, but perhaps these inscriptions don’t have names. You are awfully nitpicky when it comes to stuff like this I notice, and instead of looking at a broad picture, demand that the author take half of his book to reference some inscription. We are speaking of the regular inscriptions that inscribe the Thutmosid and Amenhotep pharaohs. They are a mystery, and cannot be proven either way. The way they line up would automatically imply their relation, in my humble opinion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is why I have been able to provide some of these photos. There are a number of inscriptions that have not been put up by the public, and it takes one with courage to publicize them.

---

​

Why does it take courage to publicise them?
Ron must have seen these inscriptions to have been so convinced, but he doesn’t reference them, are you surprised that this is never going to fly?

---

You still fail to explain why it took Ron to take these pictures at the Cairo museum. It sounds rather mysterious to me why traditional historians and Egyptologists would not have taken pictures of the Thutmosis II statue a long time ago. I found out from my friend that Ron took those pictures, and that is how they got on the web. On top of this, based on my readings on the web of traditional Egyptology, I see one failed reference after another, but continuous guessing and assumptions being made.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is the traditional view of the 18th dynasty. Notice the words "probably" and "hypotheses" used quite frequently.

---

​

Not frequently enough.
What is also used quite frequently are absolute statements (such as Thutmosis and Amenhotep are the same person) without a single piece of supporting evidence.
Brian.

---

Evidence against it?This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-02-2004 01:25 AMThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-12-2004 05:48 PM

---

~Lysimachus

PaulK,

quote:

---

Fact. The claim of a "chariot graveyard" has yet to be substantiated - only a few remains of uncertain age and in most cases identity are shown. The wheel supposedly found by Wyatt is apparently missing (!). if they are indeed a I keep asking for evidence and instead we get these strained rewrites of Egyptian history.

---

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to let out this information, but that chariot wheel is still there. The Wyatt team has been cautious as to who they give the information out, since there are serious enemies of Wyatt, and will do anything to discredit him (including steeling the remains). The area where the gold gilded chariot wheel is marked with a can and chain, because the current has swept it under the sand. You can no longer see it, but the Wyatt team has plans to go back out there (the Wyatt team knows exactly where it is) and eventually excavate that wheel. They wanted to do this a long time ago, but not only a lack of funds prevented them, a lack of the appropriate equipment prevented them because you cannot just lift the chariot wheel because it was so brittle and would easily fall apart. The wood inside has decomposed, so therefore must be lifted in a very unique and careful way. But this is far from the issue. There are at least 10 clearly identifiable coral shaped chariot wheels, and some that are not so identifiable test positive with a metal detector in a circular design (confirmed by Moller’s team, Wyatt’s team, and Viveke’s team).

quote:

---

So here's the better explanation. The so-called chariot wheels are either fakes - the coral covered ones could have been planted by Wyatt in the '70s, remains of more modern vehicles, natural coral fomrations or possibly the remains of a few genuine chariots. Probably a combination of more than one of the above possibilities.

---

Oh my, now this really brings down your credibility. You would have to be deluded to possibly think, of all the pictures that I have, that these were planted by Wyatt. That is just ludicrous. Some of these objects and formations are so encrusted and randomly scattered that it would be impossible for that to be. The brittleness of the various objects which Moller observed is so high, that a way for excavating them has not yet been solved.

quote:

---

I am afraid that if you want to convince people then you have to present evidence. And you have fallen very short on that front. If you cannot see that you are jumping beyond the evidence based on your conviction that the Bible must be accurate (despite the fact that the books in question cannot be shown to have been written anywhere near the time of the supposed events and the archaeological evidence fails to support it).

​

As for the suppposed land bridge - even AiG. who would love to have the Exodus proved - say that it does not exist. Their comments on a video by Wyatt supporter Jonathon Gray quote the hydorogaphic office of the UK Ministry of Defence as stating :

​

quote:

---

...the sand bridge is not now, and never has been, a recognizable feature on British Admiralty Charts. Nor is it recognizable on the U.S. chart held by Mr Gray.

---

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/ark.asp

---

This is because one can argue over the term land bridge. Although Jonathan Gray exaggerated the shape of the land bridge, enough evidence suggests that the depth in this area is much shallower compared to the northern and southern parts of the Gulf of Aqaba. The term land bridge has been coined since it goes 800-850 meters at the deepest part of this land bridge but drops off much more on each side (especially the southern side). I’ve read this argument in the past, but it doesn’t stand, for although the British and U.S. military may not identify any particular land bridge there, they have not provided the water depths to prove there is none.They use another term for this feature, but here are the facts:To the north of the land bridge, the Gulf of Aqaba is 950 meters deep, which is called the Elat Deep.To the south of the land bridge, the Gulf of Aqaba is 1800 meters deep, which is called Aragonese Deep.Here is a scan of a bathymetric chart that John Hall a scientist from Israel gave a friend of mine. This map is based on a Geological Survey of Israel: And here is the full fledged scan, and although I have the full blown map which is a total of 2.4 megs, I had to shrink it to put on the forum, so you will not be able to see the rest of the measurements: Look at ALL the WESTERN beach areas on the gulf of Aqaba! Notice that ONLY Nuweiba has a nice slope down and up (no matter if it's 800-850 meters deep) the OTHER Beaches have underwater cliffs and "deeps".This is a fact and you cannot ignore it. These measurements have been confirmed by COUNTLESS sources of which I could provide you. Accurate sonar was used (of which I can provide you the official documents if you like). Geologists have confirmed it, and we have every right to call it a land bridge, although technically it is not. Additionally, this is what Moller has to say about the land bridge based on a graph which I have not yet scanned in: The gradients of the sea-bed discussed in the text. The blue lines on top represent the water surface while other liens represent the gradient of the sea-bed across the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuweiba. The black lines represent the gradients of the scenario of figure 339 extrapolated across the gulf, while the blue lines represent the gradients of the deepest scenario based on data from Israeli Geological Surveyu. The red lines represent the range of gradients accepted for disabled people in the US. In this figure the gradients are realistic while they are over expressed in 339. Below is a portion of a map showing new depths. The contour lines are from an Israeli map using the depths from the ETOP05. (Depths are given in METERS, not feet.). This map is inaccurate in its measurements, but it has the correct contour lines for the topography down under the water but the wrong depth (numbers listed), since the ETOP05 was at first thought to prove accurate, but later it was discovered that it is not: Afterall, you cannot just do a search in google and say there it is, there are people who say there is no land bridge! Ahemlet’s be more specific here why don’t we?

---

~Lysimachus

Well what a lot of evasion here.1) You can't support your claim that we "blatantly refuse to acknowledge the evidence we [you and Lysimachus- PAK] do produce" And you can't because it's another Buzsaw lie.2) Despite the fact that Brian has already produced evidence to refute the claim that the Tuthmosis and Amenhotep were titles used by the same people you try to dodge the fact that the evidence has NOT been produced by claiming that the assertion has not been adequately refuted. Guess what. It doesn't have to be refuted - it needs to be supported. Until it is there is no reason to abandon the mainstream view.3) You can't even admit that both you and Lysimachus said "forget Wyatt". Instead you dodge the issue - because Wyatt's involvement is undeniable.4) Lysimachus threw a snit because people dare to critically examine his claims and the evidence he produces isn't good enough. Yes I complain that creationists run away from discussion - and I note that you do that even if you don't leave the forum. But that doesn't mean that I have any obligation to accomodate bad behaviour. Nor does it mean that I have to mollycoddle emotionally unstable Wyatt-worshippers. If Lysimachus can't take rational discussion then that I am afraid is his problem.

You do realise that "family relationships" is not the same as the order of succession, don't you ? There are certainly questions about the relationship between Amenhotep I and Tuthmosis I - nobody knows if there was any blood relationship between them at all. But the question of whether Tuthmosis I succeeded Amenhotep I is a different matter and I've seen no evidence of disagreement there[Added in edit And despite your claim that no other dynasty is similar the 12th Dynasty has a similar "alternation", and the 22nd approaches it. See also comments below on Capetian Kings of France].If you check the Digital Egypt site you will see that Amenhotep and Tuthmosis are the "nomen" or "birth name"
names of the kingSo it does not seem to be a title - and I find it very hard to find that a naming convention that is unusual but appears even in our society should be considered a worse explanation than the idea that the birth name was suddenly replaced by a title which indicated the co-regent or Pharoah, Especially when the latter was not followed by the Pharoah at the start of the Dynasty (Ahmose), not followed by a Pharoah in the middle of the dynasty (Hatshepsut - who did claim to be Pharoah and thus should have claimed a title) nor by a Pharoah who tried to return to the earlier ways (Tutankhamun), or his successors.If you look at the New Kingdom timeline you will see that all five names differ for Pharoahs who are - according to Wyatt - the same person.http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/...gy/newkingdomkings.htmlFor instance Amenhotep I has the Throne Name Djeserkare
king Amenhotep ITuthmosis I has the throne name Aakherperkare
king Thutmose I[the site this is found on uses different spellings]
The biography of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet tells of how he followed the Pharoahs from the reign of Nebpehtiri (Ahmose) until Menkheperre (Tuthmosis III). Zeserkere (Djeserkare) is placed before Okheperkere (Aakherperkare) in every place they appear.http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ahmose-pen-nekhbet.htm(Note at the end Nefure is mentioned as the daughter of Hatshepsut)It's all very well to point to uncertainties but, even when the uncertainty is directly relevant, it does not constitute a positive case as I have already pointed out. Uncertainty on a different issue is of even less use.It is also worrying that you expect us to accept a quote from an academic source as significant evenidence - when it is not even directly relevant to your claim while yourself finding directly relevant quotes "unconvincing".This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-02-2004 09:20 AM

you're overlooking an important point here:if the hebrews crossed the red sea, then the bible is obviously wrong on the matter, because it sure doesn't say that's what they did at all.says "yam cuwph." or "the sea of reeds" NOT "the red sea"and either way, supposing there is a chariot wheel at the bottom of the red sea, what does it prove? the egyptians did have boats, you know.

To deal with your last poitn first I did not simply Google for people who say that there is no land bridge. The people conserned are Biblical literalists who would love to have proof of the Exodus - and they claim to have contacted the authority responsible for the hydrographic mapping and it is the response from that query which is presented. Given the lack of any clear "land bridge" in the map you present - the area you refer to is over 850 metres deep which is not a lot better than the 950 of the "Elat deep". What you seem to mean by a "land bridge" is amy area which is not a "deep" which is rather an odd definition. Looking at the second map it appears that the "land bridge" idea is more likely based purely on the erroneous measurements credited to ETOP05. As to the slope I'm really not that interested in it for now - it just isn't relevant to the issues I want confirmed. And if it is I suggest that you better not try to deny the fact that the slope on the other side is far steeper.[Added in edit - looks like I was right. The ETOP05 errors are the origin of the "land bridge idea" Page not found - Anchor Stone International explcitly talks about a maximum depth of 300-320 FEET! ]So the coral formations - you say that according to Moller there are ten roughly wheel shaped and some more which appear to have some metallic content (I hope Moller is using a real metal detector and not Wyatt's "molecular frequency generator"). That's not so very many - with Buz talking about a chariot graveyard I was expecting dozens of definite wheels at least. And you seem not to understand that I don't accept Moller as a reliable source or even necessarily honest. The plea to conspiracy theories to justify keeping the location of the site secret only reinforces he issue, I say again if Moller has the evidence then he should get a team of professional underwater archaeologists in to investigate the remains and recover them. And if his evidence is not good enough to convince professional archaeologists then I don't see why I should accept it.Now I don't claim to be an expert but given the coral growth rates I have looked at 30 years is not impossible for the amount of encrustation shown (especially with no scale shown so we don't even know the real size!). And since Wyatt supposedly found the site in the '70s we do have around 30 years available. Maybe it is impossible for that coral under those conditions but I doubt that either of us knows. And I don't see how "random scattering" is an issue at all. If the artifacts were planted why would they not be scattered over the site ?This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-02-2004 05:55 AM

[21: And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.]So, the east wind strong enough to separate waters up to 850 metres deep, blew all night not only into the faces of men, women and children, but also directly into the faces of all the animals. [22: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.]Now, not being an expert on water heaping, I can only guess that the walls of water varied from only a metre or so up to a height of 850 metres. But wait, there`s more: [Chapter 15
8: And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.]Does this mean they were upright on top of the existing water, reaching a height of 1700 metres above the deepest part? I can imagine terrified women and children, fleeing from a horde bent on mayhem, just dying to plunge between quivering walls of water possibly up to a mile high. And this in the face of a wind so powerful that deep water parted. [26: And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.
27: And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
28: And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
29: But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.]So what we have here is part of the passage collapsing on the Egyptians, while the children of Israel walked dryshod across the remainder? Wind still blowing?I guessed the distance from Nuweiba to Saudi from a map at around from 15-20 miles, although it looks much closer on the excerpts from the video. Allowing for a coastal shallow on each side, even a descent of half a mile in that distance would be tricky for women and children, especially if they had to climb over coral reefs on either side. Especially if they were rushing between quivery walls of water at least half a mile high. Especially if they were pushing that dratted east wind.
O.K. so we have the majority of folks over. Time for the beasties. Don`t know the size and composition of the animals brought out of Egypt so I`ll take a guess at a herd of around one per head. That`s two million .Give or take a few. You can track their passage back to Egypt by the piles of poo. Since it`s a fact of droving cattle or sheep that they are only pushed 7-10 miles per day on good grazing with plenty of water and that on level ground, I guess we need a stampede. The cowboys whooped them up and sent the herd crashing through the coral reef, down the slope, up the slope and through the other fringing reef. Voila! No casualties. 15-20 miles in one hit. Then they dropped dead from stress and exhaustion.Meanwhile, back at the chariots
[24: And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,
25: And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.
26: And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.
27: And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
28: And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.]So, excluding fraud from Ron or similar bridge-boosters, and ignoring any other possible reason for wheels to be deposited on the bottom, let`s work out how much coral growth would accumulate on an object on the bottom in 3500 years. Coral reefs grow at a variety of rates e.g. AIG states that the reefs at Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands grew 1400 (that`s right) 1400 metres in 3500 years. Of course, the fact that the Red Sea and surrounds offers optimum conditions for coral growth shouldn`t enter our calculations. Let`s take the other extreme. Chave, Smith and Roy-1972-reckoned a growth rate of 0.8-26 millimetres a year. Hmmm, what`s 0.8mm x 3500= say just under 3 metres. Don`t see this kind of growth on the wheels.
But wait, there`s more. Coral growth is slowed by a number of factors. Exposure at low tide? Nope. Lack of light at depth? Nope. Turbidity? Unless conditions have changed in the clear Gulf of Aqaba-nope. Temperature rise since the event leading to a drier climate? Nope, a 5 degree rise accelerates coral growth. Pollution from human activities? Hey, that could be it2,000,000 animals must have dropped a fair load in the stampede.Re the big dip in the middle
I shouldn`t give you a way out (going over to wall, grasping handles and banging head against wall), but with the great African Rift valley running through the area, maybe the bridge collapsed?

For a comparison with the 18th Dynasty have a look at the Capetian Dynasty of France. After the first three rulers we have 10 named Louis or Philip - the only intervening name is John who died within days of his birth (and yes, I do mean "birth").http://www.britannia.com/history/resource/france.htmlFor comparison the 18th Dynasty includes only 8 monarchs named Tuthmosis or Amenhotep.I think that this is adequate to confirm my point that the repeated names alone are not evidence of Wyatt's claims. More evidence is needed since a similar and stronger pattern can emerge without needing to resort to an explanation as radical as Wyatt's.

LOL...I see the biggest pool if ignorance that I have yet witnessed in my life...this indeed is a waste of time. You guys just don't want to face the truth of the word of God.When it really comes down to it at the end, you can't say I didn't warn you.PaulK, I proved to you that there is a difference in water depths, and you want to refuse it. You're nitpicking on the term "landbridge", when we just call that elevation "land bridge". It looks like you're asking for the official documents of these measurements from various geological surveyers around the world (non-Wyatt related), and once I show you, better not cry. Because you're dead wrong.

---

~Lysimachus

Actually, the most shallow crossing of the Red Sea is still 200-1000 meters deep.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion