"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

So now we have two different Exoduses (yes it is a word), this one of Wyatt/Moller and the other one mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.Since this one is radically different from that of the Hebrew Bible,so radical in fact that it takes place at a different sea altogether, we must assume that there were two different events. IF some people wish to claim they are the same event, then why is the Hebrew Bible's version so different?We also have to remember that there could possibly be two different Exoduses in the Hebrew Bible as well. William Albright the giant of Oriental studies, found so much conflicting evidence that he HAD to say there were two different Exoduses, it was the only way to harmonise the archaeological data with Bible tales.So now do we have three Exoduses! Also, where would the Israelites have ran too? The Egyptian armies did not need to chase them as the Israelites were simply running away into another part of the Egyptian Empire, there was no where for them to run too.This is hilarious: Artefacts that provide evidence for one of the main events in the Qur'an and evidence for one of Islam's greatest prophets, and the Suadi's would get upset. Nonsense. The actual artefacts themselves would be better evidence. That Kenneth Kitchen is involved should alert you to the objectivity of the argument.Oh to be so gullible, it must be bliss.Brian.

Hi Buz, As I am bored to tears telling you and literally hundreds of other fundies, the Bible NEVER EVER states that the crossing was at the Red Sea. It was at the SEA OF REEDS ( yam suph ), the Red Sea has NO reeds, I even think that most Bible's have a foot note to explain this. Why do you continue to ignore this information. Richard Rives from Wyatt Archaeology also kept ignoring this info in an email discussion I had with him, I even wrote it in a massive font for him to read, he continued to ignore it.So Buz, why does anything found in the Red Sea have anything to do with the Exodus?A fool and his cash are soon parted. Why does the Bible give a different route then, in fact, why does it give two different routes? Of course Midian was essentially in another part of Egypt, which was useful. You still havent answered the question, regardless of the route the Israelites are simply running into another part of the Egyptian Empire, the Pharaoh and his armies wouldnt need to chase anyone the border garrisons would have dealt with it. There is an abundance of archaeological and textual data that tells us how strict the Egyptians were in dealing with people crossing their borders, the Israelites could not have outran the Pharaoh's armies because they would actually be running right into some of them. You dont find it surprising that all the people you read about just happen not to be able to produce any evidence because of the nasty muslims, do you not just find this a little bit too convenient?Buz, these finds would provide just as much evidence for the Qur'an version of the Exodus as it would for the Bible's version, there really isnt a great deal of difference.You also have to remember that the Qur'an had to be revealed from God because the Biblical texts had become to corrupted by the hand of man We would lay claim to the area despite those nasty Saudi's not being happy, this is a bit of a contradiction Buz. You said they were left because the Saudi's could possibly put the explorer's to death, now it is because they thought it better to leave them 'in situ'. Objective study is hardly paranaoi Buz, what is paranoid is to choose one source then decided that it fits in your belief system, then you stick to that source regardless of contrary evidence, in fact, you haven't looked at any contrary evidence, you haven't read one single academic book on the subject.This 'find' does not provide scientific evidence for biblical truth, it is a different story.Brian.

Hi Buz, Yes of course it was, I never said it wasn’t, I said and I will continue to say that the sea crossing of the Exodus group was not at the Red Sea.Herodotus referred to the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean all as the ‘Red Sea’. The name was extended to include the Persian Gulf when the Greeks arrived there. But to discover where certain events happened when the ‘Red Sea’ was referred to, you have to read the context of the situation. In the context of the Exodus crossing there is nothing at all to suggest that the Israelites crossed what we know as the Red Sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds, somewhere in the eastern delta of Egypt, and the Bible is quite explicit about this.So to discover which ‘Red Sea’ that the Exodus group crossed you need to read the Bible in context. The problem of the location of the Exodus sea crossing originated when the authors of the Septuagint rendered yam sup as Red Sea, and since early English translations were largely dependant on the Septuagint, the error has survived to this day. The 1962 edition of The Torah published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, has corrected this to read ‘Sea of Reeds’. (Eakin F. E., The Reed Sea and Baalism Journal of Biblical Literature, 86 p379)Old Testament introductions, or footnotes, normally point out a translation error by informing the reader that yam sup should be translated as ‘Sea of Reeds’ or ‘Reed Sea’. But the Red Sea was not crossed by the Israelites and the Hebrew Bible never claims that they did. There is no deceit on my part, the only deceit is by these desperadoes who are punting these dodgy books and videos. Red Sea in biblical context A great deal of the problem about identifying the sea crossing of the Exodus party is that supporters of the Gulf of Aqabah scenario are not reading the Bible in context. The term yam sup can be found over 20 times in the Hebrew Bible. Now, if the passages where the Red Sea is mentioned are taken in context, it is obvious that yam sup can be linked to three different locations: The Gulf of Aqabah, the Gulf of Suez, and the location of the Exodus crossing (Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible: p.636). Now we have three different locations Buzz, just as Herodotus had three different areas that he referred to as the Red Sea, and we need to examine the verses that mention yam sup to find out which of the three areas each Bible verse is concerned with.I think that the most important thing for Bible believers to do before giving their hard earned money to charlatans who peddle the Gulf of Aqabah nonsense, is to get their Bible’s out and actually look at what the verses that mention Red Sea are saying, read them in context, doing this will convince you that the Gulf of Aqabah cannot be the sea of the Exodus, there is one verse in particular that sinks this myth, but it can wait. Gulf of Aqabah Here are the verses from the Hebrew Bible that appear to be referring to the Gulf of Aqabah when mentioning yam sup . Exodus 23:31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.This passage is an ideological redaction, it is to reflect the Solomonic period which had its southern boundary at the yam sup , (compare ‘the sea’ in 2 Chronicles 8:17), this reference only makes sense if the Red Sea referred to is the Gulf of Aqabah. The most obvious support for this verse being a late redaction, without going into source criticism too deeply, is the reference to the Philistines. The Philistines were not in this area before the 12th century BCE, much later than any of the proposed dates for the Exodus. Judges 11:16 But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh.There are some doubts over this passage, and a case can be made for this reference to relate to any of the three locations, but 11:12-26 suggest that the context of this chapter, with the mention of bypassing Edom and Moab, then the Gulf of Aqabah may be the best suggestion (IDB p. 633). 1 Kings 9:26 King Solomon also built ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea.This reference undoubtedly means the Gulf of Aqabah, no other location is possible. Jeremiah 49:21 At the sound of their fall the earth will tremble;
their cry will resound to the Red Sea.In Jeremiah’s oracle against Edom he announces that there will be a cry from Edom’s inhabitants that will be heard as far away as the yam sup . The most logical choice here, given the mention of Edom, would be the Gulf of Aqabah.The other four references are all related to the period immediately following the Exodus from Egypt, when YHWH instructed the Israelites to go east via the yam sup to avoid confrontations. Numbers 14:25 Since the Amalekites and Canaanites are living in the valleys, turn back tomorrow and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea.Numbers 21:4 They travelled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way. Deuteronomy 1:40 But as for you, turn around and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea. Deuteronomy 2:1 Then we turned back and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea, as the LORD had directed me. For a long time we made our way around the hill country of Seir. The Gulf of Suez Although still the subject of some debate between scholars, three passages that mention the yam sup have been linked to the Gulf of Suez: Exodus 10:19 the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt.The plague of locusts are brought into the country by an east wind then removed by a counteracting west wind (the wind had been turned ‘hapak)’. The author claims that not a single locust was left in Egypt, they had all been carried into the Red Sea, or another suitably large body of water on Egypt’s border. The internal logic, and context, of the text suggests either the Gulf of Suez or even the Mediterranean Sea.It is generally agreed that the passage is really too unclear to identify the location of yam sup with any degree of certainty. A.H. Gardiner ( The Geography of the Exodus 1922, Paris) believes this passage to refer to the Mediterranean, or Lake Menzalah. M. Beitak ( ‘Comments on the Exodus’ in A. Rainey ‘Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. 1987 Tel Aviv) suggests that this passage does refer to the sea of the Exodus, while U. Cassuto (Commentary on the Book of Exodus 1967: Jerusalem) claims this passage is a redaction that parallels the future event of the Egyptians being drowned in the ‘Sea’, and that it should not be taken literally.So this passage cannot be linked to any of the three locations with any real certainty, but the Gulf of Suez really does make the most sense. Exodus 13:18 So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt armed for battle.The writer here is offering an explanation as to why the Israelites did not take the most direct route into Palestine. The writer does not mention what would have been the real threat to the Israelites, namely the Egyptian border guards, he instead inserts a Philistine threat, which again shows redaction. Numbers 33:10-11 They left Elim and camped by the Red Sea. They left the Red Sea and camped in the Desert of Sin.Numbers 33 is the chapter that blows the Gulf of Aqabah fantasy right out of the water, one that is apparently ignored by the Bible believers who desperately want the ‘chariot wheels’ in the Gulf of Aqabah to prove the Exodus event.From the KJV:Numbers 33:8-10;And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they pitched there. And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea. So it tells us right here that the Red Sea was not the scene of the Israelite sea-crossing miracle, the text informs us that that they passed through the midst of the sea, then , after another three days journey, they arrived at the Red Sea.So what will it be Buzz, did they pass through the Red Sea, and then three days later they arrived at the Red Sea, how does that work?This leads us on to the problem of the location of the yam sup of the Exodus crossing. Initially, the Red Sea can be ruled out, both because the Red Sea has no reeds, and because the lengthy route along the Gulf of Suez would have enabled the pursuing Egyptians to overtake the fleeing Hebrews (Eakin. p379)Yes Buzz, the lengthy route of over 120 miles as the crow flies (Noth, M., 1962 Exodus, SCM Press London p.108), how long would it take 2 million Israelites complete with their animals and carts to travel that distance? It is madness, unless you have a Bible believing public desperate for some scrap to support their faith, oh and a pocket full of dollars that they are keen to depart with.Further confirmation that the Gulf of Aqabah has nothing to do with the Exodus sea crossing:In Exod. 14:1-2 the Israelites are commanded to turn back and encamp within Egypt, the geographical picture is confirmed by the itinerary in Num. 33:1-49. In verse 6, Israel camped at Etham on the edge of the wilderness only then when Israel crosses the sea does she enter the wilderness (Childs, B. S., A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition Vetus Testamentum 20 p409). After they had crossed ‘the sea’ they marched for three days into the wilderness of Etham, passed through Marah and Elim, and thence onwards to the shore of the yam sup , where they pitched camp. After that they marched on into the wilderness of Sin, but there is nothing here about crossing the yam sup Apparently the sea which the Israelites crossed was somewhere by the Bitter Lakes, and the yam sup mentioned here is the Gulf of Suez. (Snaith, N. H., Yam Sup: The Sea of Reeds: The Red Sea Vetus Testamentum 15 p396).Therefore the Bible itself tells us that the passing through the sea was not at the ‘Red Sea’, it happened before the Israelites arrived there, and the remaining references in the Hebrew Bible to yam sup all refer to the Sea of the Exodus. (Exod 15:4, 22; Dent 11:4; Josh 2:10; 4:23; 24:6-7; Pss 106:7-12, 22; 130.13-15; Neh 9:9-ll)It is pretty clear Buzz, the Israelites had barely began their journey when they were told to turn back BACK into Egypt. Exod.14:1-2 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. Now, although Pi Hahiroth is unknown from other sources and therefore its location is still unknown, we do know for certain where Baal-Zephon is located.From Martin Noth (op. cit. p110: The place which we can locate most certainly is ‘Baal-Zephon’, by which a sanctuary is clearly meant. This sanctuary of Baal-Zephon, on whose site in the Hellenistic-Roman period a Zues Kasios was worshipped, lay on a low hill in the now uninhabited place ‘mahammadije’ on the western end of the coastal beach belt which separates the lagoon of what in classical times was called the Sirbonian Sea, the present ‘sebhat berdawil’, from the Mediterranean Sea. The region concerned is thus near to the Mediterranean coast east of the mouths of the Nile. If then in the closing clause of 14:2, which is obviously rather surprising but not necessarily secondary because of its address in the second person plural, it is expressly stressed that Israel is to camp ‘in front of ‘Baal-Zephon’, the scene is meant to be the neighbourhood of the western shore of the Sirbonian Sea. The further explanation ‘between Migdol and the sea’ also points to this. Migdol, which occurs as early as the Egyptian sources, lay on the usual route from the delta to Palestine, not far north-east of the Egyptian border fortress ‘Tr’ and is probably to be located at the present ‘tell el-her’ whereas in this context the ‘sea’ must almost certainly be understood to be the Mediterranean Sea,Geographically, the main objection to equating the sea of the Exodus with the Red Sea is that those places named in the Exodus itinerary prior to arrival at the yam sup would appear to be located in the eastern delta region of Egypt (Batto, B. F., The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace Journal of Biblical Literature 102 p28). Well any Hebrew Bible that you want to look at, you can use any Old Testament in the Christian Bible too if you want, will tell you the route of the Exodus and where the Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds. You need to tell me what your route is before I can tell you the differences. I don’t need to see the video or read the book, the Bible pretty much tells me the area where the sea crossing was supposed to have happened. And another thing, Moses DID NOT choose the route, God chose the route and God told Moses to change the route and gave Moses the reasons why. You keep ignoring the Hebrew Bible's version of events Buz, I wish you would stick to it, it really is the greatest collection of ancient literature there is. Why are you ignoring the Bible’s itinerary, it tells us exactly what the route of the Exodus was? You really do have to check it out, and check out the Bible’s route, here are the verses that cover our purpose for you to look up:From Egypt to Kadesh is Exod. 12:37; 13:17-18a, 20; 14:2; 15:22,23,27; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1-2; Num. 10:12, 33; 11:35; 12:16; 14:25; 14:25; 20:1a, 22; 21:4, 10,11,12,13,16,18b,19a,19b,20,33;22:1.You can have your sea crossing at the Gulf of Aqabah if you really want to, but just don’t mix it up with anything in the Hebrew Bible.I do find this strange Buz, that you, a self confessed bible-thumpin fundamentalist would rather ignore God’s word in an attempt to support it. That a ‘chariot wheel’ in the Gulf of Aqabah is more important to you than the Bible account is difficult for me to comprehend.Take care,Brian.

Indeed they do, however, yam sup is translated as Reed Sea or Sea of Reeds, the Red Sea has no reeds, it was a mistranslation buz, get over it, the Septuagint is well-known for the translational errors in it, the Jews binned it because it was such a mess. Care to give a reference to support this? The route taken had nothing to do with Moses, God decided which way the Israelites would go. Which text indicates this? And the Red Sea is the only body of water in the area that can accommodate this? And a sea bed wouldn’t! It doesn’t even match with that Buz. The evidence is in people’s imagination Buz,and another site should be proposed because God’s word tells us roughly where the sea crossing was, and they crossed it BEFORE they arrived at the Red Sea. Dealt with this in previous post. This is Aqabah when taken in context, now take the Exodus narratives in context. Care to give a reference Buz, I have only ever seen yam sup translated as Sea of Seaweed, except in Jonah 2, where did you find this reference? I take it you are referring Jonah chapter 2:3-5?KJV For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. ‘Weeds were wrapped’ is usually translated as ‘(sea) weeds were wrapped around.’ however this is wholly incorrect.First problem, if a plant was involved it would have to be some kind of vegetation that is found in the depths of the sea, as this is where Jonah is supposed to be, the ‘weeds’ here would NOT be the reeds from the marshy areas along the banks (Batto, page 32, see previous post for biblio details). There is no other reference in the entire Hebrew Bible where sup has been claimed as ‘seaweed’.Secondly, the image of Jonah being tangled up in seaweed is blatantly out of place when the imagery of the text is examined. All the other images the deep/abyss (tehom), floods, (more accurately ‘river’ nahar), Sheol, Underworld etc. all concern the mythical realm of chaos. Jonah’s word’s here are a thanksgiving hymn, compare it with Psalm 18, where similar imagery is presented.
Read in context then, Jonah’s ‘seaweed’ episode, linked to the imagery of non-existence and it parallelism with the mythic waters of chaos, the sup here should really be s-o-p, derived from the Semitic root sup (Batto page 34). Jonah’s sop means ‘to come to an end’, so sop which has also been used as ‘end’, ‘edge’, ‘border’, ‘destruction’ and ‘extinction’, leads to the confident conclusion that sup was a widely known term for the mythical waters of the Sea of Chaos.The ‘sup that was ‘bound’ around Jonah’s head is a symbol of impending death, which is also found by the motif of the binding cords of death and sheol, found in psalm 18:5-6: The cords of Death compassed me, and the floods of Belial assailed me. The cords of Sheol surrounded me; the snares of Death confronted me. from Hebrew Songs .Jonah’s image of death as a binding of the head may derive from funerary customs of shrouding the body for burial. In reality, Jonah’s ‘seaweed’ is not a reference to any physical ‘weed’; it is entirely inconsistent with the rest of Jonah’s thanksgiving hymn to suggest it was.Brian.

Hi Paul, how are you? I know you are referring to the Aqabah nonsense here, but what surprises me is that these people who are peddling this nonsense seem unaware that the accounts of the Exodus and Conquest have already been thoroughly investigated, and the Bible narratives have been rejected by all who have investigated them, Christian and non-Christian alike. There has been over one hundred years of archaeological investigation in the ancient near east and it is universally accepted that there was no mass Exodus of people out of Egypt either in the 15th or 13th century BCE, there was no deterioration in Egyptian power until later, there is no sign whatsoever of any group that can be identified as ‘Israelite’ in Egypt at all.There may be chariot wheels in Aqabah but it doesn’t automatically follow that the Bible account has anything to do with it. All that chariot wheels in Aqabah can tell us is that at some point in time these chariot wheels found there way into the Gulf of Aqabah, that’s it, they can say nothing else. How they got there may be implied from external sources, but that’s all they do. These people are, in fact, ignoring huge chunks of the biblical text AND ignoring the vast mountains of archaeological data. They do not seem to be aware that you cannot just ascribe an event to a group of people without placing it in a wider context. Braudel called it ‘la longue duree’, surface events, such as the sea crossing (if we grant for a minute that it did happen), are only a small part of a more permanent, regular and less emphasised background, and that these epics cannot be fully comprehended without taking background information into consideration.It is all well and good that there may be chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah, but this event would not just have happened in isolation, it has to be supported from external sources, it would have to have a knock-on effect. For example, if the pharaoh’s armies are all destroyed in the sea, why was there no dip in Egyptian power at this time? If this story is true, why are the princes of the city-states in Palestine writing letters to the pharaoh asking for military aid, why are they still sending the pharaoh taxes, why are there no records in other contemporary cultures to the routing of pharaoh and his armies?To pluck this solitary piece of information out of the air and claim that it supports the Bible is amateur and shows horrendous ignorance of historical methodologies. My own research has led me to conclude that such is the lack of evidence for the Exodus from Egypt that scholars HAVE to date it by finding a date for the ‘conquest’ and then subtracting about 40 years from that date, (hence the date for the Aqabah chariot wheels) this is incompatible with the claims made in the Hebrew Bible. The date for the ‘conquest’ is now universally accepted as being during the Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age, and why is this, it is not because there is evidence to support the entry of Israelites into Palestine at this time, it is ONLY because if it was going to happen, then this was the most LIKELY time. Granted there is a huge increase in the number of central hill country settlements, but it has never been demonstrated that these inhabitants were anything other than the displaced local population.If the two million Israelites escaped from Egypt, then hung around Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years, then swept through Palestine obliterating all opposition, then where did they come from, and where did they go, they are invisible.Brian

Hi Mark,Thank you for the information.It is very widely known that yam sup means 'Sea of reeds', we can thank the Septuagint yet again for another inaccurate translation. Contrary to what Buz wishes to believe, and he is entitled to his opinion, very very few scholars equate yam sup with the Red Sea. But hey, if you are selling books and videos who cares about the truth, we all need a retirement fund.Brian.

Hi Cromwell, I outlined a few of the problems with the biblical Exodus in another thread HERE , please feel free to make any comments or ask any questions about the material.Brian.

Hi Buz, No probs Buz, I fully understand.Take your time with a reply, I am back at work now and have a huge backlog of papers to assess. Exams start soon so I should have more free time on my hands.Take care.Brian.

No probs Buz, we can chat when you return.Have a safe trip, and enjoy yourself.Brian.

Hi Buz, First of all, Hebrew didn’t discriminate between lakes and seas, they were all covered by the same word yam .Secondly, it doesn’t need to be a swamp, many seas have reeds along it their shore lines.Many locations near Baal-Zephon would be appropriate, any of the bitter lakes, lake Menzaleh or the Sirbonian Sea would be fine.Thirdly, it was a lot more than 600 chariots that were allegedly lost, it was every single chariot that was in Egypt! .Exodus 14:7 He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them.Every single chariot in Egypt, all with three men aboard and no contemporary source notes that all these thousands of men, all of pharaoh’s armies suddenly lost in a few minutes at the Sea of Reeds. Tell me Buz, why wasn’t Egypt overrun by its enemies if Egypt’s armies were all lost? Why did Egypt continue to be the superpower in that area well into the 12th century BCE? They are not opinions, they are updated translations based on new information. The main theory here is the argument that yam sup
should be translated as ‘Sea of Papyrus’ or ‘Sea of Reeds’,
because etymologically speaking sup is a loan word from Egyptian twf(y) which means ‘papyrus/reeds’ (Ward, W., 1974, The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP and the Common Origin of Egyptian I CWF and Hebrew SUP ‘Marsh(plant', Vetus Testamentum 24, pp.339-49)We even have an excellent Egyptian source to support this theory, the Papyrus Anastasi III, 2, 11-12: ‘The papyrus-marshes come to it with papyrus reeds, and the Waters of Horus with rushes. (Caminos, R., 1954, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies , Oxford University Press, London, p.74)This is referring to the area close to the city of Rameses, the exact place where the Bible claims the Israelites began their journey!
There were a few scholars who suggested this Sea of Reeds translation long before the modern day Bibles began to print correct translation of yam sup as Reed Sea.For example, Jerome thought he had resolved the problem by putting forward two meanings for sup, red and rush/bulrush. Rashi (1089-1164 CE) explained that yam sup was a marsh where reeds grow.But the majority of scholars take the stance that sup is a loan word from Egyptian. (Freedman, David Noel (ed)., 1992 The Anchor Bible dictionary. Doubleday, New york, p.636) No there isn’t Buz, who is debating this, certainly no mainstream scholar, and even the Jewish Publication Society have changed the Torah to read ‘Sea of Reeds’ or ‘Reed Sea’.Who exactly is debating the translation? There have been various reasons how the Red Sea got its name, one reason is from how it looks when a certain type of algae in it die, it appears to look red, it still happens, there is no mystery about it. Another reason is that it takes its name from king Erythras. But they aren’t with you Buz, there was a time when they were with you but that was when the translations were based on the faulty Septuagint, the Septuagint is infamous for the horrendous translation errors within it, the Jews ditched it pretty quickly as it was a complete mess. They are not with you anymore, read the current literature. I don’t need to view them, I am familiar with the material, it has been peddled long enough by Wyatt and his hangers-on. But what has never been done it to place the alleged crossing at Aqabah convincingly within an historical framework. You surely have to admit that the loss of all pharaoh’s armies would be a pretty dramatic occurrence, one that would surely have been noticed by contemporary societies. Of course the pharaoh of the Exodus has never been identified, but there was no sudden break in Egyptian power during the 18th dynasty, the date proposed by the video according to one of your earlier posts. But Buz, even if I accept that there are chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah, what does that actually prove? You have the burden of proof to link the Israelites with the tragedy, you have to show me evidence that supports pharaoh’s armies disappearing suddenly, you have to show me where the two million Exodus group came from, you have to show me where they went, you have to show me where this fits in with the Hebrew Bible’s version events because it does not fit with the Bible’s description. There are many more unanswered questions, and the Gulf of Aqabah doesn’t answer very many. Buz I would love to do this, I will even concede that there are chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah, millions of them if you wish. Now let’s approach this evidence objectively and scientifically. First thing to do is to try dating the wheels, so what date do you propose for the chariot wheels and why do you propose this date, and does this date present any obvious problems?A little side note, and I am not trying to be mean, but I think you mean ‘empirical’ and not ‘imperial’ evidence. Buz. Didn’t you read my post regarding these references? I took each one in context, and in context you can identify which sea is meant. When the sea crossing is taken in context the references do not concern the Red Sea or the gulfs, it is obvious that the sea was crossed in Egypt. The Exodus group arrived at the edge of the wilderness and then turned back, they then crossed the sea before entering the wilderness, the wilderness that has to be crossed before arriving at the Gulf of Aqabah. Okay, you want to be scientific about this, then what other possibilities are there that can explain how these chariot wheels got there? I don’t want what you think is the best explanation, what I would like is a list of all the possibilities, how many different explanations can we give for the existence of chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah?Remember that science looks at all the possibilities and then eliminates, by testing the hypotheses, the ones that are unlikely to be true. In fact, why doesn’t everyone join in and let us build a list of possible reasons for the existence of chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah, I will start:Possibility number one, Ron Wyatt placed them there.Once we have what we consider to be a full list (or near enough) of possibilities, we can then examine each of them for plausibility.Brian.

Hi Buz,Can I ask you to perhaps to start answering the questions I have asked you? You have dealt with some of them adequately, but some others you have merely just given an opinion, then there are a few that you have ignored altogether. I realise that you are very busy and I am happy to wait for more detailed answers if that is the case. In particular, could you reply to the following arguments?From post 69: Your response to this is very superficial, and actually appears to support exactly what I am claiming here. Your response was ’ Here's how it likely worked. Note that in verse 8 they "passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness." This is the crossing of the (un-named) sea. Then the text proceeds to detail every encampment of their itinerary. They went here and there and by the way, they also arrived on the shore of the Red Sea again, but please note that it doesn't say that they crossed it this time. They likely encamped by it again on their looooong wilderness journey, but this time on the East shore of Aqaba.
Okay, they passed through the sea, then went into the wilderness, so they had already crossed the sea before entering the wilderness which has the Red Sea at the other side, you must go through the wilderness in order to reach the Gulf of Aqabah. When you say they camped at the Red Sea ‘again’ this is contrary to scripture which hasn’t mentioned the Red Sea before, as you point out, it only mentions an unnamed sea. But regardless, the Israelites have crossed the sea BEFORE heading into the wilderness, the Gulf of Aqabah cannot be the sea of the exodus crossing. You also say, note that they didn’t cross at this time’, that s because they had already crossed the sea! How long would it take, roughly, for 2 or 3 million people, complete with animals and carts and goods, to walk 120 miles? You have completely ignore this huge error in the Aqabah claim, how can you harmonise the information in Numbers 33 with a sea crossing 120 miles away from the edge of the Eastern Delta?
Also, the claim that Moses decided that the group should go to Midian as he was familiar with the area is unbibical, how do you harmonise this claim with the fact that the Bible tells us it is God who decided the Exodus route (s)?
You have also completely ignored the FACT that we know where Baal-Zephon is, perhaps you missed it: From Martin Noth (op. cit. p110: The place which we can locate most certainly is ‘Baal-Zephon’, by which a sanctuary is clearly meant. This sanctuary of Baal-Zephon, on whose site in the Hellenistic-Roman period a Zues Kasios was worshipped, lay on a low hill in the now uninhabited place ‘mahammadije’ on the western end of the coastal beach belt which separates the lagoon of what in classical times was called the Sirbonian Sea, the present ‘sebhat berdawil’, from the Mediterranean Sea.
It wasn’t that big a surprise either that the link to the essay at BASELESS.org totally ignores Baal-zephon altogether.
Then we have this: This isn’t really an answer Buz, it is pure conjecture, can I ask why you want to alter the biblical text here, what reason do you have for not wanting all the Egyptian armies wiped out here?
Then: Buz, I am getting rather concerned at your continued ignoring of the biblical text, the Bible is quite clear about why the Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, for a self-confessed fundy, you sure ignore God’s Word an awful lot. Surely you know that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, making it impossible for him to allow the Israelites to leave, God wanted to show his strength, and many innocent Egyptians suffered because of Yahweh.
Another question that you have ignored is why has no contemporary society recorded this massive setback for the Egyptians? The Egyptians had a huge Empire in the 18th dynasty, and they had to keep control over the subjugated lands, so why did control over these lands continue well past the 18th dynasty if pharaoh’s armies were all lost at the Reed Sea? This event could not possibly have occurred in isolation, it would have had a dramatic knock on effect, yet it is invisible. How do you explain this?
Then when you say in post 95 beg to differ. They are oppinions of the secularist revisionists who have a problem with the supernatural. , all you are doing here is throwing out an unsupported opinion. This opinion is falsified of course by the writings of Albright, Wright and Bright, all conservative maximalist Christians who agree that the Red Sea should not be equated with the Red Sea, but you have just countered a scholar’s argument with absolutely nothing except that you do not want it to be true. Ward, and others, do not just make these things up, do you think he would get published in Vetus Testamentum without the article being thoroughly reviewed? Now it has been demonstrated that sup is a word borrowed from Egyptian, if you do not believe this, then give me something worthwhile to refute it, a personal opinion really doesn’t cut it.
Then and, after all, it is a theory.
But Buz, everything in history is just a theory, we cannot reconstruct the past, it has gone forever, all we can do is to give our present view of the past. You may be surprise to know that the Gulf of Aqabah is only a hypothesis, it hasn’t even managed to become a theory. If only you would read my posts as carefully as you would like me to read your links then you would have seen that I had dealt with these verses in an earlier post (and that I have used this pun as well). These verses do indeed indicate the Gulf of Aqabah, however, what your source has failed to do is to deal with ANY contrary verses! This essay is a persuasive essay, it is not a critical evaluation of the biblical text, he is only looking at the verses that support the Red Sea, he totally ignores Numbers 33, he also does not even mention Baal-zephon.
What I found extremely amusing in the source was this:
During the early twentieth century, as Darwinism was gaining momentum in the
public arena, scholars began assuming that the Bible itself was a product of the
evolutionary process. They reasoned that because human beings have evolved, it can be assumed that all religion has evolved, and thus the Bible itself has evolved. They
concluded that the alleged supernatural events of the Bible really were normal, natural
events that evolved through oral tradition into legends of supernatural proportions; and these were eventually penned into the Bible and mistakenly taken as fact. Although this is not the view of conservative groups like BASE Institute, it is the view that still dominates secular as well as liberal Christian scholarship today. As per usual, this ‘scholar’ throws in a reference to Darwin and the fundies go wild LOL, it is Darwin’s fault. One thing that is guaranteed to get the fundies on your side is to mention the evil that Darwinism has done, this is hilarious. Your source is pathetically ignorant of the origins of the biblical texts and just as nave about the history of biblical criticism. The Bible was deconstructed and proven to be the product of slight changes over periods of time long before the 20th century, look at the arguments of the Deists, the rationalists, or Jean Austruc. They concluded that the alleged supernatural events of the Bible really were normal natural events , this shows extreme naivety on your source’s part. This particular argument is almost 2000 years old. Origen suggested in the 2nd century BCE that the star over Bethlehem was a comet and not anything supernatural. One of the main pastimes of the Deists was to explain miracles in the Bible by using natural events, their aim being to identify a pure source.So your source has not discussed the verses I cited that relate to the crossing of the Sea by the Exodus group, why do you think that is Buz? I suggest you actually read the essay Buz, try and find a single contentious verse that your source actually deals with.And: Buz, the Patriarchs, the enslavement in Egypt, the Exodus, the desert wanderings, and the conquest of Palestine have all been investigated for centuries, there has been over a hundred years of intensive archaeological excavation in Palestine and Egypt solely for the purpose of supporting biblical claims, it has been thoroughly investigated, and they have all been thoroughly abandoned. Buz, such is the lack of evidence for the biblical narratives that scholars have turned to anthropological models and textual studies to determine the source of the Bible stories, they do not expect to find ‘Israel’ or the Hebrew Bible’s version of Israel’s origin among the ruins of Egypt or Palestine. Sure we get a few chancers now and again, they make a lot of money from people who need evidence to support their faith, these ‘scholars’ are not stupid, they know the right buttons to press, they know that their target audience are unlikely to be familiar with the academic debates.Finally: The video begins with the discovery by an Austrian research team of archeologists who've found a city in Egypt which was occupied at that time by foreigners. How exactly does this fit in with the biblical narratives?
How do the Austrian researchers link these foreigners to the Israelites?
What city during the 18th Dynasty was occupied by foreigners and what is surprising about this?In summary then, I would like some decent answers to:1. The problem of the biblical text claiming that the Israelites crossed the sea before they came to the Red Sea.
2. Roughly, how long would it take for 2- 3 million people to walk 120 miles?
3. How do you harmonise the Gulf of Aqabah crossing with the Exodus itinerary in Numbers 33?
4. How do you explain the identification of Baal-zephon as a site in Egypt as being conducive to an Aqabah crossing?
5. Why are there no contemporary sources that record this massive setback to Egyptian power?
6. Why did no subjugated peoples take advantage of this situation?
7. How do you explain conservative Christian archaeologists who argue that the Reed Sea was situated in Egypt?
8. What reasons do you have for rejecting the majority of translators who claim that sup is a loan word from Egyptian?
9. Why does your source ignore the biblical verses that suggest that the Sea of Reeds is in Egypt?
10. Can you please give the location of the city excavated by the Austrian researchers? (I sincerely hope it isn’t Avaris, but I wouldn’t mind a little wager).Take your time, I realise there is a lot to get through, but if the video is worth its salt then most of these questions should be fairly easy to answer.Take care for now.Brian.

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.

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.

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.

Hi Buz,I am short of time so here is a quick outline of sources for Tuthmosis III's Palestinian campaigns.The ‘Annals of Tuthmosis III’ at Karnak are derived from a ‘day-book’ which was a type of diary that focussed on the pharaoh’s daily movements (armies had day-bboks as well to record saily actions). The annals at Karnak are too voluminous to type out here, they list conquered lands, tributes paid, plunder such as gold, silver, chariots, goats, sheep, male and female servants, the lists are very comprehensive. So maybe you could do a websearch for ‘Annals of Tuthmosis III’ or they are reproduced in Donald Redford’s The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Tuthmosis III 2003, Brill, Leiden pp 1-43. If you are having difficulty accessing the annals, I can type them up if you could wait a couple of days after you request it.Here are some more inscriptions relating to Tuthmosis III victories in Syria/Palestine, if you want to discuss any of these in more detail just let me know, I have the full-texts but you may be able to get them on-line.A great deal of Tuthmosis III campaigns are recorded on the walls at Karnak, there is a record here of the capture of over 300 cities.These inscriptions also refer to Tuthmosis III’s Syria-Palestinian campaigns.The Ermant Stele.Buhen Temple Text.The Buto Stela InscriptionThe Gebel Barkal Stele.Pylons 6 and 7 at Karnak itineraries of Tuthmosis III into Palestine.The Barque Shrine.Philadelphia 39-12-3There are inscriptions at Tuthmosis III’s temple in Elephantine detailing his first campaign in Palestine. The following are references in official and private statements: The royal barber Si-BastThe Butler NeferperetThe Soldier and Lieutenant-General, Amun-em-hebConstruction Engineer Minmose.The Keeper of the Seal and Superintendent of the Gold Lands of Amnu, Sen-nufer.The Great Whmw of the King Antef.You may also wish to do a 'Google' for the Battle of Megiddo, and the Battle of Kadesh.Brian.