"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

[qs]Possibility number one, Ron Wyatt placed them there.[qs] And you say you know so much about the contents of the video that you needn't view it to make a judgement? LOL. And I suppose Wyatt sculptured all the coral looking stuff all over the huge junkyard and went to all the expense of hauling it all in there under darkness and carefully placing each large clump in it's own place. You are kidding, I hope. Yah sure. I see we've got about all there is to counter with, being a whole lot of utter nonsense. Good thing Whatever wasn't participating and it wasn't a secular science thread. He'd be packin his bags for the door!

Jar, get real with something sensible and I'll be happy to respond. What are the odds of finding even a single chariot wheel anywhere in the world's seas or oceans? These are in a region where such an event was described in the Bible with evidence on the Eastern side on land which also corroborates the happening of the event. I'm not wasting time spoon feeding you all the evidence when you obviously refuse to acknowledge any of the impirical evidence.

I generally, but not always take things in order, but your posts are so long that I simply don't have time to address everything at a sitting or two so I went on to deal with the others. I cannot always guarantee to cover every detail you bring up, but did intend to get back to some of it in time. Some of what you bring up, imo, you could figure out for yourself and likely have already figured out, but simply want to debate for debate's sake, such as the first item which I will respond. It was not superficial. As I said, you should be able to figure it out yourself. No. Obviously, if you consider the text of controversy carefully, the statement of the text begins with them already having arrived at the region of the crossing. At this point, the text has already assumed that they are near the crossing and does not cover their itinerary leading to the crossing site.
The Text: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.
Note that the text in question begins, not from the beginning of their long journey, but at or near the point of crossing. So they had already crossed the first leg of wilderness and now are going through the sea into the 2nd leg of wilderness. From there I have made my points as to why your argument is bogus. .
Do you mean one to two million?1. I don't recall anything being said about carts. Likely they had many beasts of burden to carry their supplies.
2. They had the overwhelming advantage over the Egyptians with the fire by night and cloud by day. They could get the minimal amount of rest and travel much by night. Not so with the Egyptians. They and their animals were not fatigued by the blistering hot desert sun, so travel by day likely went quite swiftly. Not so with the Egyptians.
3. They got a substantial head start.All in all, they traveled enough slower than the Egyptians so that after all factors weighed in, both arrived at Aqaba at aproximately the same time.That's it for this session. Talk to you later. I must go very slow with you to cover all bases. You tend to sometimes nitpick unimportant details to bolster your false premises since the big picture with all the empirical evidence definitely favors my side of this debate.Btw, thanks for correcting me on that word, empirical.

Hi Brian. Been outa town some and very busy when home. Thanks for being patient. I needed to do some thoughtful and prayerful study on these items also before responding.1. The empirical evidence for the crossing is at the Nuweiba beach and underwater sandbar being the chariot parts in the sea floor at the only shallow and crossable location is where we must begin.
2. The elevated split rock where water should not normally flow is in the region across from Nuweiba. There is evidence of water flow at some time in history at this split rock site.
3. There are encriptions of Egyptian style bulls also across from this site where cattle were not raised, near a burnt mountain believed by an increasing number of researchers to be the real Mt Sinai in what was the land of Midian, now Saudi Arabia. This is indicative of the golden bull idol the Israelites made and worshipped while Moses was on the mountain.
4. With the above in mind, it is becoming evident that some sites traditionally, but without a shred of evidence, believed to be related to the Exodus were missplaced and missnamed, mainly, Mt Sinai, Pehahiroth and Baal-Zephon.
5. Baal-Zephon evidently was the only idol not destroyed in the 10th plague in Egypt. Why? Because it was likely on the Eastern side of Aqaba (Yom Suph) and not even in Egypt.
6. Pihahiroth was likely an ancient outpost fortress of Egypt in the Nuweiba region to guard from invasion by sea.
7. A preconcieved notion that the crossing had to be someplace near the mouth of the Gulf of Suez likely led early scolars to locate and name these sites where the appear on Bible atlases, etc.
8. The trade route leading to the region of Nuweiba sounds like the Biblical direction God gave Moses to go, not wanting him to be anywhere near the warlike Philistines at that time so as to be tempted to give up and return to Egypt.
8. In the region of the burnt Mt Sinai in Midian there is a large plain where water once flowed, indicative that it would have been a likely place for the Israelites to settle down and camp before moving on.
10. Verse 7 in Numbers 33 must be carefully read. Note that it says they went back unto, in our vernacular, "in the direction of" Pihahiroth (which is) before you get to Baal-Zephon, and their first listed stopover on this journey is Migdol, {paraphrasing the verse for clarity).As with any science problem, one must begin with the empirical evidence and work from there with the lesser known in order to come to a valid conclusion or theory. Nothing anywhere near to this has ever been achieved concerning the Exodus. Thus, due to the preconceptions many centuries ago, the world has been in the dark on this. It appears that the monks and priests of Roman Catholicism jumped to some early conclusions, resulting in a lot of pilgimages to a bogus mountain at the lower tip of Sinai as well as missnaming some sites to the north in Egypt. Of course that's not all these people have missled the world to believe, by a long shot, imo.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-14-2004 09:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comments which you pasted were pertaining to The Morrises of ICR and not to Moller. I've never made any statements as to whether Moller did or did not endorse Wyatt. I believe I said something about Wyatt being the original discoverer of this crossing site. I don't think Moller has any association with ICR. Correct me if I'm mistaken here.

Thanks Brian. I'm finding that most creos are going with Tut III as the one lost in the crossing which would place the Exodus a few decades later than Tut I. I'm still trying to figure this out as to who fits best. Tut III might eliminate the problem of the quick recovery.

Yes! A hardy welcome aboard, Hydarnus. You and your brother would certainly be a welcome addition to the creo team here in town. Likely you too are busy folks, but any input you can offer will be greatly appreciated.