"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

​

A long wall at Deir-El Bahri illustrates how Hatshepsut touches the hand of a god (=sexual relation). The next illustration shows her being pregnant, followed by a series of illustrations of a small boy growing to become a teenager. This is according to the tradition to explain an adoption. The hypothesis of this study is that Hatshepsut’s son was Moses.And so the next question can now be officially asked, who was Thutmosis II? When Moses is finally appointed co-ruler at the age of 33 years he becomes Thutmosis II. What happens later when Moses is 40 years old is already dealt with in scripture.Near to Thebes there is a beautiful building called Deir El Bahri, which, according to this hypothesis, was the temple Moses built (as architect) for his stepmother Nefure. Above this building there is a grave (grave number 71) with a statue that was never completely finished. This statue is carved out of the rock and depicts a woman holding a little child. With the hypothesis presented in this study, it is logical that this represents Moses in the arms of his stepmother Nefure.This building was probably begun when Moses was about 18 years old — it was probably then that he was appointed heir to the throne with Nefure as regent. The names found in this grave are Nefure and Senmut!Immediately under this grave a chamber has been found in which there are two mummies with the names Hatnofer and Ramose, most likely the Egyptian names for Moses’ biological parents. Here one can see that Moses was given a god-like position in Egyptian society by giving his biological father the name of Ramose, since Ra was the greatest god among the Egyptians.Hatnofer was embalmed and received a royal burial, indicated by the fact that she received this place as her burial place and that her death occurred when Moses was between 18 and 40 years old. Since the building was begun when Moses was around 18 years old it is likely that Moses’ mother died when Moses was between 25 and 40 years old. She can definitely not have had this burial after Moses became 40 years old when a sentence of death was pronounced against Moses and he had to flee the country. Moses’ father, Ramose, probably died before Moses was 18 years old since he received a more simple burial and was placed at Deir El Bahri after having been moved from another grave.Moses’ grave was never finished and no-one was ever buried in this chambera very highlighting factor in our hypothesis, since there is no correct mummy for Thutmosis II or Senmut. This was probably the second burial chamber built for Moses and in this case would represent the royal grave. When one goes down into this grave it can be seen that it is unfinished and those who carved the reliefs stopped at a certain point and it looks as though they had just finished their work for the day! Nearby there are plans for future work with inscriptions drawn in black texts on the wall. This would only make sense, since Moses never died in Egypt.It can be noted that in Egyptian graves the dead person was depicted in different situations with his wife and others in the family. In this burial chamber the dead person (Moses) is depicted SOLELY with his parents, Hanofer and Ramose. According to the Bible, Moses had no family of his own when he lived in Egypt.As we can see, things are starting to make more and more sense, and the puzzle of the Exodus is ever more fitting.So, the next question that would have to be asked is, who takes Moses’ place when Moses flees? Moses flees in tremendous haste from Egypt when he is 40 years old. The question then arises concerning who became Pharaoh when Moses disappeared from the Egyptian leadership and his future place on the throne!The pharaoh at that time, Amenhotep I, was old and during 22 years had prepared for Moses to take over the throne.Note: A beautiful illustration is provided in order to visualize but I am unfortunately unable to provide it online at this time.What was to happen to this acute situation?In Memphis there was a man who had been prepared to become co-ruler with Moses when Moses ascended the throne. Probably this man was promoted to become co-ruler with Amenhotep I with the same name (rank/title) as Moses, Thutmosis. Documents show that he received his position in his 22nd year. A co-ruler begins to count his years when he receives the position of co-ruler. This year then becomes the first year. Here we have a person who attains his position in his 22nd year with the same Egyptian name as Moses (Thutmosis)!It should be noted that the number of years may be counted from when the person becomes heir to the throne, crown prince or co-ruler. Then, when he becomes emperor he begins to count his years again. This leads to two lengths of rule, each as a different god authority. This is the reason why Thutmosis III states his reign as 54 years, while Amenhotep II’s is 26-32 years (depending on the source). Thutmosis II, who is the one who takes Moses’ place, is distinguished in that there is no trace of him as he rises in rank but he suddenly becomes c0-ruler in his 22nd year.What happened when Moses was suddenly forced to flee the country, was that the Egyptian authorities were obliged to find a replacement who could embody the god Thot (with the title/rank Thutmosis). In order not to break the line of succession, the successor assumed the role of Moses and the years he had had in that post. Usually when a member of royalty died the god flew up the heavens and was later reborn in the person who received the same position after a time. In this case no-one died and an immediate transfer was necessary. Everything that belonged to Moses was probably transferred to this new person (Thutmosis) and things continued without a break. This new person is called Thutmosis III. Presumably however, most of the statues said to represent him really represent Moses.Thutmosis II was said to have reigned for 54 years, however 22 of these years were really the years Moses had in position of Thutmosis. If these 22 years are subtracted from the 54 years, then that makes 32 years in power! In on text it is stated that Thutmosis III passed away after a rule of 32 (some say 54) years.The connection between these years is shown here, otherwise it is very complicated to understand since it is difficult to find a point of reference from which to start counting. This person, who reigned for 32 years as Amenhotep II before he died and was succeeded, was a great and mighty ruler in Egypt, the super power at the same time.Moses’ foster mother, Hatshepsut, lived for many years after the flight of Moses and is called queen on the monuments in the later years of the reign of Amenhotep II, only Cleopatra being more well-known among women in leading positions in Egypt.So who does Thutmosis II represent? The statues and images in ancient Egypt show an amazing portrait-like resemblance. All the people depicted are not idealized, but they often have not just one but several characteristics, both positive and negative. Examples of this are Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had a very peculiar build, others are dwarves, have physical features such as obesity, varying skin color, height and, to say the least, are very different in appearance. Even when army units were made as statuettes, all soldiers were different. This is mentioned as background to the well-founded assumption that artists and sculptors tried to achieve a portrait-like resemblance.The following observations are speculative but may be interesting to note. The Egyptians, and in particular the leaders have certain traits in common. One such trait is that they have straight noses. Typical Egyptian pharaohs ALL had straight noses!In this study, the hypothesis that Thutmosis II was Moses is stated. So what do the statues of Thutmosis II look like? Moses was not an Egyptian, as far as his genes were concerned, but a Hebrew! Sometimes Hebrews can be described as having more of a hook noste than others. It is interesting that the statue representing Thutmosis II has a more distinct hook nose compared to other statues, as can be seen below: Do not forget to take into account that there are notes that Senmut had an aquiline nose, and that Thutmosis II is depicted with a big nose on reliefs. The statue of Thutmosis II shows that he had a hook nose, typical of the Hebrews If this was done purposely by the sculptor with the aim of making the representation of Thutmosis II as portrait-like as possible, then this means that the statue in the figure probably represents Moses.So now you ask, who was the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus? When Amenhotep II died, according to the hypothesis in this book, his co-ruler of 29, Thutmosis IV, succeeded as Pharaoh with the pharaonic title Amenhotep III. When Amenhotep III became Pharaoh he appointed his eldest son, although very young, as crown prince as was the custom. The young person who received this role was about 10 years old at the time and we know him as Tutankhamun. Amenhotep II later reigns for about 8 years before the time of the Exodus occurs.Amenhotep III is interesting from a special point of view. It would seem that he was not intended for the throne of Egypt since he was not the eldest son through the royal mother, who custom decreed should become Pharaoh. In the Sphinx inscription, which can still be seen between the paws of the Sphinx by the pyramids in Giza outside present day Cairo, a remarkable story about Thutmosis IV is told. One day Thutmosis IV fell asleep in the shadow of the Sphinx and dreamt that the sun god came to him, and said that if he removed all the sand from around the Sphinx he would become kin.This story would not have needed to be told if he had received the right to the throne in a traditional way — by being the eldest son. It may have been that Amenhotep II was also childless, or that for some reason the eldest son could not become Pharaoh. That son could have died young, for instance. For other reasons which we can discuss, we know nonetheless it was very probable Amenhotep III, was the eldest son, while Tutankhamun, heir to the throne after Amenhotep III, was the eldest son of Amenhotep III.Tutankhamun was co-ruler and in an inscription on the statue of a lion, which Tutankhamun dedicated to the Soleb temple, he calls his father Amenhotep III (37), which confirms the relation between these two people!Next, are we able to identify the mummies that have been found? There are many mummies in Egypt and there are also problems in connecting a specific mummy to a specific Pharaoh. One example is the mummy that is supposed to be Thutmosis I who reigned for 21 years, according to inscriptions. The following is said about the mummy supposed to belong to Thutmosis I: However, several eminent physical anthropologists who have seen these X-ray plates have been absolutely convinced that this mummy is that of a young man, perhaps 18 years of age, certainly not over twenty. (39). Several examples can be given, but there are also explanations.1. that the name lived on was of primary importance. The worse thing that could happen, was for the name to be removed from the inscriptions etc. It was not so important that it was precisely the right mummy because the body was dead and it was the spirit that needed a body — any body.2. Many grave robberies (in general most graves have been robbed) have led to the contents of graves being scattered.3. Many mummies have disappeared to be used as medicines. An ingredient in many European prescriptions in the Middle Ages was part of a mummy as they were held to a have a magical effect.4. Later pharaohs who restored graves that had been plundered, put in another mummy.Thus, there are many uncertainties regarding the identity of mummies that have been found. It is probably on the mummies of Amenhotep I, AmenhotepII and Tutankhamun from the 18th dynasty, who are the individuals with whom they are connected. With regard to Tutankhamun, the grave is one of the few which has not been plundered. The mummy of Amenhotep I shows a common genetic defect (protruding teeth) which existed in the family, which means that this mummy can be connected to the 18th dynasty. The other mummies are probably mixed up or placed there at a later date (e.g. after a grave robbery) since they are found in the wrong graves and/or have not received a royal burial.Moreover, according to the hypothesis of this study, there should not be any mummies of Thutmosis II, who was Moses, nor Amenhotep III, who drowned in the Red Sea. Furthermore, according to the same hypothesis, there should only be one mummy from the name pair Thutmosis/Amenhotep since this was one and the same person.As we can see, there is enough ample reason to believe in this hypothesis. You will notice that even according to traditional Egyptian chronology, the writers are very uncertain and do a lot of speculating. Here is a very good website concerning traditional Egyptian chronology: Eighteenth Dynasty of EgyptI want you to notice the uncertainty of their language. A lot of probably’s, most likely’s and could’s are used extensively, but their basis for doing so is on the premise of mere speculation. We have more reason to come up with our theories based on the archeological discoveries revealing the Exodus event actually have taken place! We have enough chariot remains (and a few very well identifiable wheels), human bones, horse bones, underwater landbridge, Solomon’s pillars in commemoration of the crossing, Nuweiba beach, the fact that the Bible describes the Israelites were shut in by the wilderness and the mountains have entangled themNuweiba beach matching the description of the Bible (no such geography exists for the Gulf of Suez), the fact that Goshen was way up north above Suez, and the ludicrousness of speculating that the Israelites would have headed south into Egyptian territory instead of just going east into the Sinai Peninsula and following the southern road. The fact that the Bible plainly states that Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, and Midian is in Saudi Arabia. A pattern is being developed here, and the picture is ever growing clearer.Based on these archeological finds, the proposed chronology correlates nicely with what has been found, and explains the many unanswered questions as to how such an Exodus could have occurred.To see a very good website describing the proposed chronology, take a look at this link:http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/moses.htmSources derived from: The Exodus Case, The Mountain of God, and the World Wide WebThe above link will give you an idea as far as successions are concerned, but the author who put together the table misplaced Amenhotep I as being before Thutmosis I, when in reality, according to the hypothesis presented, Thutmosis I (who was co-regent with Ahmose) became the next Pharaoh as Amenhotep I. Thutmosis I (as co-regent had a daughter named Nefure, and Nefure was the foster mother of the baby Moses she found in the bulrushes. When Thutmosis I became Amenhotep I, Nefure became Hatshepsut (her new name as for co-regent), and it was decided that since there was no male heir, Nefure/Hatshetsup’s adopted son Moses would become co-regent ALONG with her in order for their to successfully be a male replacement after Amenhotep I dies.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

---

These comments have already been addressed earlier.

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

---

~Lysimachus

I am sorry, but you must recognise the the extent you own biases are affecting your judgement. When you - almost literally - demonise Egyptologists for not accepting the Bible as infallibly accurate then you really are going to far to convince unbelievers. In fact you are pretty much admitting that your case is inadequate.I also not e that you have engaged in unattributed copying of material which is not only a dubious practice in itself but also contrary to the rules fo this forum.Likewise I am aware of the uncertainties in this period - but uncertainties are distinctly two-edged. Uncertainties simply make it harder to identify the truth - and so work against your primary goal which is to establish the interpretation fo Egyptian history you favour as the truth.Let me also add if you are going to criticise me for putting forward generally accepted ideas of Egyptologists as true then you must equally refrain from referring to Ron Wyatt's speculations as true. As is quite clear, however, you are quite happy to - for instance - write "Moses" for "Senmut". At least be consistent on this issue, rather than attacking me for not following rules you yourself do not.Going on to your discussion of the evidence. You argue that the orders of the dynasties are uncertain but this in no way answers the points I have raised. All we need is that Tuthmosis III followed on from Tuthmosis II - which Wyatt accepts - as do you. From that it follows that Hatshepsut’s regency for Thutmosis III must follow Thutmosis II. And since you claim that Amenhotep I was still alive and Pharaoh when Moses fled to Midian there would have been no need of a regent for Thutmosis II. So you are left with no real position for Hatshepsut until after Thutmosis II has departed the scene.Of course we have to go a long way before we come to the first piece of significant evidence - the statue. Now as you are no doubt aware this is identified by Egyptologiists as the adult Senmut with his pupil, Hatshepsut’s daughter Nefeure. Royal inheritance in Egypt was rather more complicated than you present. Especially when Hatshepsut was in power - she herself presented herself as heir. On the other hand since the inscription indicates that the statue was made when Senmut was an adult and tutor to Nefeure it would be rather odd to have Senmut represented as a child.Also let me add that given the lack of evidence that Senmut was a member of the Royal family - to the point where you have to pass off rose rapidly through the ranks - a reference to Senmut’s supposed army career as representing his being made heir to the throne - speculating about what his name means is of little value.A lot of what you write - or rather copy - is speculation - and it isn’t even entirely consistent. According to you Moses became co-regent at the age of 18 - yet also at 18 he was unable to give his father the same rich burial he later gave his mother. This is no problem for the conventional view where Senmut rises from a lower-class background to great power. But rather problematic if Moses is at least heir apparent when his father dies.As for your 35 parallels - you have non-parallels and repeats to bolster the numbers. Many Egyptians would have been of low birth but not slaves. And please don’t complain that I rip apart minor points when none of your 35 parallels qualify as anything but - and it was important enough that you used it three times !On Senmut's supposed military career you ignore the point that Josephus’ account has no room to place a long civil service career after his military campaign. And there are very good reasons to ask that general should be written - not only are victorious generals usually credited was being such but without it we don’t have much of a parallel. As for Wellington being called general when he was a Duke - he was both for a time.Josephus’ account of Moses military campaign and marriage are in Antiquities II chapter 10.And finally you claim that it is weak to point out the contradiction between Moses embarking on acivil service career in Egypt and fleeing to Midian. If you really can’t see the problem there then you had better abandon this discussion and do some serious thinking about where you are.

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

---

~Lysimachus

I'm afraid that I can't resist one last shot - I didn't have time to find this for my last post.This is Tyldesley's rendition of the story of the mural which your source says depicts the "birth" of Moses from Hatshepsut被老师抱到没人的地方怎么办,巨爆乳寡妇中文无码,绿巨人麻豆草莓丝瓜秋葵18禁,免费能直接看黄的网站(feel free to find a copy of Tyldesly to check the accuracy - although I suggest that you should have done as much with your own sources)It seems quite clear that the mother is Ahmose, the child is a daughter and the child is Hatshepsut, who is also called Maat Ka Re.

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

---

~Lysimachus

This Ahmose is the wife of Tuthmosis I -
Egypt Travel, Tours, Vacations, Ancient Egypt from Tour EgyptWhile you're on that page note that Tuthmosis II is listed the son of Tuthmosis I by Mutnofret. And, talking of mothers, Tuthmosis I's mother's name is given as Semisneb while Amenhotep I is apparently the son of Queen Ahmose Nefretiri - Egypt: Amenhotep I, the Second King of Egypt's 18th Dynasty

Oh I see, so this is a different Ahmose.

quote:

---

While you're on that page note that Tuthmosis II is listed the son of Tuthmosis I by Mutnofret.

---

Well of course this is what they are going to think, since they automatically separate the Thutmosis' from the Amenhoteps. As you could see even according to our graphical chart illustrating the proposed chronology (I really need to scan this in for you), it would be rather easy (and seem most logical) to automatically assign Thutmosis I as father of Thutmosis II. It's a close deal to think that Nefure (who has a boy child), daughter of Thutmosis I, and Hatshetsup (who has a boy child as well), daughter of Amenhotep I are different people!It is highly probable that it was such: Nefure was daughter of Thutmosis I, but when Thutmosis I became Amenhotep I, Nefure's name was changed to Hatshetsup (boy Moses is now older), and it could easily be interpreted that Thutmosis II was son of Thutmosis I...according to our charts. But in reality, it would be more likely that Thutmosis II was adopted grandson of Thutmosis I, not direct son, since his daughter Nefure claimed him as her own, and Egyptologists can interpret this as perhaps Nefure's brother, making Thutmosis II son.*I'll keep reading the sources you are providing though, because you've got got soem good stuff there *This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-27-2004 12:27 PM

---

~Lysimachus

HI Ly, How does this fit with Wyatt's view that you posted at post number 141: The kings of the 18th Dynasty are stated by historians as being named either Amenhotep and Thutmoses. I still do not see any explanation for the inscriptional evidence that I posted that supports Thutmosis and Amenhotep being father and son rather than being the same person.I also explained why this 'name fluctuation' is faulty, in fact you have also posted information that states that every pharaoh was also called 'Son of Re'. This confirms that every pharaoh actually does acknowledge Ra as supreme god, however, they all have different throne names, which I have also posted.To say that all the pharaoh's of the 18th dynasty were either called Thutmosis or Amenhotep is extremely naive, what about Ahmoses, Horemheb or Tutankhuman, Smenkhkare, or Ay? What is Wyatt basing his conclusions on, what sources was he using?The entire piece about 'The Kings of the 18th Dynasty doesn't contain a single reference at all, and reads more like a novel that a piece of research. For example:The inscriptions found in temples and tombs indicate that the "Thutmoses" name is indicative of one of the offices of the pharaoh, just as was the "Amenhotep" name- and that each pharaoh was both a "Thutmoses" as well as an "Amenhotep" as he advanced in the royal line from co-regent to emperor.To take this seriously we really need to know which 'temples and tombs' indicate this information. Some quotes from these inscriptions would be welcome as well, as it is we only have the author's word for this.Also, 'From our research, it appears that the crown prince received his "Thutmoses" title upon being appointed co-regent, and then became "Amenhotep" in addition to his earlier names, when he became emperor ''From our research' is useless as piece of evidence, what was it that was researched that led the author to conclude that 'Thutmosis' was a title rather than a personal name?If he became 'Amenhotep' when he became emperor, (which he certainly didn't) then surely this researcher can tell us where there is inscriptional evidence to support this?And 'And each ruler left inscriptions relating to his reign in both names - sometimes he referred to himself as Thutmoses, while at other times Amenhotep. 'Would it be too much to expect a reference here? Can you name one single inscription that includes both names relating to the same person?Finally, 'Each individual king left inscriptions in both names, dating his regnal years sometimes from the date of his co-regency and sometimes from the date of his emperorship. We don't fully understand the "rules" governing these practices yet." 'Wyatt says that each king left inscriptions in both names, I for one would love the names of these inscriptions so I can read them for myself, do you have the references to hand?Brian.

Hold on there. Are you so sure that the parentages assigned by Egyptologists are just assumptions ? How would we get the mother's names if not from inscriptions ? For all the uncertainties in Egyptian history you're talking about a major rewrite and it is far from clear that there is enough uncertainty for it to be even possible.For instance we know that Hatshepsut had a daughter named Nefeure - who appears to have had no children, and may have died young (one idea about Senmut's death or disappearance is that it was a consequence of Nefeure's death). Simply assuming that Hatshepsut = Nefeure is too simple - especially as neither is listed as having a son.Equally the identification of Moses as being both Senmut and Tuthmosis II strains credibility. Not just the problem that most of Senmut's career appears to be after Tuthmosis II left the scene - but the whole question of why the co-regent (in Wyatt's hypothesis) is also identifed as a non-royal civil servant - just as if they were entirely different people.I want to stress that I've been pretty much relying on popular sources and the internet much as you have. I have got a downloaded copy of Jospehus in an old (and therefore out of copyright) translation. On the subject of websites Digital Egypt for Universities maybe a little better than the TourEgypt site. But if Moller wants to make a case for this rewriting he's got to go beyond that and deal with the source material. And that includes especially the material that supports the mainstream view.

quote:

---

which he certainly didn't

---

You know Brian, I sure would regard you a lot higher if you would at least have the humility to change that phrase to "which he probably didn't". I don't like that when people come across in this manner, sorry, and I really don't feel like continueing until you change that phrase, though I'll probably just continue anyway. I am not of the opinion that any of this is 100% correct. There is a high possibility that there may be a great degree of truth to this hypothesis, but yet some flaws that were missed. We use "probably's" in our language, and you should too.

quote:

---

How does this fit with Wyatt's view that you posted at post number 141: The kings of the 18th Dynasty are stated by historians as being named either Amenhotep and Thutmoses.

---

I suppose because Ahmose was the "starting point", and his co-regent was Thutmosis I. From then on, the names keep going back and forth (all throughout the ENTIRE 18th DYNASTY!), 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???

quote:

---

I also explained why this 'name fluctuation' is faulty, in fact you have also posted information that states that every pharaoh was also called 'Son of Re'. This confirms that every pharaoh actually does acknowledge Ra as supreme god, however, they all have different throne names, which I have also posted.

---

To tell you the truth, I'm still studying out some of these extra details myself. As far as Ra is concerned, I believe that my brother told me that Amen and Ra were treated equal already during this point, one of lower and one of upper Egypt. Correct me if I'm wrong. But then when both lower and upper Egypt were united, the gods fused and became "Amun-Ra", both gods just as equal. This is why Moller is wrong in this area (of which I had derived my sources from, and therefore I change this standpoint).Dictionary Defintion:Amen-Ra: Egyptian sun god; supreme god of the universe in whom Amen and Ra were combined; principal deity during Theban supremacySo it still would not be wrong to have Amen on the top.

quote:

---

To say that all the pharaoh's of the 18th dynasty were either called Thutmosis or Amenhotep is extremely naive, what about Ahmoses, Horemheb or Tutankhuman, Smenkhkare, or Ay? What is Wyatt basing his conclusions on, what sources was he using?

---

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, 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. After a short time the 18th dynasty comes to an end. This in itself is a sign of chaos that there must have been in Egypt in connection with the Exodus. It is said that Ay hastily married Tutankhanun's wife, Ankhesenamun, so hastily that he is Pharaoh at the burial of Tutankhanun. This is your answer as to why there is such a change in the pattern of names. Chaos struck, and this is why it is interesting to note that Amenhotep IV abrubtly abandons the worship of the previous gods of Egypt, changes his name to Akhenatan--symbolizing the change from Amun worship to monotheistic Aten (Sun) worship. Moses had now shown the former gods of Egypt to be powerless, hence the name change to monotheisim). Akhennaten shifts his capital from Luxor to a new capital Akhetaten, and is married to his famous wife Nefertiti which means 'maiden of joy'.The remainder of Pharaohs for the 18th dynasty lost the usual pattern of names that was so typically associated with the 18th dynasty. Very intersting indeed.

quote:

---

The entire piece about 'The Kings of the 18th Dynasty doesn't contain a single reference at all, and reads more like a novel that a piece of research. For example:

​

The inscriptions found in temples and tombs indicate that the "Thutmoses" name is indicative of one of the offices of the pharaoh, just as was the "Amenhotep" name- and that each pharaoh was both a "Thutmoses" as well as an "Amenhotep" as he advanced in the royal line from co-regent to emperor.

​

To take this seriously we really need to know which 'temples and tombs' indicate this information. Some quotes from these inscriptions would be welcome as well, as it is we only have the author's word for this.

---

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.

quote:

---

Would it be too much to expect a reference here? Can you name one single inscription that includes both names relating to the same person?

​

Finally, 'Each individual king left inscriptions in both names, dating his regnal years sometimes from the date of his co-regency and sometimes from the date of his emperorship. We don't fully understand the "rules" governing these practices yet." '

​

Wyatt says that each king left inscriptions in both names, I for one would love the names of these inscriptions so I can read them for myself, do you have the references to hand?

---

I too would love to see them. 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? 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.Here is a link you might be interested in: Ancient Egypt - Dynasty XVIIIIt is the traditional view of the 18th dynasty. Notice the words "probably" and "hypotheses" used quite frequently.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-27-2004 03:12 PMThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-27-2004 03:14 PM

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

For instance we know that Hatshepsut had a daughter named Nefeure - who appears to have had no children, and may have died young (one idea about Senmut's death or disappearance is that it was a consequence of Nefeure's death). Simply assuming that Hatshepsut = Nefeure is too simple - especially as neither is listed as having a son.

---

You're right about Nefure not having a son. You mention that Nefure was the tutor to Senmut. Sure, it may have been recorded this way. Moses was not the real son of this princess remember. Egypt probably recorded Nefure as "Moses' tutor", but in our day we interpret it as "foster mother". Traditional records are right on track about Nefure having no son, this is why Nefure was so happy to claim the baby Senmut(Moses) as her own.The fact that neither Hatshetsup nor Senmut are listed as having sons only supports our hypothesis. If Senmut were listed as having one, for example, but not Hatshetsup (or vice versa), that would pose a serious problem in our hypothesis. But since the child was only adopted, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this is how the Egyptians recorded it..."his tutor".

---

~Lysimachus

No, Senmut was tutor to Hatshepsut's daughter Nefeure. So your interpretation doesn't work.And you are forgetting that according to Wyatt's hypothesis Moses' claim to the throne was his posiiton as Hatshepsut's adopted son. That Hatshepsut is not identified as having a son - and Tuthmosis II is identified as being the son of Mutnofret - is a serious problem for Wyatt's claims.

Hi Ly,Okay, I’ll change it to ‘almost certainly wasn’t’. 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? Well not quite the entire dynasty, the last four pharaoh’s didn’t have these names. 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 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? Yes, the fusing of two gods into one is called a ‘syncretism’., usually done for political reasons. 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. 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? 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.441Although 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. 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 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. 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. 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? 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? 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? 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.

Alright guys, I've got the full color chart scanned in, so take a look! It took me looking at it a few times over before I was able to fully comprehend it. Make note of the color codes, and carefully analyze all the lines and dates since they represent what takes place at what time.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-27-2004 06:40 PM

---

~Lysimachus

To be honest the chart only confirms that you've accurately presented Moller's claims. It doesn't seem to add anything useful. I assume that the arrow that seems to indicate that Hatshepsut became Amenhotep II is simply poor layout.Since you have the book I think you would have done better to look up details like the identity of the Austrian archaeologists - or better yet identify the inscriptions that are supposed to be evidence for this scheme. If they've been published then Brian may be able to check them.