"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

The problem is that so many of the sections of the Bible that pertain to history are simply wrong makes it difficult, no impossible, to relay on any of the Bible as a historical document.You can run down the list for yourself.There is the Creation Myth. Simply a Myth.There is the ages of the patriarchs. Simple exageration.There is the Flood Myth. Never happened.There is Noah and the Ark and the great gathering. Never happened.There is the Trek that no one noticed. If it happened it was certainly not of the magnitude that the Bible claims and certainly not when the Bible claims.And the list goes on.As a Christian, and as most Christians today, it is impossible to look on the Bible as a historical document except, and unless, there is some outside corroboration. And there is none so far for the Exodus.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am afraid that if you want to convince people then you have to present evidence. And you have fallen very short on that front. If you cannot see that you are jumping beyond the evidence based on your conviction that the Bible must be accurate (despite the fact that the books in question cannot be shown to have been written anywhere near the time of the supposed events and the archaeological evidence fails to support it).As for the suppposed land bridge - even AiG. who would love to have the Exodus proved - say that it does not exist. Their comments on a video by Wyatt supporter Jonathon Gray quote the hydorogaphic office of the UK Ministry of Defence as stating :

quote:

---

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

---

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

The quoted information below is from Manfred Bietak’s book ‘Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab’a’, British Museum Press, London. 1996.The paged linked to is yet again a poorly referenced source. If we take it a piece at a time then you will see why people like myself and Paul are having difficulty in accepting what you would like us to accept.The first part of Beitak’s quote is not disputed at all, it is very common knowledge that access to the Nile Delta was granted to many people by the Egyptians.Now on to the comment on the Beitak quote It is well known that the "Hyksos" who grew to control Egypt were immigrant Semitics from Palestine (Canaan). It is actually well-known that the Hyksos were not solely immigrant Semitics from Palestine. An element of the Hyksos came from Palestine, but in reality they were a composite people because, amongst other reasons, their personal names reflect Semitic, Hurrian and Indo-European origins (Gottwald, 1979, Tribes of Yahweh, SCM Press, London p.393)A lot of excitement was caused by a mistake that Manetho made when he wrote that Hyksos meant ‘shepherd kings’. This erroneous etymology led many scholars to imagine a nomadic Semitic people, and some even equated them with the Hebrews, and to the descent of Joseph and his brothers into Egypt as part of the invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos (Gottwald, p.392). However, Joseph and/or his brothers, certainly did not become a pharaoh(s), but the Hyksos did. It is now known that Manetho’s ‘Hyksos’ is a rendering of an old Egyptian term meaning ‘rulers of foreign lands’. The Hebrews did not rule any foreign lands, and some other problems for aligning the Hyksos with the Hebrews is the use of chariots, the establishment of urban settlements, political centralisation and feudal stratification. (Gottwald, p393). Thus, in broad brush-strokes, we have an outline which may describe the arrival, presence and the influence of the Hebrews in Egypt. The Hebrews may well have been one of the many attested to Semitic peoples in Egypt, but we have no direct evidence of anything ‘Hebrew’ in Egypt. Therefore, to say that there was ‘Hebrew influence’ in Egypt is misleading and uncalled for, there is nothing in Egypt that can be said with any degree of certainty belonged to an ethnic group called’ Hebrews’. You can correct me here if you can provide any DIRECT evidence, but I know there isn’t any as yet. The Israelites who were Semitics of Canaanite/Palestinian origin, and may have been the "Hyksos" who temporarily controlled Egypt.Now your source is entering the realms of nonsense. The Hyksos contradict almost everything we know about the Israelites. The Hyksos ruled foreign lands, they were a composite people, they became pharaohs, they were not nomads, they built urban centres, they built temples and palaces in Egypt, they battled with the Egyptians, and they were routed out of Egypt. This is almost a completely reverse picture of everything we are told about the Hebrews in the Bible.I also think that the equating of ‘Canaanite’ with ‘Israelite’ is not something that can be supported either. In the Bible the authors go to great lengths to emphasise the difference between God’s chosen people and Canaanites. That the Hebrews may have originally came from Canaan doesn’t affect the case, what is required is evidence that can be identified as ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Israelite’ rather than Canaanite.Now the next quote is taken from the ‘Exodus Revealed video, and is not directly from Bietak. In 1966, Manfred Bietak --head of the Austrian Institute of Archaeology-- excavated ruins at Avaris (Tel el-Dab'a) in the Nile Delta, and discovered a settlement of "Asiatics," which is a term that Egyptians used for people from Canaan/Palestine.
The inhabitants of Tel el-Dab'a were not Egyptians, but were Semitic Canaanites.
They were of the Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze Age Culture, and none of the remains are Egyptian. This is incorrect to say that none of the remains were Egyptian, Beitak informs us on page 10 of his book whilst discussing the initial settlement of Canaanites at Tell el-Dab’a: Whereas the houses and cemeteries display foreign features, the construction of the tombs is purely Egyptian. The same is true of the material culture. Only 20% of the pottery from the settlement debris was of Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze Age type: the majority of the ceramics was Egyptian. (emphases mine)You also have to forgive us for not blindly accepting the assertions made in the rest of the quoteThe U-shaped floor-plans and walls of their buildings are exactly like those later constructed by Hebrews in Israel. None of the house types or their location at Tell-el-Dab’a are mentioned here, no references are given for where in Israel we would find buildings exactly like those at Tell el-Dab’a, what is it we are to compare?Their burial methods were different than the Egyptians. Again, no explanation as to how they were different, how do we know if they are different if your source doesn’t tell us the differences?Are the burial methods similar to Hebrew burial methods?Do you know what the burial methods were?This time would be not long after the time of Joseph (see Genesis chapters 37-50) --perhaps somewhere around 1500 BC.As far as the patriarchs are concerned you can pick any number out the air that you want to, they are simply lost in history, no one nowadays even bothers trying to date the patriarchal period. There may have been other Semitic cities as well. Of course there are other Semitic cities, Beitak even mentions them, how your source doesn’t know this is only goes to show how poorly researched this work is. So, apparently, we have direct archaeological evidence of the presence of at least several tens of thousands of Semites with Hebrew culture established in cities in the Nile Delta around the very time that the Bible says the Hebrews were there. We do not have direct evidence of any Hebrew culture in Egypt, at least you haven’t supplied any yet. Oh, I will do you a favour, no archaeologist in the last 120 years has ever found any ‘direct evidence’ of Hebrews in Egypt.If you want us to take these claims seriously then I personally require references, and so far you are really getting upset at us for not simply taking someone’s word for what they are saying. I am used to supporting everything I write, whether at a forum, at school or at university, I cannot take any claim seriously that consists of ‘and ‘x’ happened, so we know that ‘y’ did to’, this is what these claims amount to. Very, very little that you have been offering comes with any references for us to check out. The suggestion that Hebrews may have been amid the Semitic element of the Hyksos may be a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it is nothing more, it certainly isn’t as clear cut as this webpage says, no one can say that there is direct evidence of Hebrews in Egypt, there is direct evidence of Semites but to include the Hebrews because the Bible says so is to go beyond the material evidence.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 06-29-2004 04:01 PM

All I'm doing is the easy part. You have gone to a lot of time consuming effort to produce the needed information which you've supplied concerning the pharoahs, etc. Imo, what you've supplied has not been effectively countered by our counterparts.1. Nobody knows for sure as to the absolute details concerning the pharoahs and concerning the identity of the foreigners.2. We do know however, that there has been no better explanation for a foreign settlement right smak dab in the best of the land, the fertile Goshen region, than the Biblical record of Joseph saving Egypt from starvation during the 7 years of drout.3. We have the imperical evidence of the chariots corroborated by the other remarkable factors. Pardon my oft repeating this, but it doesn't seem to have sunken into the minds of our counterparts yet. This evidence lends credence to the Biblical record concerning who the slaves in Egypt were. Scientists, historians and archeologists work from the imperical evidence and go from there for formulating hypotheses into theories. That's what I'm insisting should be allowed here. The chariot wheels coupled with the other stuff, imo, is of better quality than evolutionists have for theories they have formulated, and for sure every bit as good. Yet our counterparts keep trying to sweep these under the rug or offer some rediculous aliby for their presence and focus on this and that pharoah, important stuff as it is, but regardless of who's guess is right those wheels are right there in the right place with the right stuff around them shouting as it were, HELLO,LOOK AT US, AND THE UNKNOWNS WILL FALL IN PLACE IN TIME!4. The chariot wheels, most of which were the six spoke, fit the ticket.5. There is ample archeological reference to slaves in Egypt as the video shows during this dynasty and there's some mystery concerning unfinished tombs, abrupt unexplained absense of certain key individuals and so forth which tend to enforce the Biblical account.6. The Bible is most certainly a relatively early historical record for the region with plenty of archeological evidence verifying much of what skeptics once thought were myth. These discoveries continually lend credence to that which has not yet been verified and much which will never be verified because the evidence has been either destroyed or as in the case of the wandering Hebrews and their encampments, there were no permanent buildings and such which would be still around thousands of years later. There is however, across from Nuweiba in Iraq (Midian) those pillars, the split rock, that black top mountain and the bull inscriptions, all enforcing the Biblical explanation for the very unusual real existing phenomenon of the chariots in the gulf. Yah, and what would they gain, but ridicule for perpetrating such a lie laced in with their historical record, kept by their scribes? The notion is nonsense.

Nor has it been established that they were not. However the corroborating evidence lends support to the hypothesis that they were slaves. 1. Again, other evidence lends credence that they were the Hebrews.
2. How can you present your personal view and flat out label L'machus's view as false. Isn't that ingenuous and meanspiritedly arrogant on your part? After all, neither of you have proven your hypotheses on this now, have you? Paul, imo, you need to scratch your claim of fact until you have indeed proven your statements to be so.About the Hyksos: http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/18.html - 8kAnd This very interesting and relevant information for our discussion/debate: I appologize for the length of this post, but the information in this these links are important enough, imo to warrant the bringing forth of this information. http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/joseph.htm Forget Wyatt's wheel and focus in on the Moller's photography in the gulf of the literal chariot junkyard. We've produced the imperical evidence of the "chariot graveyard." Now it's up to you to unsubstantiate it, not for us to resubstantiate it, for cryin out loud. Ah ha. Your're absolutely right. Thanks Paul. The expulsion was a hundred years before the Exodus, which enforces the Biblical record, that accurate historical record, which states that the king of the Exodus knew not the pharoah of Joseph (Hyksos pharoah). Now we're getting someplace. The only remaining Hyksos residing in Egypt during the time of the Exodus were the Hebrew Hyksos who were now the so called, Hyksos slavesi. Paul, Paul, me friend, you're talking to adults here, not four year olds. Your silly nonsensical statements above are nothing but last ditch bottom of the barrel scrappings so as to say something, anything in your rejection the presented evidence. Wyatt was not a millionaire who had the resorces to effect all this evasive fantasy of yours. Get real, man! Nothing to do with the Israelites? Read the above and go figure again.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Well since you eventually admit that the Hyksos expulsion is NOT the Exodus and that the Hyksos at most included the Israelites in their society there is little more to say on the subject. And if you have any evidence that the Isrealites WERE part of the Hyksos society then you need to produce it instead of just saying it exists.As to your point 3 I showed that it was false by producing a better explanation that does not require inventing a large slave population without archaeological or reliable historical evidence. Don't call me arrogant for presenting the truth while Lysimachus rants at people for daring to disagree with him That's out and out hypocritical.If you REALLY want to know about the evidence of the Hyksos - Bietak's work has already been referred to and there is Manetho. If you want to say that there is any reasonable doubt about the existence and nature of the Hyksos you better come up wiht more than a refusal to accept it. There's been enough discussion on this thread already - and the sources you quote support my claims.I've already dealt with Moller's photographs - and if you don't want to be treated like a four year old then you'd better stop acting like one. "Is not!"- which is all your comments add up to - is not an adequate response. You've got one wheel (which I suspect to be "planted") and a few coral formations that MIGHT be built around some sort of wheel - no way to confirm that they came off a chariot of they they've been there more than a few decades. I've pointed all this out. And no Wyatt cannot be forgotten since it is his followers working on a site that he "discovered". I am not about to forget facts that happen to be inconvenient to you. Wyatt didn't need millions of dollars - the tens of thousands he bilked others of are quite enough. How much would it cost to mock up something shaped roughly like a chariot wheel, for coral to grow on ? He only needs a few - because there are only a few photographs to account for. In fact without a scale - there is none on the photographs it could be considerably smaller than a genuine chariot wheel.All you are doing is claiming that since you have got a few photographs everything Moller says about them must be accepted as Gospel truth. Sorry, but it's no "fantasy" to disagree with that. No reaonable person would accept it. And the nature of the claim and the Wyatt association are quite enough to require strong evidence - and what you have produced doesn't cut it.As to your last sentence I suggest that YOU reread the sources YOU~ posted

quote:

---

Greek authors later rendered this as "Hyksos," which was mistranslated as "shepherd kings." For this reason many scholars believed the Hyksos to be the Hebrews,although there is no archaeological basis for this assumption. They were probably city dwellers from southern Palestine.

---

So many scholars made an ASSUMPTION based on a MISTRANSLATION which at the time of Redford's writing still had NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL BASIS.Did you read that ? "Go figure again".And if the Israelites arose locally in Palestine how can they have been a distinct people in Egypt before then ?

Say what??? I just showed that according to the Biblical record the Hyksos expulsion IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE THE EXODUS. That however does not diminish from the sensible likelihood that the Hebrews would be considerded as Hyksos since according to the Biblical record they were involved with Hyksos government, Joseph being next to one of the Pharoahs and that they were given prime land by Egypt. That the settlement is likely Hebrew is corroborated by the other evidence including the imperical evidence in the gulf. The Biblical record, itself being relatively early history adds to that, all of which is far more than you have to the contrary. LOL!! In context, the paragraph was about who the Hyksos were. The above segment which you took out of context simply states that some scholars thought the Hyksos to be the Hebrews. This is what had no archeological basis. As the Biblical record would indicate, the Hyksos would not have been the Hebrews. Rather the Hebrews would be regarded as a segment of the foreign Hyksos occupation of the Nile Delta. Big difference!That I didn't respond to some of your yada is because it was just that -- yada which I have no time for. It's tedious enough simply addressing the absurdity of some of your arguments.

Well I see your record of using "yada" to refer to valid points you can't answer continues. The same old lie, again and again.The alleged remains in the gulf have no clear links to the buildings, and say nothing directly about Israelites or slavery. So your claim to have corroborating evidence was - as expected - entirely false.And you need to think again about the quote. It shows NO archaeological evidence of an Israelite presence in the delta during the Hyksos period. That is what it says. Assumign that the Israelites were with the Hyksos is just that - an assumption with no support from the archaeology of the area.

A better explanation? Have we had an explanation yet?I have already explained who the Hyksos were, so I will explain who the ‘Apiru were, and I seriously didn’t think there were still people who equated the ‘Apiru with the Hebrews since it has been over 60 years since the connection was broken!The problem began with the discovery of the ‘ha-bi-ru’ in the letters of king IR-Heba of Jerusalem in the Amarna archives. But discoveries of the 30’s and 40's have made the equation invalid. With the discovery and publication of the clay tablets from the Hittite capital Hattusa the proof was produced, in the 1920’s, for Winckler's supposition that the Sumeriogram sa.gaz which, according to the lexicographical lists, has the reading habbatu (m) 'robbers' (and 'itinerant workers'), is to be read in the Akkadian (and Hittite) texts of the Hittite and Syro-Palestinian state offices usually, even if not exclusively, hab/piru (Wieppert, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of Recent Scholarly Debate 1971, SCM Press, London, page 64)The general characteristic of the 'Apiru turns out to be sociopolitical rather than ethnic or economic. They cannot be characterised as ethnically homogeneous in any one location, nor are they tied to any single economic activity throughout the Near East. In short, an ‘Apiru could have been a Hittite, Hurrian, Phoenician, or almost any other nationality of the ancient near east, they were not identified by their ethnicity. They were a social stratum, best defined as outsiders, people on the fringes of society, or people with no political affiliations. The one trait that best comprehends all the 'apiru appears to be that of the outsider status they occupy in comparison with the regnant social and political order. The term "outlaw" conveniently catches the double nuance of the 'apiru as those who stand recognisably outside the prevailing order, both as "fugitives" or "refugees" who flee from the dominant order and as "robbers" or "rebels" who prey upon or threaten the dominant order. But "outlaw," except as broadly redefined, tends to miss the many grades and variations of adaptation of which the 'apiru "outsiders" were capable vis-a-vis the dominant social order. While standing distinguishably apart from the existing order, they also relied upon it insofar as their livelihood was dependent upon the wider society, for which they often worked either as individual "contract labourers" or as hired groups of soldiers, agricultural labourers, or construction gangs. (Gottwald N K, 1979 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE , SCM Press, London, p. 402)A major problem for equating the ‘Apiru with the Hebrews is that whereas the Hebrews were said to be an ethnic group situated solely within Egypt, the ‘Apiru are mentioned in texts from all over the ancient nears east in a time frame lasting from c.2000 -1200 BCE.Initially, the apparent similarity between the terms had the ‘biblical archaeologists’ all excited and they were sure that the Amarna ‘Apiru were indeed the Hebrews, but the ‘Apiru are too frequently mentioned in different areas and times to support the equation. For example, in Mesopotamia, they are in evidence through the periods of Ur III, 1 Babylon, and after; in the Nuzi texts (fifteenth century) they play an especially prominent role, while documents from Mari (eighteenth century) and Alalakh (seventeenth and fifteenth centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throughout the patriarchal age. In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century) knew them, as did those of Boghazkoy (fourteenth century). They are likewise mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (fourteenth century). Egyptian documents of the Empire period (fifteenth to twelfth century) refer to them, both as foes and rebels in Asia and as bondsmen in Egypt. The Amarna letters (fourteenth century), where they appear in Palestine and adjoining areas as disturbers of the peace, are the best witness to them of all. Obviously, a people found all over western Asia from the end of the third millennium to about the eleventh century cannot lightly be identified with the ancestors of Israel! (Bright, J. 1972 A History of Israel , SCM Press, London, page 92)Now according to the dates we have been getting on this thread, the Exodus happened in 1446, but at the same time, in the Alalakh texts from fifteenth-century northern Syria, settlements of 'Apiru are recorded in forty-three places, where they appear as state supported warriors. In a few instances the former occupations of ‘Apiru are listed. In Alalakh Tablet (AT) 180, some of the former occupations of the ‘Apiru are given, they included, ‘an armed thief, a priest, and even an hazannu official’ (Wiseman, D J. ‘The Alalakh Tablets’, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London 1953, p.12)The only two books that I have at hand that contain translations of all the discovered texts in the above list are Wiseman’s ‘The Alalakh Tablets’, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London 1953, and C R Condor’s ‘The Tell Amarna tablets.’ Watt for Palestine Exploration Fund, London : 1894, which is more than enough to demonstrate that people need to let go of this fairytale that was exposed 60 years ago, the Hebrews cannot be equated with the ‘Apiru of the Amarna Letters.It was way back in 1939 that it became clear beyond all doubt that the consonantal element of the word ha-bi-ru, which could not be clearly determined from the cuneiform script, had to be established as '-p-r, whereby at least all etymologies dependent on the root *HBR were excluded, and corresponding attempts with *'BR and the 'ibrim became dubious. Contrary to what Lysimachus claimed in an earlier post the word ‘Apiru is not of Hebrew origin, and, of course, the Hebrew word for ‘Hebrew’ is ibrim. The origin of the word is not known for certain: ‘there is no certainty as to the language (NW Semitic, Hurrian, etc.) or the verbal root from which the sociopolitical technical term (‘Apiru) was originally drawn (Gottwald, page 401).Another myth that needs to be exposed is this erroneous belief that the ‘Apiru invaded Canaan, it simply didn’t happen that way, there was no outside force that invaded Canaan mentioned in the Amarna Letters. The letters explicitly state that the warfare was purely internal, small Canaanite city states were fighting against other Canaanite city states and the ‘Apiru mentioned were hired soldiers, mercenaries, who were already living in Canaan.In fact, the ultra conservative Christian scholar John Bimson wrote in 1978 that ‘Study of the Amarna correspondence itself shows that the role of the Apiru in the Amarna period does not resemble the activities of the invading Hebrews during the Conquest as presented in the biblical traditions’ (Redating the Exodus and Conquest, JSOT, Sheffield University Press, page 243).Canaan during the Amarna period can be summed up as being a collection of city-states ruled by local vassals of Egypt. These local princes ruled cities that were under Egyptian administration but at times they were stilled referred to as ‘kings’. Some of these local ‘kings’ were trying to break free from Egyptian control and at the same time trying to increase the size of their own territories by seizing land from their neighbours. To help achieve these aims, they hired troops and mercenaries, in the Amarna letters (EA) the mercenaries are identified as ‘Apiru or SA.GAZ.’ Your servant was/is in the land of A [bi (]. Its horses and its chariots [they have given ] to the SA.GAZ; they have not g[iven them] to the king, my lord. When Biridashwa saw this deed, he stirred up the city of Yanuamma against me and closed the gate behind me. Then he took chariots from Ashtarte and gave them to the SA.GAZ; he did not give them to the king, my lord. And Arzawiya went to Qadesh and took the army of Aziru. He seized Shaddu and gave it to the SA.GAZ; he did not give it to the king, my lord. See! Itatkama has caused the loss of the land of Qadesh, and behold, Arzawiya with Biridashwa have caused the loss of Abi. (EA 197)You can see here that it is the local Canaanite princes who are fighting each other, and the victor actually gave the city of Shaddu to the ‘Apiru, this is contrary to the Joshua narratives where the Israelites conquer the entire land by themselves.In the Alalakh census lists of armed SA.GAZ/'apiru there is more precise information. AT 180 refers to two charioteers among 29 men, AT 182 mentions 7 charioteers among 29 men, and AT 183 and AT 226 speak of 80 charioteers among 1,436 men. Thus, while the great majority of armed 'apiru at Alalakh were infantry, a significant minority were charioteers. Given the general social disdain in which 'Apiru appear to have been held, and the fact that they are listed separately from the upper classes, it is doubtful that these Alalakh 'apiru charioteers were members of the military elite. It is probably more accurate to think of them as former feudal aristocrats, maryannu, who, as fugitives from other city-states, brought their skills in chariotry to Alalakh and were hired to drive chariots owned by local aristocrats. The 'Apiru captives from Canaan who are mentioned in Egypt, however, are never associated with chariots; when they are described as warriors, they, are infantrymen and clearly distinguished from the maryannu chariot-warriors (Wiseman, p.12).Given the alleged atrocious and vicious way in which the Israelite God was supposed to have treated the Egyptians, EA 286 gives us some confusing information, the letter to an Egyptian commissioner enquires: ‘"Why do you favour the 'Apiru but hate the governors [i.e., local dynasts]?" (Gottwald, p.403). It is difficult to imagine any Egyptian having sympathy for a group whose God just ripped the heart out of his country!In EA 288, ER-Heba of Jerusalem declares, ’see! Zimridathe town(smen) of Lachish have smitten him, servants who have become 'apiru.. It is beyond me as to how one can become a Hebrew, since Hebrew is an ethnic group surely you have to be born a Hebrew.What is even more fascinating is that one can become an ‘Apiru for a period of time and them revert back to ones former social status. King Idrimi of Alalah is forced by a revolt on the part of the inhabitants of his father's royal city of Aleppo to leave the city along with his brothers and lead a wandering life among the bedouin and in the cities of Emar and Ammiya. In Ammiya ‘in the land of Canaan’ he gathers about him people from his home states (Aleppo, Mugis, 'Ama'u), and with them he prepares his return to power. Before the description of the mobilisation of his expeditionary force he summarises, in his autobiography, the preceding period of flight as follows: ’a-na li-bi erin.mes ltjsa.gaz a-na Mu.y.KAM.MES as-ba-ku 'amongst the 'apiru-people. I remained for seven years', i.e., 'for seven years I was an ‘Apiru' (Weippert, p.67).Probably the strongest reason for rejecting the ‘Apiru/Hebrew equation can be found in EA 148, where the king of Hazor is said to be giving support to the ‘Apiru, ‘The king of Hasura has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the `Apiru’.This contradicts the Book of Judges where Hazor is a source of opposition to the Israelites. One example from Judges 4:2-3 ‘So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.’I could go on and on, but I think you should have the picture by now. The ‘Apiru were not an ethnic group, they consisted of many different nationalities. Obviously, we all know that the Israelites were a people, a nation, an ethnic group that emphasised their distinction from all other groups, therefore we have a distinction between the ‘Apiru and the Hebrews. In Canaan the ‘Apiru were for hire as mercenaries by the local princes, this contradicts the biblical version of the conquest of Canaan.Finally, from Lysimachus’ post 159 The video speaks of the Amarna letters as being the GREATEST proof of the Israelites dwelling in Canaan, so how can you say that the Amarna letters are the greatest proof against it? This doesn't jibe, and leads me to believe that is just how you interpret it. The Amarna inscriptions speak of the "Apiru" invading Canaan. The word "Apiru" is of Hebrew origin, and are most likely the Israelites. This is yet more evidence as to why this video isn’t being taken seriously by any specialist, to say that the Amarna Letters are the greatest proof of Israelites dwelling in Canaan shows a complete ignorance of the subject, I honestly believe that any first year uni student would never make this mistake.The reason why the Amarna Letters are the greatest proof against this hypothesis is because the letters are dated to around 1400-1360 BCE. The Exodus, so we are told, was in 1446, this, obviously, was to allow the 40 years wandering before arriving at Palestine in c. 1400, which suited the Bible brigade as there was some conflict in Palestine at that time. However, the Amarna Letters tell us that Palestine was still under Egyptian control, they tell us that there were no invading Israelite hordes as the fighting was all internal. So, when Joshua and his armies were meant to be flattening the whole of Palestine, the local landowners didn’t appear to notice them, they were too busy fighting with each other. So, Lysimachus, the Amarna Letters are yet another source that has been misused by this video, we have a lie about there being no Egyptian remains at Tell el-Dab’a, we have a lie about the Amarna Letters being proof that there were Israelites in Palestine in the early 14th century, and we also have the lie that the Amarna inscriptions speak of the ‘Apiru invading Canaan.There was no invasion, as Manfred Weippert explains: From the results achieved hitherto, it seems to me possible to determine also the character and the role of the 'Apiru mentioned in the Amarna letters better than has generally been done till now.(1971) Mendenhall is certainly right when he rejects the concept of a great 'Apiru invasion of Palestine and Syria in the Amarna period. The texts clearly state that city kings, princes, countries, 'mayors', cities (communities of citizens), belong to the 'Apiru or join up with them. (page 71)If you still believe that the ‘Apiru invaded Canaan, then I would appreciate the catalogue number of the Tell el-Amarna Letter (s) that support this claim.Brian.

But you havent given us a time. That there was slaves in Egypt was not exactly a secret, anyone making up a story would have no fear of contradiction by claiming this. The presence of which folk, the slaves? There are literally thousands of sources that mention slaves in Egypt, that the Bible is the ONLY source that claims there were Hebrews in Egypt is suspicious. Also the explanation that the Bible gives is stuff that fairytales are made of. We all know the Joseph myth, what we dont have is any direct external evidence, nothing at all except a story in a book written about a thousand years after the alleged events. Again, welcome to the fundamentalists world of circular reasoning. The Bible is such a great historical source that it fails to mention the name of the central character of the whole event, the pharaoh! Wonder why that was Buz? The growth rate suggested by the Bible has also been proven to be of fairytale proportions. When an alleged 'historical' source is as consistenty inaccurate as the Bible is known to be, at some stage we have to recognise that we may be reading it in the wrong context. Why on earth would they not be called Hebrews? Why would they be called 'rulers of foreign lands' when they weren't rulers of foreign lands? These oft repeated claims have oft been asked for supporting evidence, all we have been given are unreferenced claptrap. What evidence have Paul and I been given to support the claims about 'Thutmosis' and 'Amenhotep' being official positions rather than personal names, and what have we been given that says a pharaoh took the name 'Amenhotep' on ascension to the throne, what have we been given that supports a pharoah leaving inscriptions where he refers to himself as both 'Thutmosis' and 'Amenhotep'? I will tell you the evidence, Ron Wyatt simply says so in his crazy article, that is it, nothing else, it is embarrassing, and is no surprise that this hypothesis isn't being taken seriously, there is nothing credible about it at all. Heck, we got two million people and herds of animals running two marathons a day for a week to reach the Red Sea, and you see nothing wrong with that LOL? Apart from the mountain of archaeological evidence that negates this so-called Exodus, the evidence that you keep ignoring. There is already plenty of perfectly reasonable reasons for foreigners in Egypt. many foreigners set up trading posts there, many were employed as soldiers and many had even settled there permanently, what is the big deal?Brian.

Yah sure. Just like so far as you and Paul are concerned the imperical evidence of the chariots in the gulf and the corroborating factors all in place in the region are fairy tales. Like Lysimuahus says, it's becoming evident that no matter how much evidence, it's futility debating with you people who blatantly refuse to acknowledge the evidence we do produce. Why should we bother with the other? What we've produced attests to the fact that the Biblical historical account is not fairy tale. You all want us to recognize what you consider evidence as to evolution yet when it comes to anything attesting to the evidence of the supernatural dimension in the universe, that's gotta be all fairy tale so far as you're concerned.That the existing evidence lends credence to the Biblical account should have some bearing on whether the parts of the account, that which neither your interpretation or ours can be proven have credibility. But no, to you it's all fairy tale, regardless of the evidence at hand. It's becoming a futile waste of time. It's evident that if we had twice the evidence, your closed minds would reject it. Like I said, you're like the Pharasees who watched as Lazarus was raised up from the dead and who immediately went about to kill Jesus rather than to admit their own falasies concerning the messiah of their scriptures.

buzsawSo far I believe the evidence you claim to have produced consists of...

• Some chariot wheels which may or may not exist which can not be verified and which could have come from anytime during the 17th, 18th or 19th dynasty.
• some ruins that may have been occupied by a semitic people.
• a mountian top at some location that may show signs of having been burned.
• lots of conjecture about Egyptian Dynasties that is not supported by any evidence.
• a plain.
• an alleged land bridge that does not show on any of the hydrographic maps of the area.

Did I leave out any of your alleged evidence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well it's obvious that since the evidence you HAVE got is grossly inadequate you're resorting to the old "sour grapes" tactics of complaining that NO amount of evidence would be good enough.Where have we denied the existence of the evidence you HAVE produced ?What about all the problems that have been shown with Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history ? And the evidence that has NOT been produced to support that ?What about all the attempts you and Lysimachus have made to deny Wyatt's involvement ? That evidence is something you don't want considered !

The six spoke became popular about the time of the Exodus as the four spoke were diminishing in popularity. Both are present, but I believe more of the six than the four. They DO exist and the video verifies their existence. They have been photographed by several different sources, Wyatt being the first and the pioneer, Moller from the U of Sweden and the woman (won't get her name until I review the video again.) She's a foreigner also. Likely others have witnessed these too. .......supported by Biblical history, enforced by the crossing evidence and never been effectively refuted by anyone. No, not just "a plain." This's the attitude you people have. The plain has significance, being in a strategic location at the foot of Mt. Sinai as well as some important evidence you've not mentioned, being the 12 pillars which the Bible says Moses built in the region. Wrong. An underwater sand bar which an army could cross on if the water were pushed back. If you think it's not there, it's up to you to show your stuff. Maybe it would've been well to have reread my list before posting. How about the split rock with the obvious waterflow from an elevation whre there shouldn't be a flow. How about the Nuweiba beach surrounded by mountains so as to entrap two million people, this being the only possible of such in the whole region. How about the bull inscriptions in the apparently man made rock formation. How about the trade route leading to the Nuweiba area? How about the fact that all these items are in the right place in the exact order sequence which the Biblical account calls for? How about all these? These all lend credence to the unknowns so far as the pharoahs and the Hyksos go, etc relative to the Biblical account.

I did. I posted links to the hydrographic charts of the whole Red-Reed Sea area.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion