|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nope. I am not going to let you change the subject.
You can keep trying, but you will not suceed. The issue is "How can you connect the wheels to the Exodus?" Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
This thread is surpassing the 300 post count limit, before it self destructs like the last one I thought I would issue a warrning to mods. Might I suggest opening an Exodus Video III after 450 posts?
Cuz from the looks of this, this topic is hot and lively. Lets keep it goin, as it's been hours of entertainment so far
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Thank you, Lysimachus,
Let's summarize: 1. The maximum depth at the Nuweiba site is 800 - 850 meters. We already knew that. 2. Metal detector indicated what was interpreted to be a chariot wheel. Metal rims but not metal hubs? 3. Possible iron oxide associated with coral formations 4. Pictures of bones with no documented determination of age or origin. 5. Assertion: God provided a roadway on the seabed that could be easily traversed. It was very deep - . . . Very deep? I thought you said that before the "earthquake" it was much closer to the surface. Doesn't appear to be much evidence once you delete the superfluous narrative. But thanks anyway. Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Lysimachus,
Once again, any reasonable person will conclude these finds to be major. Perhaps many reasonable persons, particularly those who think in prelogical prescientific ways might come to that conclusion. Reasonable people believe many things that have been disproved scientifically. A fairly common one is that if you get cold you'll catch cold. I only mention this because it seems at least a dozen times a year I have to explain to people the viruses cause the common cold and not being cold. For this reason we have repeated the need for SCIENTIFIC validation of the evidence. Common sense is not a rigorous enough standard for science. Yes, it works very well for conversions or revivals but those are rhetorical religious emotional events and not science.
You're on a down-hill slope to perdition if you continue on your demonic crusade--this I know. Insisting that facts be scientifically evaluated is demonic? Trying to teach reason, logic, and science is demonic? very interesting. Projection involves someone feeling an emotion or holding a view that is unacceptable to them and so they experience, for example, anger, as not being what they are experiencing and attributed to the person they are angry with. You and Jim, and Hydarnes have at several points in the argument called names in what appeared to be an angry fashion because your beliefs were being challenged. If you stay with your church you can believe all the things you want. But if you wish to have your conjectures accepted as science then you have to do science and not religious rhetoric. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: That's easy. Evidence = Chariot wheels resembling Egyptian more than any other ancient civilization. Variety of spokes indicate Egyptian. Where = Gulf of Aqaba on the underwater land bridge across Nuweiba beach, off of both the East and West coasts. ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
so that's actually:
possible evidence. Are you starting to pick up how this works yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
Note: the following post is in response to Message 501 of Part 1 of this topic
PaulK,
quote: Quote exactly where you pointed that the molecular frequency generator does not work? It was the best on in the world back in those days. The man who invented it was renowned, and was even interviewed on CNN. Even the government used it! And what pseudo-scientific nonsense? You act as if someone attacks, there is no way for the defender to defend themselves. Mary Nell has specifically showed the false claims against this machine to be null and void, yet you seem to not acknowledge a defendants right. Your attitude goes contrary to court rules. This does not even entail the facts that NUMEROUS radar scanners have been employed on the site, ALL outputting the desired results!
quote: Let me reiterate what I originally meant. As for stating there is 100% certainty in the identifications of Amenhotep I and II , I shall recant. My fingers were obviously typing faster than my brain. What I should have said is that of all the mummies of the 18th dynasty, the mummies of Amenhotep I, Amenhotep II, and Tutankhamun are probably the only ones who are the individuals with whom they are connected. Amenhotep I, Amenhotep II, and Thutankhuman were the ONLY mummies that were found in their proper sarcophagi, and were the least tampered withmeaning that they favor more legitimacy over the rest of the mummies. Based on this likelihood, our hypothesis would play right in harmony with this situation. But our hypothesis is not based alone on the mummies or the number of reigning years. It also rests upon other playing factors of which I shall discuss later regarding evidence excavated in Caanan. So stay tuned.
quote: Of course they would both not be co-regents together if Thutmosis II was king of Egypt. But that’s not our hypothesis. We feel that the true Thutmosis II was Moses, as indicated by the relationships between Thutmosis II and Hatshepsut as illustrated with Horus, the falcon bird always beside them in descriptions. On top of this, according to Egyptologists, there is evidence that Senmut and Hatshepsut were lovers. We feel that Senmut assumed his new title Thutmosis II and that he was not a feeble person as Egyptologists indicate, since there is a vast amount of confusion as to the identification of his mummy. He only reigned 8/9 years, and then suddenly disappeared (left for Midian). We feel this could be an explanation. But once again, this is all immaterial to disqualifying the Exodus event.
quote: It depends on how either one of us interpret the word evidence. I feel a sufficient amount of evidence supports the fact that there is no real evidence when it comes to resolving the confusion that exists in the 18th dynasty and before. Since there are so many different ways you can make things fit, and since we believe in the authenticity of the sacred scriptures, we feel no less privileged to try and figure out how Egyptian history might fit into these events.
quote: Perhaps, perhaps not. The only real reason why scholars believe that Hatshepsut was a Pharaoh was based on the inscription king Hatshepsut Xnem Amen/MaatKaRe. They claim that that this is Hatshepsut with further additions to her name. Hatshepsut Xnem Amen means Hatshepsut united with Amen. Amen is the principle god during the 18th dynasty and another name for the sun god (Ra). The name means that the king with this name is the product of Hatshepsut in union with the god Amen, or the offspring of the union between Hatshepsut and the god Amen. We feel that according to this hypothesis, this king, or rather heir to the throne, was Moses with Hatshepsut as his co-ruler. So when someone is appointed heir to the throne, then inscriptions refer to this person as king. Moses would have been very closely connected to Hatshepsut since she was his only link to the to 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 into the existing system. This had to be done in such way because, Hatshepsut, was the daughter of the Pharaoh of whom had no sons! Remember, a woman 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.
quote: But of course, if a Pharaoh reigned a long time, and if it is true he had a co-regent as Thutmosis under him, and as long as he lives as long as the Pharaoh does, the co-ruling Thutmosis would have had recorded a long reign as co-regent. So this too has to be played into the scenario. There are a lot of twists and turns involved here. Scholars traditionally have Amenhotep III reigning from the 1390s to 1350s. That would throw Amenhotep III way out of the time the 1446BC Exodus was supposed to have occurred. However, if you crunch in the Pharaoh’s at least in some form, and not having all the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s be different people, it brings Amenhotep III down to the Exodus period. In an upcoming post, I will provide you data as to why I believe Amenhotep III had to have been in the 1400rds, around the Exodus period, and NOT the 1300rds. Based on this evidence, it forces us to have to crunch the Pharaoh’s together and not consider the Thutmosis’ as separate Pharaohs in the sequential line of succession. This is based on the fact the majority of sources seem to agree that Amenhotep I had to have started is reign approx. 1518 BC. Stay tuned.
quote: But this is not the section I was referring to. I was referring to this: The mummy that caused me the most consternation is that considered to be Amenhotep II's. Jim's conclusion was that his craniofacial morphology does not suit his being the son of Thutmose III and father of Thutmose IV, both of which Amenhotep II should be on the basis of textual evidence. Jim and I had long debates over this mummy whose identification as Amenhotep II had always seemed fairly certain; because although it had been rewrapped and placed in a replacement cartonnage coffin, this coffin was found lying within the original quartzite sarcophagus of Amenhotep II in his own tomb in the Valley of the Kings, and the restorers had inscribed Amenhotep II's prenomen on the mummy's shroud according to Loret's report of his discovery of the tomb of Amenhotep II. The craniofacial morphology of the mummy labeled Amenhotep III also made it difficult to place in the position he should occupy as son of Thutmose IV. Of the mummies in the collection only the one supposed to be Amenhotep II is a suitable candidate to have been the father of the Amenhotep III mummy. Over the years Jim became increasingly intrigued by the Amenhotep III mummy, because it is one of the most severely battered of the royal mummies, having suffered postmortem injuries of a very violent nature, more than what tomb-robbers generally inflicted upon the mummies in search of precious items. Since the publication of the x-ray atlas further study of this mummy has been undertaken by Jim and Dr. Fawzia Hussein, Director of the Anthropological Laboratory of the National Research Center, Cairo; and it has been ascertained that the skull is two standard deviations too large for his body, and its craniofacial characteristics are consonant with sculptured portraits of Akhenaten. Obviously if Thutmosis III was the same person as Amenhotep II, then of course the craniofacial morphology of Amenhotep II would not suit him being the son of Thutmosis III, now would it? Added to that, the craniofacial morphology does not suit Amenhotep II to be the father of Thutmosis IV, which falls right into our hypothesis, seeing that we have inscriptions that hint he was not a heir to the throne, and did not obtain it in the traditional way. Apparently, if Thutmosis IV was the natural heir to the throne, the story of his dream next to the Sphinx would not have needed to be told. It could be that Amenhotep II was childless. And finally, it is interesting to note that only the mummy of Amenhotep II seems to be the suitable candidate to be the father of Amenhotep III--adding in some bittersweet to our hypothesis, seeing that if Amenhotep III’s body had been recovered on the seashore (all battered up, JUST like Amenhotep III’s mummy is), this would make perfect sense. But if his mummy drowned and was not recovered, one can only assume this match to be chance (and then this leads one to question how much and why they seem to match). So as you can see, based on the mummies, we feel we have good reason believe our hypothesis to be a prospect in accordance with the Exodus account. This goes in accordance with a great deal of other playing factors in this scenario, such as Egypt’s declining empire exactly right after the reign of Amenhotep III, and calculations revolving the dating of the Exodus.
quote: In link #1, I do not read anywhere that it is conclusive that the statue without Nefure is Senmut. However, it is difficult to make heads or tales out of it since there are so many different statues, and different versions of Senmut’s end. In link #2, I have to be honest, but it still flashes through my brain how when I would see the statue of Hatshepsut, she always seemed somewhat manly in form. The breasts are barely distinguished, and do not differ much in the Senmut statues. Then we have the factor that both are wearing male headdresses. The statue of Senmut (of which I think is Nefure) seems to be somewhat less distinguished (but in small margin), which could easily be explained seeing that as the female grew older, she became more distinguished in bodily form as a woman. In link #3, I believe that statue is probably the statue of Senmut (however the inscription of Senmut has been erased, so this cannot be proven with 100% certainty). The headdress is very similar on the adult holding the child in the adult/child statue. But can we know for certain that this is indicative for the statues being the same person? No. I do realize that there is plenty of evidence supporting the fact that Nefure was the daughter of Hatshepsut. However, it was not uncommon for mothers to name their daughters after themselves. So we may never know if the Nefure being referred to later during Hatshepsut was the same Nefure. If Hatshepsut named her daughter after herself (Nefureher name before she attained the co-regency position), that could indeed change a lot of things.
quote: Your problem is, your question assumes there is evidence for the traditional chronologywhen that in itself is a hypothesis. The mummy confusion has driven many madresulting in a very pliable history of Egypt. And not all my scans are from Moller’s book. Most of them have been, but I look at Moller’s book as a compilation of sources. A total of 71 References from acclaimed Universities around the globe warrants a serious examination of these finds. You may never know, we may have more like Moller (perhaps with even higher credentials) join us in the not to distant future. If you go to Wyatt’s Newsletters, you will also notice the numerous sources they provide at the ends of their articles.
quote: So just because she has a daughter means she does not have a son? Remember, she would not have given birth to Moses. She adopted him. If you look at it from this context, it can make a great deal of sense. The inscriptions of a baby boy would make a great deal of sense if she had both a daughter and a adopted son. As if mothers don’t end up having more children!
quote: This inscription is speaking of the birth of Hatshepsut. It would not be surprising for this inscription to exist in the Deir-el-Bahari, seeing that this is where Hatshepsut grew up. But is this text specifically referring to the painting of the boy child growing up? Is there proof that the inscription is a description of that particular painting? It would seem hardly impossible seeing that we have paintings in other sections in the Deir-el-Bahari of Hatshepsut holding a boy child in her arms.
quote: What sort of jelly beans is this? What they say and what may be are two different things. This is a complete assertion with no real backing. There is no confirmation here about anything. It has already been established that many traditional Egyptologists claim the one who made the inscription was confused. We disagree. We believe there is some meaning behind what we see. If this had been an error, it seems that this surely would have been pointed out by those inhabiting the Deir-el-Bahari at the time. It just doesn’t seem right that it would have gone that long without someone pointing it out and not changing it.
quote: Once again, the only error that exists could well be the identification of this painting as an error.
quote: And please support your claim that they did not. It has been known throughout Egyptian history that individuals had multiple names associated with themselves throughout their lives. There is vast confusion when we solely rely on namesforcing us to integrate dates to see whether it all makes sense or not. Egyptian history is messed up big-time in many respects, there is no sin with inferring different ideas concerning the dynastiesand how it could tie in with the Exodus.
quote: I’m glad to see you acknowledge that. You at first gave me the impression that it did destroy the Exodus. It’s comforting to know that you really do not think that. There are most likely several variations of the 18th dynasty that we are not aware ofbut out of all this, there are two ideas of which I hold to firmly: 1. That the Exodus took place in the 18th dynasty2. That Amenhotep III was the Pharaoh of the Exodus These ideas are not based solely on Moller’s books. There are other factors that bring both of these points into highlight from several sources. This I will deal with at a later date.
quote: They would have failed only if they had claimed this rewrite as fact. But they do not. This is only a hypothesis, that to me, makes a great deal of sense based on the above data I provided, as well as upcoming data.
quote: Since when was the term compelling evidence utilized in regard to this hypothesis? As far as I am aware, this term has not been expressed once when solely referring to the proposed chronology of the 18th dynasty. This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-09-2004 05:56 PM This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-09-2004 05:57 PM ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
Ladies and gents, I'm getting back to the original good ol' discussions were were having in Part one of this topic. My brother and I have been in the process of responding massive posts, but it gets very difficult when you guys keep overwhelming us with more posts--making so we can never get anything. Slow down a little on your negative comments, and let's get back on track with discussing these issues intelligently.
~Lysimachus |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: Is that exactly what I said? Be careful Charles, don't dig yourself in a hole. Once again, look up the definition of evidence. Also bear in mind that evidence is interpreted in many ways by different individuals. We interpret this evidence as genuinely relating to the Exodus account. For me, it's settled. It's evidence. For you--well...it might mean drilling a beam to the center of the earth. ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Also bear in mind that evidence is interpreted in many ways by different individuals. This simply isn't true. Moreover, the only people I ever hear say this are the people who don't have any evidence; i.e. the creationists/Biblical literalists. One piece of evidence is like a point (you know, the geometric construct that has no dimension, only location.) Through one point, an infinite number of lines can be drawn. This is congruent with the statement "evidence can be interpreted in different ways", and it's true that given one piece of evidence, any number of explanations for it can be devised. But given two points, there's only one possible straight line that can be drawn between them; between multiple elements of evidence, there's really only one best explanation. Which is the best explanation? That's determined by the rules of informal logic and argumentation; like Occam's Razor (the rule of parsimony.) Those rules take lines and make them "straighter" - they make arguments "pass through" the least number of points, or posit the least amount of unverifiable consequences. It's simply bogus to say that "evidence can be interpreted in different ways"; not all interpretations are as valid as others. Defending one's interpretation is the function of rhetoric and logic; it is insufficient to simply say "I have my interpretation and you have yours." Interpretations must be defended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
But given two points, there's only one possible straight line that can be drawn between them; between multiple elements of evidence, there's really only one best explanation. Which is the best explanation? That's determined by the rules of informal logic and argumentation; So if my watch is stuck on 2pm, from when the bomb exploded, and my clock is also stuck on 2pm, and my alarm clock aswell. All the evidence suggest it was 2pm right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Nope - still not there - you are still talking about belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hydarnes Inactive Member |
*deleted post*
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-09-2004 06:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hydarnes Inactive Member |
*deleted post*
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-09-2004 06:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nope, not going to let you change the issue.
Once again,
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 312 by Hydarnes, posted 08-09-2004 7:25 PM | Hydarnes has not replied |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024