Theory: Why The Exodus Myth Exists

You could ask him if you could post it?

I'm sorry that I seem to have disappointed you. You apparently wish to tilt at my referrence to 'West Semitic Dialect'. Perhaps the following will prove equally disappointing to you:

quote:

---

The true identity of the Hyksos can now easily be ascertained through the examination of two bodies of evidence: archaeological and linguistic. We shall have occasion below to look more closely at the archaeological record; but suffice to say for the present that recent excavations at such Hyksos sites in the eastern Delta as Tel-ed-Dab`a and Tel el-Maskhuta have revealed an intrusive culture whose ceramic and artifactual content differs not at all from the culture of contemporary MB IIb Palestine and Phoenicia. The linguistic picture is wholly consistent. Contemporary Egyptian texts from the time of the wars of liberation and the early 18th Dynasty call the invaders `(3)mw -- that is, speakers of a West Semetic tongue. Although the Hyksos have left behind no inscriptions in their native language, a number of their personal names have turned up on seals and dedicatory texts, and these can be analyzed syntactically and lexically. It is abundantly clear from such an analysis that we are dealing with personal names from a West Semitic dialect -- all but two names sustain West Semitic derivation, and none permit Hurrian.

​

- see Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford
- [emphasis added - CA]

---

No doubt your disappointment in Redford will be matched by your disappointment in Mazar:

quote:

---

Yet the glory of the Middle Kingdom was over, and soon Egypt entered a period of weakness and instability known as the "Second Intermediate Period". The term "Hyksos" was used by Menetho, the Hellenistic Egyptian historian, to designate the foreign rulers of Lower Egypt (the Delta region) at that time. In fact, the name originated from the two Egyptian words hekau khasut, "foreign rulers." These foreigners were Canaanites who settled in the eastern Delta and founded a local dynasty, designated as the Fifteenth Dynasty in Egyptian history. Their capital was Avaris (biblical Zoan), identified with Tell el-Dab`a, where excavations have revealed a huge city with a material culture almost identical to that of MBIIB in Palestine and Syria.

​

- see Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. by Amihai Mazar
- [emphasis added - CA]

---

Moving on to further disappointments ...

quote:

---

The full extent of Hyksos rule and influence is still unclear, but the evidence points to Egypt, Palestine and parts of Syria. Also, to what extent they should be credited with the introduction into the area of such developments as the rampart, war chariot and the composite bow is still not entirely clear, though the latter two are thought more likely than the first. Politically, they organized Palestine into a city-state system producing a feudal society with its concomitant uneven distribution of wealth. Nevertheless, Palestine experienced one of its most prosperous periods under Hyksos rule. Along with Horites and other groups, the Hyksos formed the population from which came the "pre-Israelites" (Dever's term) at the end of LBA and the beginning of Iron Age I.

​

- see Archaeology and the Bible by John C. H. Laughlin
- [emphasis added - CA]

---

I, on the other hand, am no less disappointed in such sophistry as ... As for why the "Exodus Myth Exists", what you offer is, in my opinion, superficial and entirely speculative. Sorry to disappoint.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-26-2003]

CAthiest said,Tell me, for example, why you're 'theory' is more compelling than viewing the Exodus saga as a conflation of the Sargon legend with an inversion of the Hyksos experience?CAthiest,
I also explored the possibility of this being the story of Moses and the Exodus but I too found it lacking for obvious reasons.Rei said,
but let's not kid ourselves: the Sargon legend has nothing to do with slavery, nor with Egypt, nor with YHVH. They're clearly extrapolating from their own experiences and religious beliefs.REI,
I tend to agree with you also, there is not enough evidence in this Sargon legend to satisfactorily convince me either.

Joseph Campbell Occidental Mythology, (NY, 1964)1. Sargon’s birth: "Sargon am I, the mighty king, monarch of Agade. My mother was of lowly birth; my father I knew not; the brother of my father is a mountain dweller; and my city, Azupirana, lies on the bank of the Euphrates.My lowly mother conceived and bore me in secrecy; placed me in a basket of rushes; sealed it with bitumen, and set me in the river, which, however, did not engulf me. The river bore me up. And it carried me to Akku, the irrigator, who took me from the river, raised me as his son, made of me a gardener; and while I was a gardener, then goddess Ishtar loved me. The I ruled the kingdom..." (p.73)2. Moses’ birth: EXODUS 2:1-4: Now a man from the house of Levi [we read] went and took to wife a daughter of Levi. The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. And his sister stood at a distance, to know what would be done to him...3. "[T]he legend of Moses' birth is obviously modeled on the earlier birth story of Sargon of Agade (c.2350 BC), and is clearly not of Egypt, since in Egypt bitumen or pitch was not used before Ptolemaic times, when it was introduced from Palestine (127).The name Moses itself is Egyptian. It is the normal word for "child" and occurs among the names, for example, of the pharoahs of Dynasty XVIII....the idea that an Egyptian princess could have thought the word to be Hebrew shows that the story-tellers do not always think their problems through: And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharoah's daughter, and he became her son; and she named him Moses [Hebrew Mosheh], for she said, "Because I drew him out [Hebrew mashah] of the water" (128).

quote:

---

Neither a 15th century BCE date (e.g. 1440), nor a 13th Century BCE date (e.g., 1290) addresses the problems raised by Redford and others. Furthermore, an absence of evidence is hardly a coequal burden/embarrassment in this case, simply because anything as dramatic as a plague of plagues, the decimation of an empire, an Exodus of a few million wandering Israelites, and the subsequent conquest should have left significant evidence.

---

Well.... I dunno about the historical part but Humphreys (a physicist) has proposed explanations for the plagues, and the crossing of the sea in his new bookThe Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories
Colin Humphreys

Hello folks! After browsing around the internet, I stumbled upon this site. Just tell a bit about myself, I'm an old time forummer from various other scientific oriented websites. I realize I'm coming in this thread a bit late, but I believe it is worth reviving.I must admit, however, that after reading all the vast negativity and "evidence" suggesting the "impossibility" of various biblical accounts I was disheartened.I must say that in a way, I agree with Mike and Buzsaw, though I feel they should have done a much better job at defending their case since they had very little to stand on (sorry guys).Let me first say that I perceive a lot of pride and staunch close-mindedness in some of you. You may claim that you are looking at everything from an unbiased approach through a solely scientific means, but this I tell you is where you seriously err.I am 99% convinced in the discoveries of Ron Wyatt, and you will get to read why I believe as such as you read my arguments. I also believe most or all of the accusations against Ron Wyatt are false. I have read almost all of the accusations against Mr. Wyatt’s discoveries (including all of your links Asqara), as well as carefully comparing and analyzing his claims, and have come to the conclusion that the media has appallingly lied about him. Bear in mind that I have a good friend by the name of Andrew Jones who was part of Ron’s team and actually was at the diving site at the Exodus Crossing, and he has testified to the validity and certainty of these discoveries. I hope that people like NosyNed, PaulK and Asqara will open their minds to a wide range of thoughts they most likely have never before pondered on.I believe that the Exodus, as well as all of the events recorded in the Biblical accounts actually happened just like the Bible said. There is reason for this too. We Christians have a much higher sense of faith when it comes to the Biblical records, but, we also have a secular sense of faith that exists for what has been written in various history books. An example could be a history book recalling the Mongol conquest, or Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. We know for a fact that these events happened, simply for the fact that a little faith had to be exercised in that what these historians were telling us was true.Same principle applies to the scriptures, but to even a higher degree. We know (or should know) that enough of the writings in the bible have been well preserved--more so than we realize. But, the question as to whether Bible texts are well preserved is an important one. In ancient times when the books of the bible were copied out, it was naturally done by hand as printing processes came several thousand years later. Copying biblical texts was a special profession, and the slightest mistake was unacceptable. One small error and the whole transcript was destroyed. There were long lists of requirements to be fulfilled in order for the transcript to be approved, and the scribe had many rules to follow in his work. This very thorough control and the fact that Bible texts were considered holy means that the original texts have been preserved in a unique way.The New Testament books of the Bible, which are about 1900 years old, have a much greater degree of precision compared with the original documents than any other antique literature. If the Greek classics are considered reliable versions of the original texts, then the New Testament texts are far and away better. In comparison, something as late as the works of Shakespeare from the eighteenth century (after the introduction of book-printing skills) have missing texts in many places. When Shakespeare’s plays are performed these gaps must be filled or interpreted. There are more than 24,000 hand-written copies of the New Testament from various times, which show that nothing has been lost in different transcripts. The oldest copies are from a time when eye-witnesses were still alive. In classical literature 1000 years may have passed form the time a work was written until the first preserved copy.As for the Old Testament texts, of which the books of the Pentateuch are the first, there are a number of factors indicating that they are the original texts. They were written down by Moses, in part dictated directly by the Lord himself (according to the Bible), or they described EVENTS which Moses, as eye-witness could follow in detail. This first transcript was a holy object, which was kept in the Holy of Holies in the Ark of the Covenant, in the Tabernacle where only the High Priest was allowed to enter. An entire tribe (the tribe of Levi) had as its sole task to take care of, transport and protect the Tabernacle and its contents. Those who came into contact with the Ark in an unsuitable way e.g. during transport, died on the spot. This, to say the least, afforded special protection for these texts.Later, those who made copies were under tight control, as has been mentioned above. One small error and the ENTIRE COPY was scrapped. This was confirmed by the Qumran discoveries in 1947. At that time a document was found that was the Bible book of Isaiah. This document was about a thousand years older than the oldest copy of Isaiah then known. The texts were 95% identical, and the remaining 5% were mainly spelling variations. As far as content was concerned there were no differences.There are also other demands one should make where biblical texts are concerned. Historical events and place names must be correct. This can be difficult when languages change, develop and are influenced by others. During a mere hundred years many names of towns and places in Sweden have changed their spelling and pronunciation. Regarding the accuracy of biblical texts in relating historical events, one can say that the more archaeological finds there are, the more we understand these texts, and realize that many of the things we did not understand before, are in fact correct.Based on this, one can safely conduct intelligent research of various archeological sites to test the fundamental hypothesis that the Bible texts that one is dealing with are a true historical document. These sites have been verified by a number of ‘higher-badge’ scientists and archeologists than Mr. Wyatt, and have concluded that the sites do have archeological value to them. You may ask why would Mr. Wyatt’s discoveries be more accurate to scripture than say other Christian sources? The answer is simple: Ron has been the only archeologist proven to take the Bible seriously and conduct his searches according to scripture.
His research, along with other archeologists have done a spectacular job at showing that traditional maps (such as ones in the back of any bible) are wrong in many respects. They follow mans traditions in which they can easily take a location, and for example; name it Wilderness of Shur. But the reality is, the people who designed these maps have no way of providing any archeological evidence for placing names on these different locations. Tradition is fine until it goes against the bible. A lot of traditional locations people used in the Exodus regions have been located where they are because popular archeologists and historians have not done their homeworkand in so doing, place Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula, where it doesn’t belong. Thus they use circular reasoning by stating that Mt. Sinai has to be located in the Sinai peninsula because Shur is located there, and then at some other convenient time will say well Shur is located in the Sinai Peninsula (east side of the Gulf of Suez) because Mt. Sinai is located there! What utter lunacy! How unreasonable can you get?PaulK,

quote:

---

"...I have seen the photographs of one of these chariot wheels and it does not look like an Egyptian chariot wheel. It looks more like an Assyrian chariot wheel of the ninth or eight century BC..."

---

I really feel sorry for you PaulK, you know that? You really fall for this stuff. But here is what some of these critics/character assassins FAIL TO COMPREHEND! If we were dealing with one chariot wheel here, then MAYBE THERE WOULD BE A CASE! But it is NOT ONE chariot wheel. We are talking about MANY! And it was not just Ron who saw them, but there were a number of eyewitnesses! It is absolutely impossible for them to be Assyrian chariot wheels. What would Assyrian chariot wheels be doing in the middle of the Gulf of Aqaba?! It is NOT an Assyrian chariot wheel, and this has been proven by its shape. Whoever can say that this wheel does not look Egyptian, but rather Assyrian, has to be blind! If you would read the book The Exodus Case (http://www.leocordia.com/exodus/) by Lennart Moller, you would see that a clear comparison has already been made. Graphical comparisons have been made; it has been clearly shown to be identical to the Egyptian gilt wheel.The Exodus Case, pg 211 states:Chariot Wheels On The Sea-bedIt is important to note that the sea-bed was scraped clean. Corals are found everywhere in the Red Sea, but in order to grow they must have something on which to fasten. Corals do not begin to grow on sand, or anything of that kind. It might thus be generally assumed that since the sea-bed was scraped clean at the crossing, and there are now a great deal of corals in the area, these corals have fastened to objects which ended up on the sea-bed, when the Egyptian army perished there.The problem is that it becomes difficult to identify different objects, since the corals have grown over them, besides this they have often grown into other corals. If corals start to grow on organic material like wood, the wood will be consumed by coral growth, and after a certain amount of time only the shape remains. It must also be noted that there are strong currents in the area, and the water is deep. Altogether this makes it difficult to identify structures.There is good reason to suppose that many of the lighter objects have been taken down into the deep trenches, alongside the underwater bridge, by the strong tidal currents. These deep trenches are up to 1900 metres in depth, and it is completely impossible to investigate these depths without very special equipment e.g. such as was used to find the Titanic.The most simple structures to recognize are the wheels, and there are a number of wheels on the underwater bridge. Coral does not grow on structures in the silt, which means that the gilded wheel in figures 380 and 382 can be clearly seen.Note: Since I cannot show you these pictures, I will provide similar pictures right here: And here are others: [Note: 8 spoked chariot wheel identified at bottom of Red Sea]The wheel (first, second, and third image) is roughly a metre in diameter and has four spokes. The frame is of wood and the entire wheel is gilded. The wheel is of a strong construction, and is probably more representative of wheels used in warfare and long distance transport, than the ceremonial wheels found in the graves of several pharaohs. It should be noted that so far, no wheels have been found anywhere other than in a few pharaonic burial chambers.The gilt wheel was attached to a chariot towards the rear of the troops, and probably belonged to the priesthood. The higher officers and Pharaoh himself, who possibly had gilt wheels, were probably much further forward in troop formation.(continued...)This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 05-31-2004 04:03 PMThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-13-2004 12:39 PM

---

~Lysimachus

The gilt wheel is unique in many ways:1. It is the first wheel discovered anywhere other than in a burial chamber.2. It is the first gilt wheel that has been found.3. The construction differs from the wheels found in burial chambers, with regard to the actual wheel ring (stronger), the spokes (more robust) and the hub, which was a different technical construction to the ceremonial chariots. On the other hand, it is very similar to what is found in Egyptian inscriptions.4. This wheel can be clearly identified, since it has been in the silt, and therefore has no coral growing on it.The wheel is very fragile, since the wooden remains have decomposed to a great extent. It is known from inscriptions that gilded chariots existed. There is an inscription concerning Thutmosis III (18th dynasty), which speaks of golden chariots in many different situations. This is repeated several times in the document.Click to see the Egyptian inscriptions (wheels extremely similar):Page not found - Anchor Stone International
Page not found - Anchor Stone International(As I said, if you do not feel this SINGLE chariot does not look ‘good enough’ to convince you, there are yet many other chariot wheels to consider, including 6 and 8 spoke wheels)In the above figures, a comparison is seen between the goldplated wheel, and a drawing made from a modern military illustration of an Egypt war chariot (I have not been able to find this drawing on the net, but it is virtually identical to the gold gilded wheel) approximately 1430 BC.The pictures are available in the book as you can see: These wheels look very similar. In the same figure there is a drawing from an Egyptian inscription from the 18th dynasty (Page not found - Anchor Stone International). The inscription illustrates Egyptians producing four-spoked wheels of a similar character as the wheel found on the sea-bed.During the 18th dynasty, Egypt was a powerful nation with a strong army. They had a lot of chariots, either produced in Egypt or as war trophies. In one battle, to take an example, the war trophy was 2041 horses, suggesting that it also included a number of chariots as well.The biblical text (ex. 14:6-7) says that 600 chosen chariots (probably the best chariots with their elite soldiers) were used in the Exodus campaign in addition to all the chariots of Egypt. All the chariots must have included all the chariots taken as war trophies during the campaigns, suggesting a great variety in design.There is much more written material that I could provide, but for the sake of not wearying your eyes, I will cut it short. However, I do sincerely believe that anyone would have to be a fool to not take these discoveries seriously. I believe that one day the world will see who Ron Wyatt really was. They scoff at his finds, and one day they will see that his little insignificant finds weren’t so little and insignificant after all.Repeated dives in depths ranging from 60 to 200 feet deep (18m to 60m), over a stretch of almost 2.5 km, has shown that the chariot parts are scattered across the sea bed. All these artifacts found including wheels, chariot bodies as well as human and horse bones along with ALL the evidence pointing that the Gulf of Aqaba IS the CORRECT location according to the Biblical account should lead one to believe with out of doubt that at least there must be a great deal of truth to the Bible. Divers have located wreckage on the Saudi coastline opposite Nuweiba as well.(Take a look at the beach in which the Israelites encamped. It could easily hold 2-3 million people. The Israelites traveled through the Wadi Watir passage way through the mountains, and then found themselves entangled or trapped just like Josephus said. On top of this, ALL of the wheels are found across this beach on the underwater land which can be easily seen in graphical illustrations. safeco3Underwater bridge: Clear computer graphic illustration:
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe4A.jpgBones Found on the Sea Bed: Coincidence? Or more of which to add to the ‘grand puzzle’?It totally amuses me, as well as perplexes me, how popular scientists and archeologists start on the premise that something is wrong, so therefore they will muster all they have to discredit ONE portion of an archeological remain, but they are never able to thoroughly refute the finds on a large scale. They simply can’t ignore the so many pieces that fit together. Period!Right within the same area where the chariot wheels exist (on the underwater land bridge) are bones laying on the sea bed. A human femur bone, apparent human skeletal remains, parts of cattle skeletons, and parts of horse skeletons from the Red Sea bed have ALL been identified and examined.Now I am not going to go into detail, for lack of time, for each of the bones. I will however delve into detail as to why such bones can still exist under the Red Sea after approx. 3400 years, as well as evaluate the human femur bone. But do take faith that there were cattle, horse, and other human skeletal remains identified.Petrification and Coral GrowthFirstly, most skeletal parts that have ended up on the Red Sea have become petrified if embedded in oxygen free sediments. This entails a form of fossilization. The Red Sea has a high salt content, and contains a great deal of calcium (CaCO3). The Red Sea is a tropical sea with a high degree of biological activity, and it has an abundance of microscopic organisms which bore into objects. This means that sea water can quickly force its way in, and have an effect on substances that find themselves in the water. This leads to a relatively quick process of petrification; from a geological point of view.If skeletal parts lie open and accessible, and are not buried in sediment, then corals settle and begin to grow. This can make it very difficult to find identifiable skeletal parts. There is a large quantity of skeletal parts on the sea-bed at the place of the crossing, but they are often piled up together in large heaps and covered in corals, which makes the precise identification of individual skeletal parts well nigh impossible. But there are also several examples of skeletal parts which can be identified.A Human Femur bone (Note: The book, The Exodus Case, provides two color photos of better quality not found on the net)In the above figure, a human femur bone, several undred years old (brown), from a Swedish tomb compared with what is an almost certainly human femur (white) from the sea-bed of the underwater landbridge, of the Gulf of Aqaba. The skeletal parts are discussed in the following text.In this figure there is a thigh-bone (femur), which is almost certainly human. Next to the coral-covered thigh-bone from the Red Sea bed (the lighter one), there is a human thigh-bone (the darker one). These bones show identical characteristics on several points:1. The general impression, when the complete bone is shown, is that I t closely resembles a human thigh-bone.2. The ball and socket join is still there (angle of bones turned around of which online picture does not exist).3. The outgrowth to the left of the ball and socket join is there (angle of bones turned around of which online picture does not exist).4. The turn of the bone, and the proportions directly under the ball and socket join are, in the main, identical to the reference bone (angle of bones turned around of which online picture does not exist).5. The length and proportions of the bone tally.6. The inside of the knee-joint (indistinct part in above figure) consists of two larger parts with a depression between. The depression and the (in the picture) right raised part are intact. The left raised part is missing however.7. The proportions of the bone in the narrower and wider parts tally.8. Both bones show the typically, human arching of the thigh-bone when seen laterally (chimpanzees and gorillas have straight thigh-bones in respect).9. The length of the femur bone tallies with a human being, which can be seen from the figures and the measurements. The length of the thigh-bone corresponds with that of a person with a height of 166-173 cm. The span takes into account the margin of doubt in the tables, and which tables of reference are relevant (the tables are based on Caucasian- and Afro-Americans, and males and females, respectively). The estimated length tallies with what might be expecting regarding Egyptian soldiers. Egyptian mummies represent wealthy individuals, who have had no difficulty in obtaining food. There is good reason to suppose that soldiers were well-trained and had sufficient food, and thus are exemplified by the mummies discovered as far as height is concerned. Dunand and Lichtenberg, in their survey of mummies, indicate how tall these were. Individual heights are given fro six men, while the average height is said to be 1.65 m for men. For women the average height is 1.55m. This information is shown graphically (graphic illustration not available on web). As can be seen in the figure the calculated body height corresponds to a male.Regarding the age of the thigh-bone one can only say it is very old, which should mean several thousand years.But let me ask a question, can one honestly say to himself this is all coincidence and has nothing to do with the authenticity of the sacred scriptures? I think not. I think that anyone who has the nerve to be this dishonest has to go out of his way to deceive himself. The real crux of the matter has to do with pride of not wanting to accept the authenticity of the sacred scriptures, as well as not having to submit to a higher-beingone who was most definitely the cause of this impressive divine actthe parting of the Red SeaI will now continue addressing some serious, most deceptive, and false statements that have been made:

quote:

---

"In 1999, a new book was put out with MUCH more proof Wyatt's "discoveries" were false. "Holy Relics or Revelation" by Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish of the Hartland Institute gives detailed and well-documented proofs that Wyatt's "discoveries" were bogus."

---

Yet again, a perfect example of complete ignorance. I bet you a bottoms dollar that you don’t even know who Russel R. Standish and Colin D. Standish are! I know these men personally! I’ve met them, and my father knows them really well. Oh, I don’t even know where to start. Put it this way Paul, you don’t know the half of it! We have known these Standish brothers to be very critical of Wyatt’s research simply for the fact of jealousy. We know this to be true because the Standish brothers are Independent Adventists (working along with, but yet apart of the SDA church). There are a number of independent Adventist sects that have separated from the official SDA organization, and Ron Wyatt was of SDA orientation himself. The Standish brothers have loved archeology and history, and I have a strong feeling that the discoveries of Ron rubbed them the wrong way. I’ve read their arguments, and they can easily be rebuttalled.

quote:

---

"...One of the individuals who I interviewed, who lost approximately 30,00 thousand dollars to Ron Wyatt, went to Israel with him, supposedly to see some of these sights and record them on film. An assignment editor of a major television station in Nasheville went with them. Not only did this individual not see any of these incredible discoveries, but his wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Mr. Wyatt gave this couple some coins which he supposedly found at the Ark of the Covenant site. Again, one of Wyatt's sons informed the wife that Wyatt bought those coins."

---

This is an outright lie!!! What a fool you can be to fall for such things! You are trusting individuals who were already on the premise that these finds had to be false, thus did all in their power to discredit the claims. When there is a will to find something wrong with something, there will always be apparent material in which to work with.Ron’s sons have been interviewed to investigate if what they said was really true. They denied ever saying that their father planted a chariot wheel in the Dead Sea! There is also evidence for this in which I could get for you. Aside from this, could you in your wildest imagination possibly concur that Ron planted all that coral on those wheels? There is only one chariot wheel that doesn’t have coral on it, because it is gold, and coral cannot grow on metal. Only on the center of the wheel is there some coral because there is non-metal material; wood. The rest of the wheels are wooden, and have CLEAR shapes of chariot wheels. Their spokes as well as their axels can be identified.

quote:

---

"...However, be aware that those outside of the Wyatt camp have not been able to verify his data. Whenever trained archaeologists, scientists or other experts asked to examine the evidence, there were always reasons why he couldn’t produce it."

---

And do you have the slightest idea as to why it has been difficult to produce it? Lack of cooperation from governments and other scientists! Wyatt’s team has had to scrape every bit of possible money to do what they have done. Plus, this may be true of some trained archeologists, but not all. There are some who still do firmly believe. One example is the chariot wheels. It takes sophisticated equipment to raise the wheels intact! Ron died before he was able, thus the wheels are still at the bottom! Archeologists who claim they saw nothing when looking for these discoveries do not know where to look! Do you know why they cannot find these wheels? Because you have to be very lucky if you were to just randomly look for them. The underwater landbridge is very large, and you can only dive for so long. Ron and his team did not give up. They looked until they stumbled upon these awesome remains, and Ron decided to be very careful as to who he gave then information as to the location to. He knew he had enemies, and he knew that they would do anything to discredit him. Mary Nell Wyatt (Ron’s widow), still has plans for the team to go back to the site and excavate some of these wheels (particularly the gold gilded wheel). However, one needs the funds to do so, and it is still an impending project.

quote:

---

"Unfortunately, reputable Bible-believing archaeologists and other experts willing and capable of giving an objective assessment are never able to check out the claimed artifacts. There is generally a plausible-sounding story as to why that is impossible, or why the time is not right."

​

Here's some suspicious information - can you refute this ?

​

Or is it that anything that supports your beliefs - and only YOUR - beliefs is to be presumed true until disproven ?

---

All of the data I provided above has already thoroughly shown the criticisms to have serious flaws. What more do you want? Your problem is if you think one piece of so called evidence cannot be proven, then the overall picture cannot be proven. We work on the correct premise where we take in all the intricate details and view the whole picture. Various pieces to the picture (or puzzle if you want to call it) may not always fit, and in many cases will prove to be false, but the fact that all the other pieces fit quite nicely does not negate the veracity of the conceptin which so thoroughly correlates with scripture.We know that ONE of the most dramatic records of Divine intervention in history is the account of the Hebrew’s exodus from Egypt. In the subsequent drowning of the entire Egyptian army in the Red Sea was not an insignificant event, and confirmation of this even is compelling evidence that the Biblical narrative is truly authentic. Over the years, many divers have searched the Gulf of Suez in vain for artifacts to verify the Biblical account. But Mr. Wyatt along with other archeologists decided to carefully follow the Biblical and historical records of the Exodus, bringing them to Nuweiba, the large beach in the Gulf of Aqaba, as Ron Wyatt discovered in 1978. This is something that other archeologists and scientists have not been willing to do, and as a result do not get the glory.It is clearer and yet clearer every day why so many popular archeologists and scientists get frustrated with these discoveriessimply because they really just do not know what to do with them.Here are some additional links to evaluate for yourself. In order to get the FULL picture of please read these links carefully:Red Sea CrossingPage not found – Pinkoski.comNewsletter 02: January 1993 - Anchor Stone Internationalhttp://www.wyattarchaeology.com/red_sea.htmWyatt Archaeological Research - Official Site of Ron Wyatt's DiscoveriesThe full story of the Exodus Research:RedSeaIndexNoah’s Ark:Noah's Ark OverviewAnd to know the REAL story of Ron Wyatt’s discovery of Noah’s Ark, read this Newsletter, Part 1 to 10:Finding the ArkOh, and, before I forget. PaulK (and others), be sure to read the links, since I have read all those negative links many times beforeahem. They don’t stand a totem’s pole worth of evidence.As for the discoveries of Noah’s Ark. Ah, well that is another story. Let me briefly outline why I believe this to be true as well:Noah’s Ark: Coincidence, or Common Sense?Critics and skeptics from all of over the world have criticized Ron’s claims of discovering Noah’s Ark. But do their measly few points that lead one to question the consistency and makeup of various material hold up against the overall GRAND puzzle that has lead not only Mr. Wyatt but many other archeologists to believe that this boat formation located in Turkey HAS to be Noah’s Ark? Just like they did with the chariot wheels under the Red Sea, so they have done to Noah’s Ark. They COMPLETELY ignore the ‘whole picture’ or puzzle that made us come to the logical conclusion that it cannot be anything else BUT Noah’s Ark.I will ask questions and state my points as to why I personally believe Mr. Ron Wyatt found the TRUE Noahs Ark in the region of Ararat as stated in scripture. While you read this, be aware that I have read the numerous rebuttals from both creationist and evolutionist sources against Ron Wyatt and his teams claims. But I have also read Ron Wyatts teams rebuttals to the rebuttals. To me, there are too many points that fit considerably well supporting the theory that indeed, there was a Noah's Ark.My arguments are stated thus:Have you seen the video "Surprising Discoveries" by Jonathan Gray? It is a two part series (about 5+hrs long) that gives in-depth detail on why Ron Wyatt’s discovery on Noah’s Ark has to be genuine. If not, I recommend you see it, for it is one of the biggest eye opener videos you could ever see. The photos and discoveries are absolutely breathtaking. There are things seen in this video that may, well, should I sayshock you. After seeing this video, and then saying that evidence was not provided, then I do not know what you call evidence. I am not saying that I believe every discovery by Wyatt is 100 % genuine, but in a many areas such as the crossing of the Red Sea, Noah’s Ark, and Sodom and Gomorrah, these I am quite certain of.Here are some interesting factors to take into consideration concerning Noah’s Ark found in the Ararat region.Some interesting questions for evolutionists and archeologists to grapple with: (I will start with the menial arguments first and work up to the strongest)Why have antlers been found imbedded into the Ark?Why have rivets been found on every cross section of the boats frame? Thousands of them all around the boat have been identified. We also know that these rivets were pounded in the Ark using sophisticated technology based on the shafts.Why have petrified animal droppings been found in the Ark? Yes, large size petrified animal droppings have been identified and excavated when digging into the Ark. Why have animal bones been found as well?Why did the presence of organic carbon from the frame (ribs) of the boat testify that it was once living matter (wood)? The layers of these ribs show that they were carefully fit and sealed together.Why did the radar scanning give a complete, (computerized model) boat shape that is unmistakably the exact size of the real Noah’s Ark? Why does it give rib shapes around the whole boat?Why does the size of the boat precisely match the size given in the bible? Moses writes in the book of Genesis that Noah’s Ark was 300 cubits in length. Genesis 6:14-15 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. If we investigate which cubit Moses was using, we find that he used the Egyptian cubit which was 20.6 inches. Not the 18 inch cubit that is used today. Here is the math:Length of Ark = 300 cubits
1 cubit = 20.6 inches
3 cubits = 61.8 inches

​

300 cubits = 6180 inches
6180 divided by 12 = 515 feet.
Ark = 515 feetChristian archeologists decided to measure the ruins of Noah’s Ark. It measured to be 515 feet TO THE EXACT! Friends, we have immense evidence here!The Bible says that the Ark is located in the mountains of Ararat. Why is the Ark found in mountains, or, region of Ararat?How come the Assyrians have recorded accounts of their exploration of this same Ark and its location?Why do skeptics question has to how all the animals could fit in the Ark, when it has been thoroughly calculated that if all the species of animals were in the Ark, that ONLY 41% OF THE ARK WOULD BE OCCUPIED WITH ANIMALS? So the question is NOT, how did they fit all those animals, it is more like what did they do with all that extra room? It has also been calculated that 490 double-decker busses could fit in the Ark.Why is it that in the same area of the Ark there are ancient engraved carvings in stone alters (or graves) of 8 people side by side with a rain bow and a picture of a wave with a ship? These were absolutely shocking pictures, and no way could they possibly be set up there previously as a hoax. The local towns people in the area had known of the carvings, but did not know the meanings of them.Why were two human jawbones of gigantic size (large enough to stick your head in the mouth section) excavated not too far from that location? These jawbones were of such immense size (undoubtedly human, since you could see the bone clear as day in the photograph) testified the large size of man during the antediluvian world. Some scholars believe that these may be the remains of Noah and his wife, because they were dug up from tombstones that had engravings of a large boat with animals lined up and walking straight into it. Why did the human bones indicate that man measured to be about 12-14 feet in length? These indeed were immense giants. Contrary to evolutionistic theory. There are just so many mysteries that evolutionists absolutely refuse to tackle, and instead, throw it into a museum and label it a "cult excavation" (meaning, they can't make heads or tales out of it). As for the hard-core evidence of these jawbones, only pictures remain. Intelligent creationists are not very happy since the bones got in the wrong hands. Other creationists who were not very smart allowed the bones to get stolen. All we have now are photographs (which were seen in the video), but now there is no way to compare the bones to regular human bones.Why does the radar scanning give evidence for a large door in the front corner of the boat, along with ramps?If this boat shape was nothing more than a streamline caused by lava flow, why does the shape of the boat nullify the possibility for this theory to stand? If this were true, the mud flow would hit the obstruction and pile up behind it. The point of the boat is upward. It could only be man made.This was only a glimpse of the amount of evidence that points this astonishing discovery to none-other, but the real Noah’s Ark. Here is one final chart that testifies to this.Ancient civilizations give us clues as to where the Ark is located:
According to the numbers, compare with the findings below this chart:Ancient Civilization Clues:1. Ararat Region (The bible tells us that the Ark landed in the Ararat region)2. On the mountains3. On a hill-not a tall mountain4. On AL-JUDI5. On the WEST SIDE of the hill6. Beside a large rock7. At NISIR (The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II 883-859 B.C. recorded that the Ark was at NISIR)8. On a NORTH-SOUTH axisWhat we have found: (compare with above)1. Ararat region2. On a mountain range3. On a hill-not a tall mountain4. On the AL-JUDI slope5. On the WEST SIDE of the hill6. Beside a large rock-and impaled on it7. Beside a village shown on old maps as NISIR8. Aligned just 10 degrees from NORTH-SOUTHMy final word: see the video and get a hold of the excavation articles, video footage, photographs, and try and question these archeologists yourselves. Also, take note that Jonathan Gray used to be one of the biggest skeptics towards Ron Wyatt’s discovery on the Ark. He was convinced that Mr. Wyatt was wrong, and after Gray read an article in a Christian magazine on the skepticism toward the discovery, it only confirmed in his mind that Wyatt’s discoveries were bogus. However, Gray goes onto explain how he encountered Wyatt himself to question him, but eventually all of his skepticism slowly disappeared. This is because Gray decided to join the team and go see for himself. What he saw was the old remains of the true Biblical Noah’s Ark. If you find skeptical websites toward the findings of Noah’s Ark, and that go into detail showing how the large boat found in the Ararat region can not be Noah’s Ark, please compare with the charts and questions above and see which end of the scale weighs heavier.I do not know if you may find them at the library or not. But here is the link to order the videos:Click videos on the right, and there you'll see them. Be sure to get both part 1 and 2:http://www.surprisingdiscoveries.com/Here are a couple more websites to verify the discoveries I posted.Additional note:If you read this ten part article, you will see why Mr. Baumgardner failed to correctly utilize his scanner when evaluating Wyatt’s claims.Finding the Ark. Meeting with Salih Bayraktutan In July of 1987, one month after the dedication ceremony, John Baumgardner, Salih Bayraktutan of Ataturk University, Tom Fenner of GSSI, and others returned to the site to do their own radar scan under the authority of the Turkish Prime Ministry. We were given a copy of that report by a third party, and to be sure that it was authentic, I took a copy of it to Turkey on that 1992 tour group, and when Ron and I met with Salih Bayraktutan, I showed it to him and asked it if was authentic. He assured me that it was. The reason this report is important is because members of that effort are stating that they were unable to get the same radar results that Ron and Dave did, in an attempt to cast doubt on the accuracy of their scans.

​

In this highly scientifically written document, full of technical terms and expressions, it states "All of the scans shown in Figure 7 were obtained with the radar operating at a frequency of 120 MHz in order to achieve the maximum possible penetration." What this means is that they set the radar to reflect NOT what may lie WITHIN the structure, but what IS ON THE BOTTOM. And even then, their results did not nullify the earlier scans, which were done using various frequencies in order to reflect the structure at various depths.
In this official report, it states, "We conclude that the data from our geophysical investigations in no way conflict with the proposition that the unusual boat-shaped site near Mahser village contains the remains of Noah's Ark." It went on to state: "However, without actual samples of the subsurface materials we feel that definitive interpretations of our data are not possible. On the other hand, we believe samples obtainable through core-drilling a small number of holes in the site can provide the information required."

​

It must have taken a lot of nerve to write such a report, stating that their tests didn't "conflict with the idea that this was Noah's Ark" after the Turks had determined that it was. They even got to do their core drill in 1988, and when we spoke to Salih in 1992, he complained that several thousand dollars was still owed by the parties involved for the transporting of the drill rig and building a road to the site. I can write this - I heard it with my own two ears. - Mary Nell WyattAdditionally, if I may mention, Wyatt’s radar scanner was much more sophisticated and expensivegiving more accurate results than Baumgardner’s radar scanner.I have done my part in showing you why I believe the Bible to be a truly authentic booka book that needs to be taken more seriously.
You now have two options:1.You completely ignore all that I have said and insist that these finds are all faulty,or,2.You make the decision (using your will power) in your inmost being to be honest with yourself that all that has been presented definitely holds significance.You can be assured that I have done my homework on this issue and have carefully weighed the evidence as well as arguments presented on both sides. I hope that you have some faith on me in this, as well as some faith that the arguments presented are genuine.Marcos (aka~Lysimachus)

---

~Lysimachus

Hi Lysimachus,We have forum rules, one of which demands that you do not verbally attack a fellow member. Therefore, any more of this sort of remark :I really feel sorry for you PaulK, you know that? You are a perfect example of a real sucker. and your stay here will be very short-lived.AdminBrian.

Isn't Ron Wyatt the dude who claims he found with ark of the covenant? Underneath Jesus' crucifixion site? With Jesus' blood all over the mercy seat? And you're a whole 99% convinced of his discoveries?Edited to add:
I'm sorry, AdminBrian, but I couldn't resist pointing out the irony:

quote:

---

I really feel sorry for you PaulK, you know that? You are a perfect example of a real sucker.

---

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 05-31-2004 03:33 PM

Hi,I think Ron claimed to have found just about every artefact mentioned in the Bible, it is all very sad.I didn't miss the irony, and I am sure Paul will have a chuckle too.AdminBrian

Before trying to deal with the large amount of opinion you injected, I would like to consider a couple basic points.Before wondering if the ARK exists, wouldn't it be worthwhile condisering if a the World-wide Flood ever happened? If there is no evidence for a world-wide flood, and so far no one has shown any, then the issue of the ARK is moot. No flood, no Ark.Similarly, consider the Exodus myth. If there is no record, no eveidence of anything like the exodus, then the issue of the alleged Egyptian Chariot Chase is moot. No Exodus, no great pursuit.But to go one step further, even if chariot wheels were found in the area of the Red Sea, since there is a long and well documented history of miltary and commercial activity in the region, why would it not be far more reasonable to simply say that wheels from any one of the military or commercial ventures in the area were found. How can you tie a wheel to a particular incident?I'm sorry. Until you can show that there was a world-wide flood and that there was a great Hebrew Exodus from Egypt and a wheel found was actually from that particular event, you have nothing but myth and assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here is a better description of Wyatt's discovery of the ark of the covenant.Since we are discussing the "evidence" in favor of the Exodus, and evidence from Wyatt was presented, I think it is relevant to present this is show that Wyatt may not be the most reliable source for evidence.

From http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/ark.htm posted by Chiro:

quote:

---

Without warning, Ron's left hand pointed to a site being used as a rubbish dump and said, "That's Jeremiah's Grotto and the Ark of the Covenant is in there."

---

His left hand can speak? Holy Sinister Salutations Batman! If that's not an example of benevolent mutation in humans, I don't know what is.This message has been edited by custard, 05-31-2004 04:24 PM

Hi, could you clarify some things for me? Of course there is no possibility that your friend is/was as stupid or as crooked as Ron Wyatt was, or that there was no way your friend could have been conned? Well to be a Christian demands a much higher degree of faith since there is so little evidence to support it. So you only take these books as the sole source of evidence for what they claim, or do you look for and use external evidence? Any chance that you could support these statements with some hard evidence? You have the original documents to compare them with do you? Which wouldn’t be difficult, considering Ron had no training whatsoever in archaeology. But Ron wasn’t an archaeologist, where has he published his catalogues of artefacts? How many? It must come as a shock to you that the Bible doesn’t claim that the crossing was at the Red Sea, I know Richard Rives was when I e-mailed him about it. Presumably this will because every chariot in Egypt was at the bottom of the sea.Which pharaonic burial chambers would this be then, which ones have had chariot wheels discovered in them? A great many ‘probablys’ there dude. Which Tuthmosis III inscription would this be?It is no coincidence of course that the Bible at 1 Kings 6:1 dates the Exodus to 1446? This is a date that no biblical scholar or archaeologist adheres to today (except maybe 2 fruitloops) the 480 years may be artificial, and more than likely are when you consider that Machir, Joseph’s grandson, had sons born during the lifetime of Joseph, yet they not only settled in Egypt at the beginning of the stay, they were a part of the Conquest of Canaan as well, 430 years later!Genesis 50:23 And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees.Numbers 32:39-40 And the children of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorite which was in it. And Moses gave Gilead unto Machir the son of Manasseh; and he dwelt therein. Joshua 13:31 And half Gilead, and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were pertaining unto the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, even to the one half of the children of Machir by their families.Joshau 17:1 There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the firstborn of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.Any explanation for this ‘problem’ ?The mid 15th century Exodus is fine by me, it just means that the Israelites didn’t build Pithom or Rameses, the didn’t meet any Edomites or Moabites either, and they certainly didn’t stay at Kadesh Barnea. Of course no forger would have had access to these drawings before the ‘discovery’ was made. If anyone was going to forge a chariot wheel or two and they were a fundy Christian then it would be exactly from this time period. So you are happy with a mid 15th century Exodus, and therefore a c. 1400 conquest?Tell me, when every chariot in Egypt was lost, why didn’t Tuthmosis’ empire weaken at all? I believe that anyone taking these seriously has had some sort of head trauma, what difference does it make what you believe, you have to demonstrate the plausibility of it?You have to demonstrate some kind of connection between this event (if it is an event) and a group that are identifiable with the story told in the Bible. You cannot just turn around and say there are wheels in the Red Sea, we have a story in the Bible therefore the Bible story has been proven, it doesn’t work like that. This event, if it happened, would have had massive shock waves all over the ancient near east, yet it is invisible in the archaeological record.
Wyatt’s finds have been totally and utterly discredited, the wheels are in the wrong sea for goodness sake.Also, what evidence do you have of Israelites before the 9th century BCE? How could 70 people become 2-3 million in 430 years it simply isn’t possible, this stuff has been through the mill so often it is extremely boring, read some of the academic literature, not the Wyatt claptrap.How can 70 people become 2-3 million in 4 generations, Genesis 15:16But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.Or was it 215 years as the Seder Olam 3:2 claims or the 215 years that Josephus claims in Antiquities 14:2? So who are these archaeologists who discredit one part of a find and then reject it all, it doesn’t sound at all like any archaeologist I have read.Finally, could you tell me which book of the Tanakh is the oldest?Oh, and try to stay on topic.Brian.

I can see this drifting drastically away from the topic title. Can someone propose a new topic where Ron Wyatt's 'discoveries' can be discussed and I will open it in an appropriate forum?AdminBrian.This message has been edited by AdminBrian, 05-31-2004 04:28 PM