New Video: Pharoah's Actual Chariot Wheels In Sea!

Now they have them photographed along with much more archeological documentation along the Exodus trail of the Israelites.Then there's an ancient papyrus they found around the time of the 19th Dynasty of the Pharoahs describing the chaos this and the plagues of Moses created in Egypt and documenting that King Tut was the 1st born of the Pharoah who died in the plagues of Moses. This Pharoah who was killed with his army in the Gulf of Aqaba (spelling?) had the name of Tutmosa after whom Moses, his adopted son was named. Some claim Moses was groomed to be heir to the throne before he defected to the Israelites, but don't know about that.The Video is "The Exodus Revealed" and the book on this is "The Exodus Case."
Books, videos, available here: Anchor Stone International - Ron Wyatt, Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, Red Sea Crossing, Ark of the CovenantI understand they've found both 4 spoke and 5 or 6 spoke wheels encased in coral as well as human bones, both ox and horse bones.I saw some of the video pictures on the program "Prophecy in the News" on Sky Angel.

quote:

---

that King Tut was the 1st born of the Pharoah who died in the plagues of Moses.

---

That must have been a trick! He died once when the angel killed all the firstborn, and again when he got drowned a few days later? Amazing!

LOL. It was King Tutmoses who drowned. King Tut as we know him was the son of Tutmoses who Moses was named after.

So Tut, a firstborn son, was killed by the angel before he came to power, and before his father died. That would make it pretty tough for him to be Pharoah, being dead and all.

Being "dead and all" is exactly what kept him from the throne. According to the papri found from that dynasty, he was burried in the empty tomb which was intended for Tutmoses, his father who was unceremoneously burried at sea. All the gold and precious stuff intended to be burried with his father were put in his tomb.

Ron Wyatt was simply a crook, this is the same idiot that claimed that he had found the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark and Jesus crucifixion site.The guys was NOT an archaeologist, he was a nurse, he said he would reveal where these artefacts are when god told him to, thing is Ron died two years ago.Also, there is so much wrong with you info that it isnt worth commenting on.For example, there is no record of any Pharoah being drowned with his armies, read some real archaeology and antrhopology.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Ron Wyatt is not the author or publisher of this video and book, nor did was he the source of these pictures as I understand it. His website simply promotes and sell the book along with many others. Wyatt claimed to have seen these wheels, but I don't know about that. He and David Fassold made expeditions into Turkey where the boat shaped impression is in the hills of Aarat, along with over a dozen of what appears to be very large ballast stones in the area. I've seen the videos and slides on this and I am convinced that it is not the ark but the indentation in the hill where the ark rested before it rotted away, leaving this impression. The ballast stones are significant and the length of the impression matches the length of the ark. The ballast stones were strung along a few miles which seems to indicate they were cut loose as desired to bring the ark to the best location for resting.

Hi buz, maybe you can clear this up for me, it is regarding your Tuts in message 1 you write:

quote:

---

Then there's an ancient papyrus they found around the time of the 19th Dynasty of the Pharoahs describing the chaos this and the plagues of Moses created in Egypt and documenting that King Tut was the 1st born of the Pharoah who died in the plagues of Moses.

---

Now you say that King Tut was the first born of the Pharoah who died in the plagues of moses. How could he become king if he died before his father did?You then say:

quote:

---

LOL. It was King Tutmoses who drowned. King Tut as we know him was the son of Tutmoses who Moses was named after.

---

This is getting more confusing, I realise that I may be reading this incorrectly, if I am, I apologise in advance. You are saying that King Tutmoses drowned in the 'Sea of Reeds' crossing but his son, whom you call King Tut, would already be dead by then, in the final plague. How could he be a King if he died before his father did?then, finally you say:

quote:

---

Being "dead and all" is exactly what kept him from the throne. According to the papri found from that dynasty, he was burried in the empty tomb which was intended for Tutmoses, his father who was unceremoneously burried at sea. All the gold and precious stuff intended to be burried with his father were put in his tomb.

---

So he was kept from the throne, then why was he called KING Tut?Theres also a massive problem with this fantasy and the bible account. The bible says at Exodus 1:11 that the Israelites were used to build the Estate of Rameses, this was built on the old site of Avaris and could not have been built until well after the Tuts you mentioned died.There was no Pharaoh named rameses until c.1305, so the whole thing is a complete load of tosh.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

So far here's what I've come up with:
1. There was a place known as the "Estate of Rameses during the time of Joseph which was before Tutmosis and "King Tut." Deuteronomy 47:11 Joseph found a place for his father and brothers to live. He gave them an estate in the Rameses region, in the best area, as Pharaoh had ordered.2. There seems to be little known about Tutankhamen/King Tut.I found this"

quote:

---

Akhenaton, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, and Ay--were stricken from the royal lists and publicly condemned, the location of Tutankhamen's tomb was forgotten, and his relatively few monuments were usurped, chiefly by his former general, Horemheb, who later became pharaoh. In the 20th dynasty, when the tomb of Ramses VI was cut immediately above that of Tutankhamen, the stone rubble dumped down the side of the valley covered the young king's tomb with a deep layer of chips. The workers of the 20th dynasty came close to Tutankhamen's tomb and clearly had no knowledge of it. The tomb escaped the great series of robberies at the end of the 20th dynasty and was preserved until a systematic search of the Valley of the Kings revealed its location.

---

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/2815/tut.html3. I've learned that There was no successor to King Tut and anarchy did rule for a time, General Horembeb eventually ruling.4. The fact that the location of his tomb became so soon unknown seems to attest to the disarray of the kingdom during that time.5. King Tut died very young and cause of death is unknown.

Your Egyptian dynastic chronology is a bit off. In the first place, there were four Tuthmosis pharaohs over a period of some 200 years - all significantly pre-dating Tutankhamen (King "Tut"). In the second, Akhenaten was Tutankhamen's father. There is some evidence that Akhenaten was murdered - possibly because of his insistance on scrapping the old polytheistic religon and imposing monotheism - when Tut was around 9 years old by either Horemheb or Ay. A regency under Tut's uncle (and Akhenaten's chief general) Ay came next, during which the old religion was re-established (note the "-amen" suffix) until Tut was 18 and attempted to take power. His untimely demise let Ay take power (as Pharaoh Ay II) through a (possibly) forced marriage to Tut's sister. Ay held the position for only four years. Horemheb took over at that point. However, he died without issue, so his chief vizier and general, Ramses, took power at his death. It is Ramses (Ramses I) who is supposed to have been killed during the putative Exodus.Reality is better than soap opera. You should re-check your sources.

Hi Buz,Where are you getting this stuff from?This bit is inaccurate:

quote:

---

1. There was a place known as the "Estate of Rameses during the time of Joseph which was before Tutmosis and "King Tut."

---

There may well have been a place known as the 'Estate of Rameses during Joseph's time, but there was no Estate of Rameses during the time of any Tuts. You have your dynasties mixed up. The Tuts were from the 18th dynasty and Rameses was from the 19th.So, there was no Estate of Rameses in Tut's time because there was never a Pharaoh called Rameses before c.1304 bce.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 47:11 Joseph found a place for his father and brothers to live. He gave them an estate in the Rameses region, in the best area, as Pharaoh had ordered.

---

I do not have a Deuteronomy chapter 47 in any of the Bibles that I own. But you simply reinforce the fact that the Exodus had to happen after there was a pharaoh called Rameses, whether this is Rameses I or II is unknown, but it has to be one of these two as the Merneptah Stele (c.1203 BCE) mentions Israel in Canaan. The Israel mentioned in the stele refers to a people not to a land, which suggests that Israel had not yet fully settled in Canaan.I don't see what you are trying to prove with the rest of the post, maybe you could explain it to me a little clearer?Best WishesBrian.

It's Genesis 47:11 not Deuteronomy.But there's no reason to suppose that it refers to the name at the time of the events of the story, rather than a name that would be recognised at the time of writing.

quote:

---

There may well have been a place known as the 'Estate of Rameses during Joseph's time, but there was no Estate of Rameses during the time of any Tuts. You have your dynasties mixed up. The Tuts were from the 18th dynasty and Rameses was from the 19th.

---

My apologies. I got my Bible reference wrong, but according to the text there was such a place/location/region during Joseph's time which predated the Ramses, and if it was there during Joseph's time it would still be there at the time of Tut. Something could have been built there any time afterwards, imo, and before the Exodus. According to the Bible the Israelite slaves were being used heavily to make bricks, evidently for some extensive building projects.

quote:

---

So, there was no Estate of Rameses in Tut's time because there was never a Pharaoh called Rameses before c.1304 bce.

---

But according to the text (in Genesis) There was a place called the "Estate of Rameses," as I have shown, so there wouldn't, imo, need to be a Pharoah yet called Ramses to have something built there at the estate/area.Could Rameses been named after the place?? Imo, that would not be unusual.

quote:

---

But you simply reinforce the fact that the Exodus had to happen after there was a pharaoh called Rameses, whether this is Rameses I or II is unknown, but it has to be one of these two as the Merneptah Stele (c.1203 BCE) mentions Israel in Canaan. The Israel mentioned in the stele refers to a people not to a land, which suggests that Israel had not yet fully settled in Canaan.

---

According to the Bible, Israel/Jacob was settled in Caanan during Joseph's promotion to 2nd in command under the Pharoah of Egypt. There was a famine in Caanan and Israel/Jacob, along with Jacob's other 11 sons (Joseph's brothers) and they were given the Estate of Rameses in Egypt by Joseph to live. Then sometime much later during Moses's a later Egyptian Pharoah got worried about the increase in the numbers of the Israelites and enslaved them.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-17-2003]

Thanks Quetzal, for your information. It will take some time for me to assimilate all you've stated.In the mean time, according to Bishop Usher's Biblical dates the Exodus would have been a long time before the dates attributed to "King Tut." To my knowledge, the Bible does not name the Pharoah over Joseph. Hopefully someone will correct me if that's not the case.

Genesis 14:14 refers to Dan - do you want to argue that Dan existed in the time of Abram ?If 14:14 uses an anachronistic name for a location, why not 47:11 ?