All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 

Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:31 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Interesting chronology but i am umimpressed. Not only do you use Shoshenq I as Shishak, and 2nd Kings 6:1 to misdate the Exodus. But you do not explain the mothers! Yes, the mothers. There is more than a King in the production of a son. See below.
Source Women in Ancient Egypt by Gay Robings
Mothers of the Accepted Thutmose's and Amenhotep's Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty
Queen Ahhotep mother of Ahmose pg 42
Queen Ahmose-Nefertari mother of Amenhotep I pg 43
King's Mother Seniseneb mother of Thutmose I pg 45
King's Mother Mutnefert mother of Thutmose II (source http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis2.htm)
King's Mother Aset mother of Thutmose III pg 150
King's Mother Meritra mother of Amenhotep II pg 150
King's Mother Tiaa mother of Thutmose IV pg 150
King's Mother Mutemwia mother of Amenhotep III
Queen Tiy mother of Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten pg 52

King's mother Mutnefert mother of Thutmose II also blows your theory that Moses' is actually Thutmose III... she wasn't a King's daughter as the Bible claims for the stepmother of Moses. As for Nefure, becoming Hatshepsut??
i have to say that is interesting, the daughter becomes the mother! It is well documented that Nefure is the daugther of Thutmose II and his Queen Hatshepsut.

As for your post regarding how to get to 1446 BCE as the date of Exodus consider these facts.

The problem of 2nd Kings 6:1 and its 480 years is that it disagrees and is unsuppported by Judges 2:18 and the rest of Judges. Read it for yourself and do the math Lysimachus. Judges and Kings 6:1 do not agree. Please offer an explanation and which one you believe is correct? (But remember pay attention to the statement in Judges 2:18, so few do!)

Regarding the Misidentification of Shoshenq I as Shishak.

Karol Mysliwiec in The Twilight of Ancient Egypt, First Millennium BCE, Cornell University Press, english translation David Lorton, 2000. pg 45 makes it abundantly clear that Shoshenq I wasn't Shishak. He never invaded Judah let alone sacked Jerusalem.
Taken from Pharaohs and Kings A Biblical Quest by David Rohl, Crown Publishing 1995.
Champollion was wrong in his reading of the Shoshenq I's campainge. It wasn't Jerusalem but the place of the Kings Hand. pg. 122
Shoshenq does not easily translate into Shishak. pg 128.
Ramesses II does assult, and take the Canaanite town Shalem, the historical name of Jerusalem. pg 149.
Ramesses II name can be translated into Shishak. pgs 157-162.

The Merenptah Victory Stele is another source on the dating of Israel, and Exodus. However, due to the persistant belief that Exodus happens in either the 18th or 19th Dynasty. The concentration of the scholars is on the wording of the name Israel instead of on the entire stanza. The object of interest for the majority of scholars is the notation of Israel in this stanza as a non-city state people. i say big deal show me one case when Israel was ever considered a city state? What is consistantly missed by these same scholars is the first line of the stanza. Here we are told that Israel has a Prince and he is prostrated like the others begging peace.
This line states that the "Princes are prostrate saying Shalom."
When did Israel have a Prince? At and after the sacking of Jerusalem by Shishak. Israel had became a nation state not a city state unlike all the other place names. That were indicated on the Stele.
To make Ramesses II Shishak, not the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus, and Merenptah's mention of Israel as a nation state with a Prince. Pushes those events further back in time than most scholars are willing to do.



Oh, yes the mummy scandel, please see under Topic Mummies- thread titled Who is Who in the Mummy World.

The Deir el-Bahri cache also casts doubts on your slicing and dicement of the 18th Dynasty because it included the remains of Seqenenre-Taa, who had fought the Hyksos and bore a great head wound as apparent evidence, Ahmose I, the founder of the New Kingdom, Amenhotep I, the first three Tutmosids, Seti I, Ramesses II, III and IX, and the coffin of Ramesses I.

I see another problem with your theory on the Thutmose being the name of the coregencey not that of the Pharaoh himself. How does your theory excuse the remains of 3 seperate Thutmose Kings? Not to mention that in your theory Amenhotep I was originally the junior king under the name of Thutmose I, to Ahmose but in this one cache we have 3 bodies that correspond with Ahmose, his son Amenhotep I, and Thutmose I. How do you explain this?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:41 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Lysimachus, please tell me according to your chronology, who Joseph is in the Egyptian Kingdom? The Bible states his influence spans over 430 years. Please tell me who the Pharaoh of Abraham is?

It is not enough Lysimachus, to "find" the Exodus in Egypt... one must also be able to find Abraham, and the rest of it. Where it relates to Egypt. Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
My leg has been broke while I've been posting this stuff, and I'm going 3 hours away to the hospital and won't be back until Thursday so you're going to have to wait for a full response.


Regarding the mothers, no they are not left out of the picture. It is taken into account that Egypologists have tried to put Egyptian history together on their own and assume that such and such a women was the mother of so and so. Listen, let me make it clear. The whole chronology of which we are proposing here is so different, that it will take some time before you are able to alter your mind.

Moller doesn't just 1 Kings. He uses a statistical analysis of various verses throughout the Bible. The idea of the Exodus being at 1446 BC is ever becoming more accepted in traditional thinking, because it has been the most proven and solid date for the Exodus, and you will see that the verses to harmonize if you interpret them correctly.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to wait. Don't forget to watch that series when it is out.

And by the way, why is it that of all the archeological research I have done, I've never once heard of any of those doctors you mentioned? Must not be very popular. All I know is that Moller's theories are growing in great number, and very few have been able to prove him wrong on his theories. He rarely leaves any hole for criticism, but yet he comes across in a very balanced approach by not stating his hypotheses as facts. When it comes to Egyptian history, not much can be stated as fact. However, it is clear that the proposed hypothesis does stand on good grounds after a thorough read.

My brother understand Egyptian history better than I do, and he has done numerious studies in the past and has written several articles. Based on his years of research on Egypt's chronology, he has come to the conclusion that Moller's theory holds the strongest grounds. It matches up with the archeological finds, and it is only during the time of Thutmosis III/Amenhotep II and Thutmosis IV/Amenhotep III that various inscriptions are made relating to slaves in Egypt and Egyptians holding the whip, and an abundant evidence shows that it is only during these Pharaohs that there was a great population of Asiatics in the area. Three names gives us clues that there was a great number of Israelites during this time period that were severely enslaved (Hyksos, Apiru, Cannanites). None of these names have been proven to be a particular race, but rather "foreigners" dwelling in the land of Egypt.

Here is a good article for you to read:

The Hidden Moses
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/moses.htm

There is so much more to share that I don't even know where to start...I'm overwhelmed at knowing where to start because I have so much to share and I have so little time :(


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:44 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Lysimachus wrote:
My leg has been broke while I've been posting this stuff, and I'm going 3 hours away to the hospital and won't be back until Thursday so you're going to have to wait for a full response.


Regarding the mothers, no they are not left out of the picture. It is taken into account that Egypologists have tried to put Egyptian history together on their own and assume that such and such a women was the mother of so and so. Listen, let me make it clear. The whole chronology of which we are proposing here is so different, that it will take some time before you are able to alter your mind.

Moller doesn't just 1 Kings. He uses a statistical analysis of various verses throughout the Bible. The idea of the Exodus being at 1446 BC is ever becoming more accepted in traditional thinking, because it has been the most proven and solid date for the Exodus, and you will see that the verses to harmonize if you interpret them correctly.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to wait. Don't forget to watch that series when it is out.

And by the way, why is it that of all the archeological research I have done, I've never once heard of any of those doctors you mentioned? Must not be very popular. All I know is that Moller's theories are growing in great number, and very few have been able to prove him wrong on his theories. He rarely leaves any hole for criticism, but yet he comes across in a very balanced approach by not stating his hypotheses as facts. When it comes to Egyptian history, not much can be stated as fact. However, it is clear that the proposed hypothesis does stand on good grounds after a thorough read.

My brother understand Egyptian history better than I do, and he has done numerious studies in the past and has written several articles. Based on his years of research on Egypt's chronology, he has come to the conclusion that Moller's theory holds the strongest grounds. It matches up with the archeological finds, and it is only during the time of Thutmosis III/Amenhotep II and Thutmosis IV/Amenhotep III that various inscriptions are made relating to slaves in Egypt and Egyptians holding the whip, and an abundant evidence shows that it is only during these Pharaohs that there was a great population of Asiatics in the area. Three names gives us clues that there was a great number of Israelites during this time period that were severely enslaved (Hyksos, Apiru, Cannanites). None of these names have been proven to be a particular race, but rather "foreigners" dwelling in the land of Egypt.

Here is a good article for you to read:

The Hidden Moses
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/moses.htm

There is so much more to share that I don't even know where to start...I'm overwhelmed at knowing where to start because I have so much to share and I have so little time :(


LOL Lysimachus, Dr. Kitchen is just about an institution in Egyptology, with Dr. Redford seriously threatening that institution LOL as for Dr. Grimal he is France's institution LOL

I am sorry to hear you have broken your leg. You're proposed rearrangement of the 18th Dynasty isn't going to fly... espeically with me i am sorry. It is just to easy for folks to claim that Egyptian facts, chronology is off ... it allows for all kind of theories based upon... well, there just isn't enough real facts known about Egypt.

As for chronology of Egypt, i tend to use Dr. Zahi Hawass' chronology as i feel he knows the best information available and he accepts all the Thutmose's and Amenhotep's that are commonly accepted. Now you get him to endose your theory and i might reconsider it... without it no way... this is honest.

I am glad to hear that your Dr. Moller doesn't just use 1st Kings 6:1. However just the fact he uses it at all sends off warning lights all over for me. Again sorry, i am not going to buy it. The information in Judges nullifies any use of 2nd Kings 6:1.

Even if your slicing and dicing of the 18th Dynasty, your Moller and Wyatt's pinpointing of Exodus in the 18th Dynasty doesn't change the fact that the Bible reports that when the Hebrews left Egypt, it was depopulated, laid waste, and in ruins. This description in no way matches any part of the 18th Dynasty. Again, sorry.

Nor does an Exodus in the 18th Dynasty allow enough time for the Prince of Israel to take place in the reign of Merenptah's reign. Again sorry.

I consider King Mursilis I's Annual's which records happenings from his father Suppiluliumas I's reign. In them there is nothing mentioned of any disaster happening in Egypt outside of the death of Egypt's King and his widow's writing to him. i do believe that had the Exodus happened during late in the reign of Amenhotep III as you claim... Suppiluliumas or his son might have mentioned it. Suppiluliumas first writes to Egypt's King during the reign of Akhenaten. He considered Egypt a worthy opponent through the reign of Ay. How does that relate to your contention that the Exodus happened sometime during this time as well? Not very good if you ask me.

Nor, is there any notation in the Babylonian records to support an Exodus in the 18th Dynasty. Assyria which is entering into a period of strenght is without mention of any such disaster happening in Egypt. Mitanni documents no such disaster either. FYI, the 18th Dynasty shows that Egypt wasn't living in an vacum... it was very involved in world affairs yet not a single notation in any of these states suggest Moses, or the Exodus happened in the 18th Dynasty. The great city states Ugarit, Elba, Byblos none record an Exodus disaster in Egypt during the 18th Dynasty. Nor does this time period support a conquest of Canaan by Hebrews.

As for your brother, meaning no disrespect but it is you posting here not him. As you know nothing of some of the worlds greatest and most respected Egyptianologists i can't take his or your position serious. Because you seriously haven't check all available sources. I hear you repeatedly supporting 2 people the late Mr. Ron Wyatt and Dr. Moller neighter appear to be Egyptianologists. I could not find Wyatt's education, and Dr. Moller is billed as a medical speicalist. Not to mention, again that too much of your work and your brother's(?) uses data that is discredited. Again sorry!

As for a great number of foreign slaves in Egypt at this time! Well! Why not Egypt had pushed its borders to beyond the Euphrates River in the 18th Dynasty. There is no record of a vast depopulation during the mid-18th dynasty. FYI, Egypt also had large Asiatic slave populations in the 5th Dynasty, and the 19th Dynasty.

I hope your leg heals nicely and you might ask for some books by Donald Redford, who is a noted expert of the 18th Dynasty by the way. Some works by Kenneth A. Kitchen, and Nicolas Grimal. They might enlighten you to some Egyptian reality and facts. :)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:44 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
Well I'm sorry, I'm just going to have to disagree witth you Sekhmet, and we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm one who doesn't give a straw to someone just because they have a "high-degree". Big wigs mean nothing to me. Logic and sense do, and Ron Wyatt was one true biblical archeologist.

The 18th dynasty is the only dynasty of which the Exodus happened, and Moller writes quite a few pages proving that the Exodus happened in 1446 BC. the 2nd Kings 6:1 deal is only a fragment of how we arrive at that date. He uses several other methods to arrive at that date, and they stand in ground with solid rock. I'll have to show you sometime later.

Also, the fact rests that Egypt struck major decline right after Amenhotep III, and this is why Amenhotep IV changes his name to Akhenetan (because Moses proved the gods of Egypt to be false), and also, there is evidence that Cannanites sent countless letters for military aid to Akhenetan but to no avail. Reason being, the Apiru were taking the land (Hebrews). Cannan was falling apart at this time, and Akhenetan knew what happened to his father, so therefore sent no military aid. Going after Israel was a "no-no". Joshua was conquering Cannan at this time, and Egypt had to keep it a secret that they were crippled. Also, letters from Ankesenomen suggest that there were only "servants" in the land, and not many high officials to marry. This is why she asked for the Hittite king to send his son, because she had no husband nor son. The land was in chaos at this time. There are clues from papyrus letters that at this very land, there were horrible plagues striking Egypt. Everything adds up.

Amenhotep III and his entire army along with the priests had drowned in the sea. It took years before Egypt recovered, and Rameses II was the second peak of. Egypt finally recovered one last time, and once again went back into decline.

I'm sorry Sekhmet, but your interpretation of the Exodus is what has lead many people astray, because they can't make sense of it. This new idea is going like wild-fire, and people are accepting the Lord because now they can see that the Exodus did happen.

During this 18th dynasty, there are hundreds of clues which help us fit in the Israelites, who Moses was (Senmut/Thutmosis II), span of years, etc. With the Rameses theory, there are so many missing pieces to the puzzle, it isn't even funny.

In fact, I'm so sure of this theory, that I believe one day we will see that it was true afterall. All the big-wig/high degree theologians will go down the tubes, and the world will realize they didn't know much. They decieved the people.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:49 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
Also, take a look at this:

"Here is the gold chariot wheel. The significance of these wheels is of extreme importance to the dating of the Exodus and determining which dynasty was involved. Back in the late 70's, Ron actually retrieved a hub of a wheel which had the remains of 8 spokes radiating outward from it. He took this to Cairo, to the office of Nassif Mohammed Hassan, the director of Antiquities whom Ron had been working with. Mr. Hassan examined it and immediately pronounced it to be of the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt. When Ron asked him how he knew this so readily, Mr. Hassan explained that the 8-spoked wheel was only used during the 18th Dynasty. This certainly narrowed the date. After finding the 4,6 and 8 spoked wheels, we began to thoroughly research the Egyptian chariot and soon discovered that the fact that these wheels date to the 18th Dynasty according to numerous sources, such as the following: "Egyptian literary references to chariots occur as early as the reigns of Kamose, the 17th Dynasty king who took the first steps in freeing Egypt from the Hyksos, and Ahmose, the founder of the 18th Dynasty. Pictorial representations, however, do not appear until slightly later in the 18th Dynasty...." (From "Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty" by James K. Hoffmeier, JARCE #13, 1976)"

THIS IS DIRECTOR OF ANTIQUITIES! Also, It is well known in antiquity, that it was ONLY during the 18th dynasty that 4 spoked, 6 spoked, and 8 spoked wheels were used simultaneously.

In the 19th and later dyasties, these chariot wheels were no longer in use. Period.

This is a barrier that you can't get around, I'm sorry. It's fact, and it is a very sound fact.

(be back in 2 days)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:59 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
[quote="Lysimachus"]Also, take a look at this:

"Here is the gold chariot wheel. The significance of these wheels is of extreme importance to the dating of the Exodus and determining which dynasty was involved. Back in the late 70's, Ron actually retrieved a hub of a wheel which had the remains of 8 spokes radiating outward from it. He took this to Cairo, to the office of Nassif Mohammed Hassan, the director of Antiquities whom Ron had been working with. Mr. Hassan examined it and immediately pronounced it to be of the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt. When Ron asked him how he knew this so readily, Mr. Hassan explained that the 8-spoked wheel was only used during the 18th Dynasty. This certainly narrowed the date. After finding the 4,6 and 8 spoked wheels, we began to thoroughly research the Egyptian chariot and soon discovered that the fact that these wheels date to the 18th Dynasty according to numerous sources, such as the following: "Egyptian literary references to chariots occur as early as the reigns of Kamose, the 17th Dynasty king who took the first steps in freeing Egypt from the Hyksos, and Ahmose, the founder of the 18th Dynasty. Pictorial representations, however, do not appear until slightly later in the 18th Dynasty...." (From "Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty" by James K. Hoffmeier, JARCE #13, 1976)"

THIS IS DIRECTOR OF ANTIQUITIES! Also, It is well known in antiquity, that it was ONLY during the 18th dynasty that 4 spoked, 6 spoked, and 8 spoked wheels were used simultaneously.

In the 19th and later dyasties, these chariot wheels were no longer in use. Period.

This is a barrier that you can't get around, I'm sorry. It's fact, and it is a very sound fact.

(be back in 2 days)

It may be an indisputable fact, but my immediate reaction is--So What? To find chariot wheels under the sea is not a big, disturbing discovery. And as for them positivly being 18th Dynasty, again I must say so what?
The design of chariots, and their wheels, progressed. What was used in the 17th Dynasty was not used in the 18th. What was used in the 18th was out-moded by the 19th.
And a question surfaces concerning Amenhotep III. Where did you get information that he drowned? This is the first time I've ever heard such a tale.
Moses proved the Egyptian gods to be idols only? First of all, that takes a huge amount of belief--there is NO record of any person named Moses in Egyptian writings. Aside from the Bible we know nothing of Moses.
I would like to read for myself any sources you may print for us. Re-dating Egyptian dynasties is the hot rage, right now. But if you look at the facts, most dating in ancient Egyptian history is documented by papyri, wall carvings, even orstrecons as right on, or close to, dates already given, although some of these dates are now being revised as new data comes to light.
What is this fascination with ancient Egypt? And why is accepted facts not believed? It seems as if theories that fly in the face of thought are the rule, now. Someone puts "Dr." in front of their name, and adds a few intials to the end, becomes an authority on Egypt--no matter what is proven over time to be correct!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:52 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:22 am
Posts:1028
Location: Pennsylvania
Sekhmet wrote:
I hope your leg heals nicely and you might ask for some books by Donald Redford, who is a noted expert of the 18th Dynasty by the way. Some works by Kenneth A. Kitchen, and Nicolas Grimal. They might enlighten you to some Egyptian reality and facts. :)


SEKHY!! You know that college I was telling you about? Lycoming? IT HAD A DIG IN MENDES EGYPT LED BY DR. REDFORD!!! I LOVE THIS COLLEGE!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:12 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Yo, Lysimachus
i am sorry, no we do not have to agree to disagree. i can simply refuse to pay you the attention. i have been giving you in attempt to reach understanding. You talk about logic, understanding, i add natural flow. You want to rewrite the 18th dynasty and i suspect far more Egyptian history as well... this is not logical, it disrupts accepted and hard evident supports. You want to not only delete historically known Kings, but their mothers and families as well.

Disrepect is never worthy, espeically towards those that have earned the respect by nature of their efforts, education, and work. You cast disrespect upon not only highly regarded Egyptianologist but on theologians (an entirely differenct branch of study for your information). I recall Dr. Rohl although far more respectful and cautious than you saying about the same thing. Dr. Veliovsky the same, both were proven wrong.

Do you believe in an Earth history greater than 6000 years? Most folks that use Solomon/Shishak 10th century dates, and 2nd Kings 6:1 accept only a 6,000 year Earth history. Much to their one day horror (gbw).

Again, ANY USE of 2nd KINGS 6:1 creates errors in the theory using it. Garbage in garbage out!

I did some more research on your Dr. Moller. He believes Imhotep is Joseph. Imhotep lived in the 3 rd Dynasty well over a 1000 years from your 1440 date. Yet, you claim Solomon in 970 BC. How do you explain this problem. The Bible gives 430 years after Imhotep that the Exodus happened? Oh i know slice and dice some more Egytian history, right!

A major decline strikes Egypt after the death of Amenhotep III? Thank you for this information! It is news to me... i will admit that after the death of Akhenten there is some slide in Egyptian power. But it lasted less then 50 years and by the time of Seti I, 19th Dynasty basically over. Ramesses I retook control of the Sinai, his son Seti retook control over Canaan/Palestine and signed peace terms with Hittiti. Well, if less than 50 years is all that Egypt suffered after the plagues, no wonder Pharaoh took them over freeing his slaves. LOL really!

The only plauge listed in Egypt during the 18th Dynasty isn't even in Egypt per historical documentation! It is in N. Syria where the defeated Egyptians taken by Suppiluliumas I, back to Hattiti pass on to Hittite! Oh my gee! I guess your god couldn't get the right nation to send his plauge to! Believe me my God did. No wonder you have to chop, slice, and dice!

Your understanding of Ankhesenamun's letter again shows you lack any real understanding of Egyptian society. From its Predynastic Period the King, Queen was semi divine. Anyone other than the King, Queen and immediate family were servants.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Lysimachus wrote:
This is a barrier that you can't get around, I'm sorry. It's fact, and it is a very sound fact.


http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/atlas/index.html

Yes, this is a barrier that you can't get around Lysimachus... You certainly are going to have to do some fancy slicing and dicing to get rid of the tombs of the Thutmose and Amenhotep Pharaohs.

One can simply refuse to aknowledge the lives of women, and men. But their burial chambes?

i said..."ANY USE of 2nd KINGS 6:1 creates errors in the theory using it. Garbage in garbage out!"
Dr. Moller also uses a 10th century BC date for Solomon, as this date is directly related to the discredited dating of Shoshenq I as Shishak. It to is garbage... The use of garbage data makes all resultant data garbage.

Please go back to your research i do believe you have a lot more research to do. Don't forget your apology to Thoth, Egypt's god of scribes and truth, the husband of Maat, Re's most honored daughter.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 7:09 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
Sekhmet, I'm afraid that what you may come to discover is that you yourself have a lot more research to do than you supposed.

As of late, I have been recoving from surgery on my leg. The side incisions have been sown back up. I've been in quite a bit of pain in the last few day which has made it difficult for me to provide a thorough analysis of what I believe regarding Egypt's chronology and the events revolving the Exodus.

Based on your last response, I cannot help but question your integrity when it comes to an honest approach of scripture. Your mind is locked in the traditions of men - men who have not been guided by the Spirit of God. These men have led many people astray from the many sacred principles of scripture, simply for the fact that the theories they come up with cannot jibe or harmonize with scripture.

You ultimately sware that 1 Kings 6:1 cannot be used. Well, I personally think you're not looking at the whole picture. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports this dating method based on a two-sided time axes. Additionally, your mind is locked in traditional dating of Imhotep - of which you will soon find out, has been very preversed by tradtional scientists.

Sekhmet, with all due respect, I'm going to tell it to you straight. These men are not allowing God to be their ultimate guide when it comes to investigating history.

As for Ron Wyatt, I have friends who knew him personally. I have seen him on tapes, and I am convinced without a shadow of a doubt that he truly loved God and had a great concern for souls. It is quite evident why traditional scientists and archeologists hated Ron Wyatt. Because Ron intermingled religion and God with science, and this they asbolutely HATED! Sekhmet, one day the world will see who this "little Ron Wyatt" really was. The Holy Spirit lead him in his discoveries, and he was an upright and honest man. He had many enemies (just like scripture says we would), and in many points of time, Ron became very discouraged. However, with the help of the Lord, Ron decided he would not give up, and that he could not worry about what the critics were telling him. Serving God and doing as He says was more important to him than life itself. I am close friends with people who knew Ron personally, and I can tell you that I know a lot more about the life of Ron than you do. I can also tell you that there are an extensive amount of lies that have circulated the internet concerning Ron. These lies that have been circulated were guided by nothing other than the Prince of Evil, the Devil. Satan hates God's work, and he will do anything to demean it. When Ron and his sons came back from prison in Saudi Arabia, the news hit the US and Ron and his sons were interviewed. No one told Ron that they didn't believe him, but the fact that the media simply jumped to the next news source (as if there was nothing important about these discoveries) revealed their true colors.

Ron has now passed away. However, is work is living on. Scientists around the world for a long time made fun of his discoveries. However, Dr. Lennart Moller, who was completely unassociated with Ron and his team, decided to investigate these finds for himself and document them well from a scientific and forensic approach at a very detailed level. There are now archeologists and egyptologists who are agreeing with Mollers works, and as you would discover in his book, the work he has put together is absolutely astounding as well as mind shattering. The information is well organized, and he does a superb job at citing official sources around the globe to support the hypothesis presented.

When you use the term "garbage in garbage out", it only goes to show me that you are not very open to these matters, and are set in your ways. And yes, I am one who accepts the 6000 year old theory, and I have reason to believe so.

As you are about soon find out, you are going to have a lot of trouble proving these theories wrong, for there are various auxiliary methods which support the proposed central methods.

I hope you do not get overwhelmed, but I am about to post a massive 35+ page post that I have been putting together during the last 4 days. However, it is vital that you read the presented material. I hope that you do not just glaze through it, but take some time (even if you have to print the whole thing out) to thouroughly analyize everything. I will be quoting extensively from Moller's book along with my "Editors notes" comments.

I have also scanned in a great deal of images, charts, and graphs to help you visualize the presented hypothesis. You may find the information quite staggering, because it just may be that what traditiniol archeologists, historians, and scientists have been telling you a long time may be very well off limits and incompatible with scripture.

Quote:
I did some more research on your Dr. Moller. He believes Imhotep is Joseph. Imhotep lived in the 3 rd Dynasty well over a 1000 years from your 1440 date. Yet, you claim Solomon in 970 BC. How do you explain this problem. The Bible gives 430 years after Imhotep that the Exodus happened? Oh i know slice and dice some more Egytian history, right!


This is discussing these issues concern me. Again, it is evident that you are so locked in tradition, that instead of asking yourself this question "hmm...Imhotep has 25 characteristics that match perfectly with scriptue, but the dating of Imhotep does not correspond with scripture. Perhaps the dating methods these Egyptologists are using is wrong?", you say this "It can't be! The dating is wrong, so therefore the theory is wrong!" You can't revolve your world around trying to solve problems solely on dating - as much as dating is severely flawed. You have to take into consideration clews of ancient history.

As you are about to discover, after I am done presenting all the data revolving around the Exodus, I will provide an in-depth analysis on Joseph. One would have to be insane to deny the overwhelming evidence that is soon to be provided.

But before I go on and delve into the upcoming data, I want to ask you some questions so that I know which approach you are coming from. From what I have read so far, I have gathered thus:

1. That you believe Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Correct?

2. That the Exodus occurred during the 19th dynasty. Correct?

3. That the Exodus took place much later than 1446 BC. Correct?

If the above is true, all of these issue including much much more will be dealt with in the upcoming data.

But here is a list of questions that I do want you to provide me, since these are issues that are seriously considered in the upcoming hypothesis. I want to know if these issues are well considered in your hypothesis:

1. Is there any indication that would suggest that Rameses II had a first born son that died "mysteriously"?

2. Are there any characters recorded in the 19th dynasty that would indicate that perhaps one of these characters were Moses (since obviously, Moses would be one character recorded, at least in some form)

3. Is there any evidence supporting a "boy child" during the 19th dynasty, and any stories in Egyptian inscriptions relating to the adoption of a "boy child" by a princess?

4. Is there any evidence supporting the idea that when Moses fled Midian, a new heir to the throne took his place, since Moses could no longer be heir?

All of these questions plus many more are addressed in the upcoming data. But are these questions, which obviously cannot be ignored, answered via any proposed historical documents written in Egyptian records allowing us to allocate various individuals. Do these individuals match the biblical criteria? Do they contradict the biblical criteria?


Top
 Profile  
 

Hatshepsut Xnem Amen
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:18 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sun May 25, 2003 8:15 am
Posts:501
THE 18TH DYNASTY

The data gained from the chariot wheels placed the Exodus at the time of the 18th Dynasty. Amazingly, this is the most well documented group of kings in all of ancient Egypt. A "dynasty", to give a definition, is basically a continuous family line of rulers. "A more or less arbitrary and artificial but convenient subdivision of these epochs, beginning with the historic age, is furnished by the so-called dynasties of Manetho This native historian of Egypt, a priest of Sebennytos, who flourished under Ptolemy I (305-285 B.C.), wrote a history of his country in the Greek language. The work has perished, and we only know it in an epitome by Julius Africanus and Esebius, and extracts by Josephus. The value of the work was slight, as it was built up on folk tales and popular traditions of the early kings. Manetho divided the long succession of Pharaohs as known to him, into thirty royal houses or dyanasties, and although we know that many of his divisions are arbitrary, and that there was many a dynastic change where he indicates none, yet his dynasties divide the kings unto convenient groups, which have so long been employed in modern study of Egyptian history, that it is now impossible to dispense with them." This quote from "A History of Egypt" by James Henry Breasted (1905) p. 13-14, tells us from the pen of one of the leading authorities on ancient Egypt, that the basis on which the information of ancient Egyptian dynasties rests, is unreliable, yet it continues in use.

The "Hyksos"

This so-called 18th Dynasty consisted of a family who ruled in Thebes. At the time this family came to the throne, it was apparent that other dynastic families were ruling as pharaohs in other areas of Egypt. In the north, or the delta region, there lived at this time a people whom the Egyptians thought of as "foreign"- these included the descendants of Jacob, or the Israelites. It appears that other Asiatic peoples had moved into the region along with them- people who were ambitious and wanted to rule themselves as the Egyptians did. And they did not conform to the Egyptian religion.

We know that the Israelites, by decree of the pharaoh of Joseph's time, were allowed to live as "independents" and that their leaders were considered "royal"- when Jacob died, the description of his funeral was exactly the same as that of the pharaohs: GEN 50:2 And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father: and the physicians embalmed Israel. 3 And forty days were fulfilled for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those which are embalmed: and the Egyptians mourned for him threescore and ten days. 7 and Joseph went up to bury his father: and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, 9 And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen: and it was a very great company.

So, for many, many years the Israelites live peacefully among themselves, setting up their own rulers. And doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that relatives and friends of the Israelites would want to move down to the Delta region with them when they saw what a "garden of Eden" it was there? Well, whether it was friends and relatives, or not, someone moved in and lived along side of them. And these foreigners soon became a "thorn in the side" of the native Egyptians.

At the end of the 17th Dynasty, ancient records tell of the Egyptians in Thebes claiming to expel the "Hyksos" from the delta. Inscriptions document the presence of these "Shepherd Kings" in the delta region beginning with the 6th dynasty and terminating with the 17th.

When the native Egyptian Theban rulers "expelled" the Hyksos, what occurred was that they ran these other peoples who had settled along with the Israelites out of Egypt. And although no mention is made of the Israelites by name, we know that it was at this time, at the beginning of the 18th dynasty, that they were enslaved. With the trouble-making outsiders gone, the peaceful Israelites were at the mercy of the Theban rulers.

There is an interesting inscription by Hatshepsut of the 18th dynasty which refers to the restoration of Egypt after the "Hyksos" had been expelled from the delta region: "I have restored that which was in ruins, I have raised up that which was unfinished. Since the Asiatics were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland [Delta], and the barbarians were in the midst of them [the people of the Northland], overthrowing that which had been made, while they ruled in ignorance of Re."

This wonderful passage tells us that whoever lived in the Delta (the Israelites and the "barbarians" from Asia) did not worship RE, the Egyptian sun god. And we know this was true of the Israelites. So they simply "kicked out" the trouble-makers, who had no right to be there in the first place. Then, the Israelites, who had been given the right to live there, had their special "status" canceled. The Egyptians had no reason to expel them- after all, they were peaceful, industrious and hardy people. Instead, they were enslaved.

THE KINGS OF THE 18TH DYNASTY

The kings of the 18th Dynasty are stated by historians as being named either Amenhotep and Thutmoses. But, there is a big problem with this fluctuation between names. The pharaoh was considered the earthly embodiment of the main god and his name reflected the supreme god of his royal family. Does it make sense to anyone that one king would consider Thoth (Thutmoses) the supreme god while the next considered Amen (Amenhotep) the supreme god, and continue to alternate gods through a succession of several kings? Of course not. As we read earlier, the list of dynasties and kings that the Egyptologists base their information on is quite inaccurate. The inscriptions found in temples and tombs indicate that the "Thutmoses" name is indicative of one of the offices of the pharaoh, just as was the "Amenhotep" name-and that each pharaoh was both a "Thutmoses" as well as an "Amenhotep" as he advanced in the royal line from co-regent to emperor. From our research, it appears that the crown prince received his "Thutmoses" title upon being appointed co-regent, and then became "Amenhotep" in addition to his earlier names, when he became emperor. Let me stress that it appears that this is the order he received each name; however, it may possibly have been reversed. But we have no doubts that each ruler possessed both names. And each ruler left inscriptions relating to his reign in both names-sometimes he referred to himself as Thutmoses, while at other times Amenhotep. Each individual king left inscriptions in both names, dating his regnal years sometimes from the date of his co-regency and sometimes from the date of his emperorship. We don't fully understand the "rules" governing these practices yet.

PHARAOH "RAMESES"

Yes, most people think of the pharaoh of the Exodus as "Rameses". And why not? The name "Rameses" is mentioned in the Bible as early as the story of Joseph. Was there a "Rameses" in the l8th dynasty? Yes... but that was more a title than a name- much like the title "pharaoh".

Not only was "Thutmoses" also to become "Amenhotep"- he, as main emperor of all Egypt, was also titled "Rameses". If you will recall, in the story of Joseph, the land of Goshen was also referred to as the land of "Rameses": GEN 47:11 And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.

Egyptian evidence shows that every native Egyptian king from the time of the so-called 5th dynasty was titled "Son of the Sun" or "Rameses" in addition to his other names. This has caused massive confusion among the Egyptian scholars, who have zeroed in on one particular pharaoh, "Rameses II", and proclaimed him the "greatest pharaoh of all Egypt". All one needs to do is go to the museum in Cairo and view the 4 statues of "Rameses II" in the main entrance hall- each one is clearly a different person. The inscriptions referring to "Rameses" refer to many different pharaohs.

Also, let's go back to the inscription of Hatshepsut in the section on the Hyksos- remember that she said these people lived "in ignorance of RE? This inscription makes its quite clear that whoever lived in the delta (Goshen/Rameses) region, did not worship the native Egyptian god, Re. "Re" is the "Ra" of "Rameses"- and this verifies the supremacy of "Re/Ra" during the time of the 18th dynasty,- and that "Rameses" would indeed be one of the titles of the pharaoh.

"Thutmoses" = "Amenhotep"

We are going to do a great deal of talking about the 18th dynasty kings. To make it easier for you to follow, we will state now that we believe Thutmoses 1 became Amenhotep 1 when he went from co-regent to emperor. Therefore, these 2 names are the same person.

This list will tell you who we believe were the names of each royal person we will be discussing. You can reference this list if you get confused.

Pharaoh at Moses' birth THUTMOSES 1/AMENHOTEP 1
"Pharaoh's daughter" NEFURE/HATSHEPSUT
Moses SENMUT
HATSHEPSUT XNEM AMEN
THUTMOSES 2
Pharaoh when he fled THUTMOSES 3/AMENHOTEP 2
Pharaoh of the Exodus THUTMOSES 4/AMENHOTEP 3
1st-born son of Pharaoh TUTANKHAMEN



THE DATE OF THE EXODUS

1KI 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

If you go to your encyclopaedia or most any reference book, you will be able to discover that the date of Solomon's rule is fairly well established and the date of the 4th year of his reign would be 967/966 BC. In our opinion, the most accurate and authoritative book on the subject of dating the Hebrew Kings is "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings" by Edwin R. Thiele. You can order this book from any book store if they do not have it in stock.

With this date established (967/966 Bc) we need to go back 480 years, as the above scripture indicates. This would place the date of the Exodus at 1447/1446 BC. I will state at this point that we do not consider any outside source above the scriptural reference, so we will look no further for more information as to the date.

We will, however, look for historical references and inscriptions which may verify this date. The following information is just such a verification, and is from the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" 1985 ed. vol. 4 pp. 575,6: "The next date is given by a medical papyrus, to which a calendar is added, possibly to insure a correct conversion of dates used in the receipts to the actual timetable. Here it is said that the 9th day of the 11th month of year 9 of King Amenhotep I was the day of the helical rising of Sothis- ie., 1538 BC. This date, however, is only accurate provided the astronomical observations were taken at the old residence of Memphis; if observed at Thebes in Upper Egypt, the residence of the 18th dynasty, the date must be lowered by 20 years- ie., 1518 BC."

When we came across this information, we had already constructed our chronology of the 18th dynasty, which took about 3 years. We show year 9 of Amenhotep 1 to be 1519 BC- and this reference places his year 9 at 1518 BC, if the observance was noted at Thebes, which is where their royal headquarters were. This was a very exciting confirmation which is based on solid astronomical evidence. It, at the very least, placed the 18th dynasty at exactly the right place in the time scale. For it to have fit so extremely well was far more than we could have asked for!

For more information on Biblical chronology, see our chronology later in this volume with references, etc.

WHO WAS PHARAOH'S DAUGHTER?

The next question that must be addressed is whether there existed in the 18th dynasty, a pharaoh without a royal son to pass the throne to, and whether that pharaoh had a royal daughter of note. The answer is a most resounding "yes"! Not only did "Thutmoses I/Amenhotep I" not have a royal son who lived, he had a daughter who is the most well-known and well-documented female personage of all ancient Egyptian history, next to Cleopatra. Her names were Nefure and Hatshepsut. She was referred to as "Nefure" when we first learn of her in the inscriptions. At that time, she is a royal princess- her father was co-regent for the emperor, "pharaoh Ahmosis". She is referred to in the ancient records by this name, Nefure, until a point in time when she becomes known as the "royal queen"- we'll explain a little later.

Also, we want to explain that when Moses was born, the emperor of all Egypt was Ahmosis who lived in Thebes. In Memphis, Thutmoses 1 was co-regent, and also called "pharaoh". The word "pharaoh" comes from the Egyptian word "pero" which simply means "big house". This "pharaoh", whose daughter rescued baby Moses, didn't become emperor of all of Egypt until Moses was about 12 years old.

WHO WAS MOSES?

Let me interject here that Egyptian scholars have constructed a scenario whereas "Nefure" and "Hatshepsut" are 2 different people. However, again, we can with great confidence state that these 2 names belong to the same lady. It was young Nefure who rescued baby Moses from the Nile while she was living at the palace in Memphis- the royal residence of the co-regent. In the museums across the world are various statues, unlike any other ancient Egyptian statues, which are of a young girl holding a baby or small child- this child wears on his head the "royal side-lock" of a future prince. The names on these statues are "Nefure" and "Senmut"- Senmut being the baby's name. However, the scholars have designated the woman in these statues as being a man named "Senmut", who is the official nurse of princess "Nefure".

Moses = SENMUT

"Senmut" is the Egyptian name given to Moses when he first came to live at the palace. This name is of extreme importance for it means literally "mother's brother". To understand the significance, we must explain briefly a subject which normally would take several volumes- Egyptian religion and the pharaoh...

The ancient Egyptians believed that the first king of Egypt was Osiris. Osiris was married to Isis, his sister. Osiris' brother, Set, killed Osiris out of jealousy for the throne. To sum it up briefly, Isis brought Osiris back to life for one night by a magic spell- and during this one night she was impregnated by Osiris, who then returned to his death state. The child she bore was called Horus, and he was the reincarnation of Osirus. At the end of the story, the throne is returned to Horus, the rightful king.

Therefore, Isis' child was her son, her husband and her brother- all in one. All kings of Egypt were then said to be "Horus"- the reincarnation of Osiris. Confusing?- yes. But that's what they believed.

Do you see the significance of the name given to Moses? He was being "set up" in the Egyptian economy to possibly be the future king- the royal heir of his "grandfather-pharaoh". His "grandfather" (adopted, of course) had no royal male heirs- they had died. But he had one royal daughter, Nefure. The future king could only inherit the throne through the royal daughter. She (Nefure) convinced her father, the pharaoh, to make her little adopted boy his future heir. Nefure, as the symbolic Isis, had her little "Osiris/Horus", who was named "Senrout"- his "mother's brother". If all of this seems a bit complicated and silly, just compare it with the rules and regulations of the royal family of England today. The right to the throne doesn't pass that easily to someone inside the family, much less outside of the family. But, in times when there is no heir, preparations and steps must be taken to procure the right for whoever is determined.

With this understanding, there is a Scripture which sheds a great deal more light on the situation of Moses as Nefure (Hatshepsut)'s son: HEB 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

Nefure = Hatshepsut

Our studies show that Moses came to live at the palace at about age 12, about the same time his "grandfather" became main emperor over all Egypt. At this time, they moved from the palace at Memphis where the co-regent ruled, to Thebes where the main palace was. At about age 18, Moses was designated the future "heir apparent", with his mother, Nefure as his regent. She was now given the additional royal name of "Hatshepsut" and referred to as "queen" instead of princess. It gets very confusing from this point on because the Egyptologists have come up with a very elaborate scenario whereby they say that Hatshepsut proclaimed herself king. Now, a few words about this theory may help give a little understanding.

For one thing, the Egyptian line of royalty descent was based on very sacred beliefs- beliefs- which would not in any way allow for a woman to become the "earthly embodiment'' of the god. She could become the "royal wife", the "great queen", and in some cases possess the royal power to appoint a new pharaoh in instances whereby the throne may be empty at one point in time. But this fantastic scenario whereby the scholars say Hatshepsut proclaimed herself "king" is simply not possible. In her temple at Deir El Bahri, there is a wall which depicts the birth of the future heir to the throne, which historians say is the birth of Hatshepsut. But there are a couple of problems with the scenario that these scholars have chosen to ignore. One, is that the baby is definitely a boy baby! And secondly, one scene shows the baby in the arms of Hatshepsut! One book we have explains this as "obviously a mistake on the part of the scribes who wrote the hieroglyphics- they must have gotten confused".

Moses = "Hatshepsut Xnem Amen"

The evidence on which they build the case for Hatshepsut declaring herself king are the inscriptions of "king Hatshepsut Xnem Amen / MaatKaRe". They assume that this is Hatshepsut with a few additions to her royal name. But let's examine this "king's" name: "Hatshepsut Xnem Amen" means "Hatshepsut united with Amen". "Amen" is the supreme god of the 18th dynasty, another name for "Re/Ra", the sun. This name means that the "king" of this name is the product of Hatshepsut being united with Amen, or the offspring, so to speak, of Hatshepsut by the god, Amen.

This "king", who was not really king, but was being designated as the future heir to the throne, was Moses, with Hatshepsut as his regent. Once someone was designated as the future heir to the throne, his inscriptions refer to him as "king".

That Moses was always closely associated with his adopted mother is very apparent- after all, she was his only connection to the royal family. To justify his elevation to such royal position had to be carefully documented in a manner that would be acceptable to the system.

The evidence shows that he was elevated to this position, as "heir apparent" when he was about 24 years old.

Moses = Thutmoses II

Finally, when Moses was about 33 years old, he was designated as the crown prince and became "Thutmoses II". Let us state at this point that the numbers after the Egyptian kings' names are not actually a part of their name- they are simply designations given them by the Egyptologists to identify each succeeding person of the same name.

Josephus tells that Moses, as Thutmoses, was the general of the army and that he was very popular with the Egyptians. He attributes Moses as the general who pacified Nubia, which in turn served to increase the wealth of Egypt greatly by the gold paid as tribute by the Nubians.

Finally, when Moses was 40, we know what happened at that time- and that he fled Egypt.



ROYAL TOMBS CONSTRUCTED FOR MOSES

Tomb No. 71

Near ancient Thebes, there is a magnificent building called "Deir el Bahri", which is a temple Moses built (as architect) for his adopted mother, Nefure. Above it is a tomb for Moses which has an unfinished statue carved above the entrance, in the virgin rock of the mountain, of a woman holding a small child. We, of course, recognize this as Moses and his adoptive mother.

The records of the building of this tomb show that it was begun when Moses was about 18- the year he was designated as the royal son of pharaoh's daughter and placed in line as the possible future heir-apparent. The name "Senmut" and "Nefure" are the names mentioned in this tomb.

Just below this tomb, excavators found a small rock-cut chamber that held the mummies of Hatnofer and Ramose, the Egyptian names for Moses' parents. His mother was embalmed and given a royal funeral, which indicates that she was buried here at the time of her death. The body of her husband, Ramose, however, was clearly a secondary burial- his body had been removed from its original burial and transferred to this grave- and it was clearly a non-royal burial.

This tomb was never finished and no one was ever buried in it. One reason being that another more elaborate, royal tomb was begun for Moses when he was about age 33/34- the year he was designated as Thutmoses II.

Tomb No. 353

This tomb is equally as fascinating as the first, for there was never a burial in it either. This was the second tomb built for Moses and this one would have been his royal tomb. It is very exciting to go down into that tomb and see how, at the time Moses fled and gave up his claim to the future throne, all work stopped on this tomb and it remains exactly as it was left to this day. It is finished down to the lower section of hieroglyphs and pictures- then, where the workmen stopped work, the pictures are drawn onto the wall in black ink. Equally amazing is the fact that, unlike other Egyptian tombs where the deceased is pictured with a wife and family, Moses is shown with only his mother and father, Hatnofer and Ramose. After all, Moses was never married while he was in Egypt.

SIR MARSTON & JOSEPHUS KNEW HATSHEPSUT

At this point, I would like to state that those of you who decide to research this subject- and we definitely recommend that you do just that- will find that the facts we have presented will be totally different from those as presented by historians and scholars. But view the evidences in the light that we have presented them and see for yourself how the evidence fits. It is amazing to us that the majority of scholars have missed this altogether. There have been a few, however, who have made the connection. One of these is Sir Charles Marston, who, in his book "New Bible Evidence", 1934, recognizes that the Exodus had to occur during the 18th dynasty and that Hatshepsut was indeed the "pharaoh's daughter". If he had had the information that the Thutmoses and the Amenhoteps of this dynasty were in fact the same people- (they were Thutmoses when they were co-regents in Memphis, and Amenhoteps when they arose to main emperor),- he would have figured it all out.

Marston brings out the fact that Josephus gives some vital information as to this pharoah's daughter's identity on p. 162 of his above mentioned book: "He does, however, mention the name of the princess who found Moses in the ark of bulrushes. He says it was 'Termuthis,' in which we see an echo of the name Thotmes, or Tahutmes, which was borne by each of the three Pharaohs in whose reigns Hatshepsut played such a leading part."

THE MAN "WHO TOOK MOSES' PLACE"

When Moses fled Egypt at age 40, the emperor, Amenhotep 1 was very elderly- he had been preparing Moses for the throne for the past 22 years. Now, there was a big problem. Who would now be the future king?

In Memphis, a young man was being groomed to be appointed co-regent for Moses when he became emperor. This young man was immediately elevated to the rank of co-regent and given the same name of Thutmoses. The records show that he assumed the throne on his year 22. Now, this is a strange statement and tells much more than one might at first notice. A co-regent, or royal heir-apparent, begins counting his years when he is designated as the "heir-apparent". That becomes his year one. Here, we have a man assuming office in year 22 and he assumes it under that same name as Moses had.

Keep in mind, that as the royal heir assumes each stage of office, "heir-apparent", crown prince and co-regent, he also in some places counts his years from that particular appointment. This is why the years of "Thutmoses III are given as 54 years, while the years of Amenhotep II are given as 26 to 32 years (depending on what author you are reading). The problem with Thutmoses III, who took Moses' place, is that there are no records of his rise through the ranks. He just suddenly appears in year 22 as taking the throne.

Now, what happened here is that when Moses fled, in order to continue the reign of the earthly embodiment of "Thoth" in the "Thutmoses" co-regent, this man simply assumed the years that Moses had held that position. In other cases, when a royal personage would die, the god is said to "fly to the heavens" and then redescend into the body of whoever becomes the next earthly embodiment of the god. In this case, there was no death- there had to be an immediate transfer, which is exactly what took place. Everything that had belonged to Moses was simply figuratively transferred to this "new" "Thutmoses" and things went along without missing a step. This man is now referred to by scholars as Thutmoses III. All of the statuary attributed to him are actually the statues that were made of Moses.

And it was to this Thutmoses that scholars attribute 54 years of rule. However, 22 of those years belonged to the man he replaced, Moses. And the historic evidence proves this, too. If we subtract the 22 years from the 54 year total, we are left with 32 years. Now, instead of going through all the evidence, let's just read what one historian has to say about this Thutmoses III: "He passed away after a rule of thirty-two (some say fifty-four) years, having made Egyptian leadership in the Mediterranean world complete." This is from "The Story of Civilization" Vol. 1 by Will Durant, (1954) p. 155.

And it truly was 32 years later when the man who became emperor after taking Moses' place, died. Amenhotep II was perhaps the greatest ruler Egypt ever had. By the time of his death, Egypt was truly the world power and the wealthiest nation. Hatshepsut remained alive for many years after Moses fled, and is named as queen on monuments very late into this king's rule.

THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS

Upon Amenhotep II's death, his co-regent for 29 years, the 4th Thutmoses, became Amenhotep III. Upon his becoming emperor, he appointed his young son, Tutankhamen, as "crown-prince" and for the next 8/9 years, this pharaoh ruled Egypt. He inherited the throne at a time when Egypt was well established as the world ruler. All he basically had to do was sit back and collect the foreign tribute as it arrived. Egypt had military troops stationed in all the vassal territories and maintained their empire peaceably. In his inscriptions, this emperor makes claims to be a triumphant warrior, but these references are to the time of his co-regency, when he accompanied Amenhotep II in his triumphant exploits.

But most interesting about this man is the fact that historical data shows that he actually had no claim to the throne. He was not the first-born of the pharaoh, which was the standard mode of becoming emperor. The well-known "sphinx stele", still present between the paws of the sphinx at Giza, tells the strange story of how Thutmoses IV fell asleep one day in the shadow of the sphinx. He dreamed that the sun god came to him and told him that if he would clear away the sand from around the sphinx, he would make him king. This elaborate story would not have been needed if he had been entitled to the throne as rightful heir. But, it appears that Amenhotep II was also without a royal son. The inscriptions always call the new king the "son" of the previous king, but this is figurative- as referring to Osiris and Horus. But keep in mind that this new pharaoh was not the first born of the last pharaoh. This is important because this new king, Amenhotep III, was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Think about this- all the firstborn were killed by the Angel of Death; if the pharaoh had been a first born, he would have died that night! So it is very important that we establish that this pharaoh was not a firstborn.

After reigning as emperor for 8/9 years, we reach the 40th year after Moses had fled Egypt. Remember, the pharaoh who took Moses' place reigned 32 years. Then, this last pharaoh reigned 8/9 years. This equalled the 40 years Moses was in the wilderness of Midian.

At this time at the end of the 40 years, Moses returns to the court of pharaoh Amenhotep III as commanded by God. And soon, the plagues began to fall upon Egypt. When the plague of the death of the first born fell by the hand of the Angel of Death, the pharaoh was not striken- but his son was: EXO 11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

This son was the young crown prince known to us all as "King Tut". However, the name is misleading, for we know he was never pharaoh, just crown prince. And while the historians all argue over who his father was, in an inscription on a statue of a lion dedicated by Tutankhamen to the temple of Soleb, he calls Amenhotep III his father. (Remember, Amenhotep III was also named Thutmoses IV.)

THE ROYAL MUMMIES

Another confusing factor in the identification of the kings and queens is the overabundance of royal mummies. In other words, although Thutmoses III and Amenhotep II are the same man, there have been found mummies for each name. Does this shoot down our theory? No, not in the least. First of all, it is necessary to have an understanding of the ancient Egyptian beliefs concerning death.

At death, they believed that a body was necessary for the ba, the ka and the akh to survive. These were, loosely translated, the various "spirit forms" which made up the psychic person and survived after death. However, in cases where the person was unavailable for burial, etc., any body would suffice as long as it was labeled with the name of the deceased. They believed that as long as a person's name was being spoken, or was on the walls of his tomb, his immortality was assured. The name was the most important factor. The following is from "Mummies, Myth and Magic in Ancient Egypt" by Christine El Mahdy (1989) p. 13: "The tomb, the mummy, the equipment, the paintings and reliefs were all designed to help preserve the name of the individual. The greatest horror was to have your name destroyed, cut out from a wall." (Emphasis ours)

If the mummy of the actual individual was so vital, why would they fear the desecration of their name? Because it was the key, in their belief, to their immortality. The mummy was important, as were the statues of the deceased. But the mummy could be supplied in a pinch- no problem.

Since it was considered a sacred duty of each king to protect the burials of his ancestor-kings, if a king couldn't find a mummy for a particular king, he would provide one as is written in numerous inscriptions.

Mummies have been found which the excavators claim to be the mummies of each of the Amenhoteps and each of the Thutmoses. However, a careful examination of all evidence leads one to conclude that the only mummies which are of the actual 18th Dynasty pharaohs in question are the mummy of Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II.

Amenhotep I (Thutmoses I) was found in his own tomb, as was Amenhotep II (Thutmoses III). Amenhotep I's mummy was never unwrapped but was x-rayed- and it revealed several genetic peculiarities which were shared by the mummies of several of his ancestors. The most obvious of these was the fact that he had the same type of malocclusion a very prominent protrusion of the top front teeth- almost an overbite. This genetic feature was seen in all his female relatives- sister, mother, grandmother and daughter.

We believe the only authentic mummies of the 18th dynasty kings to be those of Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II. Of course, there wouldn't be a mummy for Amenhotep III as he drowned in the Red Sea. Nor would there be a mummy of Thutmoses II since he was Moses. The others, which are said to be Thutmoses I, III, IV and Amenhotep III we believe to be mummies supplied by later kings, as they were all found in other tombs, in other sarcophaguses, and as they were simply not royal burials.

Here are a couple of examples of the evidence which shows these mummies to be extremely doubtful. These concern the mummy said to be that of Thutmoses 1, who is known to have ruled a minimum of 21 years by existing inscriptions: "However, several eminent physical anthropologists who have seen these x-rays have been absolutely convinced that this mummy is that of a young man, perhaps 18 years of age, certainly not over twenty." "X-Raying the Pharaohs" by James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks, (1973) p.131-2. The fact that this mummy is far too young to be this king is evidence enough. But now, let's go back to when the mummy was actually identified as Thutmoses I: "Among the mummies discovered at Deir-el-Bahari was one, which on account of its having been found in a coffin bearing the name of Pinozen I of the XXIst Dynasty; was formerly supposed to be the mummy of that king. Maspero, however, formed the opinion that it was the mummy of Thutmoses I on account of the facial resemblance which it bore to the Pharaoh's Thutmoses II and III" "Egyptian Mummies" by G. Elliot Smith and Warren R. Dawson (1924) p. 91.

This mummy was identified as Thutmoses 1 because he seemed to favor the other mummies. Not a strong basis for identification. Plus that fact that the mummy said to be Thutmoses III was also determined to be far too young- plus the fact that he was just barely five feet tall. Then, there is the mummy of Thutmoses IV, who was extremely emaciated and identified as just barely 30 years old. It doesn't even take careful study to realize that these mummies are "impostors".

THE "EGYPTIAN WATERGATE"

The year is about 1446 BC. The Egyptian pharaoh, his army and all the members of all the priesthoods have left in great haste. They are enraged that their entire slave population has fled, even though less than a week earlier the pharaoh and his ministers had virtually begged them to leave. The Egyptians lavished the great multitude of slaves with objects of gold, silver and precious stones as supposed "payment" for all the work they had done as slaves. EXO 12:35 And the children of lsrael did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of thee Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: 36 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.

The Hebrew words in this text that are translated "borrow" and "lent" are the same word, "shaal". And this word simply means "ask", "demand", "request", "give", etc. Only 6 times in the entire Bible is it translated "borrow" and 2 times as "lend" or "lent`'. But 87 times it is translated "ask" and in excess of 60 times is it translated to read other words which mean simply "ask". The verses are telling us that they "asked" for these things, as God had told them to do so they would not be a destitute nation. And the Egyptians were quite happy to comply with whatever they asked. The fear of God was in the Egyptians after the terrible plagues which had befallen them by the Hand of the Israelites' God.

Back home in Egypt, the entire country is trying to recover from the catastrophic destruction the country has suffered as a results of the plagues brought by the God of the slaves, "I AM". Every family is in mourning for the loss of their first born. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been experienced by these people.

The crown-prince, the young boy, Tutankhamen, is being mourned by the entire nation and preparations are being made for his burial. But mostly, all is at a standstill until the pharaoh, the ministers of state, the army and the priesthoods all return with the slaves. Throughout the land, the continuous sound of mourning can be heard from sun up to sun down, and even throughout the night.

The pharaoh, as soon he ascended the throne 8/9 years earlier as emperor, had taken as his "great wife and queen" a lady of foreign blood by the name of Tiy. When he had been co-regent in Memphis, he had been married to a royal daughter, as was tradition. It was this royal lady who had given birth to his firstborn, Tutankhamen. But it was the "common" foreign wife whom he elevated to "great king's wife and queen" as soon as he was "boss"- and this lady was to play a big part in later events of Egyptian history after the Exodus. But now, back to the story at hand.

Soon, word arrives at the palace in Memphis that is too fantastic to be believed- the entire Egyptian army, all of the priesthood and the pharaoh himself have all perished! All drowned in the Red Sea while in pursuit of the slaves! The confusion, grief, fear and agony of the entire country is impossible to imagine. But very quickly, it becomes utmost in the minds of those remaining that knowledge of what has happened must be kept secret.

The previous emperor had secured the position of Egypt as the world power. All nations feared as well as respected Egypt. They all, for the most part, brought their tribute regularly to the palaces, and Egypt had want of absolutely nothing. She had no need to ever go to war for the nations feared her great army. If word of what happened here became known, Egypt could lose her control over her vassal territories and that would mean financial disaster.

There is a miraculously-preserved record of the last official correspondences of the pharaoh who drowned in the Red Sea, as well as correspondences with the later pharaoh, and even Tiy. These are contained in the group of tablets found in ancient Amarna, called the Tel-Amarna Letters. In these were found correspondences to this pharaoh of the Exodus, Amenhotep 3, from the Babylonian king, Kadashman-Enlil and the Mittanni king, Tushratta, which serve to verify other world events of this time.

The greatest contender for world power, after Egypt, at the time of the Exodus was the rapidly emerging Hittite Empire. And the greatest Hittite king, Suppiluliumas, had just taken the throne a few years earlier. The Egyptians were sitting ducks if word leaked out...

Time passed; the Egyptians tried to pick up the pieces and go on with their lives, but it was difficult. The only thing they had in their favor was the fact that they were so isolated from the rest of the world. No one could enter the country without being detected far before they arrived. Careful precautions were taken to see that the true situation was not discerned by others.

There was but one person in Egypt who had the royal right to seat a new pharaoh- this was the original great royal wife of Amenhotep 3- the mother of Tutankhamen. But, her situation was not an easy one. Remember, when her husband took the throne as emperor, he took a non-royal wife and she became his favorite.

"My Husband has died and I have no son!"

The true, royal wife of the royal bloodline took the only step she knew to take to secure strong leadership for the country and provide protection and security for Egypt. She wrote a letter to the Hittite king. We can learn about this in an inscription left behind by the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas' son: "...When the people of Misra [Egypt] learned of the destruction of Amqa, they were afraid, for to make matters worse their master, Bibhuria had just died and the widowed queen of Egypt sent an ambassador to my father and wrote to him in these terms: 'My husband is dead and I have no son. People say that you have many sons. If you send the one of your sons he will become my husband for it is repungant to me to take one of my servants to husband.' When my father learned this, he called together the council of the great: 'Since the most ancient times such a thing has never happened before.' He decided to send Hattu-Zittish, the chamberlain, 'Go, bring me information worthy of belief; they may try to deceive me; and as to the possibility that they may have a prince, bring me back information worthy of my belief.' While Hattu-Zittish was absent on the soil of Egypt, my father vanquished the city of Karchemish... The ambassador of Egypt, the lord Hanis, came to him. Because my father had instructed Hattu-Zittish when he went to the country of Egypt as follows: 'Perhaps they have a prince, they may be trying to deceive me and do not really want one of my sons to reign over them.'; the Egyptian queen answered my father in a letter in these words; 'Why do you say' they are trying to deceive me?' If I had a son, should I write to a foreign country in a manner humiliating to me and to my country? You do not believe me and you even say so to me! He who was my husband is dead and I have no son. Should I then perhaps take one of my servants and make of him my husband? I have written no other country, I have written to you..."

There is more, but for the sake of space, we will just tell you what happened. Suppiluliumas finally believed her and sent a son. However, that son never made it to Egypt. No one knows what happened to him exactly, but we do know what happened next.

However, before we leave this most important letter, we must point out that the most convincing evidence of all is the fact that the queen who wrote the Hittite king makes it quite clear that all who remain in Egypt are her "servants"! Is this not a perfect description of the situation that would have resulted after all the royal ministers, priests and army had drowned in the Red Sea? The scholars assign the name of the dead pharaoh "Bibhuria" as being that of "Tutankhamen", for one of his names was "Neb-kheper-ru-re"; however, we believe it should be transliterated "Neb-maat-Re", which was one of the names of Amenhotep 3. Either way, the evidence is equally strong. Either the royal wife or the royal daughter (who was symbolically "married" to Tutankhamen) of the dead pharaoh would have retained the royal right to do this. So it really doesn't matter which wife wrote the letter as far as the evidence goes.

Rivalry for Power

Meanwhile, time passes in the devastated Egypt. Petty quarrels arise between the true royal wife and the favored foreign wife of the dead pharaoh. It becomes a power struggle- but one that must remain confidential in order that the outside world not realize the vulnerability of Egypt.

There is not clear evidence as to the exact events which next occurred, but there is enough evidence to generally know. The winner in the power struggle was the favored, foreign wife, Tiy. She took a man as her husband who was named "Eye" or "Ay" - a man who left behind evidence that he assumed the role of pharaoh for about 3 to 4 years, but a man who is not later recognized as a true king of Egypt in inscriptions of later kings. It was this man who officiated at the burial of the crown-prince, Tutankhamen. The evidence clearly shows that Tutankhamen was buried very hastily and that most of the items of his burial were not originally his. The names had been changed from that of his father to his- remember, his father had drowned in the Red Sea and had no burial.

"Akhnaten"

Tiy was still the power behind the throne, even though Eye was "officially" the pharaoh. And within 3 or 4 years, she had elevated her son to the throne, as soon as he was old enough. He was known initially as "Amenhotep 4", but is best known today as "Akhnaten". He was a true son of the dead pharaoh, but as his mother was of foreign descent, he was not a legitimate contender for the throne. Only in a situation such as Egypt was in at that time could he have ever taken the throne.

And while history records Akhnaten as being the pharaoh, it is evident that it was really his mother who was directing from the background. Those of you who have done any research on Egypt are obviously aware of Akhnaten, and that Egyptologists credit him with shifting the religious system of ancient Egypt from one of many gods to a system of monotheistic worship. And to a degree, this is true. Let's return to ancient Egypt and the events there...

Tiy, who is now wed to Eye, or Ay as some spell it, finally places her son in the role of emperor. For a while, he is known as Amenhotep 4. He is obviously quite young- one letter found at Amarna from Tushratta, the Mitanni king, tells him to be sure and listen to his mother. The ancient inscriptions and statues depict him as a strange, pot-bellied man married to a beautiful wife named Nefertiti, with a large family of young girls. But in fact, the evidence seems to show that all of this was in fact a cover-up; a made-up story to lend credibility to the fantasy that Egypt had a strong pharaoh calling the shots. The chronology of the ancient records give this fact away by conflicting accounts of the ages of his children, as well as other chronological blunders.

With no priesthood left for the worship of the numerous gods of Egypt, Tiy institutes, through the so-called authority of her son, the pharaoh, a reorganization of the religious system. All prior gods are forgotten. After all, hadn't they all failed miserably when pitted against the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? It is the god called "Aten" that is now worshipped-but, in fact, this "Aten" is just another form of the old sun-god, "Amen" and "Re". And apparently, "Aten" was the god of Tiy's native land. Since records show that Tiy was worshipped as a goddess in Nubia, and Aten was the Nubian god, we feel safe in assuming she was of Nubian descent. Also, the art-style of this period reflected the Nubian style.

The old capitals of Memphis and Thebes are forsaken by the new ruling house and a new capital is built at a site between the other 2 cities. It is called "Amarna". And it is here that Tiy, Eye (Ay), Akhnaton and his "family" all reside.

After a few years, the tomb of Tutankhamen is reopened and new furnishings are placed in the tomb- new items which contain the name of the new pharaoh in order to please the gods according to their beliefs. All of these sort of actions are taken for a dual purpose- to comply with their religious beliefs which require each emperor to care for the burial of their ancestors, and also to cover-up the true events which took place. The shame that Egypt suffered at the tremendous losses at the Hand of the Great, I AM, were to be carefully obliterated from any surviving Egyptian records.

Meanwhile, in Palestine, the Egyptian vassals are in trouble. The Tel-Amarna Letters show that these cities, which were under Egyptian control, were being threatened by the Amurru and the Hittites. They pleaded with the pharaoh to send troops, but as one letter stated, no help had been received for 20 years. The situation was deteriorating fast. The Egyptians still had no army to speak of. After all, every trained military man had been lost in the Red Sea, and with no military leaders, even an army of able soldiers would be virtually worthless without proper leadership and training.

In time, the Egyptians finally rebelled against the strange leadership which had sprung up under the guidance of the foreign queen, Tiy. Evidence shows that the entire Amarna family probably died as a result of a plague. Whatever really happened, the events which took place in ancient Egypt back then are a strong testimony to the Biblical record- no matter how hard the historians may try to interpret them otherwise.

"The Omen of the Sun"

The evidence we will deal with in this scenario is something which takes us into the time that the great multitude finally entered the promised land. Remember the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas who received the letter from the Egyptian queen? Murshilish, his son, left a record of an event which occurred in his l0th year- and it is important to establish about when this event would have occurred. The reign of Suppiluliumas is known to be in excess of 30 years and that he came to the throne just before the Exodus. We know that after he died, another son took the throne for a very short period of time, but died of a plague. The records show that this first son held the throne less than a year. Therefore, if Suppiluliumas died about 30 years after the Exodus, his next son died within that same year, and the son writing of this event reigned 9 full years and was in his l0th when it occurred, this would place the time of the event at about 40 years after the Exodus. I know this is getting complicated, but its important to show when the loth year of Murshilish would have been.

The event of which Murshilish wrote was "an omen of the sun" that was so sinister that the dowager queen, Tawanna, interpreted it as portending the eminent disaster of the entire royal house. What was this "omen of the sun"? Scholars want to assign it to being an eclipse, but many historians deny that possibility. The fact is that these ancient peoples were all well familiar with eclipses- they possessed the ability to calculate when they were to occur. There is but one event which perfectly fits the description of an omen of the sun, sufficiently frightening enough to cause the queen to view it as an evil omen- an omen that occurred about 40 years after the Exodus-- and we can read of that event in the Bible: JOS 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon: and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

The "long day" of Joshua, soon after they had entered the promised land after 40 years of wandering, is recorded in the records of the Hittite king, Murshilish!

"The Plagues of the Egyptians"

Murshilish provided another evidence for us, which verified another Biblical fact- let's go to the Scriptures, where Moses is speaking to the people after they had come out of Egypt: DEU 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

Moses tells that the Lord will cast out the people who inhabit the promised land, and that the Hittites are among those who will be cast out. Now, let's go back to the same chapter in Deuteronomy where Moses tells them how the Lord will accomplish this: DEU 7:15 and the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

What exactly were these evil diseases of Egypt? DEU 28:27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.

Whatever these diseases were, we know for sure that they were fatal. Now, let's read what Murshilish wrote in his "Plague Prayers", a prayer to the Hittite storm-god- and remember, Murshilish was Hittite king at the time Joshua led the people into the Promised Land: "What is this that ye have done? a plague ye have let into the land. The Hatti land has been cruelly afflicted by the plague. For twenty years now men have been dying in my father's days, in my brother's days, and in mine own since I have become the priest of the gods....My father sent foot soldiers and charioteers who attacked the country of Amqa, Egyptian territory. Again he sent troops, and again they attacked it.... The Hattain Storm-god, my lord, by his decision even then let my father prevail; he vanquished and smote the foot soldiers and charioteers of the country of Egypt But where he brought back to the Hatti land the prisoners which they had taken, a plague broke out among the prisoners and they began to die.

When they moved the prisoners to the Hatti land, these prisoners carried the plague into the Hatti land. From that day on, people have been dying in the Hatti land."

The Hittites caught the plague from the Egyptian soldiers who were stationed in Amqa, Egyptian territory above Lebanon. And those who contracted the plague died. Again, we can read a contemporary account of the events exactly as stated in the Bible!

Jericho

We will conclude our discussion of the Exodus with the evidence found at Jericho. In the past few years, atheistic archaeologists have tried to discount the original work done at Jericho which showed clearly that it was destroyed in precisely the manner described in the Bible by Joshua, and also the iron-clad evidence that proved who the kings of Egypt were at the time of the Exodus. Due to lack of space, we must recommend that you obtain the book "New Bible Evidence" by Sir Charles Marston (1934) to read about the tremendous amount of information which verifies the destruction of Jericho at about 1407 BC. We will however, give one quote as an example, from p. 135: "So great was the importance of verifying the date of the destruction, that in 1930, Professor Garstang and his wife cleaned and examined no fewer than sixty thousand fragment from the strata of the burned city. At the expedition in the folowing year (1931) another forty thousand fragments were treated in a similar manner. They all attested to the same date, that of the middle of the late Bronze Age (1400 BC) before the infiltration of the Myekean ware."

But equally exciting was the discovery of the cemetery of this city, as we read on p. 136: "In due course a number of tombs were opened that proved to belong to the century 1500- 1400 BC. and included royal tombs of the period. There were found a succession of eighty scarabs bearing the cartouches of the eighteenth dynasty Pharaohs. In one was unearthed scarabs bearing the joint names of Princess Hatshepsut and Thotmes III (1501- 1487 BC.) and in another two royal seals of Amenhetep III....As the series of dated scarabs all come to an end with the two royal seals of Amenhetep III, there is evidence, quite independent of the pottery, that the city also ceased to exist during that period."

Amazing, isn't it, that all this fantastic evidence is hidden deep within old books collecting dust in libraries? But it is there! And we only have touched on the basics of this information- there is much more out there.

SUMMARY

We realize that it isn't necessary to salvation that we know all of these things about ancient history- but I personally can say this: no matter what, nothing can ever shake my faith in the Biblical account because I know it is completely and totally factual. And God has preserved all these evidences of His Truth that none of us should have any reason for doubt. There was a particular time when Ron was discouraged in this work. And at that time, he read a verse- a verse that kept him going all these years: ISA 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

Even though Cyrus was being addressed in this verse, it is a promise to us all. He will not leave us in doubt.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDED REFERENCE READING

"Archaeology and the Bible" by George A. Barton
"New Bible Evidence" by Sir Charles Marston
"A History of Egypt" by James Henry Breasted
"Ancient Records of Egypt II" by"
"Life in Ancient Egypt'' by Adolph Erman
"The Ancient Egyptians" by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson
"The Monuments of Senenmut" by Peter F. Dorman
"X-Raying the Pharaohs" by Jas. E. Harris & Kent Weeks
"Egyptian Mummies" by G. Elliot Smith & Warren Dawson
"Mummies, Myth and Magic" by Christine El Mahdy

"The Ancient Near East, Vol.1", ed. by James B. Pritchard
"Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. II" by Miriam I. Lichtheim
"Records of the Past, vols. 1-6" ed. by A. H. Sayce
"Tutankhamen" by Christine Desroches-Noblecourt
"The Scepter of Egypt, vol II" by William C. Hayes
"When Egypt Ruled the East'" by Geo. Steindorff & Keith Seele
"History of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2" by George Rawlinson
"Akhenaten" by Cyril Aidred
"Akhenaton the Heretic King" by Donald B. Redford


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:58 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
Quote:
Not only do you use Shoshenq I as Shishak,


Where on earth did I say this? What do I say that implies this? No where have I said that Shoshenq I is the same as Shishak. But I fail to see how this has anything to do with nullifying the 1446 BC theory. Perhaps because Rameses III, who I presume you believe is Shishak ruled from 1184-1153, and that this would place Solomon around this time instead of 970 BC? I highly doubt so, because in this case, you'd have to throw 1 Kings 6:1 completely out the window. You do mean scripture to harmonize I would assume? Or are you willing to throw out the 480 years completely. The 480 years does not in any way shape or form coincide between the reign of Rameses II (1279-1213 BC) of which you place the Exodus, and Rameses III (Shishak) (1184-1153). Even if you subtract the beginning year of 1279 of Rameses II and the ending year of Rameses III of 1153, you only get a 126 year DIFFERENCE. Now that is outragously small in comparison to 480 years if you ask me.

Not only this, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supports the evidence that Solomon's correnation was in 970 BC. Additionally, 14C-dating of remains of Jericho suggests the destruction to have happened around 1400 BC--sources: B.G. Wood (1990) Dating Jericho's destruction, Biblical Archaeology Review, 5.

According to my upcoming hypothesis, the destruction of Jericho would have occurred approximately 1406 BC which completely throws out all theory of the Exodus taking place during Rameses II, since there is a vast 200 year difference here, and Joshua conquered Jericho not long after Moses died.

As for Judges 2:18, I see no contradiction between the verses. What leads you to believe this? I've read the verse like 10 times already, and even searched numerous comments on it in google. Nothing at all relating to a nullification of using 1 Kings 6:1 as an appropriate dating guide for the Exodus. Nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:03 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
Bel,

May I ask where on earth you came from? You're like an angel that fell out of the sky. Where did you acquire this information? Also, for how long have you believed in this theory? The information you provided is basically identical the info I'm going to provide (but mine will be much much more in-depth). Which website did you aqcuire that article from?

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:21 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:22 am
Posts:1028
Location: Pennsylvania
[quote="Lysimachus"] You're like an angel that fell out of the sky. [quote]
Awww :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group