Theory: Why The Exodus Myth Exists

Hydarnes, I'm very sorry to hear this bad news. I will alert my church and we will be praying for special healing for your brother. Greet him for me when you see him and assure him our prayers are going up for him. buz.

Can you elaborate on the chariot wheels? I thought you said there was a chariot graveyard full of 18th dynasty chariot wheels in the spot where the Exodus crossing would have taken place, but now you mention only a single wheel. What is the material that turned the mountain black? If it is carbon, has it been dated? If it isn't carbon, is it a material that would have resulted from combustion? Can it be dated? Can any kind of date estimates whatsoever be made? I don't know that it matters as long as they're acknowledged professionals in their field from the appropriate subspecialty. All I meant by appropriate was that you'd want geologists for examining the mountain, and archaeologists for examining the chariot wheels, and so forth.The lack of specificity I was originally concerned about continues. If those with access to this evidence are confident of it, you'd think they'd exert more energy having it authenticated.--Percy

Hi Brian. All I can say is if you put it in the can, don't dump it. We're not finished yet. I've already explained in the Video thread that since traditional Mt Sinai has been missplaced at the lower tip of what has been erroneously named the Sinai Peninsula, the same folks who determined this bogus site way back when also assumed that Baal-zephor must have been on the west side of the Gulf of Suez. Not so if the video site where the chariot debris is correct. As I've already stated, Baal-zephor would need to be in the Midian side of Aqaba for everything to make sense. Also as I explained, Pi-hahiroth is likely a fortress near the beach of Neweiba where the Egyptians could guard against invasion via the sea.
I'm getting the other pieces to this puzzle together also. I'll prove to you that the scriptures name the unnamed sea in question that you are, as I understand you, trying to make a separate sea.Gota hit hay for now. Talk to you later.

Great arguments Brian. Very persuasive and informed. Wow, I read this and got a picture of a bunch of people getting kicked out of Egypt as plague carriers who embellished and enobled their story. Combine that with Jar's suggestion that there were much fewer than 2 million involved, you get a much different picture than Cecil B. Demille's.That's about as scientific as Buz's interpretation.

I bet that the video showed a bunch of chariot wheels in the sea, then a shot of an 18th dynasty chariot in a museum."Look! They have the same number of spokes! The wheels in the sea must be 18th dynasty Egyptian chariot wheels!".

You missread me. I said the chariot in the museum has the four spoke wheel (new phrase) such as was photographed in the sea, meaning such as the type of wheels found in the sea. Actually I believe there were both four and six spoke wheels photographed as well as others which were not able to be determined because of the amount of deterioration and coral but the circular shape was evident.
According to the video, there were both four and six spoke wheels during the 18 dynasty as well as some 8 wheel ones, but the one in the museum happened to have the four spoke type. As I understand the four spoke was likely the most common. Again this is why you should see the video or read the book. I simply can't tell all the details and folks who aren't interested enough to look at it all seem to think I should be covering these details. I'll do the best I can. Keep up the questions, but please bear with me and understand that there is a lot of info here to sort out in order to get it right according to the text and what the video supplies. I do intend to get the book and read it, as according to Lysimacus it provides even much more detail, but this is where I'm at now. I don't know these details and the area is wired off and restricted as I understand it. It has been determined that it is not a volcanic mountain. As I've said, the fact that it is there, that it is the highest in the region and that it lends credence to the numerous other factors is, imo, noteworthy and should be acknowledged.Got company. Talk to you later.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-07-2004 12:43 PM

Hydarnes:Please convey my best wishes to your brother, Lysimachus for a speedy and full recovery from his serious injury. I hope with a successful surgery and good physical therapy, Lysimchus will be back up and at them hiking and enjoying life with his family and friends.Peace. Ab.

So the submerged wheels remain submerged? Don't you think that a proper approach requires bringing the wheels to the surface where they may be examined? And that this should be done before reaching any conclusions? I can't help feeling that the overwhelming lack of curiousity and the strong reluctance to investigate stems from fear that the results might spoil a really good story. In order for four spokes to be indicative of the 18th dynasty, it would have to be the case that four spokes were used during the 18th dynasty and only during the 18th dynasty. How convenient!Until the evidence offered by the video is properly examined, it can't be the foundation of any reliable conclusions. It's a really neat story, but without authentication it will find little support outside evangelical circles. If evangelicals are confident in the evidence then there should be no reluctance about having it examined scientifically. Uh, basically, yes!It is not the responsibility of others to seek the information you should be providing yourself. If you have a case to make then you make it here. This evasive technique is so common it is covered in the Forum Guidelines. You shouldn't embark upon arguments that require others to purchase and view videos or books. Such materials should be offered as references to be sought by those interested. They should never be essential to your argument.When EvC Forum goes video I'll make sure you're the first to know. --Percy

HI Percy, Would this lack of curiousity suprise you even more if I told you that Ron first touted all this stuff over 25 years ago!!!?Ron first claimed to have found these wheels in 1978, this was still when the old 'biblical archaeology' schools had a lot of influence, and before the 'new archaeology' was established. The old maximalists would have screamed this from the rafters if it had an ounce of credibility.25 years, deary me.It gets even more pathetic, I found this while looking for the date of Ron's 'discovery'.From WYATTARCHAEOLOGY On diving down to the sea bed, in 1978, Ron Wyatt and his two sons found and photographed numerous coral encrusted chariot parts. Several dives since then have revealed more and more evidence. One of his finds included an eight spoke chariot wheel, which Ron took to the director of Egyptian Antiquities, Dr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan. After examining it he immediately announced it to be of the eighteenth dynasty, dating the exodus to 1446 BC. When asked how he knew this Dr. Hassan explained that the eight spoke wheel was only used during this period, the time of Ramases II and Tutmoses (Moses).wyattarchaeology This contains so much garbage it is difficult to know where to start.First off, it says that the wheel was dated to the 18th dynasty, dating the Exodus to 1446. The dating is straight from the Bible (1 Kings 6:1) and neglects to mention that the 18th dynasty lasted from around 1550 BCE to c. 1295 BCE, so how can it be dated so precisely?Also, and here is a massive schoolboy error, it mentions 'the time of Rameses II and Thutmosis (Moses), this is a howler as Rameses II was a NINETEENTH Dynasty Pharaoh, and did not become pharoah until c. 1280 BCE, the last 18th dynasty pharaoh was Horemheb. The first 19th Dynasty pharaoh was Rameses I, then the next pharaoh was Seti I, then we had Rameses II. The last Pharaoh called Thutmosis was Thutmosis IV, he died around 1386 BCE.Finally, it is impossible to identify Moses with any of the Thutmosis's as 'Moses' is only part of a name, it is a theophoirc name meaning 'born of the god Thut', and is used in the names of Pharaohs such as 'Ahmoses', 'Thutmosis', and 'Khamose'. Another problem would be that if Moses was pharaoh then why would he have to run away to Midian, the pharaoh was a god, he could kill whoever he wanted without having to run away, how can people swallow this nonsense?The whole website is riddled with complete ignorance of absolutely everything, and it thrives on the lack of knowledge of the readers and their desperation to have some sort of support for the Bible.How on earth can we take anyone seriously who claims Rameses II was an 18th Dynasty pharaoh?Brian.

BrianWasn't there a rule making it illegal for someone from the 19th Dynasty to use something made in the 18th Dynasty?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Buzsaw:Suppose you are correct. Suppose there are some chariot wheels from the 18th dynasty in the location.This still doesn't prove that they are from the Exodus ?How did 2 1/4 million people travel across Sinai for their miracle deliverance ? Some chariot wheels at Aqaba prove this ?Brian is absolutely correct in citing Numbers and Israel's whereabouts.

What more can they do than what Moller did? Which of them who would do can do to verify the Biblical miraclulous? Maybe they're very fearful that what they research will debunk so much of what they've been taught, taught themselves, believed and published and how they've interpreted the rocks, etc in the past that they simply want nothing to do with it. Judging from the attitude of most secularists here I suspect that to be the case. Sorry, that's just my honest opinion. Moller is associated with the secular University of Sweden and not with Wyatt or his organization, though I'm sure he's had contact with them and others as it was Wyatt, Fassold and others who discovered this and pioneered the project. As I've repeatedly stated between the two Exodus threads, there are restrictions with penalty (not nice penalties in Islamland) in removing or analyzing the evidences. The mountain is also off limits with fencing and enforcement personnel. But I continue to counter that any lack of specificity is balanced by the amount of both evidence and corroborating factors near the most empirical evidence, the unprecedented amount of chariot parts in the only possible plausable passage parcel of the whole region.

Of course it would be nice to bring them up for analysis, but as already stated, two problems:
1. Too fragile as the wood is rotted under the overlay.
2. Against the law to do so and if it were done illegally, who would want to display or publish a crime? As stated already, the video says they were unique to that perion. Yah Percy, kinda like nobody could possibly analyze the universe or any part of it 15 billion years ago and nobody to observe the supposed natural beginnings of the sun, earth and moon 4.5 billion years ago but regardles the text books say this's how it t'was and nobody's tellin our school kiddies nuttin else, period! Did I ever say it's a responsibility or a requirement, Percy? Certainly not! I simply made statements to the effect that for someone who is avidly interested in the details, the small expenditure would be necessary to appreciate these details, all of which I neither can or should be required to produce. You're being disingenuous and unfair here, imo to imply that I'm disobeying forum guidelines. Common, man, who here in this town knows all the answers and supplies all the details to questions folks ask, especially given that I've been here quite alone for much of these two threads with a busy personal schedule and a number of folks to respond to?I and my new friend Lysimachus have provided plenty without the necessity of video purchase, including clips and photos from the video. What more can you ask. Go ahead, ask and if I can possibly do more I'll try my best. Thanks, my friend.

Brian, thanks for your patience. I need to get some work done but will get back to you asap.Btw, Jar, I think you may be right about the dynasty requirement for uniqueness. I suppose it may depend some on how compatible they were as to how much change.

Hi Buzz,To sum up my feeling on this, I think you have slim evidence that is insufficient for convincing anyone outside your evangelical circle. You can raise all kinds of legitimate issues regarding why the evidence isn't accessible, but science contains no special dispensations for inaccessible evidence. At best the examinations conducted so far must be deemed inadequate.I think it is fine if you want to believe the story from the video. Bit if you want others to believe it, then only expert examination of the evidence will suffice. Arguing that the evidence in its current form is too sufficient will not be successful.--Percy