Boro Nut

There are absolutely no Isrealites building pyramids in Egypt. QED.

Boro Nut

davidH

Yep, here it is.

As already shown the Bible says that it took place in 1440 BC.

It would be in 1520 BC that Moses was born - Bible says that the princess came to bath in the river and found him - using the date It would have been princess Hathshepsut - she'd have been around 17 years old at that time.

If you don't know she became the most powerful queen in Egypt, both her parents were of royal blood.
She dominated her father Thotmes I (ThutmosesI) and continued to be the real ruler during the reign of Thotmes II (Thutmoses II) and also for the 1st 16 years of Thotmes III.

Evidience that she was the most powerful queen, ranking in equivalence to pharoh, because only the most powerful pharohs could erect an obelisk to themselves (look up Queen Hatshepsut's column at Karnak, Southern Egypt.)

Also she would have to have considerable influence because the pharoh had issued a decree that all Israelites boys born where to be killed. So for her to adopt one shows that she must have been powerful.

You may ask why I mentioned that Moses was protected for the 1st 16 years of the reign of Thotmes III - it was because it was after this that Queen Hatshepsut died (1485 BC).
Any background reading you do on this will show that there was a hatred between Queen Hatshepsut and Thotmes III - perhaps a better way of putting it is that he hated her.
This is a discovery based on archaeological evidence, because it's been discovered that he tried to erase her name from all the monuments of Egypt, however he wasn't thorough enough and hence the reason we know of her existance and power.
Thotmes III after the queen died became one of Egypt's greatest conquerors.

Now ask yourself the question - "Why only after she died?"

The reason was that the queen did them herself - she sent fleets of ships up the Nile to conquer Central Africa. But then the obvious question comes - why didn't she send Thotmes III at least as the comander?

The reason is given by Josephus, the historian - he says that she made Prince Moses her commander, and he led the military force up to the junction of the white nile and captured Merrow. He also captured and married the Ethiopian princess.

Though there may be some truth in what Josephus says cause it makes sense of the reason why she didn't send Thotmes III, and also if you look in the Bible in Numbers 12 v 1 - where Miriam and Aaron try to get support away from Moses because he married a Cushite (which is that area).

So Thotmes III would have regarded Moses as a serious rival and once the queen died and Moses killed that Egyptian Thotmes III would have had all the right reasons to get rid of Moses -hence the reason why Moses flees for his life into the desert.
Cause if you think about it - someone as powerful as Moses, a prince, and yet as soon as he kills someone he leaves everything he has and flees for his life. Surely one would think that such a matter would be wrapped up in someway that the blame wouldn't fall on Moses because of who he was.
But then because of this hatred Thotmes III had for the queen and for Moses, her prince who took his place - it's hardly surprising that Moses fears for his life and runs. He'd just given the pharoh the perfect chance to kill him.

It's amazing that when you take the date the Bible gives and slot it into that time of Egyptian history everything slots into place.

This is all I'll put up until next time, but do you think that all this just happened to co incide with the date given in the Bible?

Do some reading on it if you have never done so - it's interesting stuff. Like put into google Queen Hatshepsut, and read all about her, put in stuff about Moses and see what comes out.

Kosh

Still waiting for evidence, rather than speculation on coincedental story lines. While you're doing all this reading, perhaps you could ponder why the archeological evidence doesn't simply fail to support the Exodus, it contradicts the story. Consider these points made by "The Bible Unearthed":

- The story of Joshua has him being wisked away to Egypt on a caravan of camels, yet camels were not domesticated and used for caravans until the 7th century, BCE.
- There are no records of the Jews having been in Egypt in great numbers
- There are no records (be they realistic or whitewashed versions) of a Pharoash losing an army.
- There is no evidence of a large number of people occupying the Sanai for 40 years.
- There is no evidence of Canaan being conquered in the timeframe claimed by the bible. The evidence shows the opposite.
- At the supposed time of the Exodus, Egypt didn't stop at the Red Sea. They had military outposts all the way into Canaan. To put it simply, Canann was Egypts b*tch at the time! Any fleeing Israelites would have been easily pursued by these outposts after the Red Sea incident.

Perhaps you should read <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=651" target="_blank">The Bible Unearthed</a>, very interesting reading.

Marduk

DavidH said:
"So Thotmes III would have regarded Moses as a serious rival and once the queen died and Moses killed that Egyptian Thotmes III would have had all the right reasons to get rid of Moses -hence the reason why Moses flees for his life into the desert."

Fine, but what does this have to do with the Exodus and 600,000 plus 'slaves' fleeing along with him and all that other Bible stuff??

One can just as easily say that Moses was the Radical Monotheistic Pharoah Akanaten (?), who was chased out of Egypt for causing a ruckus with his darn new fangeled ideas!

davidH

lol, yeah just setting the scene.

(Yo, as a thought if any of you haven't read the story of the Exodus before, you can read it in Exodus 2 - 15 , it makes interesting reading)

What I previously put up was basically to show the time in which the Bible says the Exodus took place and how this corresponds with Egyptian history and the rulers of that time.

I've only scratched the surface.

But what I put basically introduces you to the time that the Exodus took place - I don't know how much you all knew about Egyptian history. But you can see that what the Bible says up to the point where I finished in no way contradicts Egyptian history, rather it fits in perfectly and a wider picture can be understood.

But before I go on I'd like to reply to Kosh and address the things he said.

I have the book the Bible Unearthed, which discusses whether David and Solomon where actually Kings of great empires or tribal chiefs.

Yeah it was Joseph I presume you are talking about.
The point you have just made in no way corresponds with the archaeological evidence discovered. I'll show you why.

An atheist,Professor Zeuner states that cammels were domesticated as long ago as 2000BC - he was an anthropologist and a specialist in animal bones. - This was in 1963.

The bible tells of uses of camels whenever the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon - and so those who wrote the Bible unearthed would state that the Bible would have to be wrong.

However consider this evidence.
At the time of Solomon a Phoenician priest called Sanchuniathon wrote that the king Hiram had timber for the temple transported from Lebanon to Jerusalem on 8,000 camels.
These details are again confirmed by the Phoenician priest of Tyre. It also supplies the actual names of the mariners in the ships mentioned in 1 Kings 9 v 27.

So the above is evidence from another source that camels where around earlier than the 7th century.

Doing a quick google search;

<a href="http://www.webcom.com/~degraham/Camel/Info.html" target="_blank">http://www.webcom.com/~degraham/Camel/Info.html</a>

Just type Cammel into google and see what you get.
The up to date evidence doesn't support the view that camels were domestigated in the 7th century.

I could elaborate but I don't think it's necessary to do so.

As for the other things that you have mentioned, we'll come across that as I elaborate further.

I ended with Moses fleeing for his life last post.
You have said that I'm only speculating along a story line - but I'm showing you how precisly the Bible story fits in.

The Bible tells that Moses was in the desert for a long peroid (1 Kings 2 v 23), then God told Moses that pharoh had died and that he could go back. It was then that he told Moses that he was going to use him to free the Israelites.
Thotmes III died in 1450BC - Queen Hatshepsut died in 1482. The difference between these 2 deaths is 32 years, so depending on whether Moses fled before Queen Hatshepsut died or after so the date he was away depends.
However again this fits in perfectly with the Biblical account - he was away for a long time until the pharoh (Thotmes III) died.
The next reign was by Amenhetep II.
According to the Bible this pharoh is the one that lived through all the plagues and was then drowned in the Red Sea.

Now Amenhetep's tomb is still here today and his mummified body in it. If he was drowned in the Red Sea how come he's in his tomb?

The Bible says in Exodus 14 v 30

Arrrgggggghhhhh!!!!!! Great, I'd just written loads more and now I've pressed something and half of everything written got deleted - happened before and I've no way of getting it back.


Ah well, here goes again!

If Amenhetep II had been in the Red sea when this happened, and his body had washed up on the shore then he would have easily been recognised by his clothing and royal armour.
But the Bible doesn't say that pharoh himself was amoung them - it just says it was his army that was swept away.

However there is some interesting evidence regarding his tomb - It was only half finished, as if they weren't expecting his death, his mummy was hastily prepared and they didn't bother to finish his tomb once he was dead.
Now this is very unusual for pharohs.

The pharoh who then succeeded the throne was Thotmes IV.
Now if what the Bible says is true, we should find that Thotmes IV wouldn't be the first born son of Amenhetep II - this being because of the killing of all the first-born of all who didn't smear lambs blood on their doors.
The Bible says in Exodus 12 v 29

In 1936 when the sand was cleared from the bottom of the sphinx, a great slab of red rose granite was found resting between the paws, down to the pavement. It was 4 metres high.
The slab was placed there by Thotmes IV.
On the slab he tells how, long before his father's death, he had been hunting in the desert above Memphis and got very tired - so he lay down to sleep in the shadow of the sphinx. The sphinx represented the God who was symbolised by the sun and spoke to him. He promised Thotmes IV that one day he would come to the throne and that when he became King, he must venerate the God who foretold his succession. He must clear away the piles of sand which had begun to cover the sphinx and record the fulfilment of the prophecy.

It is clear that he wasn't the next heir to the throne, his elder brother wasn't only the eldest son of Amenhetep II, but also the son of a royal princess. He however was the younger and wasn't of royal birth.

Is this all just a co-incidence? Did the account given by the Bible just happen to fit in exactly with the history of Egypt?
The parallels are so exact....could it really have been a lucky guess?

As if that wasn't enough already, there's something else in Egyptian history that scholars have wondered about which fits in perfectly with what the Bible says.

Thotmes IV was the pharoh who introduced monotheism to Egypt. He changed his name to Akhnaton ( - something to do with the change of religion, I have forgotten exactly what it was.)

Now ask yourself the question - why would a pharoh forsake the Egyptian Gods that his father had worshipped - the only God's he knew? That was what puzzled historians, because it makes no sense.
However whenever you put the exodus into the picture and you see what had happened up to then, it makes perfect sense.

The 10 plagues in quick succession, showing the power of a God that the Egyptian Gods could do nothing against. The drowning of his father's army, the possible death of his own father, the parting of the red sea, the drying up of the Jordan and the loss of his eldest brother.

I can imagine him hearing about Moses coming to his father asking to let the people go, and giving God's warning.....then that warning coming true

What person wouldn't begin to have serious doubts about their country's Gods that were there to protect them?
The fact that he states he had this dream, in which God spoke to him - if this was true, then I have no doubt that Akhnaton saw all these events as being the cause of the God that fortold his own rise to the throne.

It's little surprise that he introduced monotheism and abandonned the Egyptian Gods as useless.

It's stuff that makes you think.


I think I'll leave it at that for the moment. Tomorrow I'll go into detail on the archaeological evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt and for their conquest of Cannan. - Some of the points Kosh brought up.
It's pretty interesting stuff.

But for the minute I'm wrecked!Got to get some serious sleep

Mendeh

David H, you're talking crap. I'm sorry. Your grasp of Egyptian history is completely up the spout. There's no other word for it.
I think the quality of your scholarship can be summed up simply by pointing out that (a) Thutmose IV's ascent is better explained by a power struggle, something you'd have known about had you bothered to research this properly, and (2) you've got the WRONG BLOODY PHARAOH introducing monotheism into Egpyt; it was AMENHOTEP IV, NOT THUTMOSE IV. You're out by around half a century! Again, something that would have leapt out at you had you bothered actually doing some research.

The reason for Thutmose IV's strange ascent to the throne becomes clear once you take into account a few bits of general knowledge about the period you're trying to talk about.
Amenhotep II's 'Great Wife', i.e. his primary queen, was his mother. He had no other publically recognised wife than her, but there were a number of princes knocking about by various mothers (ex. Amenhotep, Thutmose, Khaemwaset (?), Amenemopet, Ahmose, Webensenu, Nedjem, as well as two other, un-named princes found on stelae at Giza). It is thought that the recent debacle of the Queen-turned-King Hatshepsut gave Amenhotep II a particular reason to produce sons. But with all these contendors for the throne hanging about, none of whom were the products of officially sanctioned wives, we can expect a power struggle brewing. And indeed that is just what we observe from the evidence; for example, the suggestion of a struggle taking place for the throne can be seen in several monuments built by Thutmose's brothers at Amenhotep's Giza Sphinx temple, found broken and mutilated, just as victims of pharonic coups historically are in Egypt. (The victim seems to have been Webensenu.) The possibility of a power struggle seems quite strong, and although we cannot be sure that Thutmose was the usurper, he certainly doesn't seem to have been recognised by Amenhotep II, not by announced intent, or the increasingly common practice of co-regency. The evidence, both in the fact that none of Amenhotep's sons were strictly legitimate successors, plus what has been found at Giza, points strongly to a power struggle, leading ultimately to Thutmose's succession.

Now, trying to tie in the Exodus story with Thutmose IV is dodgy scholarship at best, but what follows is simply complete ignorance of basic Egyptian history:

This is crap. The pharaoh who introduced monotheism into Egypt was Amenhotep IV, over 50 years later, not Thutmose IV. But actually, this is a simplification.
Akhenaten reintroduced sun-worship as the primary focus of Egyptian religious life, eventually to the exclusion of all else as far as he could exert his influence, but actually the enthusiasm for sun-worship had already begun in the court of his father, Amenhotep III. Akhenaten went a long way further than his father, though, making the primary god of Egypt the Aten - the sun-disk - which until then had been a relatively minor solar deity. The extent to which the religion was monotheistic is also debatable, as references to other gods continue during what has become known as the Armarna period. What is certain, however, is that the new religion became progressively monotheistic as time wore on.

Crap. The Aten was an all-Egyptian deity, and had been around a long time before it was made the primary focus of religious worship. Also, the Aten cult had probably been gaining popularity amongst the court during the reign of Akhenaten's father, so Akhenaten would have been brought up with it from childhood.

Crap, crap, and more crap. There's no documented evidence of the ten plagues, the drying up of the Jordan, or the parting of the Red Sea outside of the Bible, and the Bible doesn't even say that the pharaoh who drowned was Amenhotep II.
The fact that you think Akhenaten was the son of Amenhotep II says a lot for your actual knowledge about this period of Egyptian history. THE SUCCESSOR TO AMENHOTEP II WAS THUTMOSE IV, NOT AMENHOTEP IV (= AKHENATEN). THUTMOSE IV WAS NOT AKHENATEN. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT PHARAOHS SEPARATED IN THEIR ASCENTIONS BY ABOUT 50 YEARS.

CRAP. You're talking about the WRONG BLOODY PHARAOH, for crying out loud. Thutmose IV says he has this dream, NOT AKHENATEN. And Thutmose IV never even dreamed of introducing monotheism into Egypt.

For crying out loud, AKHENATEN INTRODUCED MONOTHEISM, NOT THUTMOSE!!! And Aten, Akhenaten's 'new' God, was neither new, nor foreign.

For gods' sake, read a bloody textbook.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mendeh ]</p>

nerv111

It seems probable that the Exodus story is simply a myth passed down over several generations by the Hyksos after their expulsion from Egypt by Seqenenre Ta’o II, Kamose, and Ahmose. Historians agree that the most probably origin of the Hyksos seems to be from what is now southern Palestine; also the final Egyptian campaign against lead by Ahmose pursued the Hyksos to southern Palestine.

Exodus seems to be just a case of historical revisionism where the loosing party to remove the humiliation of having lost the most powerful and prosperous country in the Ancient world, thus they rationalize it by claiming they were slaves and wanted to leave Egypt in the first place thus turning their defeat into a victory. How exactly the story itself was woven into Hebrew culture remains to be seen.

This is much more probably then the claims that Thutmose III or Akhenaten are Moses, etc.

davidH

I apologise for my mix up in the 2 pharohs there, I was going by memory and got the 2 confused.


I think it's a bit harsh that my knowledge is critised for mixing up 2 pharohs - considering that I was going by memory at that time.
Also you because I got this wrong doesn't mean that my grasp of Egyptian history is up the spout.

You have said that my quality is exposed by the rise to the throne of Thotmes IV being better explained by a power struggle.
Now where did I state that a power struggle wasn't involved between him and the other princes?

If you read over what I have written you'll see that .

I stated that in comparision to the older brother he was nothing - he was only of "semi royal" birth.
I'm not sure whether any of the other sons where of royal birth - but one thing is sure, that the elder brother would have been pharoh - if he was still alive at the time.
The power struggle would then make sense if all the other princes where of semi royal birth - they would all see themselves as potential pharohs.

The point I was making wasn't anything to do about Thotmes IV rise to the throne - rather the fact that his elder brother (the firstborn) didn't become pharoh. If he had become pharoh then the Bible would be wrong cause it said he was killed - since he didn't become pharoh this supports the Bible. - I have read that he is persumed to have died before his father died.

As for the mistake about the 2 pharohs - I apologise, and thanks for pointing it out.

However as it goes, it makes no difference to what I was saying - he still would have seen the plagues as the act of the God that had spoken to him in the dream, fulfilling what he had foretold.

Hence his dramatic change of religion. - It makes perfect sense, no massive stretch of the imagination is needed because logically this makes sense.


I think that was all your answer basically consisted of - those 2 points mentioned above.
I'll maybe reply to this bit too.

As some of this is in the next part I'm going to put up - I'll answer it then.

There is evidence of the 10th plague - the first born of Amenhotep II didn't become pharoh - presumed dead - him in a power struggle is unlikely since he was of pure royal blood.

However you are perfectly right in saying that the Bible doesn't say that the pharoh drowned was Amenhotep II. - I never said that the Bible did say such a thing.
But I'm pointing out that the date given by the Exodus fits exactly into Egyptian history. - The deaths of pharohs are when the Bible says they are, and when you slot the Biblical events in, everything still corresponds.

So hopefully those 2 points are now resolved.

Just one more thing before I go on.

Where did I say that Aten wasn't an all Egyptian deity?

When I wrote the above i was referring to all the other Egyptian Gods - but I can see how you could have understood it to mean what you have thought. - I'll be clearer in future.

But the question I put still stands - what could have persuaded him to forsake all the other Gods?

Also you say that the Aten cult had probably been rising in popularity in the court during the reign of his father (any evidence of this?), but since Thotmes IV is thought to have come to the throne at a very early age (17 some have thought) - do you really think he would have been so bold to demand the only worship of Aten?

Seems that there must have been something far far more radical than even the rising popularity to cause him to take such a stand.

Anyway I'll continue on now.


Many have said that there is no araeological evidence that the Israelites were in egypt or that their conquest of Cannan occurred.

Some because they have taken an alternative date (a later one) quote an Egyptian record which shows that the Israelites were in Palestine in 1207 BC - they then say that this proves they weren't in egypt and so the Exodus never took place.

However use the date that the Bible gives ( the date I have been using ) and you find that the Egyptian record is perfectly correct in saying that the Israelites were in Palestine at that time - they had left Egypt 200 years earlier.
This proves that the Bible date was right.

Some say that Egypt didn't take slaves so the Israelites couldn't have been slaves there.

However Egyptologists have found wall paintings depicting taskmasters who are declaring to slaves
" You are idle, you are lazy"

These are the very words in the Bible....

Then there's this verse in the Bible
Exodus 5 v 7-8

v12

If this is accurate then we should be able to find bricks from that time containing stubble and not straw.
This has been found - bricks have been found that have stubble in them and not straw.

Now it's obvious from the Bible that the Israelite slaves were involved in massive building work.
At the time the straw wasn't supplied it would have been Amenhotep II who was pharoh.

Is there any evidence that he had extensive building programs?

Again the answer is yes,


Giza - temple to Horemakhet (god identified with the great Sphinx)
Festival temple in the temple of Amun at Karnak
Temple to Amun in northern Karnak

Bubastis - scenes of offering
Turra - stela dating to Year 4
Medamot - Pillar and lintel

Qurneh - temple
Elephantine - block, obelisk(?)
Kalabhsheh - front of temple

Qasr Ibrim - painted rock shrine
Sai - temple
Napata - temple


other monuments were also built at:

Pnubs on Argo island, Uronarti, Kumma, Buhen, Amada, Sehel, Gebel Tingar, Gebel el-Silsila, Elkab, Tod, Armant, Thebes (his tomb and funerary temple), Medamud, Dendera and Heliopolis.


This again confirms the accuracy of the account in the Bible - or is it still all one massive co-incidence?

The arguement that there are no monuments in Egypt referring to Israel isn't valid. None of the Egyptian Monuments ever refer to a defeat, only to victories and acomplishments.

But the fact that the Israelites were present in Egypt in large numbers comes from the evidence of the Tel Amarna tablets.

The Canaanites had been appealing for help from pharoh Akhnaton - they ask for help to stop the Israelite invasion - they say that if he doesn't help the whole land may be overrun.

A loyal soldier called Abdkhiba writes about Jerusalem to Egypt, he wrote this to Pharoh Akhnaton:

The tablets say that the Hebrews were invading from Seir and Edom - that is where you will find the Israelites launched their attack.
You can find the details in Deuteronomy 2.

This is evidence from another source that the Israelites had invaded Palestine - the land was falling to them - do you really think that they were in small numbers in Egypt?
This outside source again proves the accuracy of the Bible.

Did Pharoh Akhnaton send his army to help the Canaanites?

No he didn't.
Now ask yourself why? Why would pharoh not defend the territory that he had conquered?

As someone said earlier - Egypt had conquered far into Canaan and had many successful battles there, and Canaan was now in submission to Egypt.

So why in the world would Egypt not send it's army to fight the Hebrews and protect their conquered territory?

He was ingaged in no other massive conflict that required his armies - why then didn't he send help?

Could it be that he had seen the power of the Israelite God, had he heard from people of the plagues, the Red Sea parting, the Jordan, the loss of an army? So he knew what would happen if he did fight against them?
Did he even have a well trained army at that time, since the Bible says that an army was lost in the Red Sea?

It makes you think doesn't it. All the evidence, the other sources, the way the Exodus fits in perfectly with the Egyptian history, the reigns of the various pharohs and the reason that correspond to the fleeing of Moses, the change of religion, the plagues and the loss of the firstborn, the slave murals and the Tel Amarna tablets confirming the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites.

I'll leave it there for the minute and post more tomorrow - there's still more evidence.

nerv111

davidH you’re not addressing the point here, Mendeh stated that there is no documented evidence outside the Bible or the 10 plagues, how is the presumption that the first son of Amenhotep II died evidence of the 10 plagues?

Amenhotep III during his reign encouraged the worship of the Aten in order to undermine the power of the priesthood of Amon, it was a political manoeuvre to return power back to the hands of the per’ah. And furthermore you once again have mixed up the kings, it was Akhenaten that introduced the worship of ONLY the Aten, not Tuthmose IV.

First of all you have not demonstrated your claim that slavery existed in Egypt to the extend that is claimed in the bible; second the fact that the passage from the wall painting bares slight resemblance to something found in the bible is no evidence of the occurrence or the exodus as you claim, and also the fact that some bricks from that time containing stubble and not straw were found is not sufficient evidence to base your case that the exodus took place.

Apparently I’m missing the point of your argument here, of what relevance is it that Amenhotep II had numerous building projects? So did many other pharaohs.

Your case at best is circumstantial, and at worst you’re piecing together unrelated historical events to loosely tie them to the story of the Exodus.

Kosh

It appears to me that david is doing exactly what Finkelstein warned about in TBA. Performing research with the bible in hand.

BTW, David, is <a href="http://custance.org/Library/Volume7/Part_IV/Chapter2.html" target="_blank">This site</a> where you're getting your information from?

As your other points have shown to be confused, I'll address the camel point when I have time to enter info from the TBA on what Finkelstein has to say about the matter.