Zelph Falls Off His Shelf





My Answer to Tanner Gilliland's

"Why I Don't Believe in the Bible"

YouTube Video This article is NOT copyrighted! Please make copies and share them freely with others. Send the URL link to others as well. Whether you agree with this article or not, you'll probably enjoy reading it! "Truth is not necessarily what we want to be true. Truth is simply what is!" "If one begins with a false assumption, one will always end up with a false conclusion!" Part One: Tanner's Claims Against the Bible If all the photos in this webpage don't appear, right click "Reload" with your mouse. This article has been expanded to Six Parts because some people still have slow computers or poor internet reception. NOTE TO THE READER: This is NOT an attack on the person of Tanner Gilliland (Gill-lih-land) founder of "Zelph on the Shelf" YouTube channel: a former Mormon missionary to Brasil and now an ex-Mormon YouTube video maker. Tanner Gilliland appears to be a very honest young man, very idealistic, who, when losing his faith in Mormonism, seems to have lost his faith also in Jesus and God and all religion. I believe Tanner Gilliland is a very honest and NOBLE soul! However, I believe that he is currently mislead by Atheist propaganda: much of which has already been refuted. Tanner's videos on Mormonism are spot-on and accurate, and usually filled with humor and intellectual critiques of Mormon doctrine, history, and culture. However, Tanner's video "Why I Don't Believe in the Bible" uses old Atheist arguments against the Bible that have been either refuted or neutralized long ago. This article, Zelph Falls Off His Shelf, not only refutes these old Atheist arguments, but also uses real history and also some "channeled materials" to give naturalistic explanations of Bible events from the story of Adam and Eve to the flood of Noah and Moses and the Exodus.. In other words, this article will offer PROOF that these characters and events are real, historical, and happened, but did NOT happen in the "way" that Mormons and other Christians are raised to believe. I have great respect for Tanner and his "Zelph on the Shelf" YouTube series and highly recommend it for everyone to view. It is good-hearted, well-intended, fun, and 100% accurate on what it says about the Mormon Church and culture. However, Tanner's video "Why I Don't Believe In the Bible", while sincere and well-intended, relies on information from various Atheist anti-Bible YouTube videos and articles which has been refuted long ago. In other words, Tanner didn't do sufficient research on this one, and I will prove that below. Enjoy your read! This online narticle (in Six Parts) will also reveal: The identity of the god "YHWH" and His exact location in this Solar System. An explanation of the ELOHIYM and their function in the Cosmos. An explanation of the WATCHERS, or the "sons of the ELOHIYM" (from the Book of Enoch, etc.) who act as agents of the ELOHIYM, including telescope-videos of some of their deep-space structures. The identity of the ancient Egyptian couple, real historical people, upon which the story of Adam and Eve is based. The exact location of the ancient "Garden of Eden" (located in present day Tel Amarna, Egypt), what the "Fall of Adam" (original sin) actually was, why Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig-leaves (i.e. part of the fertility rite of the Egyptian goddess Hathor), and why they were "cast out" of the walled Garden. The identify of the real Noah, his real name, when he lived, where he lived, where the Great Flood occurred (in the Valley of Eight, Turkey), and where the current remains of the Ark of Noah are located (as confirmed by Turkish geologists and archaeologists) The "reason why" YHWH of the ELOHIYM decided to destroy "mankind" (i.e. the Adamites") with a flood, save only Noah and his family (i.e. all "Adamites" were killed in this great flood, except Noah and his family, but the pre-Adamites were not targeted). Scientific and geological "evidence" (proof) of the Great Flood in Turkey, in the area of the ancient kingdom of Urartu ("OO-rawr-too") in the year 2900 B.C. The true identity of Moses (Amunmoshe, ruler of Thebes, First Prophet of Amun-Ra, Commander of Pharaoh's chariots, circa 1250 B.C.), the true location of Mount Sinai, and scientific proof of the parting of the Red Sea (i.e. the "Sea of Reeds": present day Lake Manzala). Confirmation from ancient Egyptian judicial papyri (scrolls) that "Moses" really existed, really was a prince, really killed an Egyptian "task-master" and really fled to Median to avoid prosecution. Confirmation that a Semitic-Canaanite people sometimes called the "Apiru" (aw-pee-rooh) did dwell in Goshen, Egypt, for centuries and were eventually enslaved by one Pharaoh, and "chased out" (or escaped) from another Pharaoh. Scientific proof that Moses got massive amounts of relatively fresh water from a "rock" (i.e. by moving rock-water-stops from a massive cistern located in the side of a large mesa in the ancient Sinai penninsula). Archaeological PROOF that the name "Moses" is mentioned in an ancient Proto-Semitic wall carving, from about 1250 B.C., in a cave next to the ancient true sight of Mount Sinai (located far to the North of the tourist "Mount Sinai" of today). The "reason" why Aaron created a gold Calf in the Wilderness of Sin (the Semitic Moon god), and the reason why Moses had the Israelites drink powered-gold laced water. The true identification of "Manna" and what it was, what is was made of, and where you can buy it on the Internet, legally, today. The true "reason why" Jesus put a "curse" on a fig tree, why He had to die on the Cross for the "sin" of Adam, and "how" He ascended into a cloud on the Mount of Olives, forty days after His resurrection (Acts 1:1-9). All of the Atheist claims that Tanner Gilliland mentions in his YouTube video "Why I Don't Believe in the Bible" are either proven wrong (refuted), or shown to be "unproven" (neutral, not "proven" either way). And more.... I think you'll enjoy reading this article. One reader commented on Reddit after reading this article: "What a wild ride!" (r/mormonscholar ?????). Yes, its gonna be a "wild" ride! No, you haven't read anything like this before! Some of the mysteries of the Cosmos will be revealed to you. I can assure you, what you will discover, is beyond your current imagination. Enjoy your reading! Darrick Evenson

Last edit: December, 2019 Zelph on the Shelf Tanner Gilliland is a former Mormon (resigned), raised in the Mormon Church in Mesa Arizona, and a former Mormon missionary to Brazil. He co-hosts a YouTube channel called "Zelph on the Shelf" with his "friend" Samantha Shelley, an attractive 24 year old British woman who converted to the Mormon Church (yes..."MORMON Church") in Essex (I think) England when she was 17, only to discover, four or five years later, "All was not well in Zion!" She met Tanner, at Brigham Young University (Rexburg Idaho Campus), I think, or maybe it was BYU Provo Utah (???) and they became friends and soul-mates. Sometime during this friendship, both Sam and Tanner had somehow lost faith in Mormonism, Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, and all things MORmON. One day not long ago, it all came crashing down on their sweet little TBM (True Believing Mormon) heads. I'm not sure how these events took place, but they did. They formed a deeper friendship as two now "Mo-No-Mo's" ("Mormons No More") going through a devastating Crisis of Faith together, but coming out of the other side of the Rabbit Hole as "foot loose and fancy free" Former Mormons, taking life by the short hairs, throwing caution (and glitter) to the wind, growing their hair out, reverting to the late 1960s "Hippie" culture, starting a new life, smokin' them funny little cigarettes, making comedy videos thinly disguised as Anti-Mormon vids, or, conversely, making Anti-Mormon vids thinly disguised as comedy videos, kissing Mormonism good bye with a hefty "beefy" full-middle-fingered "Freeway Salute", and, like Thelma and Louise, driving off into the Sunset together: chucking away their former prim-and-proper Mormon lives, and inviting life to bring them what ever it may. Tanner and Sam Tanner and Sam choose the name "Zelph on the Shelf" for God knows why: something to do with "Elf on the Shelf" (a comedic YouTube channel about an Elf on a Shelf) has a fling with "Zelph the White Lamanite" and so "Zelph on the Shelf" is the baby produced from this unholy union. Tanner and Sam begin to do YouTube videos, which tells their story, and these videos get more and more funny, quirky, and professional as time goes on. Tanner Gilliland and Samamtha Shelley ("Tanner and Sam") have build up quite a nice relatively small but rapidly growing following among the Ex-Mormon Community ( estimated now at about 5 million people in North America alone), and around the world. They have done some very ____FUN___ videos, dressed in their 1969 Woodstock Muslc Festival fashion: combining humor with very accurate information about Mormon history and practice. They sometimes read "Hate E-Mail" from Mormons (sorry..."Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"...hat tip to Rusty Nelson) who show how "Latter-day Saint" they are by calling Sam and Tanner very low and dirty name known to Man while calling them to repentance and return to the Church in sackcloth and ashes. Their fan base just keeps growing every week, with each new YouTube video they release. Zelph the White Lamanite and Infants on Thrones Joseph Smith (1806-1844) and other Mormons once found an old Indian skeleton as they were digging a well, or in a mound (forget which) back in the late 1830s in Missouri or Ohio or Illinois (forget which). The Mormon men wondered if the dead Indian had a been a chief. Zelph had an arrow in his rib cage. Joseph Smith declared the skeleton was "Zelph the white Lamanite" (a "Lamanite" is an American Indian in Mormon terminology) and that "Zelph" was a famous prophet and warrior well-known from the East Coast to the Rocky Mountains, in his day. How did Joseph Smith know all that? Well, he was a Prophet, so, he just did. The Book of Mormon teaches that the "Lamanites" (lay-man-nights) are the descendants of two sons of a Jew named Lehi (Lee-high) and his sons "Laman" (lay-man) and "Lemuel", who were white skinned Jews from Jerusalem, who sailed to America from what is now the country Oman via the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and whose descendants were given a "skin of blackness" because they were idolaters, were "idle" (lazy) and had "filthy" habits. Apparently, "Zelph's" skin was not "cursed" because he was such a righteous dude: so righteous that somebody shot him with an arrow and buried him in a mound. Mormon leaders (white ones) used to teach that "Lamanites" will turn "white and delightsome" (not delightFUL but delightSOME) after they join the Mormon Church (sorry Rusty!). However, after a few generations of Mormon American Indians not turning "white and delightsome" the Mormon leaders gave up that doctrine by changing The Book of Mormon to read "pure and delightsome" instead of "white and delightsome". The Book of Mormon still teaches that the Lamanites were "cursed with a skin of blackness" although 1) American Indians have a skin of redness, not a skin of blackness and 2) the Church issued a "Race and the Priesthood" statement on LDS.org online (now ChurchofJesusChrist.org online) under "Gospel Topic Essays" which says that the Church "disavows all racist teachings past and present including the teaching that God has cursed some races with a dark skin" (Race and Priesthood Statment, December 2013). That Statement has been "revised" a number of times and the Church seems to keep on editing it with new editions; all of which seem to directly contradict the clear verses in The Book of Mormon that says the LORD cursed the Lamanites with "a skin of blackness" because they were filthy, lazy, and worshipped idols and the LORD did not want the white-skinned Nephites (knee-fights) marrying the "dark and loathsome" Lamanite women because white dudes are just not "into" women with tans or dark skin.

Joseph Smith and the remains of the poor unfortunately murdered "Zelph the White Lamanite" (1830sish) Joseph Smith also said that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri (Jackson County to be exact...no NOT kidding!), that polygamy was of the Devil (but "if" God sent to you an Angel with a Flaming Sword to threaten you to cut you into two smoldering halves if you didn't secretly "marry" and boff the brains out of sexy young teen virgin girls (including your own foster daughters) and the non-virginal wives of men you sent on missions to England, and "if" you kept it a secret--especially from your lovely wife Emma--then it was "OK" wink...wink), and Joseph Smith also once said that "if" you could "peer into yonder heavens" (like he did all the time) you'd see "infants on thrones" because in the Resurrection, babies who die as babies are resurrected as babies and "rule" as Gods in Heaven, on thrones, still with the bodies of little babies (which may or "may not" be pleasing to their many Goddess wives at beddy-bye time). Birth of "Zelph on the Shelf Tanner Gilliland is a former Born-and-raised-in-the-Church, a popular Mormon missionary to Brazil, a very popular BYU-Idaho Big Man on Campus, who lost faith in Mormonism, and decided to make "Anti-MormonISM" YouTube videos. He named his YouTube channel "Zelph on the Shelf" after another YouTube channel called "Elf on the Shelf". Why? Beats the Hell out of me ! Tanner's co-author of the "Zelph on the Shelf" videos is Samantha "Sam" Shelley, a British young woman who converted to Mormonism in England, came over to the U.S. to attend university, and met Tanner at Brigham Young University (owned and operated by the Mormon Church).. They became "friends". Apparently they are not a "couple" (maybe "were" or "were not" at one time--not clear). They both left the Mormon Church about the same time, based upon "problems" with Mormon history they found on the Internet. Perhaps up to 100,000 Mormons are resigning from the LDS Church every year because of disturbing "facts" about Mormon history, doctrine, Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, that they found on the Internet. This is called "The Google Problem". Mormon leaders used to "deal" with Mormon having a "Crisis of Faith" simply by "counseling" (ordering) the Mormon to "keep quite about it" or face excommunication, which, for Mormons, means never seeing their wife/husband/children/Mormon loved ones again after death. Seeing that "threats of excommunication" is no longer working to keep Mormons quiet and obedient, Mormon leaders are trying to come up with "new ways" to deal with the problem. Tanner is a very gifted poet and creative artist. There is no doubt this man was a very sincere Mormon, and is now a very sincere Atheist (or Agnostic). He recently made a video titled Why I Don't Believe in the Bible, and I would like to comment on some his comments in this video. I could write an entire book on this, but I don't think you have the patience for that, so I'll keep it brief. Exclucivist Religions Often Produce Atheists First, people who were sincere believers in what can be called an "Exclusivist Religion" such as Mormonism (or the Worldwide Church of God, or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or the Seventh-day Adventist Church, etc.), any religion which says "WE alone have the TRUTH!" and to lose faith is such an Exclusivist Religion, a very common human reaction is to become an Atheist. One can see this as a common feature for people who were once committed to exclusivist religions but had lost faith in that exclusivist religion. They go from "We alone have the Truth" to "There is no Truth". Actually, they go from Theistic Exclusivitism ("My Faith alone is the Truth") to Atheistic Exclusivitism ("Only Atheism is the Truth"). This is a common psychological reaction, and can found among former members of exclusivist religions. Turning to Atheism as a few "faith" to replace their old "faith" is a very common human psychological reaction for those who were at one time believers in exclusivist religions. And Atheism is a "faith". Since we cannot yet "know" for sure if a God or gods exist (just like we cannot know for sure if there is life outside of Earth), then one have "faith" to believe there is no God or gods, since we cannot yet possible "know" if a God or gods exists. Agnostic Position is Most Sound Logically I could say: "I don't have faith, but I have no belief in life outside of Earth, because all the evidence shows me there is no life outside of Earth". That would be a true statement. Yet, I must have "faith" there is no life outside of Earth, because we cannot possibly "know" there is no life outside of Earth until the entire Cosmos has been explored (which will take humanity a very, very, very long time). I can say, "No, I don't have any faith in life outside of Earth, but I have he scientific belief that there is no life outside of Earth because all the scientific data thus far leads me to that conclusion!" Again, having "no belief" in God or gods and having "no belief" in life outside of Earth, is based upon the assumption that there is no God or god and there is no life outside of planet Earth. To make such an assumption one must have "faith" in things not yet known to mankind. We cannot possible "know" if there is no life outside of Earth until every planet and comet and asteroid in every galaxy has been completely explored, and there are at least 100 trillions galaxies in the known Cosmos. The best we can say is: "We DO NOT YET KNOW if there is life outside of Earth: there may be life, or there may not be life outside of Earth". In like manner, the best we can say regarding the existence of God or gods is "We do not yet know either way". The Agnostic position is the strongest position, and takes no "faith". The Theistic position takes faith, as does the Atheistic position: equal amounts of it. Confirmation Bias Second, Tanner seeks out "proofs" of his position from "Bible experts" who happen to agree with his new position. This would be like a Socialist college professor of economics, only quoting from Socialist economists, to prove that Socialism is the best way to do business. This is called "Picking and Choosing": you pick only the experts who agree with you, and choose only the "evidence" that confirms your strongly-held beliefs. Yes, Mormons do this, as do Evangelicals, as do Atheists. Democrats do this, as do Republicans, as do Communists, as do Libertarians. Anyone with a very strong conviction tends to "pick and choose" while ignoring all experts and counter-evidence and counter-arguments that are not in agreement with their own strongly-held belief. This is called "Pick-and-Choose" or "Cherry Picking" or "Expectation Bias" or "Confirmation Bias". No, Atheists are not "free" of Confirmation Bias. In fact, Atheists are some of the most outrageous practitioners of Confirmation Bias. I certainly has a "Bias" towards the Theistic Position, the a God or gods exist. I must have "faith" to say that, because I do not "know" that as fact. However, since age 11 I have seen ghosts (frequently) and had prophetic dreams and premonitions. However, I do not offer my "hearing and seeing" ghosts with my own eyes and ears, as any sort of "proof" to anyone but myself. Also, seeing and hearing ghosts, and sometimes interacting with them, does NOT in any way prove that a God or gods exist unless "gods" can be interpreted to be immaterial beings that are not "alive" in the scientifically recognized way something is "living". Even if the kami (gods/spirits) exist, and one can see them, or video tape them, or even converse with them, under certain circumstances, that does not necessarily follow that a Capital-"G" God Who created the rules the Cosmos exists. Even though I have seen, heard, conversed, and had physical interactions with "unseen" beings that seemed to be intelligent and had intent, it still requires me to have "faith" that a capital-"G" "GOD" exists, created the Cosmos, and rules over it: because I've never seen such a Being and not one of the "spirits" I interacted with and heard and saw ever said: "God exists". Of course, it is easier for me to believe in an Afterlife and God than perhaps for the person who has never seen or heard anything "supernatural". But, still, I must have "faith" to say "God Lives". Tanner must have "faith" to say "God does not exist". Both take "faith" because neither of us can possibly "know" if God exists or not. Are Visions really just Hallucinations? Also, of course, my seeing and hearing and interacting with "spirits" can be dismissed as "hallucination"; although to the ancient Seers and Mystics a "hallucination" was a "vision" from the unseen realm. Suffice it to say: I must have "faith" to believe in a Creator God, and Tanner must have "faith" to believe there is no God, gods, ghosts, or shadow people: because "he" has never seen any of the above, and he dismisses eye-witness testimony as "hallucination" and also caught-on-video evidence as either "manufactured" or "electrical anomaly" (i.e. not supernatural but a natural phenomenon like a mirage in the desert). Atheists believe that "visions" are just "hallucinations". Why? Because other Atheists say so. And its be "proven" scientifically (not, it hasn't). The rumor mill among Atheists is worse than the rumor mill among Mormons, who think the Mayan cities in Guatamala is "proof" that The Book of Mormon is true! Growing Popularity of "Zelph on the Shelf" I watched most or all of the YouTube videos made by "Zelph on the Shelf" (i.e. Tanner and Sam) and I've found them to be humorous, sometimes hilarious, always entertaining, and the "points" they make about Mormonism are 98% of the time "spot on". Tanner's poems and his one or two "Music Videos" had me rolling on the floor holding my gut from laughing so hard! I hope they keep making videos, for a few years, then get on with their lives. I've made Anti-Mormon YouTube videos myself, with the help of others, and now have (collectively) almost 2 million views. But there comes a time one has to leave the subject of Mormonism is the rear-view mirror and not look back. Because of Google and YouTube, Mormonism is becoming "The Incredible Shrinking Religion". That will only become more apparent with time, and with more people like "Zelph on the Shelf" and other Former Mormons (such as myself) making Anti-Mormonism videos on YouTube every day. "Too Sacred to Talk About" Joseph Smith made many prophecies (most of them seemed to fail, but he got a few right--maybe), published many visions, and published over 100 verbal Revelations. Where are the prophecies/visions/revelations of Mormon "prophets" since Joseph Smith? Well, Brigham Young published "one" and Joseph F. Smith (nephew of Joseph Smith) had a dream (later called a "vision") published in 1979, long after Joseph F. Smith was dead. When asked about "modern" prophecies, visions, and revelations, modern Mormon "prophets" say: "It's too sacred, I can't talk about it". Tanner and Sam have asked "Why were Joseph Smith's revelations not too sacred to talk about or publish, but the revelations of modern Mormon 'prophets' too sacred to even mention or discuss?" Mormon leaders answer: "It's too sacred, we can't talk about it!" My Studies Since 1979 I've studied the exact same issues that Tanner mentions in his video Why I Don't Believe in the Bible pretty intensively, since 1979. Of course, that does NOT mean I'm right and Tanner is wrong! Not by any means! It simply means that Tanner sincerely makes assumptions and comes to conclusions based upon those assumptions that reveal he has probably not taken tens of thousands of hours of studying both sides of each issue he addresses in his video,as I have (and, YES, I have!) and his presentation in this particular video of his reveals that fact. Tanner is a very intelligent man, and Sam is very intelligent. Both are very intellectual people. But, as most people do, they make sincere yet false assumptions. Any time one makes a false assumption, one is gonna come to a false conclusion. Most people make false assumptions all the time. Mormons do it. Anti-Mormon do it. Christians do it. Atheists do it. But nothing in Tanner's video Why I Don't Believe in the Bible is insincere. It is 100% sincere. He just "assumes" a few things, like we all do. As a believing Mormon, I used to "assume" that there was plenty of archaeological evidence for The Book of Mormon, based upon books I found in LDS bookstores and cassette tapes by Einar Ericksen. I didn't know any better at the time! It was not until I had done many hundreds of hours of intense research into archaeology and The Book of Mormon, that I discovered (to my dismay and horror) that 100% of the evidence, to date (could change later) points to The Book of Mormon being a product of the late 18th or early 19th century, with no historical basis other than most of the characters in "The book of Mormon" are based upon historical characters, and most of the battles are based upon real battles that occurred in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. Tanner has read Atheist websites and watched Atheist YouTube videos, and simply "accepts" what he's been told as fact. However, Atheists are "fundamentalists" in that they will often present assumptions as facts and theories and suppositions as "proof". When I studied Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Darwinian Evolution, I did not simply go to one camp for all the "evidence". I went to the experts in all three camps, and read their books and articles, and compared. Took me decades, not years. When I studied the Bible and Archaeology, I did not simply reply on what Fundamentalist Christians told me, or what Mormons told me, or what Liberal professors told me, or what Atheists told me: I took decades, to study each and ever claim and counter-claim, in minute detail, before I came to any conclusions. What conclusions did I come to? Read the rest of this article and you'll find out. Where did I find the time to do this? I went to one year of college only. I never married. I never had any children. I never raised anyone else's children. I dedicated my life to my research. Foolish? Yes, probably was. But, that's what I did. That why I had time to spend tens of thousands of hours in libraries, long before the Internet, researching all of these issues. Writings thousands of letters to experts over the decades, making phone calls. All before the Internet came out or became "relevant" in researching things. I am now 58 years old. One principle that I've discovered in my decades of research on the very items Tanner addresses in his videos is the following: "An absence of proof is not evidence of proof of absence". A good example of this is the Legend of Troy, found in two ancient poems (songs) by a blind Greek poem named Homer, called the Illiad and the Odessy. Agamemnon forces the Greek city-states into a war with Troy, because his wife, Helen, was allegedly abducted and taken to Troy and the Trojans refused to return her. Professional archaeologists were in agreement that Troy never existed, but was simply a myth. Then, an amateur German "archaeologist" (he had no professional training in archaeology) found the ancient city of Troy, right where it was supposed to be. The professional archaeologists weren't even looking for it, because they assumed it never existed. That is a "key" word: "assume". When we begin to "assume" things, pro and con, is when we run into trouble, as we'll see below. However, one can also say that "the absence of proof is proof of absence" since we have no "proof" that the Nephites ever existed. But, that is another subject. "The Facts Ma'am...Just the Facts! From about 1950 to 1973, one of the most popular TV programs was Dragnet about a Los Angeles Police Detective Sergeant named "Joe Friday" played dead-pan by actor/producer Jack Webb. In almost episode "Friday" asks a woman to explain what the suspect did, and the women goes off to talk about her hair appointment of some other "tangent" (yes, Jack Webb was probably a bit chauvinist). So, on the TV show, Sgt. Friday would just smile and say to the woman: "The facts ma'am...just the facts". He said that almost in every show, from 1950 to 1973. I've found that most people only accept "FACTS" that they would "agree with". In other words, unless trained for years as an attorney or judge, most people don't accept "FACTS" they don't wish to accept. Doesn't matter if they are Mormons, or Evangelicals, or Catholics, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Agnostics, or Atheists, or Democrats, or Republicans. People won't accept as "fact" those facts which they don't "want" to accept as fact. That is just "human nature". I was once like that, kinda sort of. Not as "bad" as most people, I think. I had to "train my brain" to accept facts I didn't wish to accept. Atheists, I have found, are just like all other people, in that most of them accept only "facts" they would already agree with, and reject any "fact" they are not "fond" of (i.e. they don't "fancy"). Tanner presents what he sincerely believes are FACTS in his YouTube videos, but many things he says are NOT "facts". Yes, I know, because I've spent many thousands of man-hours researching the very "things" he says in his videos, which I was researching, intensively, as far back as 1979. And I've never stopped that research. The fact are these: *The events of Exodus have NOT be "proven wrong". They have not been proven to have happened, nor proven to not have happened. *Bible archaeology has NOT "proven" that Moses did not exist, neither has it proven he did exist. *Tanner assumes the "Red Sea" of Exodus is the same "Red Sea" found on our maps today. This is a common error. The original Hebrew says that Pharaoh and his chariots drowned in the "Yam Suf" (Sea of Reeds): not the Red Sea (a finger of the Indian Ocean). *Tanner assumes (as most Atheists will) that the Egyptians kept "history" like we do, a chronology of events, good and bad. But, they did not. What we call "history" today was not used by Egyptians until the about 300 B.C.E., and started with the Greek conquest of Egypt. The Egyptians recorded magickal incantations, some proverbs, stories like stories for children (fictional literature) often about the gods in conflict, business records (such as the sale of land), tax records, judicial records, the names of Pharaohs, battles in which the Egyptians won. The Egyptians never recorded or memorialized any battle they lost. *Egyptian pharaohs and "advisers" who fell out of favor by later Pharaohs were erased from commemoration . *The Ancient Egyptians did not write "history" but "commemorations" of events such as won battles. They did not commemorate battles where the Egyptians lost. If the Egyptian army and Pharaoh were drowned by a slave-god, that is NOT something the Egyptians would have commemorated. Rather, they would have sought to NOT commemorate/memorialize the event. Tanner's Claims I'm not going to quote Tanner directly, because that would take more time and effort I'm willing to give this. I will just paraphrase him. If I get it wrong, I apologize, but I think I'm paraphrasing him pretty well. Tanner Claim: Bible scholars know that Hebrews were never in Egypt, and they never left Egypt by the millions. Answer: Asiatics, which the Egyptians called the ABIRU ("Those who cross over": close sounding to the name "Hebrew") or later Hyksos, came into Egypt and went all the time, as traders, invaders, and immigrants. There is massive evidence of significant Abiru/Hyksos pottery and architecture in the remains of ancient Nile Delta cities. The Shepherd-Kings, or Hyksos, ruled the entire Nile Delta for many centuries, before they were cast out by the native Egyptians. That is not even debated among Egyptologists. One "could" interpret the Hyksos as the Israelites, who were "chased out" by a Pharoah (Ahmose I). The Egyptians did not say. He chased the Hyksos (Semites) out of the Goshen area of the Nile Delta (admitted by all Egyptologists), and then he died (cause of his death not recorded by the Egyptians). Did he die in battle with the Hyksos? Doesn't say. Did he drown? Doesn't say. We know that Exodus says that "Pharaoh" chased the Israelites to the Sea of Reeds, the the LORD sent an "east wind" and parted the Sea of Reeds, the Israelites walked across, and Pharaoh and his chariots chased them, but the sea closed in on them and they drowned. We shall deal with the Sea of Reeds and its "parting" below. Do Bible scholars identify the Hyksos, who were Semites, with the Israelites? 98% do not. Why? Because there is no Egyptian monument or papyrus that says "by the way, the Shephard-kings were also called Israelites". So, they don't identify the two (well, some do) as the same. Although, the Egyptians did refer to Semites as "Abiru" ("Those who cross over"), which is very similar to the Hebrew word "Hebrew": which is supposed to mean "descendant of Eber" but in Hebrew a descendant of Eber would be known as an "Eberi" and not "Hebrew". A few Bible scholars think there is a good connection between the Egyptian word "Abiru" ("Those who cross over/immigrant) and the Hebrew word "Hebrew". There is nothing in ancient Jewish literature that says "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" and in fact a descendant of Eber in Hebrew would be "EBERI" and not "HEBREW". Tanner Claim: Israelites never in Egypt because Israelite architecture in Canaan not influenced by Egyptian architecture Don't know where Tanner is going with this one, but, again, there is massive evidence that the Semitic Hyksos (sometimes called the Abiru or Habiru) dwelt in the Nile Delta for at least 200 years (perhaps as much as 400). They had their own cities, their own architecture that was the same as the Canaanites. They had their own "kings" (one per city like the Canaanites did), their own language, and culture, separate from the Egyptians. That is PROVED beyond any shadow of a doubt, by archaeologists and is not even debated. What "is" debated is whether or not some or all of these Semites in the Nile Delta were Israelites. Liberal archaeologists say "No" or "Probably not" and Conservative archaeologists say "Perhaps" or "Probably so". Each archaeologists "sees" the evidence a bit differently. Where the Hyksos "Israelites". There is no PROOF of that! However, there is no DISproof of that either! That's the way it is. The clothing and architecture of the Hyksos/Abiru was exactly the same as the Canaanites in Canaan for the same time periods. Where they Israelites? Maybe. Certainly not all of them. Perhaps not most. There is no conclusive evidence either way. Anyone who tells you that "its been proved" that the Hyksos were Israelites, or were not, or that the Israelites were in the Nile Delta, or were not, is lying or speaking from ignorance. Tanner Claim: No evidence that over 2 million people left Egypt at one time. The word for “thousand” in Hebrew is elef, a word that can mean a number of things. Douglas Stuart, author of the NAC commentary on Exodus, has a lengthy discussion about this word and the possible translation of “men on foot” (297-302). Elef is translated in a variety of ways in the OT: “thousand” (Ex 18:21, Num 10:36, 31:4, 31:5, Josh 7:3, 1 Sam 23:23), “cattle” (Dt 7:13, 28:4, 18, 51), “clans” (Josh 22:14, Jdgs 6:15, 1 Sam 10:19, Is 60:22, Mic 5:2), “divisions” (Num 1:16), “families” (Josh 22:21, 30), “oxen” (Is 30:24, Ps 8:7), and “tribes” (Num 10:4). Stuart guesses that elef in Exodus 12 is a clan or military unit (so “600 clans/tribes/units”), each consisting of an average of about 12 men, giving us 7200 fighting men, and bringing the total number of Israelites leaving Egypt to between 28,800-36,000 in his estimation (pg. 302). He translates the “men on foot” (geberiym) as “soldiers/foot soldiers” . There is no way to know for "sure if by "elef" the writer of the Book of Numbers (probably Ezra) was referring to "a thousand" or to a "clan" for example: "600 clans of foot men came out of Egypt with Moses". How many fighting men per "clan"? The ancient Hebrews usually divided up their forces into "10" fighting men, with a captain over 10. Then there were captains over 50, and over 100. If so (and we are making an assumption based upon peripheral evidence) then there were about 6,000 fighting men, or men of fighting age (between 15 and 70). Then, if you count boys, old men, and women, you'll come to a figure of about 25,000 Israelites who left Egypt at one time with Mose (AmunMose/Amenmesse) What does "elef" refer to in this Verse? There is no way to tell for sure, unless one asks Ezra (likely author of the Book of Exodus), who has been dead quite awhile (since about 500 BC). Tanner Claims: The Israelites were never in Egypt Bible scholars know for certainly that a Semitic people called the "Hyksos" (Shepherd-Kings) lived in the Nile Delta for over 200 years, and ruled their own kingdom in the Delta. A few scholars think they were the Israelites, or the Israelites lived among the Semitic Hyksos. The Bible says in Exodus that a Pharoah arose who "did not know Joseph" and decided that the Children of Israel, still living in the land of Goshen, in the Nile Delta, were too numerous, and they would overrun the native Egyptians. So, this unnamed Pharoah orders the slaughter of all Hebrew male children: in order to reduce the general population of Hebrews; especially boys who could grow up to become fighting men. The Bible does not name this Pharoah. However, the Stele (stone manument) of Pharaoh Merneptah was found and translated. Merneptah was a Pharoah who ruled about 1200 B.C.E. This is what he wrote on his monmument:

“Ashkelon is carried off, and Gezer is captured. Yeno’am is made into nonexistence; Israel is wasted, its seed is not.” Note: Ashkelon, Gezer and Yeno’am are followed by an Egyptian hieroglyph that designates a town. Israel is followed by a hieroglyph that means a people. "Its seed is not" could mean that he has ordered the killing of all Hebrew children. It is at this time, about 1217 B.C.E., that Moses is born, put into a reed boat, and pushed towards the daughter of Merneptah, who accepts the baby and adopts him as her own son. Yet, Moses is mostly raised by his own mother, and sister, who are Abiru (Hebrews) who are the house-maids of the Egyptian queen. Remember: *"Israel" must have existed as a people in 1200 b.c.e., refuting prior Atheist and Liberal Bible scholar claims that "Israel" was a Post-Babylonian Exile (500 b.c.e.) "construction" by Jewish scribes! *Believing that Israel dwelt in Canaan at the time of the stele is an "assumption". *Believing that the phrase "his seed is not" is "common" in Egyptian stele (as claimed by Liberal Bible scholar James Breasted in 1906) is an a BIG LIE! No such phrase has ever been found on Egyptian stele or papyri, except this once reference to Israel carved in around 1200 b.c.e.! (Believe it or not...Atheists and Liberal bible scholars do sometimes "LIE" just like Mormon leaders sometimes do...for the "Cause"). Some Bible scholars believe that these stele (stone memorial) refers to the Israelites in Canaan, because other Canaanite locations are mentioned such as Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yeno'am. However, this is an assumption. The Pharaoh simply may be mentioning "enemies" had had subdued by that time, and "Israel" was among them. It says: "Its seed is not". The "seed" refers to children, and especially male children. So, either the Stele (stone monument) means: a) The Pharaoh subdued his enemies in Canaan including the Israelites and he killed all their seed (children). or b) Pharaoh subdued his enemies, some city-states in Canaan but he also "wasted" the Israelites (who were living in Goshen at the time) and "their seed (male children) is not" (i.e. he ordered all their male children to be killed). Most archaeologists assume it is "a" based upon the "traditional" date of Exodus (a 200 year old "assumption") but, under the New Date of Exodus, it is "b" and this stele confirms Exodus chapter one where it says that Pharaoh ordered all male children of Israelite women to be killed. Atheist and liberal scholars are more apt to say that Israel was in Canaan, not Goshen, when this happened. However, before this stele was found, most Atheist (and many Liberal Bible scholars) said that Israel DID NOT EXIST at this time. The finding of these stele absolute REFUTES their foolish speculation that Israel did not became a nation until after the Babylonian Captivity around 500 B.C.E.! This Egyptian stele, dating from about 1250 b.c.e. (about the time Moses was born according to the "new date" for the Exodus), that a people calling itself "Israel" did exist! I can give you probably 30 more instances where Atheist and Liberal Bible scholar "speculation" has been refuted by findings such as this stele! About this time, also is the birth of Amunmose (also spelled Amenmesse), a real Egyptian prince whose live has many parallels with that of Moses in the Bible. Tanner Claim: No ancient Egyptian history speaks of the ten plagues. That is not quite accurate. The Admonitions of Ipuwer, an ancient Egyptian papyrus from the 19th dynasty (the same time-frame of prince Amenmessre/AmunMose), was discovered in Egypt in the 1840s and first translated by the British Museum in 1909, and seems to speak of plagues very similar to those mentioned in the book of Exodus:

The Ipuwer Papyrus. Dated to 19th dynasty (1200 B.C.E. to 1100 B.C.E.). Liberal Bible scholars "theorize" that it is a 19th Dynasty copy of a much older text based upon "wording". That is a "speculation". That it like saying The Book of Mormon published in 1830 was a "copy" of a 1611 text because it was worded in King James English!!! Exodus 7:20-21: “[Moses] raised his staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.” Ipuwer Papyrus (IP): Indeed the river is blood, yet men drink of it. Men [shrink] from human beings and thirst for water. Consider the following additional parallel passages... Exod. 9:6: “All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died.” IP: “Indeed, all animals, their hearts weep; cattle moan because of the state of the land.” Exod. 9:23: “When Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, the LORD sent thunder and hail, and lightning flashed down to the ground. So the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt.” IP: “Indeed, gates, columns, and [walls] are burnt up… Behold, the fire has gone up on high, and its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land.” Exod. 9:25: “Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields—both people and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree.” IP: “Indeed, trees are felled and branches are stripped off.” Exod. 10:15: “[The locusts] covered all the ground until it was black. They devoured all that was left after the hail—everything growing in the fields and the fruit on the trees. Nothing green remained on tree or plant in all the land of Egypt.” IP: “Neither fruit nor herbage can be found… everywhere barely has perished.” Exod. 10:22: “So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered all Egypt for three days.” IP: “[The land] is not bright because of it.” Exod. 11:5: “Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.” IP: “Indeed men are few, and he who places his brother in the ground is everywhere… Indeed [hearts] are violent, pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere, death is not lacking, and the mummy-cloth speaks even before one comes near it.” Conservative Bible scholars will say this is "evidence" that the 10 Plagues happened (evidence but not proof). Liberal Bible scholars will say this has "nothing to do" with Exodus, and it was probably just a poem about "fictional" plagues. What do they base "that" on? Again: assumptions. For Conservative Bible scholars The Admonitions of Ipuwer is evidence for the Plagues. For Liberal and Atheistic scholars, "there's nothing to see here". All depends on what your worldview is before you even know Ipuwer existed! That's how the human brain works. In my personal view, since I believe the Exodus happened in the 19th Dynasty, and The Admonitions were written in the 19th Dynasty (pure speculation that it is a copy from a much earlier work), this is "evidence" but by no means "proof" that Plagues did occur during the 19th Dynasty. But that cannot be "proven". Nor can it be "unproven". One must understand that the ancient Egyptians did not write history as we would call today "history" . The ancient Egyptians did not write a chronology of events, as we do today. The ancient Egyptians never recorded any of their defeats in battle, only their victories. The scribes recorded payment of taxes, land sales, business deals. They also wrote brief accounts of battles, but only if the Egyptians won the battle. They also wrote brief accounts of conflicts between the gods, or they wrote a "Breathing Permit" which were buried with mummies to help them navigate the afterlife. If a Pharaoh was deposed by one of his generals, who became the new Pharaoh, the records and monuments of that old disgraced Pharaoh was obliterated as much as possible. In other words, the ancient Egyptians "erased" all mention of battles they lost, and of pharaohs who were considered heretics or whose reigns were considered dishonorable. In other words, the ancient Egyptians "erased" negative history: much like Mormon leaders did for 170 years. In the massive 5 volume Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published by Macmillan, there is no mention of the Curse of Cain doctrine which was preached by Mormon leaders for 130 years! There is no mention of the Adam-God Doctrine, which was preached by Brigham Young from 1852 until his death in 1877 and was even part of the Temple Endowment "Lecture at the Veil" in the St. George Temple for twenty years! Neither any mention of the Curse of Cain Doctrine or the Adam-God Doctrine can be found in the thousands of pages of The Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Does that mean, neither the Curse of Cain Doctrine nor the Adam-God Doctrine ever existed? No, the evidence they existed is overwhelming. All this proves is that Mormon leaders did not want these two controversial subjects even mentioned in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, so, they weren't. That simple. The Ancient Egyptian scribes did the same thing. They only recorded battles won! If a new Pharaoh came to power, who didn't like the previous Pharaoh, then all mention of the previous Pharaoh was erased. All papyrus burned. All stone monuments destroyed or defaced. Therefore, if an Egyptian "prince" by the name of "Moses" arose, rebelled, and led the chariots of Pharaoh into the Red Sea, drowning him and his men, then the ancient Egyptians would have recorded this right away and even preserved it in stone! Right? Wrong ! They did not record their defeats, ever. They did not make monuments (stele) to their defeats. Never happened. Why would they record such a humiliating defeat as Pharaoh and his entire chariot army being defeated by the god of slaves? That would never happen. Tanner Claims: No Egyptian chariots have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea It is true that professional Bible archaeologists scoff at the idea of the remains of Egyptian chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea. They will also point out that even the term "Red Sea" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew words Yam Suf ("Yam" means "body of water" and "Suf" means "reed") which means "Reed Sea" and not "Red Sea". The Red Sea is simply a finger of the Indian Ocean, and is composed of salt water, as salty as the Indian ocean. A "reed" is a plant that cannot grow in salt water. However, "reeds" can grow in "brackish" water: meaning water that is mostly fresh but has some salt in it. It was from gluing reeds together, that papyrus is made. There are no "reeds" in the Red Sea, anywhere. But Lake Tanis (Manzala/Menzaleh) is full of millions of reeds! A few Bible archaeologists are convinced that the "Sea of Reeds" does not refer to the Gult of Aqaba nor to the Gulf of Suez (two fingers of the Red Sea on each side of the Sinai Penninsula) at all, but to Lake Tanis (now called Lake Manzala or Lake Menzaleh) a shallow "brackish" lake in the northeastern part of the Nile Delta, just north of the land of Goshen. Millions of reeds grow in Lake Manzala (Tanis). No reeds grow in the Red Sea. In Hebrew "Yam Suf" means "Sea or Reeds" or literally "Body of Water Reeds". A branch of the Nile empties fresh water twice a year into Lake Tanis, but also the Lake has an opening to the Mediterranean Sea on the North Side. The result of this is a mostly shallow brackish lake where reeds grow in abundance where the Nile empties into the Lake. Also, Lake Tanis (now called Lake Manzala/Menzaleh) is full of millions of reeds and is also known for a yearly phenomenon called "Wind Set Down" when winds of sixty miles per hour or more come from the East and "set down" on the lake, clearing part of the lake from water for at least a few hours. Below is a computer similation of this phenomenon which makes a "land bridge" at the "Kedua Gap".

Computer simulation of "wind set down" event where a branch of the Nile meets with Lake Tanis, in the Nile Delta Scientific literature from the 19th century contains a description of a wind setdown event that occurred in the eastern Nile delta. Major-General Alexander B. Tulloch of the British Army reported this event happening on Lake Manzala in January or February 1882 One day, when so employed [surveying] between Port Said and Kantarah, a gale of wind from the eastward set in and became so strong that I had to cease work. Next morning on going out I found that Lake Menzaleh, which is situated on the west side of the [Suez] Canal, had totally disappeared, the effect of the high wind on the shallow water having actually driven it away beyond the horizon, and the natives were walking about on the mud where the day before the fishing-boats, now aground, had been floating. When noticing this extraordinary dynamical effect of wind on shallow water, it suddenly flashed across my mind that I was witnessing a similar event to what had taken place between three and four thousand years ago, at the time of the passage of the so-called Red Sea by the Israelites. … Mr. M. Rooke: I should like to ask the present depth of Lake Menzahleh [sic] near Port Said? Tulloch: It is only about 5 feet or 6 feet. Rooke: Where was the water driven to? Tulloch: It was “packed up” to the north-west. Rooke: Could you see it in any way? Tulloch: It was seven miles off. It had absolutely disappeared.

(quoted below in Dynamics of Wind Set Down at Suez and the Eastern Nile Delta, online linked below) I know of no archaeological project that has drudged Lake Tanis (now called Lake Manzala/Menzaleh) looking for chariot wheels or horse bones or Egyptian swords or anything else. If Lake Tanis (Manzala) is the "Sea of Reeds" (and reeds do exist in Lake Tanis in the millions, but no reeds exist in the Red Sea) of Exodus, there would be no remains at the bottom of the lake today. One would have to dig many meters below the bottom to find remains from 3500 years ago, because the Nile deposits sand and silt yearly to the bottom of Lake Tanis and anything at the bottom, such as dead fish or dead crabs, or dead horses and men and chariot wheels, would have been covered over long ago. Would have the Egyptians "recorded" this event where their Pharaoh and 600 of his chariots (at least 1200 men and horses) would have been drowned in Lake Tanis (Manzala) at the hands of a disgraced rebel prince (AmunMose) and his Abiru desert storm god Yahweh? Not likely! The ancient Egyptians did not keep "history" as we know it today, except for judicial records, tax records, deeds and wills. When a Pharaoh built a temple or something grand, the Egyptian "commemorated" that with a stele (stone monument). When the Egyptians won a battle they commemorated that victory with a stele. When the Egyptians lost a battle, they Egyptians did NOT commemorate that! The ancient Egyptians went out of the way to "erase" from history any previous Pharaoh who had angered or annoyed later Pharaohs. There is an old Egyptian judicial record, on papyri, dating to the 19th dynasty (1200 b.c.e. to 1100 b.c.e.) which speaks of a Egyptian prince named AmunMose (also spelled Amenmesse) who has a dispute with the Chief Workman in Goshen, an Egyptian named Neferhotep, because Neferhotep beats a slave named Paneb, or has Paneb beaten badly. Prince AmunMose then kills, or has Neferhotep, killed and then fleas Egypt to escape proseuction. This is very similar to what it says in Exodus: 11 One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. 12 Glancing this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. 13 The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, "Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?" 14 The man said, "Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?" Then Moses was afraid and thought, "What I did must have become known." 15 When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, ... (Exodus chapter 2) Moses was raised by his own Hebrew mother and sister as nannies. So, he always probably knew he was Hebrew. The only reason why Egyptologists know anything about the rebel prince AmunMose (Amenmesse) is because the Egyptian judicial records from that time period mentioning his killing of the Chief Workman Neferhotep by prince AmunMose and how AmunMose (Amenmesse) flees Egypt to escape prosecution. Being a prince of the Royal House, AmunMose (Amenmesses) could only be "judged" by someone superior than himself (i.e. Pharoah Seti II). There is no doubt that prince AmunMose (Amenmesse) lived. He was a viceroy of Thebes and Nubia for a time. Flavius Josephus (1st century Jewish historian) confirms this, and says that Moses married a "Khooshee" (Cushite/Negro) woman while he was viceroy of Nubia. The wife of AmunMose is not mentioned in the judicial records: she would not have been mentioned unless she was believed to have part in the crime. Note One: Was Moses a murderer? Maybe. He didn't kill the Egyptian because he waned the man's money or wife. AmunMose killed Neferhotep because the Egyptian had beaten Paneb (probably an Abiru) badly, and "probably" a long history of beating, and probably killing, Abiru (i.e. Hebrews). in other words, that was probably not the first time that Neferhotep beat a Hebrew slave. Note Two: Ancient Egyptian, like ancient Hebrew, has no vowel "letters". So, in the judicial documents the name of the killer of Neferhotep is spelled MNMSY which can be translated as "AmunMose" or "Amenmesse". We can only guess which one is the correct pronunciation. Tanner Claim: Several cities mentioned in Exodus did not exist at the time of Exodus, such as Pi-Ramses. This is true "if" the traditional date for the Exodus is accurate (i.e. 1400 to 1550 B.C.E.). The "traditional" date of the Exodus was "established" (i.e. "guessed") by scholars back almost two centuries ago. Other dates for the Exodus (earlier and later) have been argued back and forth. Some Bible archaeologists accept the Exodus as history, others accept the Exodus as "fiction inspired by true events" (i.e. faction like the film "Roots"), and others deny that the Exodus happened at all and that there is no evidence that the Israelites ever dwelt in Goshen (eastern Nile Delta of Egypt). All of these archaeologists "see" the available evidence and interpret it according to their own belief-system whether that Atheist, Agnostic, Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Liberal Christian, or Fundamentalist Christ. In recent decades, a new date of the 19th Dynasty (1200 B.C.E. to 1100 B.C.E ) has been advanced as the time of the Exodus, by some Conservative Bible scholars, for various reasons such as: *The city of Pi-Ramses eixsted then and was the royal city and location of the Royal Palace and Pharaoh's chariot force. * In the 19th Dynasty, a Pharaoh named Seti II ruled from that city, and appointed his half-brother Amunmose (Amenmesse) to be viceroy of Nubia and Thebes. Anummose gets into a complict with the chief worker at Pi-Ramses and Amonmose kills him or has him killed (similar to the story of Moses kills the Egyptian taskmaster and buries his body). Seti II has Amunmose exiled to the East, but he returns much later (as Moses did). Seti II changes the Abiru out of Goshen, and then died of mysterious causes, and his wife rules in his stead for seven years. Amenmose is never found again. *Other reasons I won't get into here in this article (much too lengthy). Pi-Rameses was a city in Goshen (eastern Nile Delta just south of Lake Tanis/Manzala/Menzaleh) believed to be built by Ramses the Great (Ramses II). If the "traditional" date for Exodus is correct, yes, Pi-Rameses would not have existed at that time. However, if the 19th Dynasty (the time of Seti II and prince Amunmose/Amenmesse) is the date for Exodus, then yet Pi-Ramses not only existed but was the Throne City of Seti II, and where he would have placed his 600 chariots and horses (about 1200 horses and 1200 men). During reigns of Pharaoh Ahmose, and again during the reign of Ramses II (Ramses the Great), the "Sea Peoples" (perhaps from Crete or the Greek islands or Sardinia or "who knows") invaded Egypt via ships by way of Lake Tanis (Manzala/Menzaleh), but were defeated both times. The Nile Delta was very fertile, very green, and was very "tempting" for people looking for fertile well-watered land for farming and grazing. The Hyksos from Canaan had ruled the area for at least 200 years, but were kicked out (perhaps not completely) by Ahmose. Ramses the Great moved his capital from Thebes way in the South to the Nile Delta, for the purpose of "being where the action was" if Egypt was again invaded from the sea or from Canaan. He build a city (Pi-Rameses) exactly in the best place possible to protect the Nile Delta from invaders. The Royal City of the Pharaohs varied in Egyptian history. Sometimes it was on On (Heliopolis), other times Thebes, once at the City of Aten (briefly), once at Memphis, but after Ramses the Great came to power (about 1250 b.c.e.) he built the Royal City and named the city Pi-Ramses, in Goshen, probably because he feared another invasion from the Sea Peoples and or from Canaan. The Sea Peoples had attacked Egypt only a generation before by bringing their boats into Lake Tanis, so putting the Royal City in the Nile Delta, south of Lake Tanis, with his best troops and chariots, would a wise move on Rameses II. He would be able to attack the Sea Peoples as soon as their men got ashore off the boats. The mistake of previous Pharaohs to put the Royal City at On, or Memphis, or Thebes, was to expose the entire Nile Delta to invading armies. That is why the Hyksos were able to rule the Nile Delta for over 200 years. Ramses the Great did not want to make the same mistake, so he built a city not made of stone, but of mud brick mixed with straw, and it was called Pi-Ramses, and he put his chariots there. Far enough away from Lake Tanis to get a good warning of invasion by the Sea Peoples, but close enough to respond in one day by chariots. Pi Ramses was also close to the Way of Shur, the dirt trail through the desert from which the Hyksos (and well as peaceful Semitic traders) came and went. It was a very strategic place to put his Royal City and his 600 chariots (1200 men and horses). So, yes, if the "traditional" date for Exodus is correct, there was no city of Pi-Ramses, but if the 19th Dynasty date is correct (approx. 1200 B.C.E. to 1100 B.C.E.) then it fits perfectly with the theory (and it is theory only) that the Pharaoh of Exodus was Seti II, and the Moses of Exodus was prince Amunmose/Amenmesse. Archaeology has NOT yet "proved" the Exodus true or false. Archaeology has not yet "proved" in which dynasty the Exodus took place, "if" indeed the Exodus happened. Anyone who tells you anything else but "that" is lying or speaking from ignorance. Tanner Claim: Bible scholars are convinced that the Torah (five books of Moses) were written from older unreliable "oral histories", about 500 B.C.E. That "may" be true, or may be "not" true. Bible scholars are speculating if the Torah was based upon old oral histories, or older scrolls, or both. They do not KNOW...they are guessing . Could be either way, or both. The Hebrew of the Torah dates to post-Babylonian captivity (after 530 B.C.E.) because Hebrew was influenced by Babylonian which the Israelites had to have learned (at least some of it) while they were held captive in Babylon for about 70 years. After all, at the end of the last "Book of Moses" the author writes about Moses' death and burial in a place "no man knoweth to this day" which Moses hardly could have written. Many ascribe the writing of the Torah to Ezra, and, in fact, in the Book of Ezra that Ezra took older books (scrolls) and from them wrote the five books of Moses. Yes, about 500 to 530 B.C.E. It says that in the Book of Erza! Bible scholars assume that many of the bible stories are based upon much older "oral histories" which were handed down orally (by word of mouth) Again, that is assumption . There is no "hard evidence" for or against that. It may be that a man named Moses did exist, and did write down much of what we find in the five Books of Moses (Torah), but, again, that is also assumption. To believe that Moses lived is an assumption. To believe that Moses did not live, is an assumption. To believe that the event of the Exodus were not written down at the time, is an assumption. To believe they were written down at the time, is an assumption. If anyone tells you differently, they are lying or speaking out of ignorance. We do NOT know: *If Moses existed or not.

*If he wrote anything or not

*If the Exodus stories were based upon oral histories only, older written histories that were edited and combined later by Ezra (or some unknown scribe), or a combination of oral and written histories later compiled and edited by Ezra (or scribes unknown). All anyone can do, scholar or not, is "guess". Conservative Bible scholars "guess" that Moses did live, and Moses did write down a scroll later used by Ezra to produce the five books of Moses. Liberal Bible scholars "guess" that Moses did not exist, but was a fictional character "invented" by Ezra, or Jewish scribes unnamed and unknown, about 500 B.C.E. for the purpose of giving Israel a "history" and also one that was anti-Egyptian. That too is a "guess". Does ancient Egyptian "history" mention a Hebrew prince named "Moses" whose God caused the Pharaoh and his army to be drowned? No. That is NOT something the ancient Egyptians would have commemorated or "written" down on papyrus or stone! They never recorded their defeats . Ever! And any pharaoh or prince who fell out of favor with later pharaohs, were "erased" from all monuments and any mention of them in papyrus was destroyed. The ancient Egyptians were like the woman who discovered her boyfriend had cheated on her, and she tears out all references to him in her diary, and she cuts out all photos of him in her photo album. Mormon leaders have done almost the same thing in reference to items in Mormon history they didn't like. It is rumored that Joseph Fielding Smith (this is rumor only) used to burn Nauvoo diaries that were particularly harsh on the history and behavior of Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith (who was the son of Joseph F. Smith who was the son of Hyrum Smith, brother of Joseph Smith Jr.) once tore out a section of Joseph Smith's journal, and hid it in his safe, because he didn't want Church Historians seeing it. He did finally restore the torn out page, many decades later. The ancient Egyptians went further than Mormon leaders in erasing "unwanted" history. Pharaoh Akhenaten (18th dynasty, about 1370 B.C.E.) was so hated by later pharaohs that his entire city (the City of Aten) was destroyed, stone by stone, his monuments smashed, his tomb defaced. Thanks to probably a few of his followers, who kept a few items remaining, we would not have known about him and reforms. When Ezra returned to Jeruslaem from Babylon, he found a library of many books (scrolls) written by numerous scribes. He went through these, and wrote the five books of Moses, based upon what was written in the older scrolls. Not oral stories, but actual scrolls. There is no "proof" that any Bible story came from am oral tradition told over and over by camp-fire, only to be written down centuries later. There is no evidence for that. Moses, a prince of Egypt, could certain write things down. He knew how to write. There is no proof that Moses wrote what would become the Torah. There is no proof that Moses did not write what would become the Torah. Ezra did write a new Toah about 500 B.C.E., but based upon other books (scrolls) he found in the Jewish Temple. There is no evidence that Ezra just made things up as he went along. Was Moses Amenmose? Some scholars believe that "Moses" found in the Book of Exodus is based upon the Egyptian pharaoh Amunmose (also spelled Amenmesse) who lived in the 19th dynasty, about 1200 B.C.E. to 1100 B.C.E. There are certain parallels between Amunmoshe (Amenmesse) and the Moses of the Bible: *He ordered the killing or himself killed an Egyptian chief workman who had severely beaten a slave. *He fled out of Egypt as an exile. *He returned and tried to regain power, but was defeated and sent into exile again for a final time. *Seti II ordered all mention of Amenmesse to be stricken from the royal record, and even had his royal tomb defaced. *In one record, Amenmesse is written as "Mose" (Mo-sheh), the Hebrew name of Moses. The reader is welcome to read the link where one scholar tries to match up incidents in the life of Amenmesse and Moses in the links at the bottom of this page. One can read that link and come to their own conclusions. There is no doubt that Pharaoh Seti II tried to eliminate all reference to Amenmesse from Egyptian history, but he could only go so far. Amunmose (Amenmesse) had many friends, who would not allow a complete erasing of him and his deeds from Egyptian commemorative history. Ancient Egyptian, like ancient Hebrew, had no symbols for vowels. So M-N-S-Y can be written "Amunmose" or "Amenmesse". We can only guess as to the pronunciation. According to the Jewish 1st century historian Flavius Josephus, Moses was at one time the viceroy of Nubia, having won a great victory over the Nubian forces. Amunmose (Amenmesse) was also at one time Viceroy of Nubia. In the 19th dynasty the capital of Egypt was Pi-Ramses, in the Nile Delta, and was called such; named after Ramses the Great who had reigned 66 years and had died not long before. The "traditional date" of the Exodus is about 1300 B.C.E. to 1400 B.C.E., about a century before Seti II and Amunmose were born. Seti II only reigned for six years, and died about the age 35. He was buried in the Valley of the Kings. There are no signs of serious head injuries or war wounds on his body. Of course, he lived in a day that various diseases killed men when they were young or relatively young, but the "cause of death" for Seti II is not known. Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus Setnakhte? Some conservative Bible scholars "speculate" (Liberal scholars speculate and Conservative scholars speculate) that the Pharaoh who drowned in the "Sea of Reeds" with his 600 chariots was not Seti II but rather Setnakhte, who reigned not long after Seti II. They based this speculation on two things: 1) If the 19th Dynasty "date" for Exodus (the "New Date") is correct, and if Moses was really prince AmunMose, then Setnakhte is Pharaoh to whom Moses said "Let my people go!" is at the "right time". 2) According to the "Harris Papyrus" translated in the early 20th century, this Pharaoh lived at at time when "Khuru" (Syrians....Canaanites and Israelites would be considered "Syrians" since they spoke a very similar language as Syrians and looked and dressed the same) were chased out of Egypt by Setnakhte, who also took back the "possessions" that the Syrians had stolen from the Egyptians! 3) The body of Pharaoh Setnakhte has never been found, but his "tomb" of Setnakhte has been found ! Which is very, very odd! Also, in the tomb of this pharaoh, they found a mummy of a man in a boat, which is very odd. Pharaohs were buried in very elaborate sarcophagi, often with gold and precious stones in them, with prayers on them with their name on them. However, in the tomb of this pharaoh, they only found a mummy in a boat! Odd. Never happened before, and never happened since in the over 100 tombs of former pharaohs they have found! So, either the body of this pharaoh was "lost" or he was the mummy in the boat! Suggesting, perhaps, that the pharaoh had drowned and was quickly mummified and buried (kind of like a cover-up of an embarrassing defeat that the new pharaoh did not want the common Egyptians to know about!). Lennin, the founder of the Soviet Union, died of syphallus (he liked the working girls) , but Soviet doctors covered that all up (on orders of Stalin of course) and the Soviet newspapers said he died of a gun-shot wound he had received years before when some crazy half-blind woman shot him after he gave a speech! Cover-up! Happens all the time! The Harris Papyrus (written perhaps 50 years after AmunMose killed the Chief Workman, says in part: "The land of Egypt was overthrown from without, and every man was thrown out of his right; they had no "chief mouth" for many years formerly until other times. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of towns; one slew his neighbour, great and small. Other times having come after it, with empty years, Irsu ('a self-made man'), a certain Syrian (Kharu) was with them as chief (wr). He set plundering their (i.e., the people's) possessions. They made gods like men, and no offerings were presented in the temples. "But when the gods inclined themselves to peace, to set the land in its rights according to its accustomed manner, they established their son, who came forth from their limbs, to be ruler, LPH, of every land, upon their great throne, Userkhaure-setepenre-meryamun, LPH, the son of Re, Setnakht-merire-meryamun (Seknakte) LPH. He was Khepri-Set, when he is enraged; he set in order the entire land which had been rebellious; he slew the rebels who were in the land of Egypt; he cleansed the great throne of Egypt; he was ruler of the Two Lands, on the throne of Atum. He gave ready faces to those who had been turned away. Every man knew his brother who had been walled in. He established the temples in possession of divine offerings, to offer to the gods according to their customary stipulations."[quoted from "Setnakhte" Wikipedia) In other words, some "Syrian" "self-made man" plundered (stole) the gold form the Egyptians (as Moses does in Exodus). The land of Egypt was "in the hands of the chiefs and the rulers of towns" (i.e. the Semitic rulers of the towns in the Nile Delta, probably). So, Setnakhte arises and gets all the gold back, and kicked the rebels out of Egypt! He's the HERO! And, sure enough, the Kharu (Asiatics) left Egypt! Now, this is not what Exodus says. Exodus says that the LORD sent to Egypt 10 plagues (mentioned by the 19th Dynasty "Admonitions of Ipuwer" papyrus), then Moses has the Israelites seal all the gold and silver from the Egyptians (i.e. those living in the Nile Delta), and then the Pharoah tells Moses "You and your people can leave...don't let the door hit you on the way out" and then he changes his minds, and uses his 600 chariots to chase down the fleeing Isrealites. Moses parts the "Sea of Reads" and the Israelites walk across, Pharaoh and his chariots chase, but the water closes in and drowns Pharaoh and all his horses and chariots! But, according to the Harris Papyrus, Setnakhte is the HERO, gets all the "possessions" back and kicks the Kharu (Syrians) out of Egypt! Yeah! Hurray for Pharaoh Setnakhte! Which is the correct history? We don't know! You must understand that the ancient Egyptians would have tried to put the most pro-Egyptian "spin" on the Exodus as possible (if the Exodus occurred). Moses would be seen as a thief and rebel. Pharaoh Setnakhte would be presented as a super-hero who kicked the dirty Kharu out of Egypt! Which history is true, or are they both false? We don't know. Anyone who says "The Exodus happened" or "The Exodus did not happen" is either lying or speaking from ignorance! Liberal Bible scholars and archaeologists will say "It never happened" or "Probably didn't happen" and Conservative Bible scholars will say "It happened" or "It probably happened". It's a "glass half full or half empty" kind of thing. Each side "sees" the evidence differently. In truth...WE DO NOT KNOW! But we DO know this: *The body of Pharaoh Setnakhte was not in his official tomb, and they are sure of that. What happened to it? *In a 1906 photograph of his tomb, they found no sarcophagus but only a mummy in a boat, with no name attached to it. Strange! Not other pharaoh's tomb had a mummy in a boat (although boats are always included, the boats were to be used by the Pharaoh in Amenti (the Afterlife). Odd! Strange. Unusual. What happened to his body? Nobody knows.

Photo of the mummy (name and status unknown) in the boat, the Tomb of Setnakhte, Valley of the Kings, Egypt, 1906 Atheist propaganda (videos, articles, books) that say "The Exodus never happened, and been proved because had it happened the Egyptians would have written all about it and made stone monuments to it!" is ______PURE HORSE-SHIT____!!! The truth is (if "truth" means anything to you) is that the Egyptians would have covered-it-up such a humiliating defeat as much as possible, and made the Pharaoh of Exodus out to be a "hero" who defeated the dirty Kharu and successfully kicked them out of Egypt! And that is exactly what the Egyptians did! Did the Hebrew scribes do likewise? Where they "spin doctors" like the Egyptian scribes? No!! The Old Testament is full of discriptions of "bad" Israelite kings (such as King David who murdered people, innocent people, murdered his general Uriah so he could marry Uriah's wife, committed adultery, Samson who murdered 50 Philistine men just to steal their expensive coats to pay off a debt! Other kings of Israel who did wicked things). Moses is presented as a murderer of an Egyptian task-master, who hides the body, who later tells the Israelites to steal all the gold from the Egyptians (in Goshen, not in all of Egypt) who then later is prevented from taking Israel into Canaan because he "boasted" that he could bring water from a rock (when in fact the LORD did that not Moses). The writers of the Bible are painfully honest about the sins and short-comings of their kings and prophets! Note: Atheist propagandists will tell you that the Bible can't be true because "miracles" can't and don't happen. Thus there could be no Burning Bush, no 10 Plagues, no Parting of the Red Sea, no water from a rock, no Manna from heaven, No Pillar of Clouds by Day/Fire by Night, etc. I can assure you that there are "natural" phenomenon that can explain ALL these things once you understand two things: 1) what the original Hebrew actually "says" as opposed as to what the Greek, Latin, and English translators "thought" it says and 2) if you begin with a "false assumption" you're always (100% of the time) going to conclude with a "false" conclusion! For example, the parting of the Red Sea. If you assume the "Red Sea" is intended, you are making a false assumption, because the Hebrew says "Sea of Reeds" and NOT "Red Sea". That is just one example of many I could give you. If you assume that the "traditional" date for the Exodus is true, and you can prove Pi-Rameses did not exist at that time, then you can "prove" that the Exodus account not true, but only "if" the traditional date is what the Hebrew says, but IT IS NOT what the Hebrew says! There are natural explanations for ALL the "miracles" mentioned in the Torah. Every single one! The Parting of the Sea of Reeds, the 10 Plagues, the Water from the Rock, the Manna from Heaven, Joshua's Long Day (when the Sun did not set), etc. You will say: "No way!" and I will insist "Yes... WAY !" You just haven't seen the evidence yet. I have. Egyptian scribes would NEVER in a billion years write one negative thing about a pharaoh! Who was the guy in the boat in Setnakte's tomb? Would the Egyptians bury their pharaoh with no sarcophagus and and no magickal incantations written on it (so he would not be eaten by the crocodile god Sobek in the Afterlife)? NEVER! Unless... the new pharaoh who replaced Setnakhte wanted the crochidile god Sobek to eat Setnakthe's soul, because the fool (Setnakhte) drowned in the Sea of Reeds with all his 600 chariots! I can see the new pharaoh now looking over Setnakhte's body: "Dude, you're an IDIOT! Not only did you let the Hebrews escape with half our gold, you left me without any chariots! I hope the god Sobek eats your stupid ass soul in the Afterlife! I'm not putting you in a sarcophagus. No magickal rites for you! I'll leave you in this boat the fishermen on Lake Tanis brought you to me in, just to show was a complete FOOL you were!" But the new pharaoh would NEVER tell that to the common Egyptians, because the pharaohs were said to have "the Wisdom of the Gods". Exposing Setnakhte as a "fool" by the new pharoah would have revealed that the pharaohs did NOT have the "Wisdom of the Gods". No new pharaoh wanted that! They ruled by "fooling" their subjects into thinking they (the Pharaohs) had "the Wisdom of the Gods"! Thus, they can never be fooled and never make mistakes! So, they "covered-up" the weaknesses and "sins" and foolish choices of their predecessors, or would simply "erase" earlier Pharaohs they didn't like from "history". As a young Mormon convert in 1979, I was told many times: "The Brethren [Mormon leaders] can never be fooled" and "The Brethren CANNOT make mistakes" and "The Brethren would never teach false doctrine" and "The Living Prophet would never lead the Church astray" etc. Those that told me really believed what they told me, but none of it was Reality. Mormon leaders have "power" over rank-and-file Mormons (sorry Rusty!) because Mormons assume they can 1) ABSOLUTELY trust Mormon leaders and 2) Mormon leaders are Prophets/Seers/Revelators, even though they do not actually ever prophesy/see/revelate. If asked "Where are your Revelations?" or "Can I read your prophecies?" they will say: "Oh, its too sacred, I just can't talk to you about it! Wish I could, but sorry, too sacred, I just can't!" Control People by Controlling Access to Information Mormons leaders...have done the exact same thing as the ancient Egyptian pharaohs! Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were presented as near-sinless almost "perfect" flawless heroic men, who had the Wisdom of God in every step they took and on every breath they inhaled! But that's just NOT REALITY! NOT even close! Mormon leaders have covered-up, erased, hidden, suppressed, and re-written the mistakes, sins, and foolish choices of previous Mormon leaders, so that the "common people" (the MORmONS) will continue to think their leaders have "The Spirit of Discernment" (i.e. the Wisdom of the Gods), and every word, every action, every policy, every decision, every breath, every "birp", every raised eye-brow, every "word" that their "Living Prophet" (currently Russel M. Nelson) utters is as if "Jesus" Himself did or said it! That is how Mormon leaders "ruled" the Mormon Sheeple so completely for 170 years. Now "Google" is a big fat monkey wrench in that machine! When I was an active believing Mormon I was told "The Brethren CANNOT make mistakes". I was told that many, many, many times. And, for a time, I believed it. I trusted these men, I should NOT have trusted them! Tanner Gilliland was raised from birth to trust a group of men whom he should never have trusted! But Tanner is not to be blamed for that! The information he received was carefully "controlled" by Mormon leaders: as much as North Korean leaders "control" the information that North Koreans receive. Mormon leaders control Mormon "history" (or they used to, before Google); just like Stalinist leaders did,or the leaders of Communist China. You control people by controlling their access to accurate information and opposing views. The Mormon leaders "controlled" what information young Mormons received. Mormons were raised to view Joseph Smith as just one "step" down from Jesus, the greatest man who ever lived "save" Jesus Christ! A perfect Prophet. A perfect hero. An "almost" perfect man! But, the reality is that Joseph Smith was a very "flawed" man, more flawed than the average man. Now, Tanner has chosen to trust another group of men (Atheist propagandists and Liberal Bible scholars) he should NEVER have trusted! Mormon leaders "controlled" Mormon history until just the last 8 to 12 years. Thanks to Google, Mormon leaders don't "control" information many Mormons receive; although most faithful Mormons simply refuse to believe any fact on the Internet that does not correspond to what they "want" to believe. I wish I could tell you that Atheists just don't DO Confirmation Bias and ignore all FACTS they don't "want" to believe, but they do! Atheists are among the worst "users and abusers" of Confirmation Bias. If an Atheist doesn't "fancy" a fact, they won't tell you that fact. They won't "accept" that fact. They only believe what they "want" to believe. They are much like the TBM (True Believing Mormon). Atheists are NOT "superior" humans, walking high above the dirty unwashed and ignorant superstitious theistic masses, as they "think" they are. They are the among the worse abusers of "Confirmation Bias". The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs also ruled the people by control of information, to present themselves, and former pharaohs, as being infallible, heroic, semi-divine, and having "the Wisdom of the Gods". Mormon leaders did the same thing for 170 years, only using different terms ("The Spirit of Discernment"), presenting a false image of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, covering-up the sins and mistakes of past Church leaders, and restricting the "information" that Mormons received. As George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "He who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future". Was Moses prince AmunMose of the 19th Dynasty? It is impossible to say if Amunmose (Amenmesse) was "Moses" or if Moses is a semi-fictional character based upon the historical person of Amunmose, or if AnumMose and Moses had absolutely nothing to do with each other. All we know is that for sure is: *Amunmose really existed, and really killed the Egyptian Chief Workman at Pi-Ramses because the Chief Workman beat a slave named Paneb. *The tomb of Amunmose was defaced, but later used by Egyptian royalty (not pharoahs) a century later. AmunMose disapppeared. *Amunmose's tomb was defiled, his name "written over" or etched out completely, and his tomb was used by later Egyptian royalty. His body is missing. In the Bible, Moses is buried in Moab, just east of Judah. *Seti II tried to erase the name Amunmose from Egyptian "commemoration" (they didn't keep "history" as we know it today). *Seti II died at a young age (about 35) or unknown cause. The unnamed "Pharaoh" of the Bible died with his chariots. The next Pharaoh probably would NOT have wanted to commemorate that humiliating defeat with a stele (stone monument). *The tomb of Pharaoh Setnakhte has been found (and yes, they are sure of that), but no body of that pharaoh has been found (unless Setnathte is the dude in the boat!). No sarcophagus has been found! All they found was a dead dude in a boat, with no name and no sarcophagus. The Egyptians NEVER would bury a pharaoh like that! Strange! Out of place! Unique! Never happened before in the tomb of a pharaoh, and never happened since Wow! Something is going on that is not quite "right" with this pharaoh and his tomb! It should be noted that the 2014 film Exodus: Gods and Kings staring Christian Bale as Moses, uses the real events of Seti II (or Setnakhte) and prince AmenMose, and they work it into the story of Moses in the film. Of course, what some screenwriters did to "fill in" the story of Moses cannot be seen as "evidence" that Moses existed much less "proof". But it is still interesting that modern film-makers (the director of Exodus: Gods and Kings was Atheist) would use the story of criminal-on-the-run prince AmunMose (Amenmesse) as the story of Moses in the film. Conclusion: The ancient Egyptians did not keep "history" as we known it today. They recorded only the battles in which they were victorious. The "Admonitions of Ipuwer", written in the 19th dynasty, have parallels to the 10 Plagues of Exodus. Prince Amunmose (Amenmesse), a 19th dynasty prince who once was the Viceroy of Nubia, and ordered the death of an Egyptian "chief workman" does have some parallels to the life of Moses as found in the Bible. The parting of the "Red Sea" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew words "Yam Suf" which means "Sea of Reeds" and it has been shown in computer simulation that "wind setdown" could have parted ancient Lake Tanis : a large brackish lake that has always had millions of reeds on its shallow shores. The ancient Egyptians did not swim, because the Nile was full of snakes, eels, crocodiles, and hippos. It is quite possible for men who can't swim to drown in water that is six to 12 feet deep. The historicity of Moses or the Exodus certainly has NOT been "proved" (as many Fundamentalist Christians assume), but "Moses as mere oral myth" has certainly NOT be "proved" either. The jury is still out on Moses and the Exodus. Anyone who says "Bible scholars have proved that the Israelites were never in Egypt" or "Archaeologists have proved the Exodus never happened" is talking out of their bung-hole! FACTS (if "facts" mean anything): *There is NO PROOF that the Israelites were in Egypt. *There is NO PROOF they were not in Egypt. *There is massive PROOF that Semites lived in Goshen for hundreds of years. *There is massive PROOF that that "Israel" as a people existed in 1200 BC (stone monument of Pharaoh Menreptah). *There is MASSIVE scientific PROOF that "wind set-down" on Lake Mensaleh (Tanis) drives back the water and exposes part of that lake full of millions of reeds as semi-dry land, as was observed by a British general in the 1880s working on the Suez Canal and proved in computer simulation. *There is NO PROOF that the rebel prince AmunMose (Amenmesse) was the Moses or Exodus, but he may have been. *If Moses was commander of the Egyptian army, at one time (he was according to Flavius Josephus), then he would have walked around Lake Tanis 1000 times, studying the geography, finding the right "spot" to attack the invading Sea People (if and when they came back). He would have talked to local fishermen about the Lake. He would have positioned "watch towers" with men to watch out for the Sea Peoples, who had invaded Egypt twice already by way of Lake Tanis! He would have known that Lake, and the land around it, and it's "funny" weather, as well as the local fishermen did! He would have thought about any "advantage" that could be taken against the invading Sea Peoples if and when they came back! He would have been told, by the local fishermen, about the "wind of the gods" that sometimes pushes the sea back and reveals land (it is sand not mud, so dries out quickly in the hot sun). Moses would have asked them "When does THAT happen? How often? What time of year? What does the sky look like just before that happens? Can you tell when that is about to happen?" etc. That's what great generals do. They look at the "land" they're gonna do battle on, long before they do battle on it. That is why Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, Belgium. According to Josephus, Moses was the greatest general Egypt had every known. After all, Moses was a Hebrew. His brain was larger than the native Egyptians (and Ashkenazi Jews have the largest brains of any human race today, even larger than the Han Chinese). AmunMose: "Fisherman, is there any SIGN before the Wind of the Gods drives the water back at the Ketua crossing? Fisherman: "Yes my lord, before the Wind of the Gods comes and drives back the water of the Sea of Reeds, the birds all leap into the sky and fly towards Libya (to the West), and not towards the Sun (to the South) like they usually do." AmunMose: "Tell me, fisherman, how much time passes between the birds leaping into the sky to fly towards Libya, and the Winds of the Gods comes down and begins the push from rising of the Sun (East) towards towards the setting of the Sun (West)?" Fisherman: "My lord, it is a matter of less than half a day-time, perhaps less, perhaps a little more." AmunMose: "The blessings of Amun-Ra upon you countryman, here is a piece of silver!" Fisherman: "May the Hidden One continue to spread his blessings upon you and your house, my lord!" As "Caretaker of the Horses of the Pharaoh" (i.e. general of the army) AmunMose would have known "when" the "Wind of the Gods" set down. He would have known "where" it did. What time of the year, and the "sign" before it happens. He would have gone over every inch of the Sea of Reeds, to seek any way to "trick" the Sea Peoples, and defeat them, with a minimum number of Egyptian loses. AmunMose never knew at that time, that he would be using this against the men and the sons of the men he himself trained. NOTE: When the British were digging the Suez Canal in the 1880s, the engineers were very concerned that the sand they were piling up along the shores of the canal would simply "fall" back into the canal and, with the help of wind, "sand up" the canal. However, they quickly discovered, that once the wet sand was exposed to the searing heat and sun of an Egyptian Summer day, the sand "hardened" like cement, preventing the lose sand under it from falling or blowing back into the canal! The same thing happens when wind-set-down exposes the "sand" at the bottom of Lake Tanis (Mensaleh), it "hardens" like cement and thus that is why the author of the Book of Exodus says that the children of Israel "walked on dry land" through the Sea of Reeds. *There is NO PROOF that Pharaoh Setnakhte drowned in the Sea of Reeds (Lake Tanis), during a wind set-down (that Moses would have known about before-hand since he was in charge of defending Egypt against another invasion of the Sea Peoples) and was left in a boat in his tomb (or his body and sarcophagus is still missing), but that may be what happened. *Egyptians did not "commemorate" their defeats with stele (stone monuments). If the Exodus happened, as the Book of Exodus says, the Egyptians would have gone out of their way to cover-it-up and/or "spin" it to make the Pharaoh into a hero who kicked out the nasty Asiatics! *There is PROOF that the city of Pi-Rameses did NOT exist during the "traditional date" for the Exodus, but the city of Avaris (Hyksos capital), on the same spot, did exist, and it very well may be that "the New Date" for the Exodus (1200 to 1100 BC) is the correct date. *There is NO PROOF that the Hyksos called themselves by that term (why would the Semites call themselves "Foreign Rulers"?) but this is some evidence they called themselves "Habiru" or "Apiru" which is close phonetically to "Hebrew". *IDIOTS who send me emails saying "Archaeology says the Israelites never built the pyramids and so the Bible is wrong" really need to 1) read the Bible which does NOT say the Hebrews built the pyramids but that they built Pi-Ramses with clay, mud, and straw and 2) they really need to NOT HAVE CHILDREN because their "idiot" DNA does NOT need to keep spreading! *In the original Hebrew, the Book of Exodus says that the LORD parted the Yam Suf ("Sea of Reeds") with a "strong east wind". At the time of the purported Exodus (anywhere from 1600 B.C. to 1100 B.C.), the Nile Delta area had at least six "Bitter Lakes" (i.e. lakes filled with reeds), with any one of them called a "Yam Suf" ("Sea of Reeds"). The largest one by far was Lake Tanis (now called Lake Manzala) which has an opening to the Mediterranean Sea. There is scientific proof, both from eye-witness accounts, and from computer simulation, that Lake Manzala experiences the weather phenomenon of "Wind Set Down" once or twice a year, where a fierce east wind sets down on the lake, exposing a portion of the lake which, because the bottom is sand and not mud, quickly dries in the hot Sun like quick-drying cement. The first European to observe this was a Major General in the Royal British Engineers, who was in Port Said overseeing the building of the Suez Canal in the last 1800s. This phenomenon has been observed many times since then, and also explained by computer simulation (as shown above). Scientific papers have been written about it, and a link to several of them can be found at the end of this article. As the General of the Egyptian Army, Moses would have known about this phenomenon, and tried to figure a way to use it to "trap" the Sea Peoples, who had, twice before, invaded Egypt by way of Lake Manzala. In a later Part, we shall examine good historical evidence that the Moses of the Bible is based upon a real Egyptian prince-turned-rebel named AmunMose (alternate name: "AmenMesse") who lived during the 19th Dynasty, who was born at the time of Pharaoh Menefre (c. 1200 B.C.) and grew up and served as commander of the Egyptian army under Pharaoh Seti II, and fled to Midian, but return and led the Apiru ("Hebrews") out of Goshen, Egypt, at the time of Pharaoh Setnakht. Strong and conclusive evidence will be presented. In Part TWO we will answer Tanners objections to the Flood of Noah, and explain why YHWH of the ELOHIYM decided to drown Mankind (i.e. the descendants of Adam) except for Noah and his family. Part Two: Noah and the Kangaroo Problem

Old drawing of Lake Tanis (Manzaleh/Manzala), the Sea of Reeds





