Ron Wyatt, Honest?, Or Deceitful Fraud?, #6


As we proceed with Ron Wyatt’s cunning story, we are discovering multiple inaccuracies and holes of inordinate dimensions. For instance, Wyatt believed the traditional theory that the Israelites, in their Exodus from Egypt, crossed through the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez! Since both of these gulfs were called “The Sea of Reeds”, many have made this same error. Thus Wyatt explored in the wrong place to find Egyptian chariot wheels! The following are some of the postings on the Internet. First at: where we find (only on this website) by Gary Byers MA:

4. You say: ‘There is concrete archaeological evidence of a Gulf of Aqaba crossing. There is also evidence of the Israelites camping in Saudi Arabia.’ The opposite is the case. There is not one shred of evidence from archaeology to support the Saudi Arabia thesis. This idea was propagated by Ron Wyatt and more recently by Robert Cornuke. Their theories have been thoroughly discredited. This is an excellent book on the subject of Ron Wyatt ...” We also find more at:

Red Sea Crossing Update ... December 14, 1998 ... December, 1998 Dive Trip by Bill Fry ... ‘In December of 1998, I along with 8 other people including Ron Wyatt, traveled to Nuweiba, Egypt on the Gulf of Aqaba to spend two days diving at the location where Moses and the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea on dry land.’

Video: The Red Sea Crossing ... December 22, 2007 ... Ron Wyatt shows you the very spot where Moses and the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba fleeing Pharaoh’s army. He leads you to the very blackened peak of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia!” Not only did Wyatt and company search in the wrong gulf for evidence for Israel’s Sea of Reeds crossing , but they explored the wrong Mt. Sinai! There are so many aspects of Israel’s history (both Biblical and secular) not taken into account by Wyatt and company, it is dumbfounding! A good place to start is to find the Egyptian pharaoh who “knew not Joseph”, Exod. 1:8-9:

8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.” The word “knew” in this verse is Strong’s Hebrew word #3045, “yâda” and has a great variety of meanings (including many Hebrew idioms). To get a better handle on what is being said, I will quote these verses from Charles Thomson’s Septuagint: “[8] there arose another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. [9] And he said to his nation, Behold the race of the children of Israel is become a greater multitude, and is mightier than we.”

Thus, it becomes quite clear the reason this new pharaoh didn’t know Joseph was because Joseph was of a different race than he. At times, the KJV renders #3045 as “kinsfolk or kinsman” (more meanings in Hebrew than English, check Amos 3:2). Now for some history concerning this:


Here is part of what I wrote in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #29 for September, 2000:

For the next part of this story, I am going to quote from The Bible As History by Werner Keller, © 1956. Keller gives additional information; that not only did the Egyptians mix with the Hurrians, as stated by Hawkes, but they also mixed with the Hittites. I will cite an excerpt from pages 96-103:

Shortly before 1400 B.C. the warlike Mitanni (Hurrian) proposed a peaceful settlement with the Egyptians. The enemy became a friend. The kings of Mitanni turned their attention purposefully to dynastic politics. With great pomp and lavish gifts they sent their daughters down to the Nile and married their princesses to the Pharaohs. In three successive generations of rulers Indo-Aryan(?) (meaning Hurrian) and Egyptian blood was mixed for the first time ...”

Jacquetta Hawkes, in her The First Great Civilizations stated that this kind of political relationship continued, pages 81-82: “In the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C., Mitanni extended from the Zagros to the Mediterranean and the kings of Assyria were no more than her vassals. It was the hostile policy of Mitannian kings against Egypt that provoked Thutmose III to march to the Euphrates. Later they made friends with the Egyptians and three generations of princesses, with hundreds of followers, made the hazardous journey to Thebes, where they were given in marriage to Pharaoh and lived out their days in the royal harem.”

The next reference we are going to use is very important as it spells out the relationship of the pharaoh’s family for the next few generations. It is paramount that we understand this interrelation or we will not completely understand the whole story. You may have to read the following quotation several times to fully comprehend it. It is from The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 40:

... Thutmosis I gave special impetus to the temple building program. He instructed his brilliant architect Ineni to erect massive pylons (towered gateways) at the entrance to the Amun [Amen] temple at Karnak and two giant granite obelisks before the pylons. [Thutmosis spelled various ways]

Thutmosis I had four children with his chief queen, only one of which lived beyond childhood, a girl named Hatshepsut. Among other children with lesser queens was a son named Thutmosis II who married his half-sister, Hatshepsut. The two could produce no immediate heirs but Thutmosis II fathered a son, Thutmosis III, with a concubine from his harem. The father, now king, named his son as co-regent. Thutmosis II died soon after and Thutmosis III, still a child, ascended to the throne. Hatshepsut, however, had great ambitions. At first she ruled in the name of the young king; but with guile[?] and skill she gained support from the chief viziers, nobles, commanders, and priests, and thrust Thutmosis III into the background, and claimed coregency by right of her birth.”

From Watchman’s Teaching Letter #37 for May, 2001, I addressed more of this story thusly: To start with, in a quote from the book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 120, we read this:

It will be recalled that Hatshepsut was the first great queen of Egypt. She married Thutmosis II and after his death seized the throne from Thutmosis III, who after Hatshepsut’s demise was to become one of Egypt’s greatest warrior-kings. To secure her name in history and to prove herself equal to all the male pharaohs before her, she embarked on ambitious building programs during her twenty-year rule (1489-1469 B.C.).”

Princess Hatshepsut was the only surviving child of Tuthmosis I and his queen. As there is no word in the ancient Egyptian language for “queen”, the meaning was simply “king’s great wife.” Had Tuthmosis I had a son, he would have been in line to inherit the throne from his father. With Hatshepsut being a female, and no others contending for the throne, it could pass through her to whomever she might marry. There was a major flaw in this arrangement, as it left an opening for non-royal blood to gain the throne. In the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty this happened several times. In fact, Tuthmosis II, the half-brother whom Hatshepsut married, is a case in point. The exact system of choosing a new king is not precisely known, but, in the 18th Dynasty, it seems that if there was no son to receive the honor, it was passed on through the oldest female, and in turn to her husband. The difference in the case with Hatshepsut is that she took the throne herself after her husband died. It was probably a matter of guardianship at first, until Tuthmosis III became of age, but Hatshepsut evidently decided to remain on the throne, denying Tuthmosis III his seat. In the end, this precipitated a bitter battle between Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.

In Egypt, the pharaoh often had many wives, and in some cases married a half-sister. All this made the process of passing on the throne rather complex. Upon the death of Tuthmosis I, his son Tuthmosis II, by a minor wife, was married to his half-sister, Hatshepsut. By marrying Hatshepsut, it established Tuthmosis II’s right to the throne which lasted for twenty-two unexceptional years. When Tuthmosis II died, he left a daughter by Hatshepsut and a son, Tuthmosis III, by a minor wife. Hatshepsut then ruled seven years as regent for the young boy. After this time, Hatshepsut took it upon herself to change her title from “Queen” to “King.”

Further from Watchman’s Teaching Letter #40 for August, 2001, I stated:

This is the lady (Hatshepsut) that would have had all the incentive for adopting Moses into the Pharaoh’s household. I covered the lady Pharaoh Hatshepsut to a great extent in both lessons #32 and #37. In lessons #31 and 32, I explained how Moses’ name was derived from the line of pharaohs whose names ended in “mosis”, like in Kamose, Amosis, Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III, etc. Surely this is not just a coincidence, for several historians have observed this similarity of names. As Moses was adopted by pharaoh’s daughter, surely he would receive the pharaoh’s family name. Hatshepsut’s unique position in Egyptian history makes her a very good candidate for being the one rescuing Moses from a watery grave.

If you will remember, Hatshepsut was the last of a line having purely royal blood in the House of Pharaoh. We can also be pretty sure that she was of the line of Shem. If you will also remember, the Bible narrative relates that the Egyptian pharaoh gave Joseph his wife. We also know that Joseph’s wife was of the House of Shem, for her father was a priest of On. On was called “Beth Shemesh”, meaning House of the people of Shem. Unless the pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife was also of the House of Shem, he wouldn’t have had the authority to do so. At this point, I will relate to you what one of my proofreaders pointed out in one of his letters to me on this subject:

Concerning Beth-Shemesh, and we may have discussed this, and from your letters certainly you see it, but I am compelled to discuss it again here. ‘Shemesh’, I am convinced is surely a double-entendre. For the word means ‘sun’ in Hebrew, obvious from the Greek translation ‘Heliopolis’ which means ‘city (polis) of the sun (helios)’, but also, and just as well in palaeo Hebrew, means ‘people of Shem.’ For the people of Shem are the ‘light of the world’ (Matt. 5:14), and just like the ancient Pharaohs, Yahshua is represented as the source of light, Rev. 21:23; John 1:4-9; 8:12; Rev. 22:16.

About this Greek word ἥλιος, helios, Strong’s 2246 ‘hay-lee-os’ which means ‘the sun’, I am certain it is simply a version of the following Hebrew words: 1966 heylel ‘hay-lale’ from 1984 ... the morning star:– lucifer. 1984 halal ‘haw-lal’ a primitive root ‘... to shine ...’ which of course gives us ‘halo’, ‘halogen’, etc.”

William Finck

Further from Watchman’s Teaching Letter #42 for October, 2001, I stated:

We should not be surprised that Thothmes I looked favorably on the priesthood of Heliopolis, for the Bible tells us that an earlier pharaoh had given Joseph his wife from there, Genesis 41:45. But, if you will remember, Thothmes III (Tuthmosis III) was not of pure royal blood. This is the same Tuthmosis III that Queen Hatshepsut prevented from gaining the throne for a number of years, after which he tried to destroy all memory of her. Here again, we see Genesis 3:15 at work between the true royal blood of the pharaohs of Egypt and the corrupted blood of the enemy gaining the throne. It is obvious, that if we can’t understand the Satanic seedline, we can understand neither Bible nor history.

Josephus, at Antiq. 2.9.5-6, 7 & 2.10.1-2, speaks of the pharaoh’s daughter that rescued Moses from the Nile as “Thermuthis”, which sounds much like the Thutmose family name. I should point out that when Old Testament names are transliterated from the Hebrew to the Greek, they become somewhat corrupted, and when transliterated again to another language, like English, they take on another slightly different pronunciation. For examples observe that Jeremiah is corrupted to “Jeremy”; Isaiah is corrupted to “Esaias”; and Yahshua is corrupted to “Jesus”. Many are not aware of it, but Christ and Joshua (6th book of the Old Testament) have the same name. But there was no “J” in the Hebrew or Greek, (nor in the English until the 1600s), so the name of Joshua would necessarily be pronounced with an “I” or “Y”, and articulated as Yahshua. Therefore, we should not be surprised at a difference between “Thermuthis” and “Thutmose”. And as I have demonstrated Thermuthis was surely of the Thutmose pharaoh line, although she was surely known as Hatshepsut to the Egyptians. But to identify her as such, we must understand that Thutmosis III was the half-breed pharaoh that didn’t know Joseph; the pharaoh inaugurating Israel’s oppression.


Little did I know, about eight to ten years ago, when I was researching the history of Egypt, that anyone might come to similar conclusions as mine. To become familiar with Egyptian history, I proceeded to go to several used bookstores to find all the data I could get my hands on, plus buying many new books and publications. I went to Christian bookstores searching for whatever I could find at them. There was also a lady, when I told her the topic I needed data on, who would send me large packages of copied pages from some of her many books, and she even went to various libraries and copied pages from various books she could find on the subject there. She never liked her name or whereabouts known, so I can’t reveal who she was or where she lived, in order to give her credit for helping.

In all of my work on Egyptian history, I have never found anyone who has put the 18th Dynasty together the way I have in my back Watchman’s Teaching Letters, along with this paper; that is until today (June 29, 2010). I decided to search for some new data on Egypt that would support my premise, and I hit the jackpot. The reason that I hadn’t discovered this before is because I had acquired it since I did that research. I went to the Libronix Digital Library (which contains hundreds of Bibles, lexicons and commentaries) and typed “Thutmose” into the search. The very first book that came up was The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck, and there were 21 hits to open, plus an additional 2 hits from an accompanying book entitled The Bible Reader’s Companion.

To my surprise Walvoord and Zuck were parallel to my findings about 90%, although they and I reached these conclusions independently. I would invite anyone to read their commentary on this subject from their Old Testament volume, pages 103-114, and compare their remarks with mine! Looking back, I am glad I didn’t have their input on this topic from the beginning of my endeavor, as it placed me in a position where I had to do my own research from a cold, empty-handed start the hard way! It is reassuring to me to find that someone else came to a comparable conclusion.

While my research agrees very well with Walvoord and Zuck, my reason for citing the 18th Egyptian dynasty was altogether different than theirs. Their reasoning follows archaeology and aligning chronologies, which is all well and good, and shows excellent scholarship. But the thing that caught my eye was how the Egyptians and Hurrians, along with the Hittites, fought in wars to a standstill, and how the Egyptians made peace treaties with them, and then for political reasons exchanged women for the other party’s harems. This brought Hittite and Hurrian [often errantly Hivite in Scripture] women into the pharaoh’s harem to mix the blood of Cain among the Egyptian rulers.

Here is how The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck partially treat the history during the 18th Dynasty in their “Introduction”, pp. 106-107:

... The history of Egypt near the time of the Exodus. Amenhotep I ruled in the newly centralized government from 1546 to 1526 (actually begun by his father Ahmose I) and was succeeded by Thutmose I (who ruled ca. 1526-1512). Moses was born (ca. 1526) in this king’s reign (or at the end of the reign of Amenhotep I). This king’s famous daughter, Hatshepsut, may have been the royal princess who discovered Moses along the Nile. When Thutmose II (1512-1504) died, Thutmose III was very young. So his stepmother, Hatshepsut, contrived to make herself ruler starting in 1503. (Thutmose III is considered king from 1504 to 1482 though Hatshepsut ‘co-reigned’ with him to 1482.)

During Hatshepsut’s brilliant reign Egypt experienced prosperity. In these years Moses spent his youth in the royal court. After Hatshepsut’s death in 1428 Thutmose III ruled alone till 1450. Thutmose III liquidated the entire royal court and attempted to obliterate Hatshepsut’s name from monuments in the land. At that time Moses probably found the court of Egypt inhospitable and fled to Midian. Thutmose III became a powerful kingdom builder, extending his empire to include Syria.

Thutmose III was succeeded by Amenhotep II (1450-1425), the Pharaoh of the Exodus (1446). Unlike his warring father, Amenhotep II seems to have suffered military reverses because he was not able to carry out extensive campaigns. His weak war efforts may have resulted from the loss of all or most of his chariots, in the waters of the Sea of Reeds. The so-called ‘Dream Stela’ of Thutmose IV records that the god Har-em-akht told the young prince in a dream that someday he would be king. If Thutmose IV had been the eldest son, proof of his throne-right would have been unnecessary. It is logical, therefore, to assume that he was a younger son, not the oldest son, of Amenhotep II. This accords with the statement in Exodus 12:29 that the eldest son of Pharaoh died the night of Israel’s first Passover. Thus Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the oppression and Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus ...”

In my own work, I had identified Thutmose III as the oppressor of Israel, but didn’t go into detail on who the pharaoh of the Exodus was. Inasmuch as Moses fled to Midian for forty years, Amenhotep II would seem to be reasonable as the pharaoh of the Exodus. As to the dates of Walvoord and Zuck, my own dates would be somewhat similar for the 18th dynasty, but I tried to follow the dates of The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt, pp. 133-134, which would place Amenhotep II at 1427-1392 B.C. But in quotations, I would use the dates cited by the author which varied notably.

While Ron Wyatt did correctly attempt to associate the Exodus with the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, he never once identified the behavior of each individual pharaoh as I have done in this paper, with the support of Walvoord and Zuck. Especially important is the fact that Wyatt didn’t understand the significance of the satanic-Hittite genetics corrupting the pharaoh’s bloodline. In short, Ron Wyatt didn’t teach the Two Seedline message of Genesis 3:15. His associate, Jonathan Gray, made it very clear that he only recognized the “seed of the woman” at Gen. 3:13 and tried to use that passage to support Ron Wyatt’s 24 chromosome theory of Christ’s genetics. This is pure blasphemy, claiming Yahshua, our Redeemer, was somewhat less than perfect, considering all His foreshadowing priests were genetically flawless! Thus, Ron Wyatt’s shenanigans have no place in Israel Identity, nor does Israel Identity have anything in common with Ron Wyatt and company!