Sven

"More than oner person"? A little understatement for "scholary consensus for 100 years", don't you think?

I provided part of it. See above.

Do you have a mirror around?

Even if this is supposed to be a joke, may I remind you that there are rules at IIDB?

Haran

Reading comprehension. Other posters...

You provided speculation.

Yes, and I see reflections of many in this thread who are pretenders.

Sven

Yes. Sorry. After rereading it, it noticed this myself, but did not get back to edit it in time.
But even if others made the point first, they were just stating the consensus. I don't think that the ones stating the consensus have the burden of proof. Apart from this, the articles Anat linked to did provide some evidence - so the burden was clearly shifted to you to explain what's wrong with it.

:huh: Are you sure you read my post properly? I edited it, in case you did not notice.

Yes, we "pretend" to agree with the scholary consensus since 1905.

Haran

No problems with those who can admit their errors.

Yes, I am sure. Speculation...no proof. Here is a portion of one of your quotes:

what we could expect if it is Kadesh-Barnea, the border settlement described in Joshua 15:1–3. On the other hand, we have no written evidence, such as ostraca, establishing that this was the border settlement referred to in Joshua.

How do you know there is even a scholarly consensus? Did I miss that in the reading? It is possible.

Either way, the very person suggesting that it is the most likely spot is unsure. The thing about a scholarly consensus is that one or a few scholars decide something is true and then, like human nature seems to do, the herd blindly follows.

Sauron

I hold you accountable for the claims you make. Apparently that distresses you.

Whether you debate me or not is irrelevant. I will still point out the mistakes and contradictions of your posts.

Sauron

No one is trying to convince you of anything. You made statements that were incorrect; people are asking you about them. Specifically, you are being confronted with the contradictions in:

a. believing in an exodus account;
b. a lack of supporting evidence; and
c. a mountain of contradictory evidence

the question is how you plan to square that circle.

There is no negative spin. And if you think they contain bad assumptions, then by all means point them out to us. Waving your hands and making vague claims isn't going to work. Desperate sneering is not a successful debate tactic.

And I'll repeat my previous question: what evidence do you have that the site identified as K-B isn't the correct one?

You have the burden of proof backwards. If you want to make an affirmative statement for the authenticity of this account, and/or if you want to gainsay the archaeological consensus, it is *you* that must do the proving.

Johnny Skeptic

That's what I thought Christians did when their parents told them about Christianity. Scholarly consensus? I find your comments about a scholarly consensus to be quite odd. Many Christians, including you no doubt, are quick to use a scholarly consensus if the consensus agrees with their own positions. If a scholarly consensus agreed that the Exodus and the ten plagues occurred, you would surely quote the scholars. I doubt that anyone will believe you if you deny this.

Even if there was an Exodus, so what? If it occurred, what is most important
is WHY it occurred. Do you have any historical evidence why it occurred? In addition, do you have any historical evidence that the plagues occurred AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE? I assume that your answer is "no" to both question, in which case I must ask you what you are trying to prove in this thread.

Sauron

In point of fact, you are wrong. Instead of chiding others for not reading the article, you should have done so yourself. Sven is correct:

The tell at Kadesh-Barnea (formerly Tell el-Qudeirat and now called Tela Kadesh-Barnea)

<edit>What the article actually says about that particular site is as follows:

In the 1880s, Henry Clay Trumbull suggested Ein-Qedeis, in the northern Sinai, as the site of Kadesh-Barnea. What appeared to be the retention of the Biblical “Kadesh” in the Arabic “Qedeis” was a forceful and appealing argument in favor of Trumbull’s identification. Moreover, Trumbull described Ein-Qedeis as a luxuriant oasis which seemed to fit the Biblical description of the site. Unfortunately, Trumbull’s description of Ein-Qedeis was highly romanticized. In fact, Ein-Qedeis is a shallow pool of water surrounded by a desert wasteland. Ein-Qedeis could not have been a major ancient center like Kadesh-Barnea.

So far from being a potential candidate site, it was just another dry well that someone latched onto, as a result of over-reliance upon linguistic similarities between Hebrew and Arabic. There's a lesson there for you, Haran.

No one seriously doubts the location of K-B. No one, that is, except for christians trying to preserve as much biblical accuracy as possible, regardless of how it wrecks the actual archaeological evidence.

Of course, if you think otherwise, feel free to provide links or names of archaeologists who dispute that K-B is actually found.

Strange how you have never been able to demonstrate this. While I have just demonstrated that you can't even read an ordinary article in English for accuracy's sake. One wonders how you think to know biblical history and languages, then.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Sauron: Lest you think that you are actually in a serious debate with Haran, I will tell you that I have been debating him a lot at the GRD forum in several threads. He is quite rude and evasive, much more so than at this forum, and his arguments are childish, absurd, and utterly easy to refute. You are the professor, Haran is the student, and surely he should go sit in the corner.

Sven

It's so easy if one can ignore these parts, yes:

See above. I'm the one with reading comprehension problems, yes?

Did you notice why he is unsure? Because he finds no sign of the Exodus there and is uncomfartable with this. The same "argument" that you use. A ridiculous one. He simply does not like it, he does not provide any evidence or argument.

:rolling:
You clearly do nothing about science.