MiddleMan

I read over on another forum someone stating:

"The mid 15th century Exodus is fine by me, it just means that the Israelites didn’t build Pithom or Rameses, the didn’t meet any Edomites or Moabites either, and they certainly didn’t stay at Kadesh Barnea."

I understand why a 15th century exodus would mean that the Israelites didn't build Pithom or Rameses, but why would such a date mean they "didn’t meet any Edomites or Moabites either, and they certainly didn’t stay at Kadesh Barnea"?

Anyone know?

(Yeah, I should probably ask this over on the other forum but 1. I'm not a member and 2. the original post is nearly a year old. Just hoping for some love here!)

Anat

Kadesh Barnea - that's the place where the Israelites were supposed to have spent the bulk of the time between the Exodus and entering Canaan, while waiting for all those who were over 20 at the time of the Exodus to die off. So you'd expect to find some remains there - skeletons (both human and livestock), pot shards etc. Yet the findings from the place are from the 7th century BCE.

MiddleMan

Ah! Great. That piece o' the puzzle now comes together. Thanks bunches!

Anyone know why the Edomites and the Moabites cause a problem for this dating?

Chris Weimer

same thing. There were no Moabites in the 15th century.

MiddleMan

Wow...that's remarkable! I'd never heard that before. Is this documented somewhere? Is there a book on ancient Near East history anyone knows of from which I can find mention that there were neither Moabites or Edomites in the 15th century? When, exactly, do we know that there were such things as Moabites and Edomites in the region? When do we first learn of them in the archaeological/historical record?

Chris Weimer

Well, Finkelstein would be a start. Mods, want to do a link to Amazon for me?

Toto

The Bible Unearthed.

Check the stickies at the top of the forum page for more choices.

WILLOWTREE

Maybe the alleged lack of fossils at Kadesh Barnea is for the same reason there is a paucity of hominid fossils allegedly supporting human evolution ?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116969

Funny how the utter lack of hominid fossils in comparison to the enormity of the claim does not affect the perceived veracity of human evolution unlike the Biblical claim in question = inescapable hypocrisy.

WT

MiddleMan

Have had the book for years. Guess I just needed someone to remind me that it's a good source of information! (is there an "embarrassed" smiley?)

MiddleMan

Ummmmm...maybe I should let the more learned respond, but didn't human evolution take longer than 38 years in a relatively small area? I mean, nearly 3 million Hebrews in Kadesh Barnea over less than four decades is substantially different than a number of animals over a vast area over millions of years.