MiddleMan

How long did the Hebrews stay at Kadesh-barnea?

spin

Oh, rubbish. Cite one archaeologist who has a world class level publication which doubts the identification of Ai. You haven't got the message yet, but biblical archaeology died with Albright. The pathos of the archaic archaeological data you are falling over is clear to most people who've looked at the conservative archaeologies of Israel by Amihai Mazar (1993) or Amnon Ben-Tor (1994).

Please cite the archaeological tomes you are referring to in your analyses (and the dates of the works).


spin

aa5874

The stories of the Plagues in Exodus contain a serious fatal flaw which destroys the entire credibilty of the Christian Bible. This error fabricated by the unknown author of Exodus shows without doubt that the Christian Gods are man-made inventions.

This is the blatant, deceptive and fraudulent error: No magician can do the acts as recorded in Exodus. No magician on Earth can turn an entire country's water supply into blood . No magician can turn rods into snakes or make swarms of frogs. Magicians perform tricks of illusion, nothing magicians do is real. The Gods of the Christian Bible are themselves illusions and are not real.

The Christian Bible continuously shows it's total lack of credibilty. The theists should begin to petition the authorities of the Christian Church to have their Book recalled and apologise for at least 7000 years of error.

bfniii

hmm. i seem to recall actually presenting just that in my posts up to this point.



since some of that evidence does exist, the question becomes why you feel like you need more than that.



what more could there be?



according to you



i addressed that



as i said, since there is evidence, the question is why you need more.

spin

To get there you have to relocate Ai and forget about Jericho, the unwalled city of the Late Bronze age.

That tells you you can't use secondary sources and hope to get anything useful. You don't cite encyclopaedias which are almost always sources for older conventional knowledge and not able to be knowledgeable about the latest state of scholarship in a given area.

The Habiru are not considered to have been a military aristocracy. They were always on the margins of society and in the Amarna letters the term was used with highly negative connotations with implications of "outlaw" or "renegade".

Go with Finkelstein. He's up with the data.

(If you've got a land rover.)

You haven't supplied anything other than an outdated citation from EB. You don't respond to up-to-date archaeology with the sorts of flimsy response based on old information and expect to be taken notice of.


spin

Gullwind

Good! We agree. So do you also accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, which has just as much evidential support?


Because more recent studies have shown that evidence was in error.

If you're trying to maintain a belief that the bible is true, nothing. The willingness to accept that it may not be opens up a world of alternatives.

Well, if you have some that hasn't been shown to be wrong, by all means present it. Academia awaits.

Wishful thinking does not constitute a valid explanation. I've already admitted that evidence may be found in the future. The point is that currently, there is no valid reason for accepting the Exodus account as it is stated.


Again, because the evidence you cite has been since shown to be incorrect.

RED DAVE

Still waiting for the discovery of the slit trenches of Kadesh-Barnia. If we consider that, say, 2 million people camped there for 38 years, the evidence should be about as obvious as the Great Pyramid. In fact, the volume of shit expelled probably exceeds the volume of the pyramid. Remember, we are dealing with an encampment whose population is 25% the size of New York City.

Where's the shit?

So, bfniii, enquiring minds want to know. We note that you've been ducking this issue.

RED DAVE

Doug Shaver

That is quite irrelevant until you present a good reason for your disagreement.

It doesn't matter how hypocritical the claim is. If you dispute the claim, you must attack the claim, not the moral character of whoever presents the claim.

It does not matter how many analyses are available. There are good criteria on which to base a judgment that one of them, and only one of them, is the best explanation of all the evidence.

Your religious dogma is not universally agreed upon, either . . . speaking of hypocrisy.

Every scientific enterprise is an ongoing endeavor.

It would be presumptuous to assume that the information currently at our disposal was all the information we will ever have at our disposal. What we now have, though, is quite enough on which to base a tentative belief that certain things happened and certain other things did not happen in that part of the world at that point in history. We can always change our minds if future discoveries warrant such a change, but it is the purest folly to base any belief on evidence that is not currently known to exist.

It does exactly that, notwithstanding your dogma-driven denials.

bfniii

i'm glad you realize that. therefore, speculation regarding how the egyptians did this or that isn't really productive until we know more about the timeframe.



how so?



if we're being scholarly, then it's best not to make unwarranted assumptions.



why? you just mentioned earlier in this post that would be reading into the text which contradicts this statement.



since your two comments are in conflict, then that shouldn't constitute a plain reading.



i would imagine the slaves would play a large part in the recovery, especially since their livestock went unaffected. it doesn't seem to hard to deduce that.



that's funny. i don't know any aliens but i sure know some jews/hebrews.



not likely to have been recorded. ruling parties from ancient history routinely exaggerated victories and downplayed defeats. it is highly unlikely that a country would admit getting humiliated and their gods getting bested by the god of their slaves. additionally, there are not many egyptian documents from the hyksos period probably because of pride.



how do you know they don't exist?


i addressed this in post #92

mindovermyth

Bartered with WHAT. Was not the whole point that the hebrews were slaves?
If the hebrews OWNED horses which were untouched, the egyptians would TAKE them, making god's plague no. x backfire completely (now you end up with a bunch of hebrews without horses instead) Is it your view that perhaps god was not exactly the brightest kid in the godpack back then? Or, what?


Could have been enough time to acquire more horses.. what?
God portioned up the plagues to give the egyptians time to forget the previous one before the next one struck..10 times?, this little game going on for...just how long, 50 years, 100? Again, your view of god in this scenario is what?... he is just not too bright?

Multiple explanations?.. not one of the two you gave, unless you are Doris Lessing.