Sven

A really complicated way of saying: You have have shown that the emporor has no clothes. But I'll just ignore this and pretend that it did not happen.

Sven

Well, it's called Kadesh-Barnea. As long as you can not provide an alternative, there is no need at all to doubt it - only if one desparately needs an ancient text to be correct.

Haran

Actually it is not. It has an arabic name. If you read the posts that Anat linked to, you will find that there was actually another site with an arabic name that was thought to be the site and that was more linguistically similar to Kadesh-Barnea. No one knows with absolute certainty where Kadesh-Barnea is, but that's history for you, especially history dug (or not dug) out of the ground.

All you have to do is read and understand history and how it is excavated and interpreted, Sven.

Haran

You are correct. Sauron has no clothes because he does not really undestand biblical history and languages, he just pretends and allows rhetoric to do the rest.

Haran

I'm just about done with these forums. The hammerheads simply do not read and comprehend posts. I have said that the numbers may be either symbolic or corrupted. Ultimately, I do not know and neither do you. If there were fewer people, there would be less evidence. Aside from that, I still do not see why they would necessarily have left so much evidence as claimed behind, this is simply rhetoric. This was a desert where people would take what they needed to survive. Why should anything much be left behind?

Anat is about the only one so far who has provided any decent information. I only wish I didn't feel the stupid need to respond to all the other irrational posters so that I could focus on actual history...

:banghead:

Sven

Sorry. I was wrong.

"Absolute certainty"? That's just laughable. If you have an issue with the identification as described at the link, voice it. Otherwise don't pretend that accepting a scholary consensus is somehow wrong, only because it contradicts your holy text.

Please enlighten me. What did the scholars do wrong? How exactly did the fail to see the obvious errors which you are able to see?

Haran

No, Sven, you tell me what they found that indicates it is the Kadesh-Barnea. You are simply wriggling out of an error.

Did they find city gates with "Kadesh-Barnea" emblazened above? Was some doubt not expressed in the article?

Sven

And this from someone who just claimed that others do "not really undestand biblical history and languages, [and] just pretend[s] and allow[s] rhetoric to do the rest."

Sven

You first suggested that it may not be Kadesh-Barnea. So why should I do your homework?

ETA:
Anyway, I just have nothing better to do.

In 1905, Nathaniel Schmidt first identified Kadesh-Barnea as the modern site of Ein el-Qudeirat. Schmidt marshalled his arguments: “The sheltered position, the broad stream of water, the comparatively luxuriant vegetation, the impressive ‘tell,’ the well-constructed pool, the traces of ancient buildings, clearly indicate the importance of this place”—and all these factors seemed to point to the site’s identification as Kadesh-Barnea.

Schmidt’s proposal was subsequently supported by many other scholars, including C. L. Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, who, in 1914, were the first to study the remains on the tell. The identification of Kadesh-Barnea with Ein el-Qudeirat is generally accepted today. Its strategic location on two important ancient routes, its abundance of water and its correspondence with Biblical geography makes this the most likely candidate; no other site offers a convincing alternative.

What exactly about "no other site offers a convincing alternative" do you not understand?

2nd edit: Then at the end we have this:

How can we explain this? First of all, the identification of the site is not absolutely certain. The strategic location of the fortress is certainly 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.

Interestingly, he tries to rescue the Exodus story by referring to the story of the conquest - but this does not make the slightest sense. If the Exodus is a myth, the conquest is, too.


I may also note that the article is already 25 years old. Does anyone know what happened since when?

3rd edit: According to this, there apparently were exvacations done in 1993 (by Meshel). They apparently did not change the consensus. Unfortunately, I don't have Finkelstein and Silverman at my hands to see if there were even more recent exvacations.

Is this double negation? Anyway, yes, there was some doubt expressed. So what? There's some doubt in almost everything! But some people can not live without "absolute certainty"...

Haran

I find all of this quite irrational. If you look back, more than one person acted as if Kadesh-Barnea was the site and claimed that the little archaeological evidence found there was damaging to the biblical account.

I am simply asking where their proof is that it is Kadesh-Barnea.

I will stop responding at this point because I get the impression that some here know very little about this particular issue, archaeology, etc.. I praise Anat for his even tone and good information (with a lack of condemnation of my beliefs). I do not happen to agree with him, but I don't have the time to go deeper<edit>.