Babylon Sister

"Ifs" aren't evididence. You have yet to establish that manna existed at all. Show that manna existed and that we can know its chemical composition and then we can tackle the "ifs".

For a tent to be pitched properly, the ground needs to be cleared of rock and other objects that would make walking or reclining (sleeping) hazardous or uncomfortable. Even if it's only for one night. The rock or other objects that were removed might have been used to anchor the tent against the wind. In effect, outlining the tent. (You can find thousands of stone circles, commonly refered to as "teepee rings" all over the northern plains. The stones held down the hide "teepees". Since the desert the nomads were wandering in was not one giant sand dune but a sometimes rocky pavement with little soil development, 2 million people camping in one area would leave a lot of that sort of evidence. Even for one night. Of course, if they only camped on sand, the evidence might not be clear.

Wooden buildings need to be anchored to the ground even more firmly than tents. This is commonly done by digging holes to place, at the least, corner posts. Even if the building is abandoned, burned, stripped for another use, etc., the post holes remain. Even if the enitre building was to be lifted out of the ground as one piece, the post holes would still be there. They might either be filled in by hand or left to fill in by natural means. Either method leaves evidence archeologists call post molds. In an excavation they are very obvious and sometimes can be seen on the surface in areas with little erosion.

I have excavated only 3 or 4 burials, none of which contained articultated remains and only one that contained any sort of "grave goods". It's not something I like to do. Most burial are found by accident. From enthnographic material, we know that some of the plains tribes placed the bodies of the dead on raised platforms and let nature take its course, coming back at a later date to collect what might remain for internment. Some tribes covered their dead with rocks on talus slopes. Some buried their dead in the ground. Some of the peoples in the southwestern US, cremated their dead and buried the cremains in sealed clay pots. Lots of ways to bury the dead.

RED DAVE

From Johann_Kaspar:
Neither you nor the self-proclaimed Messiah, Larsguy47 (nor anyone else), has come up with any yet.

So:

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

I don't have that. If you said you saw a bird flying through the sky yesterday, I couldn't prove you didn't, but you couldn't prove you did either unless you took a picture. It's not there. You know, like WOW, there's a wall around Jericho. It has fallen down into nice little individual bricks. There's one! I think I'll grab this and use it for my own little dwelling. Great idea. I go back the next day and all the bricks are gone. Guess I wasn't the only person with the same idea. But now, GEEZ, those archaeologists are going to think there never was a wall here, knowing them, they can't think past the bricks that are not in front of them. "Show me PROOF that the walls were there!" Ummmm, okay... ??? I'll try to come up with something.

Fascinating! Interesting. So, yes, why aren't some of those types of things around? And we would have to know if they were primarily on sand or not and how their tends were made. That's reasonable.


Right. Makes one wonder exactly how they did it.

Thanks for sharing again, quite fascinating. And I can see why there's doubt since if you know what to look for one would still expect some evidence even after all this time, if the soil wasn't exchanged.

In Persia, a lot of what was left was because the wind blew sand that piled up and covered everything. So a lot was buried. But, that sand and dust had to come from some place. It's reasonable to think that there might have been an "exchange" over time if this was a very sandy and dusty area, even if the winds blew the sands one way in one season and then back again the next, there would be an exchange. You can't bury something without uncovering something else. So maybe the sand that is there now, isn't the sand that was there 3000 years ago, those sands long blown away and replaced/exchanged. In which case, the place would be relatively clean of artifacts.

This could have been done consciously, as well. Maybe desert peoples, given a choice to set up came purposely choose a sandy place. Maybe because it leaves little evidence once you leave and also because sand rather than hard stone is quite soft and provides a nice cushion. But the result is, after they left, the sand would be blown away to another location. That would explain the extreme lack of evidence, presuming the sands now in place were the same sand cover 3000 years ago, regardless of any sand storms, which is not logical. Certainly some theory of sand displacement must be considered.

Thanks, again, for sharing your little "trek" into the Plains. Believe me, I was right there with you just as fascinated.

LG47

Babylon Sister

Very probably there was an "exchange" of sand, dust or soil. So what? It happens all the time. Sites can be buried, exposed, and buried again many times. However, artifacts are not sand. Bricks, stone or metal tools, etc., have weight. They do not blow away with the sand. They may be buried, theymay be tumbled and moved several feet or even several meters, but they are not going to be swept up off the ground to be deposited elsewhere like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.

Try this experiment: put a few tablespoons of sugar on your table. Place a penny on top of the sugar. Now blow the sugar back and forth across the penny. What happens to the penny? Unless you are forcefully blowing on the sugar and very close to the penny, that penny isn't going to go very far. Now think about what would happen to a "golden calf" weighing 5 pounds lying in sand. How much wind do you think will be needed to remove the artifact and thus remove any trace of it?

Lars, I think you really should participate in or at least go observe an archeological dig and talk to the people there. I think it would help you to understand what the processes of site formation are and how they affect what will be found.

Thanks for the conversation, but it's time for me to go to bed. Us old folk need our rest.

Larsguy47

Again, the Jews did not build anything at this time, there were no "bricks." Further, it is likely they took their metal tools with them, their supplies being limited. There were no stones, either. If the Jews took their implements and tools with them then there would be nothing left. They certainly didn't leave their gold lying around and if they did, it certainly would have been found and picked up by now over all those years.

So we're talking about displacement of sand that would remove the other things you discribed, such as tent pen holes or impressions left from tent dwellings in the sand. That kind of "evidence" would be lost.

Another thing I thought about, especially over a great deal of time is plant growth and how bushes and trees by their roots will distort the picture as well.

Here's a cultural note you may or may not have been aware of, this is a general reference relating to cleanliness:

Deut. 23:9 “In case you go out into camp against your enemies, you must also keep yourself from every bad thing. 10 In case there happens to be in you a man who does not continue clean, because of a pollution that occurs at night [a wet dream, spillage of semen], he must also go outside the camp. He may not come into the midst of the camp. 11 And it must occur that at the falling of evening he should wash with water, and at the setting of the sun he may come into the midst of the camp. 12 And a private place should be at your service outside the camp, and you must go out there. 13 And a peg should be at your service along with your implements, and it must occur that when you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with it and turn and cover your excrement. 14 For Yhwh your God is walking about within your camp to deliver you and to abandon your enemies to you; and your camp must prove to be holy, that he may see nothing indecent in you and certainly turn away from accompanying you.

So the Jews believed that if they were not tidy or left anything around their God would abandon them. Thus there was legal and cultural incentive to mandate standards of cleanliness. In the normal process of living, of course, things will get dropped, but understanding that, there were probably those assigned specifically to make sure the camp was completely decent and picked up. Perishibles were burned in the ash heaps. Metal tools were precious and would have been maintained and accounted for.

Likewise, when the camp moved, finally, likely a clean up crew inspected to make sure nothing was left behind for fear that if they left a mess it might riciprocate against them later if their God became angry and stopped supporting them. So it's not that as a group they weren't as messy as any, but we know from their history that there was a clear incentive to be neat and spotless. They had constant reminders of how "unclean" they were before their God. I don't think it was in their best interest to be leaving lots of artifacts lying around.

Further, as you have suggested, that many people would have had an impact on the environment. 40 years of habitation. So maybe after they left they left it more fertile and increased plant life grew because of that, further distorting any soil print evidence that might have been left.

Interesting.

LG47

Larsguy47

Again, what was to be left? Not stones, not briks, not lots of metal instruments they needed and would have taken with them. Plus they were mandated to be clean. God threatened to abandon them if they left anything indecent around, so they likely had monitors to make sure everybody kept their areas neat and clean, very much like the military: "Cleanliness is next to godliness." Thus when the did finally leave, they likely had a clean up crew to make sure nothing was left behind and they left a very neat and clean and pristine area as they were carrying the reputation of their God and Moses was still alive who understood this and to make sure this was done correctly.

Over time, the soil and sand would have been exchanged many times so there wouldn't be any expectant footprints. So just WHAT are we looking for? There's nothing permanent or enduring that they would have left.

With their cattle and their own excretement they likely left the area a bit more fertile immediately after their occupation but who knows what climatic changes or severe weather would have distorted the area after they left? Not to mention other travelers treking through the area as well over all that time disturbing the "crime scene."

So sorry, but you folks need to get past this wilderness focus since there's nothing here of any preemptive value. As I've said, we have lots of circumstantial evidence and chronology for the Exodus occurring at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III, the archaeology for Jericho fits the timeline and by the time there are surviving records and conflicts with Israel, like with Shishak, the Tel Dan Stele, Shalmaneser's references to Jehu and Ahab, the Moabite stone, etc. those records reflect the state of Israel just as the Bible reflects it. Even in the time of Samson he confirms the territory was ruled by the "Philistines" who are listed in Egypt as the "Sea Peoples" who came and dominanted things for a while.

If I write a message in stone, it might survive over the centuries. If I write it on paper, it's not likely going to survive. If I build a house with briks, maybe it will survive, but if I'm living in a tent, it is not likely those materials would survive.

So this "there should have been a lot more evidence!" is reaching for straws at this point, especially when you want to use this to dismiss all the other evidence in place that is in perfect agreement with the Biblical history and chronology. So while it's curious and interesting and "exceptional" its not a major issue in the overall big picture, IMHO.

LG47

RED DAVE

You are raving: just putting down anything that comes to mind without any critical faculty being exercised. You have no concept of archaeology. Go read a couple of books, take a couple of courses and stop raving. All you are doing is spouting about what you don't know about to justify your belief in an old collection of legends.

In addition, your delusions about the identity make it reasonable to toss out almost everything you write.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Hi RD. I have been reading! Someone told me that no gold that might have been dropped is likely to be found now because it was considered too valuable. So we're not looking for gold.

We're not looking for bricks or stones because they lived in tents.

We're not looking for footprints since it was rather sandy and those prints by now have likely been blown away.

So what are we looking for that isn't there? Not broken pottery, they would have picked that up. Not a lot of litter everywhere, they were very clean, ritually and every other way.

So what's left? Besides your overactive imagination?

Not much.

But I will GRANT you your argument. Fine. Something is wrong with this picture? We don't know what.

But what we can confirm, is that by the time Shishak invades Israel, there were many palaces in Israel and great cities, just like the Bible says and Israel was a great nation. Shishak lists over 100 cities he conquered, including Megiddo! The palaces that were found had to have been the result of a great centralized government. The people mentioned in the Bible are found in the records of other people living in those times!

So suddenly, when there is some historical corroboration, everything the Bible says historically is just what everybody else is confirming.

The Jews had no interaction with peoples per say during this 40-year wilderness trek, so we don't have any records!

So the wilderness story it just didn't happen even though a great nation appears just as another part of the Bible claims? Just because archaeologists aren't finding any gold they left or beads they don't know for sure they would have buried with the dead?

But look. You're CONVINCED it didn't happen. Fine. You're either wrong or right. I know you're wrong and I'm expecting I'll be vindicated very soon.

Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

:wave:

LG47

Babylon Sister

Face it Lars, you just won't take in any information that doesn't make the ancient Hebrews the poster children for "Leave No Trace" camping. That's not tidy, that's obsessive. The rules you cite talk about personal hygene, not the Litter Patrol. The book says cover up your poo, a good idea when you have 2 million people hanging about. But somehow you've translated that into don't leave so much as a broken pot sherd behind.

And think about this: 2 million people; each doing their business (#2) at a minimum of once a day; each having to dig a hole outside the camp to do that business. 2 million poo spots a day! 2 MILLION! And what if they were in one place more than just a day? How about a week? If you don't think that won't leave some evidence then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm going to suggest again that you familiarize yourself with the site formation process. You might learn that re-vegetation of an area can actually reveal more about how it was used in the past than it hides. You might find out how easy it is to tell when a hole like a post mold has been filled in by noting the change of soil color, texture, compaction, etc. Even if the hole is filled in with the dirt that came out of it, the disturbance will show up in an excavation or on a Ground Penetration Radar image. You can't put the dirt back in a hole exactly as you took it out. You have made a change and the change can be identified in a number of ways; no matter how tidy you think you are being. Also, do you think that buring the refuse generated by 2 million people would leave no trace? Do you have any idea how much refuse that could be?

You might be surprised at the techonology available to archeologists today. The kinds of archeological features that can be identified from sattelite imagery is amazing, whether the image is of a desert or a jungle.

I'm finished here. My frustration level is far too low today to keep up with this. Besides, I'm getting a little dizzy from all the spinning.

Sauron

People leave stuff by accident all the time: tools, weapons, implements, household devices, etc. Even the Hebrews did so -- which is why we have such articles from hundreds of other sites in Palestine. And which is why your pathetic argument is so thoroughly busted: if the Hebrews left articles in so many other places, why wouldn't they leave them at Kadesh Barnea?

2.5 million people - plus farm animals - for 38 years - and no evidence left behind at all?

We have extensive remains from Hebrew settlements of less than 500 people, who stayed for much less time than 38 years. So why wouldn't we be able to find anything from 2.5 million people (five times the population of metropolitan Seattle)?

Trying to excuse this by saying, "they were mandated to be clean" doesn't work; they were mandated to be clean for their entire history. Yet they still left articles in hundreds of other sites around Palestine.

Oh, and your crippled attempt to invoke the statutes against uncleanliness as proof that they left nothing behind is patently dishonest, Messiah man. The OT uncleanliness was a ritual and religious defilement. It isn't the same as leaving your personal belongings around in a messy or unkempt manner.

Who would have thought that the Messiah was so intellectually dishonest as to try and gain some mileage for his argument by deliberately exploiting a semantic similarity?

That's funny, they left their gold in other places in Palestine. Maybe you should stop making up this ad hoc bullshit just to plug the holes in your arguments, and try cracking a book on archaeology instead.

We're talking about a hell of a lot more than that.