The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

Yes, he means Ron Wyatt!Imagine mentioning Ron Wyatt in the same post as Israel Finkelstien LOL, it's absolutely mind boggling.The Bible Unearthed is a bit less technical than Finkelstein's usual writings, but I believe it is deliberately written for the layperson as most people do not know that archaeology has thoroughly debunked the enslavement in Egypt, the Exodus and the military conquest of Canaan.Even William Dever no longer adhere's to the Bible account of these events, in fact, you wont find a reputable archaeologist in the UK, USA or Europe that promotes the Bible's version of these events.As for Ron Wyatt, he was just a nurse, no archaeological training. Some of the more sad things about Ron is that he took Henry Morris to the site where he said he had found Noah's Ark, and even Henry Morris was shocked at how pathetic it was, he claimed that it is simply a rock formation, one of many such formations around that area.Also, this nonsense about the Gulf of Aqabah simply doesn't make sense, this area is too far away from Egypt to be the site of the 'sea crossing', the Egyptians would have caught up with the Israelites before they could reach there.Finally, just a note on the Exodus group. It is said by the vast majority of biblical scholars (Albright, Wright, Glueck) that there would be 2-3 million in the Exodus group, now marching in rows of 4 this column would stretch for over 350 miles!! It would stretch all the way across the Sinai desert and back again, also it would take the people in the last row over a month to reach where the first row set out from! It is obvious that the Exodus account needs to be reinterpreted in some way, if there are kernels of historical facts in it then they need to be sifted out from the propaganda, ideologies and myths.Best Wishes.
Brian.PS, I am not sure but I think I read once on the net that Wyatt had failed a lie detector test once regarding his finds, I think that a potential sponsor asked him to take it before he would fund another 'dig' for Wyatt, I'll look into it and let you know.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

HI Orion,I am very familiar with Finkelsteins work, I am presently writing a M.th thesis directly related to the 'Origins of the Israelites' debate. I have also studied with Prof. Keith Whitelam when he was at Stirling, Keith is also a world famous scholar in this area of study.A very large proportion of my thesis is obviously related to archaeology and when I was first sent the Wyatt website address in an email I honestly thought it was a joke. I wrote to the webmaster there and he knew less about real archaeology than Ron did.It is these types of sites that really annoy me, academically sub standard, sensationalising unrelated materials, blatantly ignoring contrary evidence, and deliberately misleading the public.It is the same with David Rohl, his work is not of a serious critical standard, yet people see his wild claims and accept it without criticism, Rohl extends the Bible chronology to fit his own interpretation of events, yet he extends the period of the judges by over 600 years. He doen't even address this issue, but I bet he is making a great deal of money from gullible bible inerrantists.Oh well, if only everyone could be bothered to go and study the evidence for themselves then these sites and books would soon dry up.Nice to meet you Orion.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Buzsaw, keep your money or put it in a charity box, it would be more productive than wasting it on this nonsense. I e-mailed the webstie you posted and they confirmed that it is Wyatt's material that they are peddling.Here's a reference that exposes Wyatt for the fraud that he was, the author is livid because Wyatt misquoted and misrepresented him several times.Letter from John Baumgardner regarding Noah's Ark on Mount AraratAlso, here is a good summary of Wyatt's character:A Great Christian ScamHere is an extract:

quote:

---

Gary Amirault states that, "One of the individuals who I interviewed, who lost approximately 30,000 thousand dollars to Ron Wyatt, went to Israel with him, supposedly to see some of these sights and record them on film. An assignment editor of a major television station in Nasheville went with them. Not only did this individual not see any of these incredible discoveries, but his wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Mr. Wyatt gave this couple some coins which he supposedly found at the Ark of the Covenant site. Again, one of Wyatt's sons informed the wife that Wyatt bought those coins. Gentle, soft-spoken Ron verbally abused an Arab car rental agent when the agent told Mr. Wyatt that his son was to young to drive the vehicle. This couple and the television man returned with nothing to show for the ten's of thousands of dollars he gave to Ron. Later, Ron returned and asked for $10,000 dollars more. This man told Ron he would give him the money if he agreed to take a lie detector test and sign a statement agreeing to allow this man to use the results of the test any way he wanted. Ron tried to get the money without agreeing to take the test, but when he saw that he would not get another dime without the test, he finally signed the statement and took the test. In the words of the man who put Ron Wyatt through the test, as told by the man who gave Ron Wyatt all the previous money, "He failed just about everything except his name."

---

Think critically before you accept this type of 'evidence', if Ron had found these chariot wheels and other artefacts all those years ago, why are they still lying at the bottom of the sea, surely they would have been on display in a museum by now. Also, why has such a wonderful discovery only to be found on some very low quality Internet websites and NEVER in ANY reputable Archaeological or Theological journal?Answer, because this is a con.Best WishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Hi W-fortenberry This depends on when you think that the Hebrews were in Egypt, do you have any suggestions as to when this would be?There are literally tens of thousands of Egyptian records covering the beginning of the second millenium right up to the end of the 21st Dynasty. If you want to count insciptions, scarabs, seals and ostraca, then there are literally hundreds of thousands of Egyptian records. Not a single one refers to Israelites in Egypt.You may be interested in reading more about these records, go to a library and find some books on:The Amarna Letters
Ebla Tablets
Mari Texts
Ugarit Texts (ras shamra)
Palestine List of Thothmosis IIIThese are just a few of the texts used for illuminating Egyptian and Palestinian history, I am sure you can find a lot more at any decent library. He may not know as it may not be his specific area of study, but archaeologist know for certain that Rameses II ordered this city to be built. The city itself has many inscriptions that refer to Rameses II, there are also many documents in existence that confirm that Rameses II built this city. A good book to read on the subject is John D Schmidt's Ramesses II : A Chronologicl Structure for His Reign John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1973.There's also a very good article in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology vol 34, The Egyptian Exploration Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1948 pp57-74. Written by M. B. Rowton.Rowton's article is entitled Manetho's date for Ramesses II and covers the dating methods used for finding the years that Ramesses reigned. His reign is fixed by astronomical data and by mentions in external contemporary sources. It is quite complex and if you have difficulty finding it then I could scan it and convert the article to a word doc and email it to you, just let me know, of course you have to delete the article after reading it.The city that the 'Hebrews' claimed to build may not indeed be Rameses, but what Finkelstein points out, quite correctly, is that if this mention of Rameses is an anachronism then it follows that there are other anachronisms in the Bible and that these anachronisms erode the reliability of the Bible narrative. John J Bimson argues in his book Redating the Exodus and Conquest Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield, 1978, that the city built by the Hebrews was in fact 'Qantir'. However, this has been totally rejected now because of the complete lack of supporting data. Bimson's book sold a lot of copies so you may be able to find it in a decent library, certainly a good uni library will have it.One of the aims of Finkelstein and Silberman's book is to prove that the Hebrew Bible as we have it is a construct of the 7th c BCE, all the anachronisms that they point out simply improve their case.Best WishesBrian.

Hi WFinkelstein could hardly lie about knowing a lot about the Bible, he profesor of archaeology at Tel Aviv Univerisity for goodness sake, look at his qualifications, publications and experience. Why is it ‘simply not true?’Since the Hebrew Bible gives no explicit indication of how long the Israelites stayed in each place, why is it impossible for them to have lived in and around Kadesh Barnea for 38 years?Professor Finkelstein is not alone in his opinion over this: Sometimes people’s conclusions can be wrong, although they are entitled to them. I am very familiar with Professor Finkelsteins work and I can assure you that he has probably forgotten more about the Hebrew Bible than you or I will ever know. I conclude that you have not looked into this as well as you should have, or you would have known that there is a theory that the Israelites lived in and around Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years. I think it is safe to conclude that Professor Finkelstein was not the originator of this theory. If you are truly interested in this theory, I can look into it at my university library, but as I am very busy, I will only look it up if you are truly interested in furthering each other’s knowledge of the Hebrew Bible.Calling someone of Prof. Finkelstein’s stature a liar before you have seriously looked into his claims is not really a Christian thing to do, I hate to remind you of bearing false witness. No they don't, there is no statement remotely resembling that in these verses. What is there in these verses that makes you conclude that they didn’t live in Kadesh-barnea for 38 years? Yes and many of these places have not been identified, in fact very few have, so they could have been very close together. I see nothing in these verses to negate Prof. Finkelstein’s claim. If you could explain to me your reasoning here I would be grateful. Either that or you haven’t done your homework.Seriously, can you look at this and in all honesty say that you know more about the Hebrew Bible and archaeology than Prof. Finkelstein?http://www.tau.ac.il/~archpubs/faculty/finkelcv.htmlThanks for your time, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters are they are of particular interest to me.Best WishesBrian.

Hi Orion,W_ doesn't seem to realise the editing process that books go through before they are published. The maximalists would have slaughtered Finkelstein if this piece of information had no credibility.Finkelstein is one of the leading, if not THE leading authority in this field, if I saw what I thought was an error in any of his work I would be double and triple checking the ‘error’ before I disagreed with him. These guys may make mistakes, but not as obvious a one as this was supposed to have been.Anyway, it seems that the reference to the ‘thirty eight of the forty years’ is credible. It is not a lie by Finkelstein, it is a theory that Fortenberry and myself have obviously never heard about. Most people know that the Torah is a composite work by at least 4 different authors and that by scrutinizing the text the ‘ragged edges’ of where these stories have been merged together can be found. I posted an example of a composite account in the thread ‘The Exodus: A Dead Issue’ where two different accounts of the Israelites leaving Egypt can be found. Well, apparently some scholars propose that there were at least two ‘Exoduses’, Albright is perhaps the most famous scholar to suggest this. It appears that there is a way to suggest that the Israelites did stay at Kadesh —Barnea for the aforementioned thirty eight years.I have been very busy lately but I managed to pick up a book that mentions this theory, so I typed out a couple of pages from it.The book is ‘From Joseph to Joshua: Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology, by H. H. Rowley, Oxford University Press 1950.’This is at least support that the theory of the thirty-eight year stay at Kadesh has been around for sometime and is not in Finkelstein’s imagination. The following is from pages 104-108. The attack would then be from the neighbourhood of Kadesh-Barnea. There is some reason to suppose that this place figured even more largely in the traditions of the southern tribes than it does in the present Pentateuch. When the Israelites came out of Egypt we read that after crossing the Red Sea they went three days' journey into the wilderness without finding water (Ex. 15:22). We are not told the name of the place they then reached, but it seems probable that it was Kadesh. For they came to a place called Marah, where were some bitter waters which Moses sweetened, (Ex. 15:23) and we read that after the sweetening of the waters God made for them statutes and ordinances, and there he tested them (Ex: 15.25). This would seem to refer to the testing which took place at Massah, (Ex: 17.1-7) which means `testing'. But Massah is identified with Meribah, and Meribah is elsewhere located at Kadesh (Num. 20.13, 28.14; Deut. 32.51). It would appear that all of these traditions gathered originally around Kadesh, where there is known to have been a sacred spring, called En-mishpat, (Gen. 14.7) with other springs in the neighbourhood, and these would seem to be the ones referred to in these traditions. Lods says: `Situated at the junction of several of the desert trails ... it has four main springs, distant from one another from one to three hours' journey. The most abundant of them, Ain-el-Qedeirat, flows out of a rock in three jets, each as thick as a man's arm, and forms a stream by whose bank grow shady acacias and luxuriant vegetation.

​

It is therefore probable, as has frequently been recognized, that in the earliest tradition the Israelites who came out of Egypi were said to have proceeded straight to Kadesh, (Judges 11.16: But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh.) which they reached three days after leaving the pursuing Pharaoh behind. This is then probably to be brought into association with the request of Pharaoh to allow them to go three days' journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh (Ex.5.3). It would then follow that Kadesh was associated with Yahweh before the Israelites arrived there.

​

In the form in which the Pentateuch now stands, however, the tribes are said to have gone to Horeb, or Sinai, which was far from Kadesh, and only to have come to Kadesh subsequently. In the book of Deuteronomy we are told that Kadesh was eleven days journey away from Sinai (Deut. 1.2). The reference to Kadesh in the passages mentioned was suppressed, giving the impression that all these incidents took place on the way to Sinai or Horeb, and again all at Kadesh later. Yet it is to be noted that thirty-eight of the forty years of the wilderness period are said to have been spent at Kadesh (Deut 2.1 & 14).

​

From Kadesh the spies were sent into the land, and according to the J account they proceeded no farther than Hebron, and the minority report was given by Caleb alone (Num. 13.22,26,30). This account would therefore seem to be connected with a movement from Kadesh into the district occupied by Judah, with whom, as has been noted, Calibbite elements were associated.

​

It is likely, therefore, that two accounts of what happened after the Israelites came out of Egypt have been combined.

​

According to the one they proceeded straight to Kadesh, and there offered sacrifice to Yahweh and received his statutes. They remained there for thirty-eight years and then advanced northwards into the territory occupied by Judah. According to the other, they proceeded to the sacred mount of Sinai or Horeb, where they received the divine ordinances, and had a two years' period of wandering in the wilderness.

​

It has to be remembered that while the J narrative displays a special interest in the traditions of Judah and the E narrative in those of Ephraim, both are corpora of traditions of all the tribes.

​

Both appear to have been compiled after the traditions had been fused in the period of the early monarchy. Hence both represent all the tribes as having together passed through all the major experiences recorded. Lods observes that we need not infer from the fact that in the J tradition Kadesh was the original home of the Mosaic legislation that in this form of the tradition Sinai had no place, and he suggests that in its earliest forms the J tradition described a short visit to Sinai in the course of a long stay at Kadesh. This is likely, indeed, for Sinai certainly figures in the J tradition. But this does not mean that the group that sojourned for so long at Kadesh actually paid a visit to Sinai. We have to distinguish between the history behind the tradition and the tradition as it is modified by combination with the traditions of the various tribes. If the tribes all came out of Egypt and were all led by Moses, they cannot have gone first to Kadesh and also have gone first to Sinai or Horeb, and one of these traditions would have to be pronounced false. But if some of the tribes came out of Egypt and some did not, and if some were led by Moses and some were not, then it is equally possible that some went to Kadesh and some did not, and that some went to Sinai or Horeb and some did not. We can no more conclude that all the tribes went to Sinai or Horeb because both J and E have traditions of a visit to that mountain, than we can conclude that all the tribes were led by Moses because both J and E represent him as the leader. We need not discuss whether Sinai is to be equated with Horeb or not. What is certain is that Sinai takes the place in the J tradition that is taken by Horeb in the E and D traditions.

​

Here it should be remembered that if all the tribes had come out of Egypt together it would be surprising for some of them to forget the goal of their first journey and the place where they had a rendezvous with Yahweh. On the other hand, if the two groups really had separate experiences, it would not be surprising for each group to impress upon its form of the combined traditions of the whole its own special memories. This would mean that we do not have to choose between the two separate forms of the tradition which can be found behind the present conflation. The conflation is unhistorical, but the separate traditions may be accepted as genuinely historical. Our only difficulty is to disentangle them. In particular we have to decide which of the groups came out of Egypt and which of them was led by Moses. Here scholars of eminence are not agreed, and it may be granted that the decision is not simple. But all that I am concerned at the moment to stress is that the Biblical traditions are not simple, whether we look at their chronology or their content. The chronology of Ex. 12.40 and 1 Kgs. 6.1 finds itself in conflict with a whole series of data, as we have seen; and the Kadesh and Sinai or Horeb traditions equally find themselves in conflict, as also do the traditions of the entry into the land. The story of an advance from the south of a group consisting of some only of the tribes and of the scattered attack of the various tribes each acting singly or in local groups finds itself in conflict with the story of an advance by all the tribes across the Jordan at Jericho with the spread over the land from that point. And if we resolve the attack across the Jordan into the attack of a single group of the tribes, we have to consider its age relatively to the attack from the south. Moreover, when we have separated a Kadesh tradition from a Sinai or Horeb tradition we have to consider their relation to one another and the relation of both to the Yahwism which all the tribes recognized as their religion. This is not a full explanation of the theory, but it is at least a starting point. It suggests that there is a way to arrive at the thirty-eight years through closer examination of the text. I really do not have time to follow this up in great detail but I will probably look deeper into it when I have more time on my hands.Best WishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Hi Celsus, pleased to meet you.I find William Dever a bit of an enigma, he is without doubt the most vocal of the maximalists, along with Baruch Halpern, they will try to manipulate any morsel of a find to fit into the Hebrew Bible in some context. What I find puzzling about him is that he insults fellow scholars who don’t have the same opinion as he does regarding the reliability of the Bible yet he himself rejects much of it as historically unreliable.In ‘The Rise of Ancient Israel, by Shanks, Dever, Halpern and McCarter, Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington 1992’, Dever comments on the Bible’s account of the Conquest of Canaan: The conquest model is not subscribed to by most biblical scholars today — certainly no one in the mainstream of scholarship — and that’s been true for some time. Moreover, there isn’t a single reputable professional archaeologist in the world who espouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe or America. We don’t need to say any more about the conquest model. That’s that. (Laughter.) Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but (Laughter.) You know the Bible is in trouble when one of its most vociferous supporters is convinced that many accounts in it are fictional, or exaggerated.Dever is a prolific writer, and I would argue that he is the most referenced archaeologist involved in the debate over the origins of ancient Israel. Pick up any text book on the subject written in the last 20 years or so and Dever will definitely be listed in the index, and more likely than not he will have the most references in the bibliography.However, I am not keen on the guy, not because of his maximalist views, but because it has been witnessed that he has deliberately manipulated evidence at least one site and he has also insulted one of my friends, Keith Whitelam, by virtually accusing him of being anti-Semitic. I am not personally claiming that Dever manipulated evidence; it is the claim of Thomas L Thompson who was on a dig with Dever at Gezer in 1967 under the supervision of Anson Rainey (another maximalist).In ‘The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. Eds. Volkmar Fritz and Philip Davies JSOT, Sheffield 1996. pp30-31. Thompson writes: Although Dever denies having approached the excavation of the Solomonic gate at Gezer, so to speak, Bible in hand it is my distinct memory that in the spring dig of 1967, all of us who were then at Gezer had gone, fully aware of Dever's quite explicit purpose of uncovering `Solomon's' gate. Half of the gate had already been `recognized' by Dever-following Yadin-in Macalister's report on the Maccabean tower. No efforts to establish an independent interpretation or chronology were undertaken either in regard to stratigraphy or to the chronology of the pottery that was related to these gate structures. Although Dever certainly did not have the Bible in hand when he marked out the squares for excavation, he did have Yadin's article citing the relevant biblical passage. Far from the objective archaeological excavation that Dever claims in his BASOR article,23 the sole purpose of this particular expedition was to confirm Yadin's thesis. There was no other reason for being there.24 In Dever's then expressed opinion, the architectural similarities with the gates at Hazor and Megiddo were the sole and sufficient criteria for dating Gezer's 'Solomonic' stratum.

​

23. 'Of Myths and Methods', pp. 121-23. See on this, W.G. Dever, `Archaeological Date on the Israelite settlement: A Review of Two Recent Works', BASOR 284 (1991), pp. 77-90. Indeed, in the square in which I worked, under the supervision of Anson Rainey, we uncovered immediately overlying the gate three large boulders ca. 85-110 cm in diameter, which did not make sense either in Macalister's descriptions or in Dever's reconstructions. These `artifacts' were rolled down the slope of the mound by Rainey and Dever and never appeared in the field notes. When it came to questions of chronology and the gate itself, all pottery discrepancies were consciously discarded prior to recording.
24. Dever's effort at confirmation is to be stressed. Perhaps if we had found something that would have made Yadin's thesis entirely impossible, Dever may have re-examined the issue. Failing such overwhelming contradiction, however, all 'evidence' became malleable, and supported confirmation. The Gezer excavation's pragmatic and politically motivated observations, of course, depart substantially from Popperian preferences for the hypothetically falsifiable question that is the quintessentially scientific one. Of course Dever was a student of Wright’s, who in turn was a student of William Albright, so this appears to have tainted his ‘objectivity’, the fact that his father was ‘an old fashioned fundamentalist preacher’ may have rooted the importance of the ‘Word of God’ too deeply in Dever’s subconscious for him to let go of it completely.Another puzzle about Dever is that he goes on and on about how scholars in the debate over the origins of Ancient Israel need to work together in order to have a better chance of discovering Israel’s actual historical origins. But in his book ‘What did the Biblical Writers know and when did they know it?’ Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2001’, he carries out a number of character assassinations on what he calls the ‘minimalist’ or ‘revisionist’ school, interestingly he lists Finkelstein as a minimalist.He has a go at Davies, Thompson, Whitelam, Lemche and Finkelstein, and the comments made are more of the kind that I would expect to be made in a school playground rather than in a professional arena.Dever has made a fantastic contribution to biblical archaeology, but he now appears to be more occupied with slandering opponents that answering them with hard evidence to support his maximalist claims. Maybe his scholarship is failing slightly nowadays because he appears to be making some basic errors, for example in ‘The Rise of Ancient Israel’ Norman Gottwald writes: A major reason for Dever’s lapse at the point of developing a covering theory is that he seems uniformed about recent developments in the social-critical theory concerning early Israel. For example, he apparently does not realise that since 1985 I have abandoned the terms ‘peasant revolt’ and ‘egalitarian’ society’ as imprecise and misleading explanatory categories for early Israel, or that I have replaced them with constructs of ‘agrarian social revolution’ and ‘communitarian mode of production.’ The result is that Dever’s comments on my modelling of early Israel have as much currency as would an attempt on my part to assess Dever’s archaeological interpretations based exclusively on his work prior to 1985. Also, although I realise that the format of the symposum does not call for documentation, I see no sign that Dever recognises the pertinence of the work of many other contributors to early Israelite society, among whom I would name, Robert B Coote and Keith Whitelam, James W Flanagan, Neils Peter Lemche and William H Steibling Jr, for starters. Dever has made a great contribution to biblical studies and archaeology, but I am of the opinion that he should focus on the evidence and the latest developments rather than dreaming up new ways to insult people.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

HI W_F,Thankyou for the reply, I only have a few spare minutes.You seem to have neglected the fact that Easton's Bible Dictionary mentions the 38 year stay at kadesh-barnea as well.I also posted an over 50 year old book that mentions the tradition.Now if Prof. Finkelstein is a liar then so are the Easton's editors.I am going into uni tomorrow, so I will look into it in more detail.Best Wishes.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Hi W_F,It took me about two minutes in the university library to solve this.From The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Ed. George Arthur Buttrick, Abingdon Press, New York, 1962.Entry 'Kadesh-Barnea' After Moses and the Israelites left Mount Sinai they journeyed north westwards across the 'great and terrible wilderness' (eltih) toward the hill country of the Amelekites and settled in Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. 1:19-20)

​

The corresponding passage in Num. 13:26 speaks of the location as the wilderness of Paran, but it is evident that Kadesh is meant. It was from here that a company was sent out to spy out the land of Canaan. When their favourable report led to the divine decree that the entire generation would perish in the wilderness and only their children inherit the land promised by God, it was from Kadesh that the Israelites, rejecting the counsel of Moses, made a hasty attempt to force their way into the hill country of the Maorites and were beaten back with great slaughter. After this event, they remained in Kadesh 'for many days'.

​

It is not certain how long this sojourn in Kadesh lasted. The whole series of chapters from Numbers 13 to 15 has no mention of any removal, and chapter 20 finds them still in Kadesh, so that it might be inferred from them that almost the entire period of the wilderness sojourn was spent there. And just to reinforce the point.From, Dictionary of the Bible John L Makenzie, Chapman, London, 1968.Entry Kadesh. In Dt. 1:2 the Israelites reach Kadesh after 11 days travel from Horeb, in Dt. 1:46 they remained there a long time, more explicitly 38 years (Dt. 2:14) setting out from Kadesh to the stream Zered W_F, I looked at another 5 or 6 books from the section of Bible commentaries and dictionaries, I am not going to type them all out, but they all agree that there is a tradition of a 38 year stay at Kadesh-Barnea.Although I dont have the time at the moment to concentrate on this topic it appears that there are two traditions of the wanderings that have become intertwined and that it is a case of separating these traditions.But in regard to calling Prof. Finkelstein a liar I really do think that you need to withdraw that statement.There is clearly a way to work out a 38 year stay at Kadesh-Barnea from the text, we just need to take some time to find it.It is clearly accepted by the vast majority of scholars, and for a substantial length of time, that there is a tradition of a 38 year stay at Kadesh-Barnea.In reality, scholars have long accepted that the Bible is useless as a source for reconstructing the origins of Ancient Israel. Also, there isn't a single respected scholar who takes the Bible's account of Ancient Israel's origins as being of any use in reconstructing Israel's origin.The Bible, in this area of research, is now a secondary source, it is simply too self contradictory and makes too many impossible claims to be of any use to the modern historian.Anyway, Professor Finkelstein told the truth when he wrote about the 38 year stay at Kadesh-Barnea, this means that you were incorrect in calling him a liar.Now if he wrote the truth, and you were wrong, does this make you a liar?No, of course it doesn't, and I for one would not dream of calling you a liar.It does mean that maybe you should have held fire for a day or two until you were certain that Prof. Finkelstein was mistaken.If you are really interested in the Origins of Ancient Israel then maybe you should read a few books on the subject by respectable biblical scholars and archaeologists.Although I am not a believer, I find this subject absolutely fascinating. I got hooked when I studied with Professor Keith Whitelam at Stirling University, he made the topic really come to life and since then I have lost count of the number of books and journals that I have read on the subject.I hope this clears this 'problem' up, if not, and you would like more evidence, then just let me know.Best Wishes.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Hi W_Fortenberry, hope you are well Whether they are correct or incorrect is not the issue, the issue is whether Prof. Finkelstein is a liar (your words) or not.Now I have clearly shown you that the 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea is a well-established tradition, Prof. Finkelstein obviously knew this is an established position and used it in his book. Now whether it turns out that the Israelites did or did not stay at Kadesh-Barnea is immaterial, the ‘truth’ of the matter is that there is a way to find a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea in the Hebrew Bible. Prof. Finkelstein has not lied; he used a well-established tradition to support his findings. He wasn’t the one who came up with this information, I already posted various books where you can find the reference to the 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea.You have not told me whether you believe that the editors of Easton’s Bible are liars, or whether H. H. Rowley lied, are the editors of ‘The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible’ liars too, is John L Makenzie a liar? All these people, and many more, confirm that there is a tradition of a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea, it is a fact that a 38-year stay in Kadesh-Barnea can be inferred from the Bible texts, I even posted where it can be found. Whether it turns out that the Israelites were actually there or not is not the issue, many things in the Bible cannot be supported by archaeology, it doesn’t make the people publishing the finds liars because it doesn’t fit in with your view. Even if they turn out to be mistaken does not mean they lied, it only means that they published what they believed to be a valid conclusion from the artefacts that they are interpreting.So the point is not whether the majority are correct or incorrect, the point is that there is a well established tradition of a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea that can be found in the Hebrew Bible and this is what Prof. Finkelstein referred to.You have not shown that Prof. Finkelstein and all the others who use the Book of Numbers to support a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea are mistaken. If you do manage to prove they are mistaken it still doesn’t mean that they knowingly used false information. It does however mean that there are very good reasons for doubting that particular position. And when Bible maximalists like Bill Dever and Baruch Halpern also demote the Bible to a secondary source then the Bible’s credibility as a historically reliable source is gravely weakened. Some events have such bizarre conditions attached to them that they can indeed be incorrect. The sheer numbers involved in the Exodus and the complete lack of evidence for the epic events surrounding that event make it impossible for the Biblical narrative to be true, at least at face value. Sure there may be ways to manipulate the text or reinterpret the biblical information, but if we have to continually investigate, reinterpret and manipulate the biblical texts because the events described are not supported by archaeology or are physically impossible, then we must at some point start to question the accuracy of this source. You also have to remember that no other source receives the special treatment that the Bible does, if any other source claimed some of the things that the Bible does, you would laugh at it In regard to the debate on the origins of Ancient Israel, can you inform me of anyone who, in your opinion, is a respected scholar that takes the Bible account of the Origins of Ancient Israel at face value, and what their external supporting evidence is?I use the term ‘respected scholar’ in this context as anyone who lectures, or has lectured, on this very subject at an accredited university, anyone who has published peer reviewed books or articles on this topic, and anyone who does not fall back on supernatural explanations for supporting a historical event. I am sure that you agree that the Bible no longer stands unchallenged at the centre of intellectual and religious life of the western world, and there are some very good reasons for this.There are far too many problems to list them all, but if I post ‘themes’ rather than an endless list of ‘problems’ then it should be clear why historians have problems with taking the Bible as a reliable source for reconstructing history.These themes are by no means an exhaustive list, I am sure there are other themes that show how unreliable the Bible is, but I think these should suffice. I have posted some of these arguments at this site before, but I will repeat them here to save you time.(a) Live long and prosper! The most explicit difficulty found in the Hebrew Bible is exposed without using any convoluted exegesis. It is fair to say that even the proverbial `man in the street' has major problems with accepting the life spans of certain biblical characters at face value. These incredibly long life spans are many times longer than what expect modern day people to live for. To even reach one hundred years old is seen as a major achievement nowadays, so special that if you are a British citizen you will receive a telegram from the queen on your one hundredth birthday.The Guinness Book of Records claims that `the oldest fully authenticated age to which any human has ever lived is 122 years and 164 days, by Jeanne-Louise Calment. She was born in France on February 21, 1875, and died at a nursing home in Arles, southern France on August 4, 1997. President Jacques Chirac once said Jean Calment was a little hit like a grandmother to everyone in France. She was 14 when the Eiffel Tower was completed in 1889. She led an extremely active life, taking up fencing at 85 years old, and was still riding a bicycle at 100. She portrayed herself at the age of 114 in the film Vincent And Me, to become the oldest actress in film. (Guinness book of records web site)Now the Bible doesn't just claim that some people lived a little bit longer than Jeanne Calment, in some cases it claims that they lived more than seven times longer with the first man, Adam, living to the age of 930 (Gen. 5:5), Seth, Adam's son, lived to be 912 (Gen. 5:8), Jared 962 (Gen. 5:18), Noah 950 (Gen. 9:29)) and the longest lived person in the Bible, Methuselah, lived to the grand old age of 969 (Gen. 5:27). When we compare this to the expected lifespan of people living in the modern world then we can appreciate why it is difficult for modern day historians to view these claims, at least at face value, with anything other than scepticism.Although it is argued that there may be a way to harmonise these inordinately long life spans with modern day life expectancy, for example, by suggesting that these ages are not biological or that the system of counting was different to ours (Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible, General Editor Watson E Mills, entry Noah p.619), this involves a particular interpretation of the text and possibly applying to the text a system of counting that the Bible authors did not use. (b) Systematic and Schematic Chronologies. Another problem related to time is the inclusion of what looks like systematic or schematic chronologies. Essentially, some scholars think that certain time frames show too many signs of order to be actual literal times. For example, the recurring use of numbers such as 12 and 40 suggest that these are not literal periods of time, but are schematic numbers. Jeremy Hughes highlights some common schematic numbers: `12 and 40 are common schematic numbers: there are 12 tribes of Israel, Israel wanders for 40 years in the wilderness, Moses spends 40 days on Mount Sinai etc. 40 years was considered to be the typical duration of adult life (Num. 32:13), and is therefore used as an ideal figure for periods of ministry or rule. Moses was a prophet for 40 years, David and Solomon reigned for 40 years each, and so on. Schematic Biblical numbers typically fall into one (or more) of two categories. Some numbers (10, 100, 1000, and multiples) are simply round decimal numbers. Others (such as 12 and 7) have calendrical associations: 12 is the number of months in the year and 7 is the number of days in the week. 365 (the number of days in a solar year) is occasionally used as a schematic number: Enoch lives for 365 years and there are also 365 years from the flood to Abraham's migration. Similarly 52 (the number of weeks in a solar year) is used as a schematic figure in post biblical literature (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology JSOT, Sheffield, 1990. p.37).' As well as referring to David and Saul both reigning for forty years (2 Sam. 5:4 & I Kings. 11:41), Hughes could have also included the reign of Joash that also lasted forty years (2 Kings 12:1) and that Eli judged Israel for forty years (1 Sam. 4:18). Also, even although 1 Sam 13:1 is unclear about how long Saul reigned, Acts 13:21 informs us that he too reigned for forty years.Moses' life is neatly packaged into three groups of forty years. He was forty years old when he decided to visit his fellow Israelites (Acts 7:23), he lived with the Midianites for forty years as he was eighty when he first spoke to pharaoh (Ex. 7:7), and he led the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years (Ex. 16:35) before he died aged 120.Numbers related to forty also feature in some passages, e.g. Solomon began work on the Temple 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt (l Kings 6:1) and there are another 480 years from this point until the return of the exiles from Babylon.Modern historians believe that examples such as these are just a little too well organised, life as we know it, doesn't really work out as systematically as this. (c) Creative Imaginations. Some narratives in the Hebrew Bible also appear to be beyond the realms of possibility and at face value many accounts seem to be more the product of an over active imagination rather than an accurate historical record.There are many instances where events described appear to have been greatly exaggerated or are logically dubious. An example of this is the generally accepted number of people included in the Exodus group. There are references to the number of Israelite men off fighting age who were included in the Exodus group, this figure is given as about 600 000 (Exodus 12:37), John Bright in his History Of Ancient Israel, writes that `counting women and children and old men there would be 2-3 million Israelites in the Exodus group.' Many scholars take the middle figure here and work from a group of two and a half million people. But, if we start to dissect this claim then huge problems of credibility come into view.To begin with, the Bible informs us that just 430 years earlier (Exodus 12:40) the seventy members of Joseph's family entered Egypt (Genesis 46:27), John Bright actually has a footnote that states: 'Cf. A. Lucas (PEQ, 1944, ppl64-168), who estimates on the basis of present rate of population increase in Egypt that 70 men would have produced 10 363 offspring in 430 years. The reader can figure that two and a half million people marching in an old-fashioned column of fours would extend for some 350 miles! This is the complete reference that Bright makes regarding Lucas' article and as I was very interested in how this figure was reached I managed to get a hold of the original article by Lucas.Lucas starts the article off by stressing that the number of Israelites involved in the Exodus is very important because this has a direct bearing on the amount of food and water required by the group on their journey. He then gives the standard run down of biblical references that claim there were around 600 000 men of fighting age involved in the Exodus and adds to this women and children to arrive at a total of two million for the entire group.Lucas then claims that not only is this figure of two million people far too high, but the numbers given in the census list of Num. 1:46 also `very much too high (Lucas p.167).' Lucas gives two solid pieces of evidence to support his stance.Firstly he cites the Bible references that claim there were only 70 Israelites who entered Egypt 430 years earlier, this isn't quite in line with what Bright says as bright declares there were 70 men, but this makes no difference to the argument. Lucas is working with official population figures from Annuaire Statistique, 1937-8 and informs us that between 1907 and 1937 the average annual rate of population increase per 1000 people was 11.69%. When he applied this growth rate to the 70 Israelites over a period of 430 years he arrived at a total population of 10 363 (Lucas, p.137).Secondly, he tells us: `The population of the whole of the Administrative Division or Province, of Sinai, from the Mediterranean Sea on the north to the apex of the peninsula on the south, was only 15,058 in 1927, and only 29 951 in 1937, and there could not possibly have been either water or food sufficient for the number of Israelites given (Lucas, Palestinian Exploration Quarterly , 1944, p167-8). These figures cast serious doubts on the credibility of the Bible in regard to the numbers involved in the Exodus, not only do they make the population growth a physical impossibility, they also make it out of the question for a group this size to survive off the land's resources.Just as there are several ways to harmonise the unbelievably long life spans given in Genesis, there have been several suggestions that attempt to give credence to these very large numbers.Bright gives an explanation that can drastically cut the numbers involved in the Exodus group, he says that the word used for `thousand' ('elef) can be used to refer to a tribal subunit (Bright, p.130) which would make the figure a bit more realistic. Lucas gives a better explanation when he reveals: `Another suggestion is that made by Flinders Petrie, namely, that the Hebrew word alaf (elef ), which is translated " thousands," should be " families," " tents," or " clans." In this manner of reckoning, the first census would mean 598 families with a total of 5 550 men, and the second census would mean 596 families with a total of 5,730 men. But, since the totals, whatever they are, are stated to represent only men of twenty years old and upward who were able to fight, the Levites being excluded, therefore, with women, girls, boys, children and Levites, the total for the whole of the Israelites would have been many times 5,550 and 5,730, and probably at least about five times as many, which would represent 27 750 and 28,650 respectively, a great reduction on the 603,550 and 601,730, but still far too many (Lucas, p.166). A final point about the Exodus group is that it also seems highly improbable that only two midwives were required for a group of two million people. It may be argued that the Bible says that the Hebrew women were vigorous and gave birth before the midwives arrived (Ex. 1:19), but this, of course, begs the question of why there were midwives in the first place. It is more likely though that the episode involving the midwives Shiphrah and Puah, was the product of a creative imagination.Again, if we want to harmonise these accounts with our modern day knowledge of the world, then we need to interpret the text in a certain way, or we need to accept them as they are and reject all that the sciences tell us about human reproduction and the basic human dietary requirements.(d) Conflicting Narratives Another problem that modern historians find with the Bible narratives is that there appears to be texts that give conflicting or even contradictory information.The Bible certainly wastes no time in introducing conflicting information as it begins with two contradictory accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1-31, 2:1-3) is the first source, and the second source begins at (Gen. 2:4).There are also two conflicting genealogies given for the first man Adam. In Gen. 4:126 Cain and Abel are said to be the first sons of Adam. But in Genesis 5:1-32 it is stated that Seth is the first son of Adam, Cain and Abel do not merit a mention.Speaking of genealogies, there appears to be a bit of a credibility problem with Joshua's genealogy. If we look at the bothers Moses and Aaron we see that they are shown to be fourth generation descendants of Jacob (Ex 6:16-20) while Moses' contemporary, Joshua, is listed a twelfth generation descendant of Jacob (I Ch 7:2229).God's flippant mistreatment of animals is another impediment to taking the Bible literally, the Bible claims that all the livestock belonging to the Egyptians were destroyed by God in Exodus 9:3-6, and for some reason had to be destroyed again in Exodus 18-21, this should make the reader think twice about the historical accuracy of these claims, it should also leave them wondering what the Egyptians used to pull their chariots as they pursued the fleeing Exodus group.The first account tells of how Joshua and his armies carried out a lightning military campaign that resulted in `the whole land' and `all their kings' being conquered (Joshua 10:40). Then after this comprehensive victory, the land to the west of the Jordan is divided between the Israelite tribes.However, in the account given in the Book of Judges informs us that the division of the land between the tribes came first, and it is only after the allotment that the Israelites attempt to conquer Canaan by means of a military campaign. In the Book of Judges there is no `unified effort by `all Israel' to conquer the land, as was claimed by the Book of Joshua.Also, the Book of Judges explicitly states that the entire land was not conquered in a lightning campaign. We find in Judges chapter one a list of twenty cities whose people were not driven out by Joshua's armies. Now these cities include some of the most important cities in the land such as Jerusalem, Megiddo and Beth-Shean. So we can see that there is some degree of conflict between these two accounts.There are usually explanations to `remove' any apparent `errors' and apologists perform wonderful contortions to explain these `errors' away. However, as far as the critical historian is concerned, the accounts as given are of little use unless they are qualified in some way. They may all be explainable, but that involves adding to the text or appealing to different interpretations, but that does mean thatthe text is not taken as being 100% accurate as we see it on the page. (e) Composite Accounts. For the more conservative Bible follower it is accepted without doubt that Moses wrote the five books that make up the Pentateuch, there is no problem for these people to accept that it was the work of one man, despite having recorded his death and frequently slipping into the third person narrative.Now I don't think that proverbial `man in the street' has heard of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis but the modern bible scholar seems to accept that there were at least four authors at work in writing the Pentateuch as we have it today. The Bible clearly shows signs of being a composite work that's draws together many different types of literature and has been reworked to show a certain degree of harmony.By reading through the text with a critical eye some signs can be found of the bringing together of different traditions. For example, did Abraham actually present his wife Sarah as his sister on different occasions (Genesis. 12:10-20, 20) and with effectively the same consequences in both cases, could we possibly have different accounts of the same event? Then we have Isaac and Rebekah acting out a similar scenario (Gen. 26:1-11), this could mean that there is an accepted literary theme being employed by the authors.The problems continue when we read about the start of the Exodus the text reveals that the Hebrews fled Egypt without Pharaoh knowing about it, they left in a desperate hurry and totally unprepared (Exodus. 12:39; 14:5), but read a bit more carefully and you realise that they weren't unprepared, they were very well organised, they took their time in departing, and even had time to get some valuable items from the Egyptians (Exodus. 11:1-2; 12:35-36; 13:18-19).Going back to the hero of the Conquest, Joshua, did he conquer Hebron (Joshua. 10:36), or was it Caleb (Josh. 15:13-14) or maybe even Judah (Judges. 1:9-10)?The conservative readers may not have a problem with these examples but the critical historian, if his work is to be taken seriously, doesn't have the luxury of ignoring these problems. Again, there may be valid explanations for these problems but they involve hypotheses or questioning the accuracy of the reports. This is not an ideal way to reconstruct history. [f] The Concept of a "Golden Age. It was a general practice in ancient times to assume an ideal period in the distant past during which human beings allegedly lived under exceptional conditions, they enjoyed special relationships with the gods, sometimes cohabited with the gods, and lived the aforementioned fantastically long life spans. This is reflected in the early chapters of Genesis where the earliest ancestors of humanity begin life in a paradise state, are tempted to disobedience by a serpent, intermarry with divine beings, live fantastically long lives, and suffer a universal catastrophe. Modern understandings of human history informed by geology, archaeology, and paleontology assume a radically different perspective on the origin and early days of human life on earth. (g) Divine Intervention Another characteristic of the biblical account of Israel's origins that it shares with ancient literature in general is its emphasis on divine involvement in human affairs. In the Genesis-Joshua narrative, divine activity and purpose are considered the primary forces that are influential in the shaping and course of the historical process. God speaks directly to certain persons from time to time. God’s participation in human affairs involved ‘showing off’ His supernatural power. He sends a flood to remove all of the wicked humanity from the earth except for the eight on the Ark, he confuses the languages and scatters humanity across the earth, he sends a series of plagues upon Egypt, intervenes to help the Israelites escape from Egypt by drowning the pharaoh's army, He miraculously provides manna and quail that made it possible for them to survive in the desert for forty years, He produced unnatural occurrences such as the sudden collapse of Jericho's walls and the sun standing still at Gibeon that gave Joshua and his army an edge over the Canaanites.While historians do not universally reject the idea of divine involvement in history, it is a premise of modern historiography that the general cause and effect aspects of history are explainable without reference to exceptional interference in natural conditions, the Red Sea crossing for example, or any kind of obvious divine involvement to human affairs. What this really means is that historians find miracles problematic and prefer to explain apparent supernatural events by means of natural phenomenon. (h) Lineal Genealogical Descent. There is another historical perspective that the biblical writers share with most ancient cultures and this is the assumption that the origins of the different peoples of the world are to be understood in terms of a simple lineal descent from a single ancestor or an ancestral line. The Genesis-Joshua narrative introduces Israel, Judah, and their neighbours in and around Palestine in terms of extensive family trees. The tribal groups within Israel and Judah are treated the same and they are considered to be twelve tribes descended from the twelve sons of Jacob. Modern historians, who also use anthropological studies, know that the emergence of population groups is normally a very complex process that cannot be explained or understood in the simplistic categories of lineal succession such as those presented in the Bible. (i) Common Storytellers' Motifs. A lot of the biblical narratives are built on motif patterns that had widespread currency in the ancient world. Perhaps the most famous motif is the ‘Cinderella’ theme. This is the story of the underdog winning through to claim the day, someone who overcomes overwhelming odds, who appears to have no chance of success but suddenly enjoys a change of fortune. The Bible is littered with these tales, Joseph, an imprisoned slave in an Egyptian jail, Moses, a baby afloat on the Nile, the Hebrews, enslaved in Egypt by a cruel pharaoh, all of these are presented as ‘Cinderellas’ who, with divine help, eventually succeed.The Sodom and Gomorrah story shows another motif known from extrabiblical literature, this is when divine beings visit a city to test the hospitality of its people and eventually destroy the city because of its wicked inhabitants. You can compare this to the Greek myth of Baucis and Philemon. The presence of these traditional motifs in the Bible surely raises the possibility that at least some of these narratives are products of the storyteller, which of course raises serious questions about their usefulness for historical reconstruction. (j) Far too many unconfirmed events. Another reason that modern day historians treat the bible as a little less than reliable is that far too many of the events found in it have no support from external data.Look at the epic events portrayed in the Bible.The Flood.
The Tower of Babel.
The Exodus
The Military Conquest of Canaan.
The Kings, Saul, David and Solomon.What do we have to support any of the above from external sources?The truth is, we have NO direct evidence of any of these events, there may be inferences from some data, but there is no clear cut evidence for ANY of the above.When a source, such as the Bible, is continuously failing to provide reliable evidence for reconstructing history, then eventually we need to relegate that source and maybe eventually discard it.(k) Which Bible do we use? Finally, what version of the Bible should we take as being the one to work from? Many Bibles disagree on certain things, so which one do we use for the reliable one.Here’s an example.The Masoretic Text claims that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch claim that it was only 215 years. (Hughes, p36)These texts also disagree in many other places, the MT and SP have Jared living to be 962 and the LXX has him living to 847, the LXX has Methuselah living to 720, the other two say 969 years, all three disagree on the age of Lamech when he died, the LXX says 653, the MT says 777 and the SP says 753.Of course there are many more examples, and if these do not suffice just let me know and I will provide more for you. Your confusion if forgiven. I posted the Bible references that support his position and I also posted various books that also hold that position. The fact remains that a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea can be supported from the biblical text. This is the crux of the argument, you said he lied when he mentioned the 38-year stay, you said that the Bible does not support this, yet there is a way to get that figure, as the Bible dictionaries and other scholars point out. Therefore, Prof. Finkelstein’s point is valid. You seem to be under the impression that it was Prof. Finkelstein that came up with this idea of a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea, however it clearly wasn’t. The Rowley book was published in 1950, the other books were publish in the 60’s, I dare say I could find a book much older than these that supports the 38- years stay at Kadesh-Barnea. This is not Prof. Finkelstein’s theory, it is a interpretation of the text that has been accepted from before he was born.Now if you want to discuss the archaeological evidence for the stay at Kadesh-Barnea, or any other archaeological artefacts used in the debate, then I’d be happy to do so, but Prof. Finkelstein’s claim that the Israelites stayed at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years is a valid claim, and can be supported by the Hebrew Bible. This is the only source that there is anyway, as archaeology and history is silent on the events surrounding the Exodus.Best Wishes, and sorry for the delay in replying.Brian.

Hello to you Asgara and thank you for your contribution. They most certainly have, one of which I am about to clear up once and for all. Yes, sometimes this is the best perspective. (not the full of camel dung bit!) I disagree; I believe that he is trying to preserve his delusion that the Bible is an inerrant document. If anything, my evidence to support Prof. Finkelstein’ position has exposed Fortenberry as the exact opposite to how you describe him. He did not check any sources before calling Prof. Finkelstein a liar, he did not even check if what had been posted here was what Prof. Finkelstein actually wrote! I find that his posts reveal pretty clearly what his beliefs and biases are, he is not interested in anyone thinking for themselves, he is more interested in getting people to think what he wants them too. Yes he made it very clear that, without any reason to, he thinks Prof. Finkelstein is a liar. His constant mentioning of ‘assumptions’ is an attempt to get us to ignore the tons of contrary evidence to the biblical account of the Origins of Ancient Israel. It is a typical amateur apologists tactic, it basically means ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’, this is all the inerrantist has in this debate. They have no evidence to support the Bible here, so they need to rely on wishful thinking. You cannot be talking about the same person! Fortenberry isn’t a philosopher, and he certainly isn’t applying Socratic Irony here! You don’t seem to realise that Fortenberry does take something at face value, the Bible. This is the only thing he takes at face value, everything is questioned, but not the Bible account. When something disagrees with the Bible you can bet your boots that the Bible will come out on top in Fortenberry’s world.As pertains to this thread in particular, Orion opened with a quoted passage from Finkelstein's book, part of which I quote below:
The Bible (Deut. 1:46, 2:14) tells us that these Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps 38 out of 40 years) encamped in and around Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai.The parenthetical scriptures listed above are as follows: This is the crux of the matter, and this proves that Fortenberry is NOT a critical thinker and simply has not done his homework. Let me present the paragraph from Prof. Finkelstein’s book, co written with Neil Asher Silberman, from page 62. Now everyone can see that Prof. Finkelstein did not mention the Deuteronomy references, so the accusations made against him that he used these are false. Finkelstein is clearly using the Book of Numbers as his reference point, and as you can see from my posts to support Prof. Finkelstein, there is clearly a way to come to this conclusion by using the Book of Numbers.Now I don’t know where the Deuteronomy quotes came from, you would need to ask Orion that, but Prof. Finkelstein simply did not use these references and if Fortenberry was a critical thinker he would have double checked Prof. Finkelstein's book himself. Well we can all rest easy now, as Prof. Finkelstein did not use these references at all. In his field, Prof. Finkelstein is one of the most respected scholars in the world, I have read countless books and articles that he has penned and have always found his very interesting and thoroughly researched, I cannot imagine him making such a simple error as this. As for Fortenberry’s claim that Prof. Finkelstein lied in order to support his position, I frankly find that laughable and it reveals a complete ignorance of the topic. This has no bearing now that we know that Prof. Finkelstein did not use these quotes. I don’t think any reasonably decent person would use this word in the context of this discussion, especially when our opinions at this forum do not really count for much in the ‘big picture’. Do you think for one second that Prof. Finkelstein really cares what Fortenberry thinks about his work? But used in conjunction with parallel references, as you agree, it could be implied by combining these texts. We atheists always get slated for taking one verse and making a big deal out of it or using it out of context, Fortenberry should maybe research a little more before making such a serious accusation in the future.As I said, it took me two minutes in my university library to find support for the 38 year stay at Kabesh-Barnea, I can only assune that W_Fortenberry did not even spend two minutes investigating Prof. Finkelstein's claim. If Prof. Finkelstein had said this then maybe we could then research his stance ourselves BEFORE we came to a conclusion, which is what any critical thinker would do, I do not recall Socrates ever calling anyone a liar.We know that the Bible is a very complex collection of literature, we should know that we cannot take ANYTHING at face value. Why not throw in your ‘tuppence worth’ maybe we could all learn something if we researched this topic together, without sidetracking into accusations?Nice to meet you Asgara.Take CareBrian.

Yes, if W_Fortenberry had said something along the lines of 'If Prof. Finkelstein has used these references I would be interested in how he had arrived at the figure of 38 years, can anyone perhaps work out how he arrives at that figure?'This would have been so much better that shouting 'Liar Liar' from the rooftops, and far more productive. I do not view this forum as a way of 'scoring points', I view it as a way to gain new knowledge together or at least a good way to have issues brought up that perhaps I have overlooked in my own research. Here's a big clue!http://EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible? -->EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible?I really didn't have to look up any of Fortenberry's posts to know I was correct, I could tell by the 'tone' of his postings on this thread. I assess hundreds of papers from student's every year and I think you gain a sort of understanding of a paper's tone.Anyway, W_Fortenberry is entitled to believe anything he wants, he isnt doing anyone any harm, it's his choice. The inerrancy position does mean that you have a different view of the Bible than people who live in the real world, and I include many Christians in this statement. Many Christians realise that the Bible is a collection of writings from a variety of genres, clearly some are not meant to be taken literally, for example from the Song of Solomon 4:1 Obviously this is not meant to be taken literally, so perhaps the Bible's account of the Exodus is not meant to be taken literally. Maybe the 'Exodus' happened on a much smaller scale, it may have been just a few families that left a life of servitude in Egypt and the rest was part of the storyteller's art. This would mean that the Exodus is a true historical event, it just didn't hapen exactly as the Bible says it did. What is the big deal if the Bible exaggerates things here and there, people who need validation of the truths in the Bible have a pretty weak faith in my opinion.The days of the inerrant Bible died in the 18th century with the rise of the Rationalists, but you are always going to have a core of inerrantists who refuse to accept reality. My own opinion s that even if the 'Flood' never happened or there was no Exodus, does that really mean that the Bible isn't 'true.'? Of course it doesn't.I agree with your conclusion, I really take no pleasure from holding my own with a literalist as it invariably degenerates into a personal attack, and I must hold my hands up and say that I have been terribly guilty of making personal attacks on inerrantists in the past, I try not to now but occasionally I do slip into a wee tirade of my own! LOL I am only human!But you should participate more on the boards here if you have time, I am sure you could contribute a lot to many of the debates.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Hi, I’m honoured that you choose your first post to be a reply to something I posted. As far as I know everyone is free to post a reply to anything on the boards unless it is a thread specifically set up for a debate between two or more people. Anyway, I welcome your reply and hope we can tackle these ‘issues’ together and come to some kind of conclusion that is mutually beneficial. Yes I tend to do that sometimes when the mood takes me and I have the time to type it up. But I thought W_Fortenberry’s reply merited a proper response rather than one of those long list of ‘contradictions’ from some atheist websites, I do not work that way and I do not understand why some atheists do not research these apparent ‘contradictions’ before using them on their sites. Many apparent ‘contradictions’ can be cleared up fairly easily, but in my opinion, there are some contradictions that have found there way into the Bible. There are a few threads dedicated to this here, so I really would like to concentrate on the topic. Yes, and I also provided documented evidence to support my claim, one of which was from a scholar who was working with official census documents from last century, and also that the figure of 600 000 men of fighting age need not be literal. Ok, that’s fair enough, it is good to question everything. Yes this is indeed a very simplified model, as your figures at the end show, your calculation is way off. What I would ask myself when researching this is ‘do we have any comparable examples to refer to?To the best of my knowledge I haven’t seen any other ancient text that claims this extraordinary growth rate. I would also need to look at population dynamics, what affects population growth, do we have external evidence to support this claim, things like that.I would also have to ask myself that if Jacob’s clan could grow at this magnificent rate the surely it would apply to everybody else too! Your figure of 3.3 children per family is perfectly reasonable in your opinion, so surely it is perfectly reasonable for every single family in the world to reproduce at this rate? Think what would happen if just 50 man and 50 women married and reproduced at this rate, the world would be overflowing with people.I haven’t seen your formula for population growth, but I am willing to bet it is based on some sort of exponential growth, which doesn’t take many factors into consideration, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt until I see how you worked it out.I really don’t need to see a spreadsheet, you could just post the formula here and I can type it into excel myself, unless you think it is easier to understand if I had the sheet to view? Well I am not sure I agree with you there, it does say that they had become much too numerous for the Egyptians, but doesn’t mention how many Egyptians there were. I have read estimates that there were possibly around 2 million Egyptians in the entire Egyptian Empire at that time, which would mean that in the small part of Egypt that the Israelites were said to have been held, then there doesn’t necessarily need to be an awful lot of Israelites. I do not have a reference at hand for the estimate of how many Egyptians there were, I am typing this purely from memory, but I can get you a reference if you require it. Fair comment, but I think that logic determines that there were only two midwives because if there were more then they would have to be told as well or not all the boys would be killed. This whole story though smacks of fiction, why would Pharaoh entrust this task to the midwives? Why wouldn’t he simply send his soldiers to kill all the boys? The discussion at the end when the midwives say that the mothers are strong and don’t always need midwives, makes Pharaoh out to be a moron. So essentially, I think there are only two midwives because the story only mentions two midwives, it says nothing at all about any other midwives, it never says that these two then pass on the command to other midwives, and if there were more midwives then they would have to have been told.I am surprised that this is the first time you have read this argument; I have read it in many books. Do you think the text supports there being more than two midwives? Yes this is taken from John Bright’s History of Israel, which was standard issue at universities for a long time as an introduction to the topic. I do not know why he arrived at columns of four, maybe it is supported somewhere, but I haven’t seen it.But how many abreast would you say is realistic? Remember they are fleeing from a large army in chariots. Well I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying that it is unsupported by the archaeological and anthropological data. Remember that John Bright did not include any livestock, carts, or goods, one account f the Exodus says that the Israelites took some goodies from the Egyptians as they left, this would take up more space. Yes I agree pretty much with everything you say here. However, I think we have our wires crossed. My own research, and that of the people I have quoted, is purely from an historical viewpoint, one that does not include miracles as an explanation for anything. Any apparent miracles would have to be explained in terms of natural phenomenon for this type of investigation.I realise that this post is a bit sketchy, I am actually at work and only had a few minutes, so hopefully we can discuss this in greater detail when I have more time to give you a better reply.Thanks for taking the time to post.Brian.

Hi, what a scary formula! I was expecting something much smaller, but many thanks for posting it.I had an inkling that your model would be something like this, I have seen many similar models on various website, and frankly, don’t take this the wrong way, it is totally unreasonable and impractical. I know you said it is a very simplified model, but it is also an unrealistic model.To work out the population growth you cannot just count the births in one generation, you really need to count the deaths as well to work out a population growth figure. The reason for this is that you are using a false figure to arrive at the amount of people in the next generation, then you are wiping out an entire generation at one time, I know you need this for your model to work but your model has to be based on realistic premises.This model assumes that there are no deaths at all for two generations and then suddenly you have an entire generation disappearing, this is giving a totally artificial figure for working out population growth, real life doesn’t work like this. It is fine to say that the Israelites had 3.3 children per family but you do have to have some people dying, so, in reality, there are not the numbers of families having 3.3 children that your model assumes.To work out the growth of a population is relatively simple, you have a base population figure, in our case this is 70, you then find out how many births there were in a year and subtract the amount of deaths there were that same year to get a new population figure, and then the population growth can be worked out from there.By having no one dying for so many long periods of time has messed up your calculations, you are counting people who, in a realistic model, simply wouldn’t be alive. I know you said it is an oversimplified model but you yourself can surely see massive problems here, for example, you have zero infant mortality, you have optimal reproduction periods for all females (not all females will reproduce for 20 years, this isn’t even a average, it is an optimum), and entire generations do not disappear overnight on a regular basis.Let me post what the original article says. It can be found in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1944 & 1945 on page 167.He gives figures from Annuaire Statistique. This is a far more realistic formula for working out population growth and can be typed into the Excel Formula Bar as follows: =70*(1.01169)^430This will give you an answer of 10,636, exactly the same as the original article says.You can bump the 1.01169 around to get various figures.I need to thank you for taking the time to type out your Excel sheet; I was typing it into my computer when my girlfriend asked what I was doing and, as she is an accountant, she told me that there is a far easier way of doing it. Anyway, I have her to thank for the Excel Formula because it would have taken me ages to work it out. I know you oversimplified the model, that’s no problem as we are just beginning to research the population growth, but you cannot work out a population growth by just using a birth rate, you have to subtract the people that die, it is totally unreasonable to assume that no one dies for a few generations at regular intervals. I have no problem with 3.3 children per couple, I actually think this is rather low, but the infant mortality rate would be fairly high, as would death from disease, illness, and old age.Populations didn’t start growing at a great rate until the emergence of large urban centres, the industrial revolution and the advancements made in medicine, so the population growth would be far lower 4000 years ago than it is today. Again you are applying a ‘best case scenario’ from a different area of the world, you have no reason to think that the Israelites had 52.31 births per 1000, and the Bible certainly doesn’t support this. Don’t you think that the fact that this figure (17 million) is far too high casts a shadow of doubt on the accuracy of your formula?Also, to fit your formula this 52.31 would need to be consistent for 430 years! You really do need to get a population growth percentage or any formula we come up with will be inaccurate.It is interesting that Niger has the highest birth rate that year but only rank 35th in the population growth charts, this has got to mean that there are many factors that have to be considered when calculating the growth rate of a population. Population growth rate - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System I should have explained this better so I will try again.What I meant is that if this population growth applies to Jacob with no problem then surely it is possible that many more people in that region should have been multiplying at the same rate. What would happen if even one family from each village in Palestine and Egypt multiplied at this rate, would the planet be big enough to hold everyone? Why is there only 6 billion people alive now if this is an acceptable growth rate?There has to be a better way of calculating this statistic.As you say, cultural and ecological factors have a bearing on population growths, so there would be some areas of the planet that have better conditions for population growth than the Israelites had, the planet simply couldn’t sustain that amount of people. It is unreasonable to just apply your model to Jacob and to no one else. The world is not big enough to accommodate the population figure that this model suggests. LOL neither can I! I am continually astounded at how some people can be so gullible as to take this account literally. Anyway, funny movies are not what we are discussing.A few problems here, firstly people need to stop referring to the sea of the crossing as the Red Sea. This was abandoned a long time ago as it is based on a mistranslation of Yam Suph, which mean Sea of Reeds, the Red Sea has no reeds and is really too far south to have been the sea that was crossed anyway.The size of the column of people is a very pertinent question as we have to be realistic about how far and how quickly this amount of people can move. We are talking about an average walking speed of 2.5 miles an hour, so we need to have some idea how long it would take to walk between any two points. I don’t know why John Bright used a column of four, maybe he had a good reason to, but if we don’t accept a column of four what do you suggest is a reasonable amount for a column? For example, say the Sea of Reeds was a mile wide, then it would take someone walking at 2.5 miles an hour 24 minutes to walk across. But we have 2.5 million people to cross in 12 hours, and they cannot all cross at the same time, so what would be a reasonable number of people in each row, in your opinion? The purpose of this type of investigation is to give Israel a place in history. The bible is not the only source for reconstructing the origins of ancient Israel, it is only one source and historians recognise that it is not very reliable, so in order to give Israel a place in the history of the real world, they need more reliable evidence from such sources as archaeology and anthropology.You say that over time more and more archaeological evidence will be brought to light but over the last 30 years or so the vast majority of archaeological finds have actually undermined the Bible, don’t believe everything you read on Bible Inerrantist websites.Also, explanations for contradictions do not prove the validity of the Bible as a reliable historical source.I have to go now as well, I am at work and wish I had more time to spend on this, but things are busy here.Thank you very much again for taking the time to post the Excel document, I really appreciate the effort you put in and if it wasn’t for my girlfriend I would have typed it all into my Excel too!Hope to speak to you soon, take care for now.Brian.Brian.

Hiya,Just have a minute, I'll reply midweek, have a very nice weekend I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday.Cheers!!Brian