The Exodus - Did It Really Happen?

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi, steel swords of the same age have been recovered in the wet climates of Europe. You can see them in museums. The Book of Mormon claims steel weaponry was in use by a LOT of men. What evidence is there for this? (none.) But steels swords are not the only problem with the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence for the culture of the Book of Mormon. No contemporary writings in "reformed Egyptian", no evidence of Hebrew worship let alone Christian worship. And the list goes on.

.........................................................

Nearly every list of that sort which I have seen is filled with falsehood, often inadvertant due to lack of knowledge by the list-makers.

 

The Book of Mormon actually refers to "steel" only 5 times: I Ne 4:9, 16:18, II Nephi 5:15, Jarom 8, and Ether 7:9.

Of those, the first 2 were crafted in the ancient Near East (the Sword of Laban, and Nephi's steel bow), where steel had been commonly used for centuries.  Indeed, the steel short sword or dagger found in the Tomb of Tutankhamun (died 1325 B.C.) had a gold hilt just as described by Nephi (I Ne 4:9), though nothing of the sort was known in Joseph Smith's time.

 

With the use of bellows (I Ne 17:11), Nephi was clearly familiar with steel technology.  However, we have no reference to steel in the Book fo Mormon after the 4th century B.C. and no reason to believe that either the Nephites or Lamanites had such technology after that date.

 

The earliest reference is to Jaredite steel swords and acquisition of iron ore from the Hill Ephraim, probably in the third millennium B.C.  The only New World civilization extant then was that of the Olmec of Mesoamerica, who reached their florescence in the 2nd millennium B.C., and whose civilization had disappeared by about 500 B.C.  Though we have recovered no steel swords from the Olmec, we have recovered tons of iron objects from the primary Olmec sites, including one magnetite pointer which appeared to have been machined -- no doubt used in a magnetic compass.  The Olmec particularly liked highly polished magnetite (magnetic iron) mirrors.

 

None of the references to "steel" in the KJ Bible are to actual iron or steel, but to the Hebrew word for "copper, bronze."

 

By the way, next time you travel, take careful notes on the those swords you have seen in European museums.  You will find that they do not come from the Book of Mormon period, but much later.  The Vikings had especially fine quality steel swords.

[saemo]

Robert, my goal isn't to slander what is sacred. Why be so sensitive to normal observation and questions? If took the same approach I could view all.of Mormonism as a slander against my faith and what I hold as sacred.

 

If steel is not steel but some other metal, shouldn't they still be able to be found? Why do you think the number of times mentioned means they weren't used?

[saemo]

 

What you are saying about the Book of Mormon here, saemo, does not comport with the secular evidence, as I have pointed out in posts 99 and 147 in this thread.

 

Also Ernst Benz (a non-Mormon scholar) has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis:

 

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith=s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.^[1]

 

The notion of deification as the ultimate objective of the early Christian believer is entirely orthodox,^[2] and was also a fundamental belief of the ancient Egyptians.^[3]  Both Bible and Book of Mormon appear to contain this doctrine (Alma 5:19, III Nephi 28:10, Moroni 7:48 ǁ1 John 3:2), and it was common to the Ante-Nicene Fathers,^[4] and to pre-Christian Judaism.^[5]  Both likewise focus on what Dietrich Wildung suggests are Acontemporary events as the setting of God=s ongoing salvation drama.@^[6]

^[1] ADer Mensch als Imago Dei,@ in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326,

 

Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben.

 

English version in Benz, AImago Dei: Man in the Image of God,@ in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

^[2] Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Pickwick Publ./Wipf & Stock, 2006).

^[3] Dietrich Wildung, Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt (NYU Press, 1977).

^[4] Daniel Graham, AFree Will in the Early Church,@ paper delivered Sept 21, 2012, at the annual meeting of SMPT at USU, Logan, Utah.

^[5] John J. Collins, “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in J. J. Collins & M. Fishbane, eds., Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995), 43-58.

^[6] Paul Hanson in Harper=s Bible Dictionary, 1062.

 

Deification as LDS believe is not theosis. The center of the Catholic and Orthodox faith is the Eucharist. Scholarship that removes theosis from the Eucharist takes theosis out of context. When we receive communion, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ we are receiving into ourselves the divine. Ever hear the phrase, you are what you eat? We share in the divine nature of God. There is no early church belief that we the created, become a Creator.

[thesometimesaint]

I have no clue why people think that because some institution is old, it must be true, that because there is historical evidence for something that it has to be right.

 

I left one church precisely because I found that way of thinking totally unreasonable.  For me what is important is knowing what you believe and knowing precisely WHY you believe it, what function that belief has in your life and where that belief came from. 

 

If you find that "reasonable", then for you, it IS reasonable.

 

I could not find that in the church I was in, so I left.  I left behind perhaps a thousand years of tradition in my family because it did not make sense to me

 

"The unexamined life is not worth living" is a statement attributed to Socrates, and I have accepted that perspective totally.  I cannot imagine believing something because it was traditional, historical, or someone else's word for ANYTHING.

 

Now if these folks said to me "I believe in Religion X because I have found that my life is better for these beliefs" or that "The Holy Spirit has told me this is the path I should be on", I would say "more power to you- God bless you in your journey".

 

But if they say to me that they believe a religious faith because there is what they think is "historical evidence" for those beliefs, or that their beliefs are "traditional" I would put those folks in the category you mention above.  I put folks who say "I am fifth generation Mormon and so will always be Mormon" in the same category.  If you don't have a testimony for yourself, I think you need to get one or start looking for a faith that actually will work for YOU personally.

 

I think Socrates was completely right about that.  Why live a life based on what others tell you, and not what you have found out for yourself?

 

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

There is a difference of course between a private doctrine and an official doctrine

 

Agreed. People are people and often inject one into the other. Individually we have the requirement to search, study, and pray to determine that difference.

[thesometimesaint]

Deification as LDS believe is not theosis. The center of the Catholic and Orthodox faith is the Eucharist. Scholarship that removes theosis from the Eucharist takes theosis out of context. When we receive communion, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ we are receiving into ourselves the divine. Ever hear the phrase, you are what you eat? We share in the divine nature of God. There is no early church belief that we the created, become a Creator.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng

[ERayR]

Nope it didn't really happen.  It is merely figurative and allegorical.  Just like all the rest of Christianity.  Who would be gullible enough to believe any of this stuff as real?

[saemo]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id110.html

[Helen47]

"Still, Finkelstein's theories strike an intellectually appealing middle ground between biblical literalists and minimalists. "Think of the Bible the way you would a stratified archaeological site," he says. "Some of it was written in the eighth century B.C., some the seventh, and then going all the way to the second B.C. So 600 years of compilation. This doesn't mean that the story doesn't come from antiquity. But the reality presented in the story is a later reality. David, for example, is a historical figure. He did live in the tenth century B.C. I accept the descriptions of David as some sort of leader of an upheaval group, troublemakers who lived on the margins of society. But not the golden city of Jerusalem, not the description of a great empire in the time of Solomon. When the authors of the text describe that, they have in their eyes the reality of their own time, the Assyrian Empire.

"Now, Solomon," he continues with a sigh. "I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that! But take Solomon, dissect it. Take the great visit of the Queen of Sheba—an Arabian queen coming to visit, bringing all sorts of exotic commodities to Jerusalem. This is a story which is an impossibility to think about before 732 B.C., before the beginning of Arabian trade under Assyrian domination. Take the story of Solomon as the great, you know, trainer in horses and chariots and big armies and so on. The world behind Solomon is the world of the Assyrian century."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text/11

 

There is a political issue here, no David and Solomon etc, no promise that God gave the Jews the land Israel wants to claim as well as the west bank.

[thesometimesaint]

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id110.html

 

Personally I'll take what the Bible itself says over that of any commentator.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, my goal isn't to slander what is sacred. Why be so sensitive to normal observation and questions? If took the same approach I could view all.of Mormonism as a slander against my faith and what I hold as sacred.

You have a very odd view of what is "normal observation and questions."  And you never find Mormons on this board taking cheap shots at the Roman Catholic faith or at our Roman Catholic guests.  You find mutually respectful discussion.  So I don't understand why you find it necessary to make one false statement after another about the faith I hold dear.  Some years ago, the Evangelical Presbyterian President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw, found it necessary to publicly apologize for his fellow evangelicals bearing false witness against the Mormons.  What these evangelicals had said and done against the Mormons was unconscionable.  Yet I find you engaging in many of the same slanders against us.  Why?  Are you really that angry?

 

If steel is not steel but some other metal, shouldn't they still be able to be found? Why do you think the number of times mentioned means they weren't used?

I did not say that "steel is not steel."  That is obviously your conclusion taken from the King James Version of the Bible.  You apparently did not read what I wrote very carefully.  I made it clear that "steel" in the Book of Mormon is actual steel, and that it presents no problem archeologically.  Secular historians think it very important to know when and where literary references to a particular technology are to be found.  Guessing or imagining a technology is present is unprofessional.

 

Steel is carburized iron.  A technology such as that can be easily lost, as it was to the Vikings at some point.  If you need references to that technology or to Viking steel, I will happily provide it.

 

Please be aware that much of the anti-Mormon literature you have apparently read about the LDS Church (aside from being a member at one time) is false and tendentious.  Why you would expect them to tell you the truth about such matters is beyond my comprehension.  Why would you simply parrot that material at us here on this board, without bothering to study and see if it is actually accurate?

 

We have discussed this matter before on this board, yet you seem not to have turned over a new leaf, but are as antagonistic as ever.  Is that the Christian way?

[Robert F. Smith]

Deification as LDS believe is not theosis. The center of the Catholic and Orthodox faith is the Eucharist. Scholarship that removes theosis from the Eucharist takes theosis out of context. When we receive communion, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ we are receiving into ourselves the divine. Ever hear the phrase, you are what you eat? We share in the divine nature of God. There is no early church belief that we the created, become a Creator.

You might want to read some of the non-Mormon sources I cited.  They do not seem to agree with your definitions.

[saemo]

You might want to read some of the non-Mormon sources I cited.  They do not seem to agree with your definitions.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62685-do-mormons-have-a-superiority-complex/

[Calm]

 "And you never find Mormons on this board taking cheap shots at the Roman Catholic faith or at our Roman Catholic guests"

There are a few but I for one report them and always see a response from a mod about it eventually shutting it down.

[Robert F. Smith]

You know Robertolini, this tap dance of yours gets a little weary after awhile.

 

If you have solid evidence that directly connects itself to (and is identifiable as such) the supposed Lamanite, Nephite, Jaredite, Mulekite or even Termite civilizations, please share it with us. 

 

In other words "Show me the money"...............

PART III

 

Elephantine and the Book of Mormon:  When Cambyses entered Egypt in 525 B.C., he found a five-gated Jewish temple and a Jewish colony already ensconced at Elephantine Island in Upper Egypt.  The Jewish mercenaries of that colony may have been placed there by a pharaoh of the 26th Dynasty such as Apries or Amasis II, although they may have been there much earlier (Isaiah 49:12 "Syene/Aswan"), i.e., in the mid-7th century B.C., during the reigns of Manasseh of Judah and of Pharaoh Psammetichus I of Egypt.--B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (UC Press, 1968), 119-120; Porten, “Did the Ark Stop at Elephantine?” BAR, 21/3 (1995), 61-67, citing especially the Letter of Aristeas (see Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, II:13), and Herodotus, Histories II,30. 

 

Hugh Nibley already commented on the complete absence of Baʻal names from both Elephantine documents and the Book of Mormon.  What is also worth noting is the presence there of a unique version of the divine name YHH (Bigrammaton) on both ostraca and papyri, instead of the standard Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH “Yahweh, Jehovah.”  It seems quite likely that this is the source of the otherwise inexplicable suffix -ihah on the Book of Mormon names, Ammonihah, Cumenihah, Moronihah, Mathonihah, Nephihah, Onihah, Orihah, and Zemnarihah, most of whom have short-forms (hypocoristica).  Köhler & Baumgartner saw it as a version of the divine name -iah.  --HALOT, II:395.  Jo Ann Hackett (non-Mormon scholar), therefore, suggested in the case of Ammonihah that the meaning could be “Yahweh is (my) faithfulness.”

 

Another interesting spelling in the Elephantine documents is se’an, instead of the usual Hebrew se’a “measure.”  This a dead ringer for sean (the spelling in the Printer’s Ms), a Nephite gold-measure in Alma 11.--B. Porten & A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, III: Literature, Accounts, Lists, 295 (figure 8, Measures & Weights), occurring for example in C3.13:37 = A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., 63:3 (on the back of a Behistun fragment).

 

Documentary Analysis:  John L. Sorenson provided us with the first analysis of the Book of Mormon based on the Documentary Hypothesis, concluding that it is an “E” Elohistic (north Israelite) document, rather than a southern “J” Judahite document.  This is consonant with Lehi’s heritage as a Manassite (Alma 10:3; cf. 1 Nephi 5:14-16), and with the special record kept on Brass Plates, which was probably brought to Jerusalem by a northern clan.  Noteworthy, for example, is the contempt for David & Solomon (Jacob 2:23-24).--Sorenson, “The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue, 10/4 (Aut 1977):31-39, reprinted in J. L. Sorenson, Nephite Culture and Society: Collected Papers, ed. M. R. Sorenson (SLC: New Sage Books, 1997), 25-39.  David Bokovoy has in preparation a more thoroughgoing documentary analysis of Mormon Scripture, and I'll be looking forward to reading his conclusions.

 

Plates of Brass: Jacob explains the bare fact that the Brass Plates were preferable to perishable materials (Jacob 4:2), but nowhere in the Bible do we find any sort of explanation as to why such a record would be engraven on brass in Egyptian.  Only by means of archeology in recent decades has it become clear that professional Hebrew scribes actually used Egyptian hieratic.--Anson Rainey, "The Saga of Eliashib," Biblical Archaeology Review, XIII/2 (March/April 1987), 37, 39; Antonio Loprieno, Q&A during UCLA Extension Symposium “Egypt and the Biblical World” (UCLA X471),  March 6, 2004; William Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (2004), 60-62, where he cites especially (n. 24) N. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah, HUC Monograph (2000), 250-268, and O. Goldwasser, “An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms,” Tel Aviv, 18 (1991), 248-253.

[Robert F. Smith]

 "And you never find Mormons on this board taking cheap shots at the Roman Catholic faith or at our Roman Catholic guests"

There are a few but I for one report them and always see a response from a mod about it eventually shutting it down.

I'll take your word for it, cal, but I have thought it primarily a love-fest with Rory and with MiserereNobis.  Indeed, I thought we treated the new Pope better than some of the members of his own Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62685-do-mormons-have-a-superiority-complex/

I read through it again and find it very kind and considerate.  A lot of nice words.

 

Meantime, saemo, you really owe us an apology for bearing false witness against us.  Wouldn't you rather be nice?

[saemo]

I read through it again and find it very kind and considerate.  A lot of nice words.

 

Meantime, saemo, you really owe us an apology for bearing false witness against us.  Wouldn't you rather be nice?

Oh you think that I was pointing out mean Mormons.

 

 If you would like to point out what post has offended you, otherwise, all I see is someone who feels their argument is so weak that you have to divert the subject to slandering me.

[saemo]

You might want to read some of the non-Mormon sources I cited.  They do not seem to agree with your definitions.

Let's look at those sources.

 

 

 

[1] ADer Mensch als Imago Dei,@ in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326,

 

Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben.

 

Founded by a German Lutheran, Eranos Jahrbuch is secular, with members like Heimlich Himmler.

 

English version in Benz, AImago Dei: Man in the Image of God,@ in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

 

Mormon translation of the Eranos Jahrbuch publication.

 

 

 

[2] Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Pickwick Publ./Wipf & Stock, 2006).

 

Let's look at the Amazon description of this Catholic source: '"Deification' refers to the transformation of believers into the likeness of God. Of course, Christian monotheism goes against any literal 'god making' of believers. Rather, the New Testament speaks of a transformation of mind, a metamorphosis of character, a redefinition of selfhood, and an imitation of God.' 

 

Bold emphasis mine.

 

 

 

[3] Dietrich Wildung, Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt (NYU Press, 1977).

 

Well, if your argument is that LDS view deification as the same as the Pharaohs...go for it.

 

 

 

[4] Daniel Graham, AFree Will in the Early Church,@ paper delivered Sept 21, 2012, at the annual meeting of SMPT at USU, Logan, Utah.

 

Mormon source.

 

 

 

[5] John J. Collins, “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in J. J. Collins & M. Fishbane, eds., Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995), 43-58.

 

A  Catholic source. Catholics of course view "Throne in the Heavens" as a reference to the Eucharist, Jesus and the Holy Trinity. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read a Catholic source on the Eucharist?  And why you have an insistence on removing sound bites from Catholic sources, taking them out of context?

 

 

 

 

[6] Paul Hanson in Harper=s Bible Dictionary, 1062.

 

:-)

Edited February 15, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

 

 

Hi saemo,

Mormon archeologists have done several excavations in New York State in the past, such as the site of the original Joseph Smith Sr cabin, but no excavation of that drumlin near Manchester which many now call the "Hill Cumorah" -- where a pageant is held annually.  The LDS Church owns the hill and has made major alterations to it for use as a pageant center.  There is not now and never has been any reason to conduct a major archeological excavation there.  Joseph did not refer to it as the Hill Cumorah until the late 1830s, and then only because that had become a common reference.

 

Why did the LDS church buy the land, build it up,  and commemorate events that are important to LDS at this site? Do you think it was just randomly picked, "just cuz"?

 

How and why did it become a "common reference"?

 

 

 

The original Hill Cumorah does not fit the description of that drumlin and there has never been any evidence of a major battle there (archeololgists can survey a site merely by walking across it and gathering surface artifacts which are exposed by erosion).  Nor was there ever a major, high civilization in the vicinity -- nor anywhere in North America for that matter.  In general, see John E. Clark, “Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology,” paper presented at the Aug 4, 2005, FAIR Conference in Sandy, Utah, available online at http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/ 2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html .

 

I clearly remember being taught that the hill in NY is the Hill Cumorah. This apologetic is recent, and I don't view FAIR LDS an an authoritative source for the LDS Church.

Edited February 15, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

You have a very odd view of what is "normal observation and questions."

 

Really? What is odd about it?

 

And you never find Mormons on this board taking cheap shots at the Roman Catholic faith or at our Roman Catholic guests.  You find mutually respectful discussion.  So I don't understand why you find it necessary to make one false statement after another about the faith I hold dear.

 

What false statement is that? And what cheap shots are those?

 

Some years ago, the Evangelical Presbyterian President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw, found it necessary to publicly apologize for his fellow evangelicals bearing false witness against the Mormons.  What these evangelicals had said and done against the Mormons was unconscionable.  Yet I find you engaging in many of the same slanders against us.  Why?  Are you really that angry?

 

Sometimes I notice some Mormons have this idea about people because they left Mormonism. Their own biases are leveled against "us", the ones who have left. Some call this "projection", I call it, psychological protection. It can be hurtful sometimes, to be viewed through the el Diablo lens, but I forgive you, even though I know you'll never find it in your heart to apologize.

 

I have not said anything false. I say what believe. I am not angry, though, I've noticed that is another one of those paste-on biases that Mormons have for former Mormons.

 

Why do you feel the need to cast aspersions on a complete stranger? Ever stop to think about that?

 

I did not say that "steel is not steel."  That is obviously your conclusion taken from the King James Version of the Bible.

 

It is my conclusion from your argument! I say, steel should be able to found. You say, steel does not mean steel. But who cares, really? Steel, bronze, copper...these are not rare artifacts.

 

You apparently did not read what I wrote very carefully.  I made it clear that "steel" in the Book of Mormon is actual steel, and that it presents no problem archeologically.  Secular historians think it very important to know when and where literary references to a particular technology are to be found.  Guessing or imagining a technology is present is unprofessional.

 

Well, I apologize for not understanding what you were trying to say. I disagree there aren't archaeological problems.

 

Steel is carburized iron.  A technology such as that can be easily lost, as it was to the Vikings at some point.  If you need references to that technology or to Viking steel, I will happily provide it.

 

References for Viking losing technology would be great.

 

Please be aware that much of the anti-Mormon literature you have apparently read about the LDS Church (aside from being a member at one time) is false and tendentious.

 

Yes, there are no stereotypes here! I have a brain, and can think. Book of Mormon says steel. Show me the steel! Is that so hard to understand?

 

Why you would expect them to tell you the truth about such matters is beyond my comprehension.  Why would you simply parrot that material at us here on this board, without bothering to study and see if it is actually accurate?

 

Well thanks for thinking I'm some sort of dolt that has the inability to think for myself. I think it is a rather obvious observation and a rather obvious question. I understand why you need a mythology of anti-Mormons with simple minds, to be built up around the obvious.

 

We have discussed this matter before on this board, yet you seem not to have turned over a new leaf, but are as antagonistic as ever.  Is that the Christian way?

 

The Christian way is to be truthful, and I have not lied. Do you think it is Christian to bear false witness against me?

[EllenMaksoud]

I have been reading the Bible Unearthed and watched the long youtube video by authors Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. They write "According to the biblical narrative, the children of Israel campled at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings. The general location of this place is clar from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34. It has been identified by archaeologists with the large and well watered oasis of Ein el-Qudeirat in eastern Sinai, on the borde between modern Israel and Egypt. The name Kadesh was probably perserved ober the centuries in the name of a nearby smaller spring called Ein Qadis. A small mound with the remains of a Late Iron Age fort stands at the center of this oasis. Yet repeated excavationis and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided evne the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees" PAGE 63 The Bible Unearthed.

 

They find no evidence for a number of other sites. Perhaps Robert Smith has the counter evidence?

My gosh were do you people come from? Go back and read where the serpent is tempting Eve. This sounds just like him.

[mfbukowski]

Robert this is just a sample of Catholic Answers board.

 

Not at all Catholic and no Answers.

Edited February 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................  

You say, steel does not mean steel. But who cares, really?

I said no such thing, and even after you were caught making a false statement, your only response is to repeat the lie and say "who cares, really?"  I have friends who have joined other religions and I have never borne false witness about them, but supported them in their decisions.  Some of the finest people I know are Roman Catholic.  I see nothing from you to indicate that you actually accept the teachings of your current Church, but I do detect a great deal of hatred.  You need to overcome that.

-------------------------------------------------------------  

 

References for Viking losing technology would be great.

“Secrets of the Viking Sword,” Nova (Night/WGBH, 2012), online at  http://video.pbs.org/video/2284159044

– re greatest sword ever made, the Viking “Ulfberht” of about 900 to 1000 years ago, a clean, high-carbon slag-free steel (crucible steel) created in an oven closed at the top, vented at bottom side, and heated with bellows to about 3,000 degrees F.  No known technology would enable the creation of a similar sword for another 800 years after the technology was lost.

 

The Vikings likely got the technology (and perhaps the raw material) from north Iran via the Volga trade route which they regularly used.  Such technology was already being used in Central Asia to make Damascus steel.

 

............................................................   

 

 

The Christian way is to be truthful, and I have not lied. Do you think it is Christian to bear false witness against me?

Truthfulness is next to Godliness, saemo, and repentance is free.

[saemo]

Robert, when you brought up steel in the KJV I made the link to the usage of KJV in the BoM. I assumed you meant that because the source is the KJV the BoM usage of the word steel was the same. I see that as a reasonable argument actually.

 

 

Apparently that isn't why you brought up the KJV and I still don't know why you brought it up.

 

 

 

You seem fixated on insulting me, rather than addressing the discussion. I think it is time I put you in the ignore list.