Struggling with the Old Testament

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

I suppose one could at this   point  out that scholars like Israel Finkelstein (The Bible Unearthed) and Peter Enns (The  Bible Tells me So) that the exodus and conquest are not historical.

That has little to do with scriptural study of the OT. Further, archaeologists have their opinions, but that doesn't mean they are correct. For example Israel Finkelstein uses an Egyptian occupation in the valley of Jezreel, to claim that Israel did not conquer the Holy Land like the Bible claims and therefore there was no exodus. That is a false conclusion. The Bible specifically notes that Israel did not conquer that area. It wasn't conquered until David or Solomon's rule. Actually, what probably happened is that Egypt just eventually pulled out on its own accord. The Bible implies the Philistines had moved into the area, and that Saul died there in a battle. By 1000 A.D. Egypt was out of Canaan. Chariot warfare was falling out of use, and no longer gave Egypt the advantage it once had.  Solomon used more calvary, and Egypt was aligning itself with Israel to survive against Assyria and later the Babylonians.

Edited March 29, 2018 by RevTestament

[MormonMason]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

I actually like the war chapters in the Book of Mormon. But this is partly because the Nephites fought ethical wars. They were based on self defense, not on conquering new lands. They were very moderate in how they treated their prisoners. They didn’t take slaves from among their conquered enemies. And they didn’t commit wholesale slaughter of innocents. So when I look at the OT through the lens of the Book of Mormon I wonder why it is that the OT people were so brutal in comparison. They had the same god didn’t they? Why didn’t the Nephite god require the same types of brutal actions he required in the old world?

Nephites did not take slaves after Mosiah son of Benjamin.  Mosiah had made that illegal.  Lamanites did.

As to the Old Testament situation, in God's eyes the Canaanites and related peoples weren't really innocent.  But the circumstances were different in some of the attacks.  The people in question were filled with debauchery and were teaching their children such behaviors.  God wanted nothing left that could influence Israel to do the same.  In other situations girls with no sexual experience were preserved and could be taken as wives after everyone else was wiped out.

But so far as the Book of Mormon Nephites are concerned, they received various principles of the Gospel and a direct knowledge of Christ in addition to the Law of Moses.  Israel prior to them didn't accept the Gospel when it was presented to them so he gave them the Law of Moses instead to prepare them for Christ.

[MormonMason]

On ‎03‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:50 PM, JarMan said:

I keep trying to find Christ in the OT. So far I haven't been very successful. I just feel that after-the-fact correlations based on obscure references can be used to find almost anything you want.

That is because many writings have been lost and the scribes messed with the texts that remained.  One scripture that hints at the Son of God, but does not name him, is Proverbs 30:4.  The scribes didn't find that objectionable enough to mess with it, or missed it.  There is another passage in 1 Samuel that talks about the "Word of God" speaking to someone but I do not at the moment recall the precise text at the moment.  I do recall that it can be missed in many translations.  If I manage to remember where it is, I'll refer you to it (unless someone beats me to it before then.  Sometimes I don't have time to post here very often.

Edited March 29, 2018 by MormonMason

[aussieguy55]

Finkelstein  p. 77.  The formidable Canaanite cities described in the conquest narrative were not protected by fortifications . "In the Bible, no Egyptians reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are  mentioned in any of the battles withing Canaan. Yet contemporary texts and archaeological finds indicate that they managed and carefully watched over the affairs of the country" p.77.   "The Amarna letters reveal that Canaan was an Egyptian province, closley controlled by Egyptian  administration"  p.77. The Bible Unearthed.

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Finkelstein  p. 77.  The formidable Canaanite cities described in the conquest narrative were not protected by fortifications . "In the Bible, no Egyptians reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are  mentioned in any of the battles withing Canaan. Yet contemporary texts and archaeological finds indicate that they managed and carefully watched over the affairs of the country" p.77.   "The Amarna letters reveal that Canaan was an Egyptian province, closley controlled by Egyptian  administration"  p.77. The Bible Unearthed.

Jericho had defensive walls.  Several other Canaanite city-states did, too.  What was stated about the Amarna evidence, however, is true.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Finkelstein  p. 77.  The formidable Canaanite cities described in the conquest narrative were not protected by fortifications .

Is he more specific? As MormonMason points out Jericaho had walls. Basically, all the major Canannite cities were walled, so I don't know where Finkelstein draws this comment from. Part of Finkelstein's issue is that he presumes an exodus date of the mid 13th century BC, and then says none of the cities were walled. Well, by that time they weren't. This is true. The walls of Jericho were felled about 200-300 years earlier, and this is consistent with the Biblical chronology. 

Quote

"In the Bible, no Egyptians reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are  mentioned in any of the battles withing Canaan. Yet contemporary texts and archaeological finds indicate that they managed and carefully watched over the affairs of the country" p.77.   "The Amarna letters reveal that Canaan was an Egyptian province, closley controlled by Egyptian  administration"  p.77. The Bible Unearthed.

The Egyptians in Canaan were administrators, and actually by the time of the exodus, Egypt had pulled most of them out of Canaan, so one would not expect the Bible to mention them despite them persisting in areas not conquered by the Israelites. The Armana letters do reveal that Canaan had been an Egyptian province, and that at that time, the Egyptians had pulled out and the Egyptians were ignoring the cries for help by the local city kings whose names are not Egyptian btw. This occurs again and again in the letters. Who are the city kings asking for help against? The enigmatic Apiru who Finkelstein for some reason concludes cannot be the Hebrews. Well, the Apiru certainly aren't other Canaanite city states - and they certainly aren't Assyrians or other foreigners. Archaeology agrees that many Canaanite cities fell at this time, but Finkelstein still says, "can't be the Hebrews." Why not? It certainly can, and it certainly was.

[aussieguy55]

What evidence contra Finkelstein do you have that there were walls around Jericho.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

What evidence contra Finkelstein do you have that there were walls around Jericho.

Um, just try every archaeolgist's report who excavated at Jericho. The Harvard archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon, for starters. In fact there were two walls around the city. Kenyon agreed with the Bible that the walls fell before the city was burned. There was an outer wall, then a steep rampart, and then an inner wall built on top of that. The main issue is that Kenyon dated the destruction around 1550 B.C. Nevertheless, other archaeologists date it later based upon pottery found in the city dating to about a century later. I place the exodus around 1480 to 1446 BC. 

The Armana letters date to the early to mid 14th century BC, and involve pleas for Egyptian assistance from Canaanite cities to the west, and from Jerusalem.

Edited March 30, 2018 by RevTestament

[aussieguy55]

Peter Enns

16  towns listed in Book of Joshua were  destroyed - only 3 or 4 show signs of violent destruction.

Towns on the other side of the Jordan river do not look like they were occupied.

12 towns said to be taken without a fight.  Only seven were occupied  and of those not destroyed three actually show signs of destruction. 

"In other words archaeology and the Bible story don't line up very well" p.59.

"Finkelstein also states that Jericho had no trace of settlement during the thirteenth century B.C.E., and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century B.C.E., was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified . Thus, the question is whether there were walls at Jericho, or a fortification in place, to destroy during the fourteenth century B.C.E., as described in the biblical account and according to biblical scholars like Garstang. I don’t believe so. Fortifications are created as military strongholds designed for defense in warfare. If this is the case at Jericho, whom were they trying to keep out, and would evidence of a military be present? Furthermore, what was the primary function of the fortification if it was in fact present? 

http://www.ancientdigger.com/2011/12/walls-of-jericho-archaeology-that.html

 

[aussieguy55]

http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/walls-of-jericho

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Peter Enns

16  towns listed in Book of Joshua were  destroyed - only 3 or 4 show signs of violent destruction.

Again, archeaological evidence can be interpreted differently by different experts. If you want to believe these two, I can't stop you. 

Jericho shows violent destruction. Hazor shows violent destruction. In fact it was apparently destroyed twice. More than two others show evidence for violent destruction around this time. It is certainly more than 3 or 4. Further, exactly what ruin was which city can be debated. Most of them don't have a sign saying "this is Jericho." 

Quote

Towns on the other side of the Jordan river do not look like they were occupied.

If you are talking about on the east side of the Jordan River, this is true. I actually believe this was the area of Sodom and Gomorah, and Lot was given this area by Abraham. The cities there were destroyed earlier. The largest known one was destroyed in the 17th or possibly 16th century.  We don't know which of these ruins is which city, but the Bible does talk about 5 cities on the plain. There are at least 14 tell ruins though. We don't know a lot about their occupation times yet though. It seems archaeology didn't take much interest in them until about a decade ago. Some things about them though are quite interesting such as Minoan style gates, which suggest that particular area could have been a Minoan colony. The Minoans were a pederastic society, which seems consistent with the story about Lot and Sodom.

Quote

12 towns said to be taken without a fight.  Only seven were occupied  and of those not destroyed three actually show signs of destruction. 

"In other words archaeology and the Bible story don't line up very well" p.59.

"Finkelstein also states that Jericho had no trace of settlement during the thirteenth century B.C.E., and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century B.C.E., was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified . Thus, the question is whether there were walls at Jericho, or a fortification in place, to destroy during the fourteenth century B.C.E., as described in the biblical account and according to biblical scholars like Garstang. I don’t believe so. Fortifications are created as military strongholds designed for defense in warfare. If this is the case at Jericho, whom were they trying to keep out, and would evidence of a military be present? Furthermore, what was the primary function of the fortification if it was in fact present? 

http://www.ancientdigger.com/2011/12/walls-of-jericho-archaeology-that.html

It is known from the Bible that the Hebrews did not occupy all the cities they took - for instance Jericho. They did spare some people in Jericho who helped them, which is also consistent with a small continuing population shown by archaeology. They largely remained pastoralists, and are described as living in tents. Some cities they moved into. The Bible gives few specifics.

I believe there were no walls in Jericho to destroy in the fourteenth century, so to that extent I agree. But again, Finkelstein seems to presume a later exodus than I do. It seems to me he is trying to disprove a non-existant exodus - one in the 13th or 14th centuries. I have already indicated, both the Biblical chronology and the evidence point to an earlier date. By the 14th century Israel was well on its way to completing the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and the remaining western Canaanite cities were screaming for help from their Egyptian overlords in the Armana letters - desperate calls for help which went unheeded. This does not help Finkelstein's premise that Canaan was an Egyptian land at the time thus disproving the exodus. It was falling to the Apiru right at the time the Bible says the Hebrews were conquering it - ie 400 years before the temple of Solomon.

So as you can see there is archaeological evidence consistent with a conquering people at a time consistent with the Hebrews in the Bible. Yet doubters such as Finkelstein remain.

[RevTestament]

On 3/28/2018 at 1:14 PM, RevTestament said:

The Oxford Annotated is an example of a study Bible. As Snowflake says, a study Bible helps give some context to what you are reading. They usually will offer one or more interpretations too in the footnotes as you read along. I was required to purchase an Oxford Annotated Bible years ago when I took a New Testament class. I generally like its translation. Although I have grown up with the KJV, I have developed a few issues with it over the years - probably first and foremost is I believe it tends to hide the names of God. However, sometimes it just isn't a good or correct translation, and I believe it suffers from a few exclusions.  You can pick up a used Oxford Annotated on Amazon.com or probably at most used bookstores. It basically adds footnotes to "The Revised English Bible." A similar one is the Oxford Study Bible. A Jewish Study Bible may offer more in terms of context of Jewish traditions and so forth, and may provide better context for studying the Hebrew OT known as the Masoretic Text, which is essentially the only surviving version of the Hebrew Tanakh. Everything else is a translation such as the Septuagint(Greek), Peshitta(Syriac), Aramaic Targums, etc. So if you want to study the Hebrew itself, you are essentially limited to the Masoretic Text, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Over my years of study, I have found the OT to be rich in symbolism and meaning. Unfortunately, I have come to believe the Church is almost "paranoid" about exploring interpretation of the OT - in other words if some GA has said something about a particular scripture, that becomes "scripture." This severely limits exploration of other interpretations. For instance BY taught that the garden of Eden was in the Americas. I simply do not share that belief, and I will not be open to share my own belief or interpretation. 

When seeking to understand the OT, you should realize that the Hebrews had essentially four rules of interpretation they might look to in trying to understand the OT. First is the "literal" or face value interpretation. Then come nuances in interpretation and finally, they look for hidden meaning.

You can pick up free study Bibles. Some are available for the free esword program. Here is one http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-downloads/file/6569-newberry-thomas-reference-bible-study-bible/   That site also has a Hebrew Study Bible with transliteration and Strong's numbers.

Here is another massive study Bible module free from eSword: http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-downloads/file/9297-the-cambridge-bible-for-schools-and-colleges-54-vols/

I have not used it, but it has an excellent reputation.

[MormonMason]

19 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

What evidence contra Finkelstein do you have that there were walls around Jericho.

Garstang, Sellin and Watzinger, Kenyon, Ussishkin, Hoerth, Wood, etc.  While I understand that some of these would put the date of the destruction of Jericho somewhat late, they all agree that Jericho once was a fortified city.  I recall that there are others but do not at the moment recall the names.

It's all a matter as to when the time of the putative conquest occurred.  But the Egyptian inscriptional evidence I've seen (Merenptah, and one other, the name of which I do not recall at the moment) has the Israelites already in Palestine as a people in 1205 BCE.  Circa 1400 BCE, if the other inscription's reconstruction holds.  It seems valid to me but there is a whole lot of disputation going on over that inscription.

If the Late Bronze Period dating is correct, then, yeah, there were at the time of the putative conquest no walls in Jericho.  But if earlier, then there indeed were walls.  Kenyon's 1550 BCE destruction dating may have been off because she did not appear to effectively date the pottery found in Jericho, and because her excavations were somewhat limited.  In addition, Egyptian scarabs and seals found in an active cemetery north Jericho show that the area was not abandoned in 1550 BCE.  Some of these scarabs are related to persons dated to long after the supposed 1550 BCE abandonment of Jericho.  A piece of charcoal from the remains of the fires of Jericho dated to 1410 BCE ± 40 years.  That means that Kenyon was mistaken as to her 1550 BCE dating of the destruction and abandonment of Jericho.  And that 1410 BCE dating puts it to within the time of the postulated early conquest date.

Edited March 30, 2018 by MormonMason

[aussieguy55]

We rely on the work of experts in this field. Earlier it was Biblical scholars who had a vested interest in finding evidence to support the historicity of the Bible. Now it seems a different group appears with no qualms about overturning the previous work of Albright etc.  Could you give me the first names of these Garstang, Sellin and Watzinger, Kenyon, Ussishkin, Hoerth, Wood. I'd like to search more. Finkelstein on pp 62-63 questions the presence of the Israelites "According to the Biblical  narrative, the children of Israel camped at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings,,,  yet repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence  for activity in the late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny band of frightened refugees" p. 63  More than a million living and dying in that area would leave some evidence. 

[aussieguy55]

I found this interesting

https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/1918/3787

 

In a relatively short chapter entitled ’Jericho and the coming of the Israelites’, Kenyon (1957:256–265) reports on the LBA and what the main goal of the excavations (the link to the Joshua narrative) was. The result is negative (and according to her ‘sad’, cf. above). There was a virtual gap in occupation during this time and no large wall was found (contrary to Garstang who dated the MBA wall wrongly) which one would have expected if Joshua 6 were to be interpreted literally.

 

 

[aussieguy55]

It is ironic  that this Saturday night  I am watching TV deciding to watch either grumpy old men or  The Ten Commandments  usually done at Easter)  I go and check my emails and one comes from The Biblical Archaeological society with such timely topics as   

• Israelites Found in Egypt”
• “How Reliable Is Exodus?”
• “Pharaoh’s Workers: How the Israelites Lived in Egypt”
• “Let My People Go and Go and Go and Go”
• “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence”
• “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues”
• “Red Sea or Reed Sea

Wrote Professor Bernard F. Batto:

"The Exodus narrative should not be read as a historical account of what actually transpired in those days. Biblical writers were less interested in reporting historical data than in symbolizing for their contemporaries the salvational significance of their traditions.”

Professor Ziony Zevit, however, recognized “a historical kernel” that “must underlie the Egyptian plague traditions preserved in the Bible” when he theorized that the 10 plagues were indeed embellishments by later Israelites, but embellishments of natural occurrences that actually occurred in an Egyptian ecological setting.

[MormonMason]

13 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

We rely on the work of experts in this field. Earlier it was Biblical scholars who had a vested interest in finding evidence to support the historicity of the Bible. Now it seems a different group appears with no qualms about overturning the previous work of Albright etc.  Could you give me the first names of these Garstang, Sellin and Watzinger, Kenyon, Ussishkin, Hoerth, Wood. I'd like to search more. Finkelstein on pp 62-63 questions the presence of the Israelites "According to the Biblical  narrative, the children of Israel camped at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings,,,  yet repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence  for activity in the late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny band of frightened refugees" p. 63  More than a million living and dying in that area would leave some evidence. 

If one looks to the Late Bronze Period, one probably isn't going to find anything relating to the Conquest.  By that time Israel already were in the land and settled as a people (as shown by the Merenptah stele, dating to the Late Bronze Period, and the other Egyptian inscription, the name of which I still do not recall).  By that time they were using pottery and other elements of their Canaanite surroundings.  They are very hard to distinguish in the ground.  Here are the fuller names:

• John Garstang
• Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger
• Kathleen Kenyon
• David Ussishkin
• Alfred J. Hoerth
• Bryant Wood

I do not recall the titles of the books of the above with the exception of one of them.  I do not have access to it at the moment, however, because most of my books are not easily accessible where I am.  Many are still in storage due to circumstances.  Hoerth's book is titled "Old Testament Archaeology." Hoerth's book was intended to be a primer on the named subject matter and the various issues involving archaeology and the Old Testament.

[MormonMason]

6 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

“Red Sea or Reed Sea

That one is one of my favorite discussions.  I lean Red Sea along with the translators of the Septuagint and the writers of the Hebrew.  The latter apply Yam Suph to a region surrounding the Sinai Peninsula, or the arms of what we now call Red Sea."  The Septuagint identifies this region as "Red Sea."  They also named cities in the same region that help make the same identification.  Besides, most people today wouldn't know the location of the "Sea of Reeds" and the "reeds" in the region themselves likely were red in color, as were the sea weeds.  That would have lended to the later use of the name, considering that such red sea weed often washes up in clumps along the shore line in the region.

Edited March 31, 2018 by MormonMason

[aussieguy55]

I remember an apologetic site where they claim chariots had been found on the bottom of the Red Sea.

[RevTestament]

32 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

I remember an apologetic site where they claim chariots had been found on the bottom of the Red Sea.

I believe the only Egyptian chariots ever found were in the tombs of pharaohs like Tut. These reveal they were made of wood frames. The wheels too were wood. Usually leather was weaved over the wood frame of the wheels. The pharaoh's chariot might have a metal fronted frame, but was the exception. Most chariots had no metal. There is virtually no chance these chariots lasted 3500 years at the bottom of the Yam Suph - just a marketing ploy by SDAs Ron Wyatt. Dead brain corals are round but are not chariot wheels. If coral was growing on the chariot wheels, they would have been destroyed thousands of years ago.

Nevertheless, there is a 2000 year old "Jesus" boat that was buried in the mud of the Sea of Galilee - in an anaerobic muddy goop. So it can happen in the right conditions.

[RevTestament]

23 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

We rely on the work of experts in this field. Earlier it was Biblical scholars who had a vested interest in finding evidence to support the historicity of the Bible. Now it seems a different group appears with no qualms about overturning the previous work of Albright etc.  Could you give me the first names of these Garstang, Sellin and Watzinger, Kenyon, Ussishkin, Hoerth, Wood. I'd like to search more. Finkelstein on pp 62-63 questions the presence of the Israelites "According to the Biblical  narrative, the children of Israel camped at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings,,,  yet repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence  for activity in the late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny band of frightened refugees" p. 63  More than a million living and dying in that area would leave some evidence. 

I addressed this on another thread. Most archaeologists have for some reason decided that Kadesh-Barnea is located at Ain el-Qudeirat on the very western border of modern Israel. Archaeology has turned up nothing there dating back to the 2nd millennium B.C.  They probably came up with that locale because they insist on giving the exodus a northern route through one of the shallow northern lakes of Egypt. Anyway there is absolutely nothing scriptural to indicate that is the right locale. I place Kadesh Barnea at least 30-40 miles away, if not more. Ein Avdat at the head of the Zin Valley makes better scriptural sense than el-Qudeirat. Why should we rely on "the work of experts" who continually point to the wrong places and times?

Further, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate Israel stayed at Kadesh Barnea for 38 years as I previously pointed out. Indeed it says:

Deut 1:46 So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there.
Deut 2:1 Then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea, as the Lord spake unto me: and we compassed mount Seir many days.

2 And the Lord spake unto me, saying,

3 Ye have compassed this mountain long enough: turn you northward.

No one puts Mount Seir anywhere near Qudeirat, and there is no indication that they stayed at Kadesh for 38 years.

[aussieguy55]

As verse 46 tells us, the Israelites settled in at Kadesh for many years, thirty-eight as it turned out, until at last of the “evil generation” had died (cf. Deut. 2:14; cf. 1:34-40). The staccato and repetitive way in which the Hebrew refers to this period is designed to show the wearisome monotony of that lost ear of Israel’s history. Not a word is found in Deuteronomy about those silent years. In addition, Numbers records by way of narrative the time as negative: the rebellion of Korah (Num. 16:1-40), the complaint of the people (Num. 16:41—17:13), the death of Miriam (Num. 20:1), and the rebellion at Meribah (Num. 20:2-13). All that can be said about the sojourn at Kadesh in Deuteronomy is that they stayed there

https://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/xfiles/xdeut1b.pdf     

[aussieguy55]

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-sinai-kadesh-barnea.htm

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-sinai-kadesh-barnea.htm

I like Steve Ruud, but can't believe anyone who believes the Red Sea crossing was at Nuweiba beach or at the point of the Sinai Peninsula. That is scripturally impossible. Sometimes he is convincing, and sometimes he is not.

Edited April 1, 2018 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

As verse 46 tells us, the Israelites settled in at Kadesh for many years, thirty-eight as it turned out, until at last of the “evil generation” had died (cf. Deut. 2:14; cf. 1:34-40). The staccato and repetitive way in which the Hebrew refers to this period is designed to show the wearisome monotony of that lost ear of Israel’s history. Not a word is found in Deuteronomy about those silent years. In addition, Numbers records by way of narrative the time as negative: the rebellion of Korah (Num. 16:1-40), the complaint of the people (Num. 16:41—17:13), the death of Miriam (Num. 20:1), and the rebellion at Meribah (Num. 20:2-13). All that can be said about the sojourn at Kadesh in Deuteronomy is that they stayed there

https://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/xfiles/xdeut1b.pdf     

Verse 14 And the space in which we came from Kadesh-barnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as the Lord sware unto them.

Note this comes after Deut 2:1-2 says they encompassed Mount Seir many days. So part of the 38 years was wandering around Mount Seir for many days. There is nothing given to make one believe the time spent at Kadesh- Barnea was greater. The natural way to read it is that they left Kadesh Barnea after they had been camped there many days, and failed to go into the promised land. We don't know where they went except that they were wandering around the vicinity of Mount Seir for many days. When they go back, they end up around Mount Hor where Miriam and Aaron die. Then they go through Edom, and this verse says when they get to the Zered River, it has been 38 years FROM the time they came from Kadesh Barnea. The plainest reading indicates they were wandering for 38 years AFTER leaving Kadesh Barnea. Yeah.... I'm not going to listen to Steve Ruud - nor Israel Finkelstein. Sorry.