[b-hebrew] Kadesh-barnea

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Apr 9 20:22:18 EDT 2010


Jim:

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:57 AM, <JimStinehart at aol.com> wrote:

>  1.  QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 is Qadesh of Upper Galilee.
>
>
You yourself have admitted in the past that the name QD$ was common enough
that you cannot deny the possibility that towns in the south were named QD$.
Further there were two southern sites named QD$ mentioned in the Bible, one
on the road between Egypt and Canaan, i.e. to the south, and the other south
of Edom to the east.

>
>
> It’s identical in unpointed text to the QD$ of Upper Galilee that is mentioned in the Bible at Joshua 20: 7, Joshua 21: 32, II Kings 15: 29 and I Chronicles 6: 61[/76].
>
>
So? You do remember that there were two different towns named Bethlehem too?


> It’s attested with that same spelling in Ugaritic literature.  With a different spelling, we also see it at item #4 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmose III list, and in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Letter EA 177.
>
>
First you treat the Bible as mere myth and fable, as you have repeatedly
admitted to on this list. You don’t believe that it is accurate history. And
now again you bring up your mythological mid-15th century BC Thutmose III
who left not a trace of his presence in late bronze age Canaan, and of AE
letters claiming that mere villages, even abandoned tells, were late bronze
age major cities. And you expect us to take you seriously?

>
>
> 2.  By sharp contrast, no name QD$ or Kadesh-barnea is attested in the Sinai Peninsula in the ancient world.
>
>
You already admitted that you can’t insist on this.

>
>
> 3.  There is nothing in secular history to support the unanimous, but totally erroneous, university scholarly view that QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 is Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Peninsula.  N-o-t-h-i-n-g.
>
>
Who said they were? Further, it is clear from the contexts that the QD$ of
Genesis 14:7 ≠ the QD$ of Genesis 20:1. While the QD$ of Genesis 20:1 may be
the same as QD$ BRN(, no way is that true of the QD$ of Genesis 14:7.

But since you believe the Bible is but myth and fable, you wouldn’t notice
such details, would you?

>
>
> 4.  As to Bible interpretation (as opposed to secular history), both Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 make a lot more sense if QD$ is the Qadesh in Upper Galilee, rather than a Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Desert.
>
>
Foolish statement, in view of the above.

>
>
> 5.  As to an historical approach to the Bible,
>
>
LOL! If you believed the Bible were true history, you would have to admit
that Abraham lived in the early bronze age, ca. 1900–1800 BC. That there was
an exodus from Egypt after Egypt was devastated, ca 1450 BC, which was
archeologically attested as the end of the 13th dynasty. That you have
repeatedly admitted that you don’t believe these depictions as given in the
text are true, therefore either you are crazy, or you believe the Bible is a
collection of myths and fables.

And if you took the Bible as history, you would have to admit that “secular
history” is a mess, with horribly skewed timelines that are often not worth
the paper they’re printed on.


>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list