Facts vs evidence

[danieldemol]

The Mt Ebal find is evidence that the story in the Book of Joshua is true however.

Has the mount Ebal find even been through scientific peer review yet?

And are we talking about a few primitive curse words being evidence that a Hebrew speaking people in Canaan existed and cursed their enemies?

Or are we trying to leap to the in my view unwarranted conclusion that this is proof of the Biblical story of Joshua complete with attendance on Mt Sinai with Moses when Moses allegedly received the ten commandments from God etc?

In my opinion.

 

[Jimmy]

Who got da evidence?!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Mt Ebal find is evidence that the story in the Book of Joshua is true however.

No, the Mt. Ebal find appears to be highly questionable. Unless you can find something more reliable about it. It is the supposed find of the Associates for Biblical Research. They do not appear to be a scholarly group. There is practically no information released about the claim that I can find besides the very short press release. Their YouTube channel has the comments turned off. That is almost always the sign of a religious scam group. Academic sources allow discussion.

You might want to call it "evidence" but it is about as good as asking your next door neighbor. Technically that would be evidence too. You need the finding to be peer reviewed. The dating to be fully explained. The evidence needs to be able to be examined by everyone. Until then only a fool would trust this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has the mount Ebal find even been through scientific peer review yet?

And are we talking about a few primitive curse words being evidence that a Hebrew speaking people in Canaan existed and cursed their enemies?

Or are we trying to leap to the in my view unwarranted conclusion that this is proof of the Biblical story of Joshua complete with attendance on Mt Sinai with Moses when Moses allegedly received the ten commandments from God etc?

In my opinion.

Not that I can find. And as I just posted there are red flags all over that find.

 

[Brian2]

Has the mount Ebal find even been through scientific peer review yet?

And are we talking about a few primitive curse words being evidence that a Hebrew speaking people in Canaan existed and cursed their enemies?

Or are we trying to leap to the in my view unwarranted conclusion that this is proof of the Biblical story of Joshua complete with attendance on Mt Sinai with Moses when Moses allegedly received the ten commandments from God etc?

In my opinion.

I have not heard the latest news about the curse tablets and the peer review yet.
We are talking about archaeological evidence that the story in Joshua 8:30-35 is true. A couple of altars had already been found on Mt Ebal and one of them was thought to be the altar Joshua built.
There is already archaeological evidence that the conquest story found in the book of Joshua is true in the Biblical time of about 1400 BC.
I don't think these things show that the Exodus and 40 years in the wilderness is true, but they go part of the way there.
At the moment historians want to say that the conquest story is BS and Moses is a fictional character and those who say these things have built their understanding of those times and the Bible around the idea that there was no Conquest and the Pentateuch was written hundreds of years later. There of course is reluctance to accept new evidence that the conquest is true etc.
Archaeology it seems is like that. It is a science of opinion and the truth can be hidden because of that.

 

[Brian2]

Not that I can find. And as I just posted there are red flags all over that find.

This note, written 2May 2023 says a peer reviewed article is finished and will be published soon.

The Mount Ebal Curse Tablet (Part One): Digging for Truth Episode 200

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org

 

[Brian2]

Haven't we been over this. The flood of Noah, the Adam and Eve myth, and of course the Exodus. That is a good start.

I think we have been over it but I don't think the things you mentioned have been shown to be false.

 

[Brian2]

I don't think that anybody is arguing that floods don't occur. The claim of the Bible is that a global flood occurred submerging all land leading to the death of all terrestrial life not saved on the ark.

I think the Bible speaks of all the land where Noah lived being flooded and all life there being wiped out. I don't think it says that the whole earth was flooded at the one time. It seems to have been at a time when the sea levels were low and there were many large floods all over the world because of melted ice at the end of the ice age. So people no doubt were killed in these other large floods, but I don't think that when the Bible speaks about all life being wiped out that it was a literal statement. That type of language is used in other places where it plainly does not mean "all" and is not meant to mean that. This is the case here also where "all" plainly does not not mean "all" since we know that in the story God saved Noah and his family.

Good for believers. Science is indifferent to how much the Bible agrees with its discoveries and proclamations. When they don't line up, how often is scripture the correct narrative about how reality came to be and operates day to day?

If scripture and science cannot be lined up science does not care. Science does not take scripture into consideration in theory.
When scripture and science don't line up then that can mean that Bible interpretation needs to be reevaluated, and that has happened over the years.
Sometimes it probably means that science is wrong, but science does not care to reevaluate because it does not line up with scripture.

What you don't do is address my rebuttals. I think they are sound and refute your claim, by which I mean, make claim themselves that contradicts your claims in a way that they can't both be correct. You don't do that. You just tell me what you believe instead and provide evidence of things not in dispute such as the Hebrews having been at Mt. Ebal.

What I have provided is evidence that the conquest story in Joshua is correct and that the story of the curse reading on Mt Ebal is correct.
This is all I wanted to do and if you want to rebut that evidence then go ahead.
You don't rebut what I posted, all you do is claim that you think that there could have been conquest without Exodus.
OK, so that is a possibility, but that is an opinion based on the idea that the Biblical conquest story is not true and that the Exodus did not happen and does not rebut the archaeological evidence that the conquest story and curse story are true.

What part of it? As I understand it, the story begins with the crossing of the Jordan river following the death of Moses. I am not disputing that the Hebrews had military victories in Canaan.

Joshua 8:30-35 is the account of Mt Ebal and the curses.
So archaeology confirms the scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This note, written 2May 2023 says a peer reviewed article is finished and will be published soon.

The Mount Ebal Curse Tablet (Part One): Digging for Truth Episode 200

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org

Where will they publish? They do not look like a serious group to me. Right now that is clearly not evidence. There is simply not enough known about it and since a rather sketchy group is behind it it is more reasonable to disbelieve. They have failed at the burden of proof, and very very badly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think we have been over it but I don't think the things you mentioned have been shown to be false.

That would be your fault then and not mine.

 

[Brian2]

Where will they publish? They do not look like a serious group to me. Right now that is clearly not evidence. There is simply not enough known about it and since a rather sketchy group is behind it it is more reasonable to disbelieve. They have failed at the burden of proof, and very very badly.

I imagine you will be able to hear more news about it on ABR's website.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When scripture and science don't line up then that can mean that Bible interpretation needs to be reevaluated, and that has happened over the years.

Agreed, and that revaluation is what is called motivated thinking, the motivation being to make scripture seem correct when evidence arises that it is not. And it indicates that one should not go to scripture for factual information, but to the science that motivated believers are trying to get closer to.

I think the Bible speaks of all the land where Noah lived being flooded and all life there being wiped out. I don't think it says that the whole earth was flooded at the one time. It seems to have been at a time when the sea levels were low and there were many large floods all over the world because of melted ice at the end of the ice age. So people no doubt were killed in these other large floods, but I don't think that when the Bible speaks about all life being wiped out that it was a literal statement. That type of language is used in other places where it plainly does not mean "all" and is not meant to mean that. This is the case here also where "all" plainly does not not mean "all" since we know that in the story God saved Noah and his family.

Here's a fine example. The story is of a global flood intended to wipe out all of humanity apart from a small cohort on an ark because humanity was sinful, not just the part of humanity living where Noah lived. But now we know that there was no global flood or near sterilization of and all doesn't mean all.

Sometimes it probably means that science is wrong, but science does not care to reevaluate because it does not line up with scripture.

It has never been the case that science was wrong because it contradicted scripture.

What I have provided is evidence that the conquest story in Joshua is correct and that the story of the curse reading on Mt Ebal is correct.
This is all I wanted to do and if you want to rebut that evidence then go ahead.

OK, but that wasn't contested. I agreed that the archeological evidence supports the Hebrew conquest of local Canaanites, but not that they weren't also from that region or that they were captives in Egypt or experienced an Exodus.

You don't rebut what I posted, all you do is claim that you think that there could have been conquest without Exodus.

And you believe there was conquest following an Egyptian captivity and exodus, but you only provided evidence of the conquest, which as I said was not in dispute. I didn't rebut your claim for that evidence supporting the presence of the Hebrews in Canaan because I agree with that conclusion - they were there and defeated neighbors. If you want to defend your belief, you'll need evidence of the things about which we disagree, not the areas where we agree.

This is more motivated thinking - deflecting to areas of agreement that you can support. You want scripture to be correct, so you emphasize what you can support even when it is not questioned rather than provide evidence for why we should believe that the biblical account of the Jews as slaves in Egypt followed by a forty-year exodus through the desert is history and not a myth about events that never occurred.

that is an opinion based on the idea that the Biblical conquest story is not true and that the Exodus did not happen

My opinion about the history is based in the evidence available, not an assumption that scripture is wrong. I didn't have an opinion about either an Egyptian captivity or an exodus. Had one occurred, there would be evidence for it, and our understanding of that history would reflect that and with no objection from anybody. But that's not what happened, we know that, and it is a fine example of biblical mythology, but not of history.

 

[Audie]

Has the mount Ebal find even been through scientific peer review yet?

And are we talking about a few primitive curse words being evidence that a Hebrew speaking people in Canaan existed and cursed their enemies?

Or are we trying to leap to the in my view unwarranted conclusion that this is proof of the Biblical story of Joshua complete with attendance on Mt Sinai with Moses when Moses allegedly received the ten commandments from God etc?

In my opinion.

Finding a spoon would be evidence that
Jesus are breakfast with it.

Just not very much or very good evidence.

 

[Audie]

I think the Bible speaks of all the land where Noah lived being flooded and all life there being wiped out. I don't think it says that the whole earth was flooded at the one time. It seems to have been at a time when the sea levels were low and there were many large floods all over the world because of melted ice at the end of the ice age. So people no doubt were killed in these other large floods, but I don't think that when the Bible speaks about all life being wiped out that it was a literal statement. That type of language is used in other places where it plainly does not mean "all" and is not meant to mean that. This is the case here also where "all" plainly does not not mean "all" since we know that in the story God saved Noah and his family.



If scripture and science cannot be lined up science does not care. Science does not take scripture into consideration in theory.
When scripture and science don't line up then that can mean that Bible interpretation needs to be reevaluated, and that has happened over the years.
Sometimes it probably means that science is wrong, but science does not care to reevaluate because it does not line up with scripture.



What I have provided is evidence that the conquest story in Joshua is correct and that the story of the curse reading on Mt Ebal is correct.
This is all I wanted to do and if you want to rebut that evidence then go ahead.
You don't rebut what I posted, all you do is claim that you think that there could have been conquest without Exodus.
OK, so that is a possibility, but that is an opinion based on the idea that the Biblical conquest story is not true and that the Exodus did not happen and does not rebut the archaeological evidence that the conquest story and curse story are true.




Joshua 8:30-35 is the account of Mt Ebal and the curses.
So archaeology confirms the scriptures.

But all evidence that there was no flood is
ignored.

 

[Audie]

I think we have been over it but I don't think the things you mentioned have been shown to be false.

You are right! All of those, flood etc have been shown
( proven) false.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If scripture and science cannot be lined up science does not care. Science does not take scripture into consideration in theory.
When scripture and science don't line up then that can mean that Bible interpretation needs to be reevaluated, and that has happened over the years.
Sometimes it probably means that science is wrong, but science does not care to reevaluate because it does not line up with scripture.

That has been my conclusion. If the Bible conflicts with what we have come to know using science, then the interpretation of the Bible must be wrong. Otherwise, I would have come to some rather, irrational, convoluted conclusions about nature and God.

Science cannot be evaluated based on what some people believe and cannot demonstrate. That it does not line up with parts of the Bible isn't a robust reason to challenge what has become known using science. If science is wrong, it will be determined by those testing the science (scientists).

Others can challenge it, but they need more than belief and words to validate the challenge.

 

[Brian2]

That has been my conclusion. If the Bible conflicts with what we have come to know using science, then the interpretation of the Bible must be wrong. Otherwise, I would have come to some rather, irrational, convoluted conclusions about nature and God.

Science cannot be evaluated based on what some people believe and cannot demonstrate. That it does not line up with parts of the Bible isn't a robust reason to challenge what has become known using science. If science is wrong, it will be determined by those testing the science (scientists).

Others can challenge it, but they need more than belief and words to validate the challenge.

Yes it's up to science to show it is wrong. All believers can do is voice concerns and suspend belief in the conclusions of science at the point where we draw the line.

 

[Brian2]

But all evidence that there was no flood is
ignored.

The evidence is that there was a huge flood in that area and that there were others in other parts of the world around the same time

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes it's up to science to show it is wrong.

But if there is no reason to, we have to accept the conclusions.

All believers can do is voice concerns and suspend belief in the conclusions of science at the point where we draw the line.

Believers can accept science and recognize that their interpretations might be wrong in detail. The people that wrote the Bible were not stupid, but they were ignorant of a lot of the world that we have since discovered details about. A literal view of certain stories is not warranted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evidence is that there was a huge flood in that area and that there were others in other parts of the world around the same time

It is often flooding somewhere.