Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[YoursTrue]

But you believe he has perfect foreknowledge.
So it's just a false chance and a show-off.

It makes no sense.


Which wouldn't have been any different if Noah just warned them and then migrated away.

You're in a hole that you can't get out of, no matter how many excuses you invent on the spot.

God knows the beginning from the end but not as one might imagine it. In my opinion the Bible wouldn't make sense if everything was foreordained. He knows He will straighten things out and overturn the misery inflicted by the Devil.

 

[shunyadragon]

Egypt conguered

From this site: Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

Egypt was the dominant power in the region during the long reign of Merneptah's predecessor, Ramesses the Great, but Merneptah and one of his nearest successors, Ramesses III, faced major invasions. The problems began in Merneptah's 5th year (1208 BC), when a Libyan king invaded Egypt from the west in alliance with various northern peoples. Merneptah achieved a great victory in the summer of that year, and the inscription is mainly about this. The final lines deal with an apparently separate campaign in the East, where it seems that some of the Canaanite cities had revolted. Traditionally the Egyptians had concerned themselves only with cities, so the problem presented by Israel must have been something new – possibly attacks on Egypt's vassals in Canaan. Merneptah and Ramesses III fought off their enemies, but it was the beginning of the end of Egypt's control over Canaan – the last evidence of an Egyptian presence in the area is the name of Ramesses VI (1141–1133 BC) inscribed on a statue base from Megiddo.[13]

Israel may have, Israel may have that. Anything but the story in the Bible which fits the evidence for what happened.

The above is pure nonsense, you do not conquer a country without conquering the cities. Yes, Egypt fought battles in their +300 years of occupation, but the evidence that Egypt colonized and occupied the region of Canaan is overwhelming The reference you cited adds to the evidence for this. There is absolutely no evidence Joshua captured Canaan as he described in Chapter 10. You have failed to respond to Chapter 10 of the Book of Joshua which is specifically about Joshua's claims. Nothing about the actual evidence supports the Joshua invasion. The Battle for Jericho in ~1400 BCE is simply evidence that the battle took place and the city was destroyed nothing less and nothing more.

Please respond coherently about the claims of Joshua I cited

Egypt conquered, occupied, and colonized all of Canaan for over 300 years during the time Joshua claimed the Hebrew army conquered Canaan

 

[shunyadragon]

The Amarna Letters span from about 1360 to 1330 I am told and in them the states of Canaan complain that Egypt, their overlord, was not helping with the military troubles they were having at that time.
The conquest by Joshua may have been from 1400 to 1393 approx and Israel would have been a nuisance militarily even after that time as it continued to try to defeat parts of the Canaanite territory that they had not defeated with the Joshua conquest.
The Amarna complaints may have been about Israel, whom they mistook as Hapiru, or may have been about other groups that were trying to conquer and/or settle in Canaan.
You no doubt have chosen your theory of how Israel got into Canaan or rose to power there. But it is one of many.
My competing "theory" it seems is what the Bible story actually tells us instead of something made up to fit what is seen as the data and a later settlement of Israel than the Biblical 1400 conquest tells us.

The posts by @Sargonski are correct.

There were no letters from the Kingdom of Canaan.

Yes, your supposed compelling "theory" is based only on a circular argument of what you believe concerning the Bible is literal and accurate concerning Exodus and Joshua.. Other than the approximate date of the destruction of Jericho you have nothing, and yes, you make up a lot of stuff not based on the archaeological facts and known history. You have been arguing in circles and not responding to my question concerning Joshua's claim of his conquest of Canaan in chapter 10.

Still waiting. . .

 

[Sargonski]

The posts by @Sargonski are correct.

There were no letters from the Kingdom of Canaan.

Yes, your supposed compelling "theory" is based only on a circular argument of what you believe concerning the Bible is literal and accurate concerning Exodus and Joshua.. Other than the approximate date of the destruction of Jericho you have nothing, and yes, you make up a lot of stuff not based on the archaeological facts and known history. You have been arguing in circles and not responding to my question concerning Joshua's claim of his conquest of Canaan in chapter 10.

Still waiting. . .

Think the Patient is becomming unresponsive - there is no way the literal Joshua can be true - if the other parts of the Bible are True. Joshua is said to have captured Jerusalem .. which didn't happen until David captures it .. according to the Bible. Only one story can be true..

If Joshua would have captured all those city states including Jerusalem in 1400BC .. then the story for the next 400 years should reflect losing all the territory back .. including Jerusalem .. and presumably a Shrine of YHWH housing the Ark. Such that David could then retake the city - a city which should contain no Canaanites because Joshua killed them all 400 years early .. but one that is full of Canaanites.

But after Joshua .. this is not what the Bible Story Tells us It is not the story of the Israelites losing back all the territory that Joshua gained and the various "ites" that were supposedly removed from the face of the earth have all reappeared.

 

[Soandso]

Every so often I get a Message in my notifications quoting a reply I made a few months back in this thread specifically. The reply that is quoted the most frequently is this one

"Much as I love truth in the abstract, my hope of immortality still more; and if the final outcome of all the boasted discoveries of modern science is to disclose to men that they are more evanescent than the shadow of the swallow's wing up on the lake give... me then, I pray, no more science. Let me live on, in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me, and when I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be able to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant, even if they be deceitful, dreams."

I could never choose self delusion over the persuit of truth - even if the truth I uncovered was unpleasant. Honestly, growing so attached to the ego feels unhealthy to me. We all gotta die some time - savor the moment

And here are the replies to that one post

So... logically speaking, in your view, death is the absolute end without doubt of life according to the scientific theory, do I understand your view correctly about evolution? (Being mindless...)

Most of us don't want to die.

To me it's not self delusion.because life, as I see it, and the preservation of the scriptures are miraculous.

By the way, although his thought barriers against science in terms of seeing actuality about eternal life, he does not have to be wrong about the future life that God promises.

It's not self delusion. It's a choice based on more than one or two statements, but rather the compendium of the rationality of what is stated, even if not completely understood. Expecting, like scientists do, to eventually be revealed if desired by the Originator.

It makes me wonder why you continue to reply to a post I've already thoroughly explained my thoughts on. It seems to me that the point I bring up might bother you

 

[YoursTrue]

Every so often I get a Message in my notifications quoting a reply I made a few months back in this thread specifically. The reply that is quoted the most frequently is this one



And here are the replies to that one post











It makes me wonder why you continue to reply to a post I've already thoroughly explained my thoughts on. It seems to me that the point I bring up might bother you

OK, I don't always read all the posts, sorry. I'll try to check your posts but I still don't want to die. And frankly, my dear, I don't think (but not proved, I suppose) that cats, dogs, and whales contemplate their future long term, if you know what I mean. Now that I THINK about it, they don't have life insurance policies, pre-planned burials, wills, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Every so often I get a Message in my notifications quoting a reply I made a few months back in this thread specifically. The reply that is quoted the most frequently is this one



And here are the replies to that one post











It makes me wonder why you continue to reply to a post I've already thoroughly explained my thoughts on. It seems to me that the point I bring up might bother you

OK, here again -- I quote your original post. I'm getting old-er, my former college roommate who is now a doctor, told me we aren't getting older--we're OLD. (I kind of disagree but not quite.) Anyway --

here is your initial post that I supposedly responded to a million times...

(This from the scientist in question)
"Much as I love truth in the abstract, my hope of immortality still more; and if the final outcome of all the boasted discoveries of modern science is to disclose to men that they are more evanescent than the shadow of the swallow's wing up on the lake give... me then, I pray, no more science. Let me live on, in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me, and when I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be able to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant, even if they be deceitful, dreams."

And your response to that:
"I could never choose self delusion over the persuit of truth - even if the truth I uncovered was unpleasant. Honestly, growing so attached to the ego feels unhealthy to me. We all gotta die some time - savor the moment."

OK, that was your post. I do not believe the scientist had the exact right conclusion about his future -- according to the Bible -- but he had enough recognition to realize there IS a God, and that God has everlasting life in store for mankind. Not for everyone though.
John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
Hopefully I was succinct and explanatory in reference to your post. Thank you.

 

[Soandso]

OK, I don't always read all the posts, sorry. I'll try to check your posts but I still don't want to die. And frankly, my dear, I don't think (but not proved, I suppose) that cats, dogs, and whales contemplate their future long term, if you know what I mean. Now that I THINK about it, they don't have life insurance policies, pre-planned burials, wills, etc.

That's all well and fine, but it doesn't address what my point actually was. The author quoted in the OP is delusional, and willfully so. I'll quote another of my posts in this thread where I lay my thoughts out more clearly so you can see where I'm coming from

I agree. I'm not saying that he is rejecting actual, objective truth. What I am saying is that he is taking something that he already accepts as probably true in favor of lying to himself. As he continues on...

"Let me live on, in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me, and when I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be able to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant, even if they be deceitful, dreams."

Let me emphasize that last bit.

"and lie down to pleasant, even if they be deceitful, dreams."

He is actively trying to shelter himself from what he thinks is true in favor of what he describes as self deception. That is delusional thinking

 

[YoursTrue]

That's all well and fine, but it doesn't address what my point actually was. The author quoted in the OP is delusional, and willfully so. I'll quote another of my posts in this thread where I lay my thoughts out more clearly so you can see where I'm coming from

I think I see your point. I don't think he is being delusional, perhaps poetic. He probably has read the Bible and to him it's like a piece of music reflecting some lovely and kind thoughts. The 23rd psalm is pretty well known and speaks of the valley of the shadow of death, yet the psalmist wrote that God is with him.
"Though I walk in the valley of deep shadow,
I fear no harm,
For you are with me;
Your rod and your staff reassure me."
The Bible is not a scientific book but it can touch people's minds and hearts.

 

[Brian2]

How can you be expected to understand, and intelligently address, ancient text written in Biblical Hebrew when you fail so miserably to understand and imntelligently address a simple request written in English. Just what was there about "please provide the source of your preferred translation of Genesis 7:21-23, as well as an informed justification of this translation" that you found challenging?

I just took an accepted English translation of Gen 7:21-23 and changed the word "earth" to "land", a legitimate thing to do since the Hebrew word can mean either.
My justification is that I believe the Hebrew text to be historically true and so the flood needs to have been a large local flood for that to be the case and so if the text can be translated to mean a large local flood then that should be how it should be translated.

 

[Brian2]

But you believe he has perfect foreknowledge.
So it's just a false chance and a show-off.

It makes no sense.

Maybe some people believed Noah and moved far away to avoid the flood.
Maybe Noah's family were destined for drowning but ended up being saved through Noah.

Which wouldn't have been any different if Noah just warned them and then migrated away.

Maybe.

You're in a hole that you can't get out of, no matter how many excuses you invent on the spot.

What hole? Do your complaints about God and how He decided to save people from His wrath, form a hole that I am stuck in?
This same large local flood, of which there is evidence, is also a warning for us that God's wrath against the wickedness in people is real and that His actions against that are real.

 

[Brian2]

Yes .. such letters were common .. you should hear the letters begging for help when the Sea Peoples come .. but in this period as stated .. Egypt and the Hittites shared vassalship over the various major cities. The time period for the Conquest of Joshua doesn't seem to be as early as 1400 .. as that would make 400 years from Joshua to David taking Jerusalem ~1000BC ... Joshua is said to have taken Jerusalem .. which clearly didn't happen ..nor kick the Canaanites out .. it is after the Bronze age collapse round 1200 BC that the local tribes start gain prominance .. city after city falls .. is sacked or abandoned . People just leave or die... What ever happened .. it was MAJOR .. beyond your current understanding. The Hittite Empire just disappears .. Poof .. in Greece go from City States to Rural .. from homogeneous language to .. no more - Trade - which used to be as far away as India during the Bronze Age .. we do not see again for 300 years .. a major dark age .. "Apocalypse" .. over the entire region and beyond .. and was out of this that the Tribal warrior chiefs arose. .. and the new God Yahu of the Shasu - Warrior God of these people rose to power. Many battles were fought over 200 years .. and how many generations .. until finally they took not just Jerusalem .. a relatively minor prize in terms of Cities taken .. but the Northern Kingdom which was in effect "Israel" comprising of the 10 Tribes .. 90% of the population .. Jerusalem and the goat herder Tribe of Judah and the Benjaminites to the South .. Jerusalem more of a religious town at the time .. a high place to put a Temple .. with quite a low population .. but well defended of course .. like Meggido .. good natural defenses.

These Tribal groups come out of Elam in the South .. this is where Yaho of the Shasu originates but in any case - of course I have my theory .. and there are many .. some however make better sense than others. What is nonsense however, is your claim that your 1400BC theory better fits the Bible Story. The Bible story is remarkably accurate - In Some Instances ?!? remarkably inaccurate -- to the point of anachronisms -- in others .. thanks to the redactors round the time of Persia. .. We know that - if the house of David existed - it would have existed around 1000 BC as I have been saying --- We have one of the Battles of King Ahaz .. and the House of Omri is well attested - one of the actual battles we have recorded on the Moabite Stone - 840 BC .. when YHWH loses to Chemosh.

I never said there was not some great Tribal leader come out of Egypt with an Exodus in 1450 BC - crosses into Canaan leaving Moses behind in 1400 BC .. it is just that this leader did not conquor the major cities that are attributed to him during this time period say 1400 down to 1350. It simply did not go down that way .. If we move the timeline of Joshua's conquest to around 1200BC .. it makes far more sense with the Bible Narrative.

The conquest could not have been around 1200BC imo because the Merenptah Stele from around then has Israel as already a people of Canaan.
There is a lot of Archaeological evidence for an early conquest imo. but it does require a re reading of Joshua and interpreting of Joshua as not saying that the cities of Canaan were destroyed but that the people were killed and chased out so that Israel could live there in those cities. This aligns with the archaeology and the text.
Joshua also ready that much of Canaan was not taken but Joshua left it for the various tribes to complete the work of conquest.
In Joshua it tells us that only Jericho, Ai and Hazor were destroyed and burned.

God promised to drive out the Jebusites in Joshua 3:10 but Joshua 15:63 says that they were not driven out. How can both verses be true? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

Joshua's Lost Conquest

When biblical scholars failed to accept legitimate, Bible-affirming archaeological evidence for the Conquest, they then manipulated both chronology and history.

biblearchaeology.org

Top Ten Discoveries Related to Joshua and the Conquest

UPDATE: In light of the recent publication of the peer-reviewed article on the lead curse tablet from Mount Ebal that contains the oldest known YHWH inscription yet discovered in Israel, I have edi…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

 

[Brian2]

Canaan government could not has military problems, because as your source documents Canaan (Syro-Palestine) was occupied and colonized by Egypt, and yes it is normal for the Egyptian military to complain about their problems. The Egyptian government buildings, forts, and mansions were all Canaan and no there is no evidence nor room for the supposed Hebrew invasion of Canaan between 1500 and 1200 BCE.

It is your sources and other references provided by me that document including the references cited including a carving of Canaan prisoners bond dated 1400 BC

There was no Hebrew conquest of Canaan. It was occupied by Egypt.


No, the Arman letters are clear and specific that the {Syro-Palestine) region was occupied by Egypt, and forts, temples, and mansions all over the region supported this including th either writings and carvings showing bound Canaan slaves in 1400 BCE.

You need a lesson in English if you make the conclusions above or you are outright in denial and lying

OK, Egypt conquered and occupied as a vasil state for over 300 years as the evidence demonstrates.

No, not as many Hebrew slaves existed as the Bible states.

We just go around in circles.

 

[Brian2]

Ok I understand what you're saying but there are other rules in the bible that exclude them. The commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The Aboriginals worshipped a whole host of other gods. Are you saying they are forgiven of this because they didn't know?

You can't be expected to worship YHWH if you don't know about Him and you can't obey the law of Moses if you don't know it.

 

[Brian2]

Egypt conguered

The above is pure nonsense, you do not conquer a country without conquering the cities. Yes, Egypt fought battles in their +300 years of occupation, but the evidence that Egypt colonized and occupied the region of Canaan is overwhelming The reference you cited adds to the evidence for this. There is absolutely no evidence Joshua captured Canaan as he described in Chapter 10. You have failed to respond to Chapter 10 of the Book of Joshua which is specifically about Joshua's claims. Nothing about the actual evidence supports the Joshua invasion. The Battle for Jericho in ~1400 BCE is simply evidence that the battle took place and the city was destroyed nothing less and nothing more.

Please respond coherently about the claims of Joshua I cited

Egypt conquered, occupied, and colonized all of Canaan for over 300 years during the time Joshua claimed the Hebrew army conquered Canaan

I have responded to the claims of Joshua in Chapter 10 and shown from later in Joshua that it did not mean that the whole of Canaan and all the people were defeated and gone. Maybe Joshua was exaggerating, just as the Merenptah Stele exaggerates the conquest over Israel. But God had defeated Canaan enough in the campaign of Joshua for Israel to settle down in peace in the cities that had been conquered,,,,,,,,,,,, except the three that had been burned.
Yes Egypt had conquered Canaan and in the 1300s Canaan was complaining that they needed help with military attacks and that Egypt was not helping them.

 

[John53]

You can't be expected to worship YHWH if you don't know about Him and you can't obey the law of Moses if you don't know it.

I agree but it makes the laws of the bible redundant.

I would also like to think if there is a God he/she/it would respect my scepticism that these fantastical tales are fact. Do you think there's a difference between not knowing and knowing but not accepting because of lack of evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe some people believed Noah and moved far away to avoid the flood.
Maybe Noah's family were destined for drowning but ended up being saved through Noah.



Maybe.



What hole? Do your complaints about God and how He decided to save people from His wrath, form a hole that I am stuck in?
This same large local flood, of which there is evidence, is also a warning for us that God's wrath against the wickedness in people is real and that His actions against that are real.

I see. It appears to be that your solution to the flood is to demote to the point that it could not do anything that God said it would do in Genesis. You might as well not believe in the Flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have responded to the claims of Joshua in Chapter 10 and shown from later in Joshua that it did not mean that the whole of Canaan and all the people were defeated and gone. Maybe Joshua was exaggerating, just as the Merenptah Stele exaggerates the conquest over Israel. But God had defeated Canaan enough in the campaign of Joshua for Israel to settle down in peace in the cities that had been conquered,,,,,,,,,,,, except the three that had been burned.

False, as cited references
The reference in Joshua is specific and clear and it states that Joshua conquered virtually all of Canaan.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel."

Yes Egypt had conquered Canaan and in the 1300s Canaan was complaining that they needed help with military attacks and that Egypt was not helping them.

False, as cited references.
See post #384.

 

[shunyadragon]

The conquest could not have been around 1200BC imo because the Merenptah Stele from around then has Israel as already a people of Canaan.
There is a lot of Archaeological evidence for an early conquest imo. but it does require a re reading of Joshua and interpreting of Joshua as not saying that the cities of Canaan were destroyed but that the people were killed and chased out so that Israel could live there in those cities. This aligns with the archaeology and the text.
Joshua also ready that much of Canaan was not taken but Joshua left it for the various tribes to complete the work of conquest.
In Joshua it tells us that only Jericho, Ai and Hazor were destroyed and burned.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

God promised to drive out the Jebusites in Joshua 3:10 but Joshua 15:63 says that they were not driven out. How can both verses be true? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

Joshua's Lost Conquest

When biblical scholars failed to accept legitimate, Bible-affirming archaeological evidence for the Conquest, they then manipulated both chronology and history.

biblearchaeology.org

Top Ten Discoveries Related to Joshua and the Conquest

UPDATE: In light of the recent publication of the peer-reviewed article on the lead curse tablet from Mount Ebal that contains the oldest known YHWH inscription yet discovered in Israel, I have edi…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Your sources are not archaeologically nor historically accurate See post #384.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe some people believed Noah and moved far away to avoid the flood.
Maybe Noah's family were destined for drowning but ended up being saved through Noah.



Maybe.



What hole? Do your complaints about God and how He decided to save people from His wrath, form a hole that I am stuck in?
This same large local flood, of which there is evidence, is also a warning for us that God's wrath against the wickedness in people is real and that His actions against that are real.

The hole is that you have dogmatically decided to believe an absurd story and are therefor doomed to come up with absurd apologetics to rationalize your unsupported belief in it.