Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[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.
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.

If you read the translation of the letters you will find they are not from Canaanite leaders.

https://faculty.uml.edu/ethan_spanier/teaching/documents/amarnaletters.pdf

The letters are from Vassal state governors and military leaders appointed by and aligned to Egypt. Some from other nations in the North like the King of Hatti.

Yes, it is possible that Hebrews (This reference is not conclusive.)are mentioned, but they refer at best to Hebrew bands raiding the cities and towns, and no reference to the Hebrew invasion and destruction of cities. The archaeological evidence demonstrates that Israel? consisted of local pastoral tribes mostly in the Hills of Judah without writing or a significant army

Can you provide a specific translation of a letter from a Canaanite ruler or governor?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Try? Honestly? I’m truly not sure if you know the meaning.

I understand you completely that you don’t believe in the historical references in the bible and so you relegate it to the broad paint-brush of “myths”.

Historians are wide a varying. I have no problem with you selecting the ones that line up with your position.


You say it with every painting you brush with. Failing is only in the eyes of the beholder as far as God is concerned. It always amuses me when people say “There is no God because there is no proof” while billions declare that the believe through the infallible proofs that they see.

It comes down to my mantra that I have said again and again… two people looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions.

I have no problem with people holding on to the foolish statement that there is no God. It is your right that I support you in.

The problem is that when we ask for these "infallible proofs" nobody can actually manage to give us any.

By the way, atheism is just lack of belief in god. Which isn't the same as believing "there is no god."

 

[Sargonski]

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

Who said the Tribes of Israel were not active in 1200 BC in Canaan ?? and how does them being active in Canaan at this time argue for a 1400BC dating of Joshua ? Israelites being in Canaan in 1200 BC totally argues against a 1400 Dating of Joshua. and not even David takes all of Canaan.. the Phonecians are still in Charge of Tyre .. and there is all kinds of other peoples "supposedly driven out" that are alive - well .. and very active during Davids day .. For example The Moabites

Look .. the huge problem with 1400 BC dating is that there is no way the varioud nomadic Tribes are going to be able to take over the various city states .. while under vassalship of the Egyptians and the Hittites .. but, if for some miraculous reason this had happend .. It would have been recorded. The Egyptians talk about problems with nomadic tribes doing occasional raids .. one such group are called the Habiru .. which sounds alot like Hebrew but it matters not if these were the Israelites .. although many think the Israelites were a branch of these folks .. Habiru/Hapiru simply meant something like Bandit or Raider .

Now .. that is absolutely No doubt that the Proto-Israelites were one of these nomadic Tribesfolk that occupied the margins inbetween the various city states. hence why they call themselves the 12 Tribes. The question is whether these tribes were sacking and taking over city states in "the Promised Land" in 1400 BC .. and they were not .. Egypt and the Hitties controlled the region..

When we do hear about these nomadic Tribal peoples .. and others such as the Sea Peoples taking over city states is during the Bronze age Collapse .. which fits much of the Bible narrative perfectly .. makes complete sense that these nomadic tribes would begin to get stronger on a relative basis around 1200 BC when the collapse is starting .. and 200 years later .. when The Hittites don't even exist anymore and Egypt is no where in Canaan to be found .. these Tribes have formed a Nation and are sacking major cities in the North .. just like we are told during the time of the Kings.

This is not to say there was not some great Tribal Chiefton named Joshua who won some battles against other tribes .. and carried out some successful raids on some out of the way walled cities back in 1400 BC .. and some of these folks could well have a history in Egypt. .. but what didn't happen .. was Joshua sacking Jerusalem and other major city states under the vassalship of the Hittites or Egyptians.

 

[shunyadragon]

Try? Honestly? I’m truly not sure if you know the meaning.

I understand you completely that you don’t believe in the historical references in the bible and so you relegate it to the broad paint-brush of “myths”.

Historians are wide a varying. I have no problem with you selecting the ones that line up with your position.


You say it with every painting you brush with. Failing is only in the eyes of the beholder as far as God is concerned. It always amuses me when people say “There is no God because there is no proof” while billions declare that the believe through the infallible proofs that they see.

It comes down to my mantra that I have said again and again… two people looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions.

I have no problem with people holding on to the foolish statement that there is no God. It is your right that I support you in.

Academic archaeologists and historians disagree often, but no the disagreement is limited, based on the actual evidence of the geology, archaeology, and historical evidence that supports that the Pentateuch is a compilation after ~600 BCE and is largely based on ancient myths and third-party claims of history like the Hebrew Joshua invasion of Canaan that are totally in contradiction with the known objective evidence. Academic historians consider the supernatural and miraculous as religious beliefs and claims set in the culture at the time they were recorded, and cannot be determined as true or false based on the evidence.

There is no proof one way or another for the subjective religious claims of 'God(s) or the 'lack of belief in God(s) or the miraculous events in the text. Statements that there is 'a lack of belief in God(s)' or there is a God are not foolish, except for slinging accusations between believers and non-believers. They are beliefs based on faith, not evidence. Though the Naturalist view of no objective evidence for the existence of God(s) is valid to the point of the lack of evidence, but cannot be claimed as conclusive.

 

[shunyadragon]

So that gives an area of land that was subdued and Joshua later also gives areas of land that were not subdued. What's the problem?
And Israel only destroyed 3 cities and burned them and then dwelt in the cities they had conquered.

The problem is clear and specific. Reread the citation from the Bible. It claims the vast region of what was Canaan was conquered and all were killed. The claim of Joshua's conquest is far too vast to be real considering the lack of any evidence of a Hebrew army achieving this, and the fact that the evidence demonstrates that the Egyptians and Hittites controlled the region claimed to be conquered by Joshua's army. See post #403.

I cited the translations from the Amarna letters with authors. They were written by other Kingdoms, like Hatti and Babylonia, and local Vassal governors appointed by Egyptians. NONE of the letters were written by Canaanite rulers.

I requested you provide a letter in the Amarna written by a Canaanite ruler and you have failed.

You are apparently indirectly referencing dishonest deceptive apologetic sources like the following:

Uncovering the Bible’s Buried Civilizations: The Canaanites

Investigating the people Israel encountered in the Promised Land

armstronginstitute.org

 

[Kenny]

Academic archaeologists and historians disagree often, but no the disagreement is limited, based on the actual evidence of the geology, archaeology, and historical evidence that supports that the Pentateuch is a compilation after ~600 BCE and is largely based on ancient myths and third-party claims of history like the Hebrew Joshua invasion of Canaan that are totally in contradiction with the known objective evidence. Academic historians consider the supernatural and miraculous as religious beliefs and claims set in the culture at the time they were recorded, and cannot be determined as true or false based on the evidence.

There is no proof one way or another for the subjective religious claims of 'God(s) or the 'lack of belief in God(s) or the miraculous events in the text. Statements that there is 'a lack of belief in God(s)' or there is a God are not foolish, except for slinging accusations between believers and non-believers. They are beliefs based on faith, not evidence. Though the Naturalist view of no objective evidence for the existence of God(s) is valid to the point of the lack of evidence, but cannot be claimed as conclusive.

More often than not, I find that people tend to want it to be a myth because it would challenge their foundation should it be true. Again, not all, but rather more often than not. People even want to make Jesus a myth.

Archaeology, as I have mentioned before, is painstakingly slow because of causes that have destroyed evidence but changes over time. At one time King David was a myth until… At one time they thought the written Hebraic language was relatively new, until…

The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?

Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction? Scholars and archaeologists argue about aspects of Israel’s Exodus but many agree it occurred.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

So we still have varying positions about the Israelites in Egypt.

For an example:

"This supports a 13th-century Exodus during the Ramesside Period because it is only during the Ramesside Period that the place names Pi-Ramesse, Pi-Atum and (Pa-)Tjuf (Red Sea or Reed Sea) are all in use."

So there is support through varying examples.

Is there a plethora of evidence? Of course not. Time erosion, wars, destruction through natural causes and more all make it difficult to have more evidence. The written historical evidence in the TaNaKh is a helpful tool.l

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

More often than not, I find that people tend to want it to be a myth because it would challenge their foundation should it be true.

The projection and irony is so through the roof, it's not even funny anymore....

 

[Kenny]

The projection and irony is so through the roof, it's not even funny anymore....

???

 

[shunyadragon]

More often than not, I find that people tend to want it to be a myth because it would challenge their foundation should it be true. Again, not all, but rather more often than not. People even want to make Jesus a myth.

More often than not?!?!?! Yes, individuals can believe whatever they want This represents assumptions on how academic history and archaeology approach ancient texts, beliefs, and mythology, and not true.

By far most academic historians consider Jesus to have lived when the NT describes. Yes, academic history. Nobody makes Jesus a myth. The religious claims and miraculous events of the life of Jesus are considered religious beliefs and neither true nor false.

Archaeology, as I have mentioned before, is painstakingly slow because of causes that have destroyed evidence but changes over time. At one time King David was a myth until… At one time they thought the written Hebraic language was relatively new, until…

The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?

Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction? Scholars and archaeologists argue about aspects of Israel’s Exodus but many agree it occurred.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

So we still have varying positions about the Israelites in Egypt.

For an example:

"This supports a 13th-century Exodus during the Ramesside Period because it is only during the Ramesside Period that the place names Pi-Ramesse, Pi-Atum and (Pa-)Tjuf (Red Sea or Reed Sea) are all in use."

So there is support through varying examples.

You need to read the whole article you are citing because it does not come the conclusions concerning Exodus you claim. Exodus happening in one form or another does not confirm the Exodus account as it is in the Bible. Yes, like all ancient texts, the Book of Exodus does contain locations and facts, but it is a narrative compiled after 600 BCE. Most of Exodus and Joshua are completely in contradiction with the documented historical and archaeological facts.

References to Israel in texts before 1000 BCE are for pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah. A people without a written language or a significant army to accomplish what is claimed in the Book of Joshua.

The discussion of the Merneptah Stele is incomplete. It contains references of Egypt's conquest and occupation that with other archaeological discoveries like the Amara letters demonstrate that Joshua's invasion of Egypt never happened in the over 300 years Egypt and the Hittites controlled what was Canaan.

Is there a plethora of evidence? Of course not. Time erosion, wars, destruction through natural causes and more all make it difficult to have more evidence. The written historical evidence in the TaNaKh is a helpful tool.

The TaNaKh is not evidence by definition. It is a compilation of narratives written after 600 BCE, Arguing to justify the narratives of the Pentateuch as factual based on 'what may be found in the future does not help your case because the existing historical and archaeological evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the accounts of the Pentateuch are not accurate historical accounts well grounded in known history.

It is difficult to argue what individuals may or may not believe from a religious perspective, or those that reject the religious perspective as false. I go by Academic archaeological and historical evidence on what is known today and do not consider the religious beliefs of scripture as true or false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

???

You are projecting your own flaws unto others.

YOU are the one here who wants to hold on to your a priori beliefs.
YOU are the one who "wants" to not accept things because they would shake your foundational beliefs.

This is why people like you engage in selective belief of scientific facts.
You can't allow yourself to accept evolution (for example) because it would threaten your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.


I have no such problem. I have no problems whatsoever in changing my beliefs to conform to new evidence. In fact, I welcome it. I like learning.
I have no emotional investment in my beliefs. That's all you, and others like you.


There is no belief that I hold which would make my world or psychology come crumbling down if those beliefs turn out to be wrong.

 

[Kenny]

More often than not?!?!?! Yes, individuals can believe whatever they want This represents assumptions on how academic history and archaeology approach ancient texts, beliefs, and mythology, and not true.

By far most academic historians consider Jesus to have lived when the NT describes. Yes, academic history. Nobody makes Jesus a myth. The religious claims and miraculous events of the life of Jesus are considered religious beliefs and neither true nor false.

It is my view… and, yes, we can see that there are differing views.

There are people who think Jesus is a myth. Certainly many more believe the resurrection is a mytgh.

You need to read the whole article you are citing because it does not come the conclusions concerning Exodus you claim. Exodus happening in one form or another does not confirm the Exodus account as it is in the Bible.

You need to reread what I said and the context of what I said. I never said that archaeological discoveries make Exodus conclusive. Please reread and reconfigure your view on what I said.

The TaNaKh is not evidence by definition.

That is two people looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusion. If it is historical, then it would add to the conclusiveness. Obviously if it isn’t historical, it wouldn’t be.

I find it to be historical.

 

[Kenny]

You are projecting your own flaws unto others.

hardly

I have no such problem. I have no problems whatsoever in changing my beliefs to conform to new evidence. In fact, I welcome it. I like learning.
I have no emotional investment in my beliefs. That's all you, and others like you.

Then you would be classified on the second group of people. “More often than not” intimates that there are those who are on the “not” position and the veracity of the TaNaKh wouldn’t affect you.

I think yours was an over reaction to what I said.

Now, IMV, Subduction would be classified as the first part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

hardly



Then you would be classified on the second group of people. “More often than not” intimates that there are those who are on the “not” position and the veracity of the TaNaKh wouldn’t affect you.

I think yours was an over reaction to what I said.

Now, IMV, Subduction would be classified as the first part.

I wouldn't expect you to realize to be doing what you are doing.
Obviously if you would realize it, you would stop it.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is my view… and, yes, we can see that there are differing views.

There are people who think Jesus is a myth. Certainly many more believe the resurrection is a myth.

Again individuals can believe many different and conflicting views regardless of the evidence. What people believe individually is subjective. I go by the academic evidence. As far as Academic history and I the miraculous events and religious beliefs of the Bible are NT considered true or false.

You need to reread what I said and the context of what I said. I never said that archaeological discoveries make Exodus conclusive. Please reread and reconfigure your view on what I said.

I did not say you did, but you did selectively cite references to justify your argument. I do not

That is two people looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusion. If it is historical, then it would add to the conclusiveness. Obviously if it isn’t historical, it wouldn’t be.

I am not interested when two people looking at the same evidence come to two different conclusions. I go by the existing archaeological and historical evidence that is not in dispute by by academics, such as the evidence in the Merneptah Stele and the Amara letters written at the time in history that the events took place.

I find it to be historical.

Yes, that is what you believe by faith, but unfortunately is well demonstrated by academic archaeology and history that it is a collection of narratives compiled after ~600 BCE and not remotely historical. I go with the facts and not the bias of religious belief.

Yes, all ancient texts in history contain historical events and people, but they are virtually all narratives written after the events took place, contain mythological accounts and miracles, and have been found flawed as far as the known historical and archaeological evidence.

You cannot 'make' things to be true because you believe them true.

 

[Kenny]

Again individuals can believe many different and conflicting views regardless of the evidence. What people believe individually is subjective. I go by the academic evidence. As far as Academic history and I the miraculous events and religious beliefs of the Bible are NT considered true or false.

Interesting. I find your position of “academic” to be your personal opinion. I tend to look at academia and study it to see if it is true.

I did not say you did, but you did selectively cite references to justify your argument. I do not

Then you need to reread. If this is an example of how you look at information from the academia, then you are very partial and selective in your read.

I am not interested when two people looking at the same evidence come to two different conclusions. I go by the existing archaeological and historical evidence that is not in dispute by by academics, such as the evidence in the Merneptah Stele and the Amara letters written at the time in history that the events took place.

Which I just showed you why academia is still at odds.

Yes, that is what you believe by faith,

That would be your faith statement

 

[Subduction Zone]

hardly



Then you would be classified on the second group of people. “More often than not” intimates that there are those who are on the “not” position and the veracity of the TaNaKh wouldn’t affect you.

I think yours was an over reaction to what I said.

Now, IMV, Subduction would be classified as the first part.

That is only because you are guilty of massive projection. You got mad at me because you had your behind handed to you in more than one biblical discussion because you kept referring to apologists instead of historians.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting. I find your position of “academic” to be your personal opinion. I tend to look at academia and study it to see if it is true.

The academic standards are not my personal opinion.

The bold above does not reflect your posts. Your statement that "you consider the Torah to be historical" reflects your bias and apologetics that does not consider the historical and archaeological evidence and not what academia considers what is historical.

Then you need to reread. If this is sample of how you look at information from the academia, then you are very partial and selective in your read.

I read your posts. Your statement that "you consider the Torah as historical" is very very clear and does not consider the archaeological and historical evidence concerning the confirmation of the text that can be considered historically factual.

It is not what I consider information from academia. I have cited academia specifically on what is considered history, and you ignored it.

Which I just showed you why academia is still at odds.

That would be your faith statement

Not a faith statement on my part. My beliefs and faith have nothing to do with the content of this thread. Yes, it is abundantly clear you are at odds with what the historical and archaeological academic evidence concludes. Your statement that you consider the Torah historical in and of itself without taking the historical and archaeological evidence into consideration.

 

[Astrophile]

What was "outrageous" centuries ago is today's reality. It is more like two people looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusions. Like you are touching an elephant's tail as a blind man and saying their trunk is abnormally small.

This is simply not true. Nobody looking at the geological and fossil evidence without religious presuppositions would conclude that the sequence of sedimentary rocks could have been deposited in a single flood, or even in a period of less than 100 million years, or that living things have been the same throughout the Earth's history.

 

[Kenny]

The academic standards are not my personal opinion.

The bold above does not reflect your posts. Your statement that "you consider the Torah to be historical" reflects your bias and apologetics that does not consider the historical and archaeological evidence and not what academia considers what is historical.

And yet academia has missed it again and agin… and that is not my perosnal opinion.

And, yes, until academia can really prove my position wrong, I will hold it to be historical. I have found that archaeology has again and again upheld the position. When it says differently, i can see where personal opinions are expressed and not hard evidence. Like Israel in Egypt

I read your posts. Your statement that "you consider the Torah as historical" is very very clear and does not consider the archaeological and historical evidence concerning the confirmation of the text that can be considered historically factual.

It is not what I consider information from academia. I have cited academia specifically on what is considered history, and you ignored it.

See above

Not a faith statement on my part. My beliefs and faith have nothing to do with the content of this thread. Yes, it is abundantly clear you are at odds with what the historical and archaeological academic evidence concludes. Your statement that you consider the Torah historical in and of itself without taking the historical and archaeological evidence into consideration.

See above.

 

[metis]

And yet academia has missed it again and agin… and that is not my perosnal opinion.

But academia is not monolithic.