Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[Brian2]

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.

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

The Bible indicated that in places the armies of the enemies were destroyed and the Kings but also that not all the people were completely wiped out. They continued to live with the Israelites and even at times over the next few hundren years, took back some previously conquered territory.
Joshua also tells us of various parts of Canaan that were not fully conquered and that needed further work from the tribes that those areas were given to and who moved there.
The Bible also tells us that God promised to get rid of the tribes slowly and to push them out.
It's all easy enough to understand really.
Understanding the seemingly contradictory parts of Joshua is not that hard if we put a bit of effort into it.
Which parts of the the sources I posted are not historically accurate?

 

[John53]

People have ignored the Bible and ended up going down paths where our feelings are more important than the laws. The Laws and the rest of what we are told in the Bible, keep us on track when it is easy to get side tracked into a way that seems right but is not.

There's plenty of people who follow the bible who have committed some horrific acts. So I'm not sure of your point.

People who are believers also have doubts and would prefer more evidence.
I can't take the place of God however. He knows us better than we know ourselves and knows why we don't believe or do believe etc.
Whether God would call it a lack of evidence, or a lack of faith is something for Him to call and something for Him to say what that means for us.
All we can do is go forward and seek Him and His Kingdom and leave the judging up to Him.
I would say there is a difference between not knowing and knowing but not accepting, but all the judging is up to God.

Fair enough I guess.

 

[shunyadragon]

The flood killed all that lived in the land where it happened.

The authors of the NT agree that it was the whole world.

 

[Brian2]

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.

From this site: Amarna letters - Wikipedia

The Amarna letters (/əˈmɑːrnə/; sometimes referred to as the Amarna correspondence or Amarna tablets, and cited with the abbreviation EA, for "El Amarna") are an archive, written on clay tablets, primarily consisting of diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian administration and its representatives in Canaan and Amurru, or neighboring kingdom leaders, during the New Kingdom, spanning a period of no more than thirty years between c. 1360–1332 BC

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?

Of course there was no army. It was just a group of people who were conquering, not an organised army with all the proper equipment.
Israel would not have even been referred to as Israel at that stage and could have been mistaken for other semi nomadic peoples of the time.
No I can't provide a specific translation. I guess you better say that the site I provided is historically inaccurate.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Bible indicated that in places the armies of the enemies were destroyed and the Kings but also that not all the people were completely wiped out. They continued to live with the Israelites and even at times over the next few hundren years, took back some previously conquered territory.
Joshua also tells us of various parts of Canaan that were not fully conquered and that needed further work from the tribes that those areas were given to and who moved there.
The Bible also tells us that God promised to get rid of the tribes slowly and to push them out.
It's all easy enough to understand really.
Understanding the seemingly contradictory parts of Joshua is not that hard if we put a bit of effort into it.
Which parts of the the sources I posted are not historically accurate?

The Bible indicated that in places the armies of the enemies were destroyed and the Kings but also that not all the people were completely wiped out. They continued to live with the Israelites and even at times over the next few hundren years, took back some previously conquered territory.
Joshua also tells us of various parts of Canaan that were not fully conquered and that needed further work from the tribes that those areas were given to and who moved there.
The Bible also tells us that God promised to get rid of the tribes slowly and to push them out.
It's all easy enough to understand really.
Understanding the seemingly contradictory parts of Joshua is not that hard if we put a bit of effort into it.
Which parts of the the sources I posted are not historically accurate?

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.

Conclusion the Bible contradicts itself big time as previously described and you have not responded.
There remains the problem that it was documented beyond any reasonable doubt that Canaan was conquered, occupied, and colonized by Egypt and the Hittites, Israel consisted of pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah without a significant army or writing, and There is absolutely no evidence of a Joshua army anywhere in Canaan conquering any cities.

 

[shunyadragon]

From this site: Amarna letters - Wikipedia

The Amarna letters (/əˈmɑːrnə/; sometimes referred to as the Amarna correspondence or Amarna tablets, and cited with the abbreviation EA, for "El Amarna") are an archive, written on clay tablets, primarily consisting of diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian administration and its representatives in Canaan and Amurru, or neighboring kingdom leaders, during the New Kingdom, spanning a period of no more than thirty years between c. 1360–1332 BC

English problem. The reference reads representatives in Canaan and not representatives of the Canaan Kingdom, As referenced in more detailed references and copies of letters the letters are from Egypt appointed governors and leaders in the occupied region of Canaan.

Of course there was no army. It was just a group of people who were conquering, not an organised army with all the proper equipment.

If this were true it would confirm Joshua's army did not exist capable of sieging and capturing cities or conquering anyone. In fact in the Anarna letters it refers to the Hebrews as raiding cities and towns.

Israel would not have even been referred to as Israel at that stage and could have been mistaken for other semi nomadic peoples of the time.

I believe the sources referred to the Hebrews, and yes they were pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah.

No I can't provide a specific translation. I guess you better say that the site I provided is historically inaccurate.

No army in Israel or an invading Joshua army. Your reference is Wikipedia, ok, but incomplete and you misread the citation. It reads representatives in Canaan and NOT representatives of the Canaan kingdom.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please stop it… 1) I gave you a balanced site that mentioned 3 archaeological finds. 2) I mentioned 2 examples of two times scholars said one thing and later, archaeological finds disproved them (it too a while because of…) 3) Due to natural disasters, wars, and simple deterioration, it is PAINSTAKINGLY slow.

What site? Be specific.
I reviewed your posts and nothing specific was provided. If you did give me post numbers. Changes over time with new evidence is nothing new, but nothing supporting the Torah account as accurate. If you feel you did simply cite and paste and repost or simply provide post numbers.

The bold above is not meaningful because hypothetical future discoveries are unknown and the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance,' The discoveries so far have demonstrated that there is for example: No evidence of Exodus as described and no evidence of Joshua's army conquering Canaan already conquered, occupied and colonized by Egyptians and Hittites.

Considering the overwhelming contradictions based on the evidence there is little hope of finding anything that significantly changes the facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood killed all that lived in the land where it happened.

What "land"? Can you be more specific?

 

[shunyadragon]

THAT! was my point. I am being fed that it is monolithic and even 100% accurate.

Please cite!!!! This is an over the top bogus ridiculous assertion

 

[Brian2]

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

Nobody said the tribes of Israel were not active in 1200BC. The Merenptah Stele tells us they were active and identified at that point as a united people, Israel.
If the conquest was just beginning at that time, that would not be the case.

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.

From this site: Egyptian Domination of Canaan during Joshua/Judges.

I think there are good correlation for the destructions of the cities, and also for egypt, but there is an huge problem: if the exodus really occurred in 1500-1450 BC, the Israelites were present in Palestine between 1400 and 1200. But there are a lot of evidences proving that the Egyptians ruled the whole territory during this period of the time, and all the kings of Canaan (who were numerous and divided as it is reported in the Bible) were in fact nothing more than Egyptians vassals with a few autonomy.
You are quite correct that the Egyptians had political control of Canaan in 1400 BC and they maintained that control by means of suzerainty treaties with the kings of the local city states. The reality of the situation, however, was that the Egyptians had very few troops and other personnel in Canaan. They had several administrative centers in the lowlands, such as Gaza, Joppa, Megiddo and Beth Shan, but did not maintain a similar presence in the highlands. It was in the highlands that the Israelites settled, in the area that is often referred to as the central hill country. The areas that the Israelites could not conquer, listed in both Joshua and Judges 1, were the lowlands, the areas occupied by the Egyptians.

From this site: joshua campaign map - Google Search

It seems to be the case that the book of Joshua had some bragging and exaggerration, but if Israel was not there in Canaan and then was there, it seems to be the case that Israel, as a people, conquered Canaan, not in a scorched earth way, but so they could live in most of the places that they conquered.
In Joshua and in Judges 1 we read of large areas of Canaan that had not been conquered, it was an ongoing thing as Joshua tells us.
It should not be a big problem to read parts of Joshua as bragging when the plain truth was, and which is told us, is that not all the people of Canaan were killed and that they lived there with Isael.

 

[Brian2]

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

This discussion is too much like a Biblical maximalist discussion with a minimalist. These positions are really positions of faith.
Anything cited which interprets the facts differently is dishonest and lying to you it seems.

 

[Brian2]

There's plenty of people who follow the bible who have committed some horrific acts. So I'm not sure of your point.

The Bible is there partly to keep us on track, but it does not always do that and people and whole nations and eras follow their own desires anyway even while claiming to be following the Bible. Nevertheless that is not the fault of the Bible imo.

 

[Brian2]

The authors of the NT agree that it was the whole world.

The authors agree that it was the then (Noah's era) known world.

 

[shunyadragon]

This discussion is too much like a Biblical maximalist discussion with a minimalist. These positions are really positions of faith.
Anything cited which interprets the facts differently is dishonest and lying to you it seems.

Please respond to the specifics of the post I responded to. The facts that have been referenced in the past concerning the Egyptian and Hittite conquest, occupation, and colonization of Canaan are not open to interpretation. The Amarna letters are clear and specific as to who wrote them. You misquoted the Wikipedia article. The article is a limited reference, but roughly correct nonetheless. The letters were from Egyptian government representatives and other surrounding kingdoms like the Hatti.

I am not taking a Maximalist versus Minimalist position here. In fact I reject both. I am simply addressing the archaeological and historical evidence concerning Egypt, Israel, and Canaan in the 400-300 year period.

 

[shunyadragon]

The authors agree that it was the then (Noah's era) known world.

The known world of the NT authors would have been the Middle East, Africa, and the Mediterranean at least, and likely most of Europe and East Asia.

 

[John53]

The Bible is there partly to keep us on track, but it does not always do that and people and whole nations and eras follow their own desires anyway even while claiming to be following the Bible. Nevertheless that is not the fault of the Bible imo.

I agree it's not the fault of the bible nor does the bible have anything to do with people being good. It doesn't matter what groups you divide people into, some are good some are evil.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Conclusion the Bible contradicts itself big time as previously described and you have not responded.
There remains the problem that it was documented beyond any reasonable doubt that Canaan was conquered, occupied, and colonized by Egypt and the Hittites, Israel consisted of pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah without a significant army or writing, and There is absolutely no evidence of a Joshua army anywhere in Canaan conquering any cities.

Maybe see #450

Joshua does seem to contradict itself and it may have been bragging or may have been later redactions which brought contradictions in. But at least you can see that there are contradictions in Joshua, but the problem is that all you are willing to talk about are the parts that say that Joshua conquered and you ignore the other parts which bring what you want to talk about into a different light, the light that tells us of the areas that were not conquered.
What sort of evidence of "a Joshua army" do you need? Is this just a reference to the numbers of Israelites again, a number which is probably wrong as translated?
BUT there is evidence of conquest since Israel was not there, then after a period of time, Israel was there living in cities and areas when Canaanites used to live.
We can ignore the Bible and make up something that we see as fitting the archaeology of the 12th century or we can accept the Bible as a true account and look at the archaeology that supports it, that of the 14th century.

 

[Brian2]

The known world of the NT authors would have been the Middle East, Africa, and the Mediterranean at least, and likely most of Europe and East Asia.

Probably a much larger area than that.
The NT seems to make it clear that it was the then world, the world of Noah.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody said the tribes of Israel were not active in 1200BC. The Merenptah Stele tells us they were active and identified at that point as a united people, Israel.
If the conquest was just beginning at that time, that would not be the case.




From this site: Egyptian Domination of Canaan during Joshua/Judges.

I think there are good correlation for the destructions of the cities, and also for egypt, but there is an huge problem: if the exodus really occurred in 1500-1450 BC, the Israelites were present in Palestine between 1400 and 1200. But there are a lot of evidences proving that the Egyptians ruled the whole territory during this period of the time, and all the kings of Canaan (who were numerous and divided as it is reported in the Bible) were in fact nothing more than Egyptians vassals with a few autonomy.
You are quite correct that the Egyptians had political control of Canaan in 1400 BC and they maintained that control by means of suzerainty treaties with the kings of the local city states. The reality of the situation, however, was that the Egyptians had very few troops and other personnel in Canaan. They had several administrative centers in the lowlands, such as Gaza, Joppa, Megiddo and Beth Shan, but did not maintain a similar presence in the highlands. It was in the highlands that the Israelites settled, in the area that is often referred to as the central hill country. The areas that the Israelites could not conquer, listed in both Joshua and Judges 1, were the lowlands, the areas occupied by the Egyptians.

From this site: joshua campaign map - Google Search

View attachment 83931

It seems to be the case that the book of Joshua had some bragging and exaggerration, but if Israel was not there in Canaan and then was there, it seems to be the case that Israel, as a people, conquered Canaan, not in a scorched earth way, but so they could live in most of the places that they conquered.
In Joshua and in Judges 1 we read of large areas of Canaan that had not been conquered, it was an ongoing thing as Joshua tells us.
It should not be a big problem to read parts of Joshua as bragging when the plain truth was, and which is told us, is that not all the people of Canaan were killed and that they lived there with Isael.

The Merneptah Stele does not describe Israel as a united people. It simply refers to them as defeated by the Egyptians as well as defending Egyptian-occupied Libya and Canaan from invaders.

This region would no longer be Canaan

Nobody said the tribes of Israel were not active in 1200BC. The Merenptah Stele tells us they were active and identified at that point as a united people, Israel.
If the conquest was just beginning at that time, that would not be the case.




From this site: Egyptian Domination of Canaan during Joshua/Judges.

I think there are good correlation for the destructions of the cities, and also for egypt, but there is an huge problem: if the exodus really occurred in 1500-1450 BC, the Israelites were present in Palestine between 1400 and 1200. But there are a lot of evidences proving that the Egyptians ruled the whole territory during this period of the time, and all the kings of Canaan (who were numerous and divided as it is reported in the Bible) were in fact nothing more than Egyptians vassals with a few autonomy.
You are quite correct that the Egyptians had political control of Canaan in 1400 BC and they maintained that control by means of suzerainty treaties with the kings of the local city states. The reality of the situation, however, was that the Egyptians had very few troops and other personnel in Canaan. They had several administrative centers in the lowlands, such as Gaza, Joppa, Megiddo and Beth Shan, but did not maintain a similar presence in the highlands. It was in the highlands that the Israelites settled, in the area that is often referred to as the central hill country. The areas that the Israelites could not conquer, listed in both Joshua and Judges 1, were the lowlands, the areas occupied by the Egyptians.

From this site: joshua campaign map - Google Search

View attachment 83931

It seems to be the case that the book of Joshua had some bragging and exaggerration, but if Israel was not there in Canaan and then was there, it seems to be the case that Israel, as a people, conquered Canaan, not in a scorched earth way, but so they could live in most of the places that they conquered.
In Joshua and in Judges 1 we read of large areas of Canaan that had not been conquered, it was an ongoing thing as Joshua tells us.
It should not be a big problem to read parts of Joshua as bragging when the plain truth was, and which is told us, is that not all the people of Canaan were killed and that they lived there with Isael.

Map showing Egypt 1250 BCE in yellow

Ancient Middle East - 1250 BC by Cyowari on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

Probably a much larger area than that.
The NT seems to make it clear that it was the then world, the world of Noah.

No, it is not how the NT describes the Noah flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

Egyptian Empire map 1480 BCE

The Egyptian Empire c. 1480 BCE – The Map Archive

www.themaparchive.com