• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
As I said, Noah was not a Hebrew and no doubt did not live in Palestine, so a local catastrophic flood would not have to be in Palestine to be real for Noah.
So what? Biblically the descendants of Noah are the Hebrews
When the New Testament says the world that then was, was destroyed with the flood, it can mean the known world and people, and not necessarily the entire globe, which was not even a thing in the mind of the writers of both the New and Old Testaments.
But yes, Jesus and his disciples confirm Noah and the flood.
Actually Psalm 104:5-9 seems to be saying that after the earth was made with water covering it and God made the dry land appear, that the water that initially covered the earth never did that again and will never. So the Bible itself tells us that the flood was not a global one.


The problem we have with the flood is that we don't know exactly when it happened. I hear that generations are missed entirely in the genealogies of the time in the Bible and so it cannot be worked out that way. So there is a chance that catastrophic floods related to the ice age happened at the same time. Whether that is needed for the local Noah's flood to be valid Biblically, I don't know, but it is a possibility.
I don't see the floods as having destroyed all life on the whole globe however.



Well not a global flood anyway.
Then you are concluding the Bible is not accurate as inspired by God and not human knowledge as what the "world" represents in scripture. This conflicts with your unfounded belief that the catastrophic floods locally around the world represent the world flood. This is again flawed, because NONE of the floods occurred at the same time, especially the Ice Age floods that occurred over 11,000 years ago.

The knowledge of what the "world" was at the time the Jesus Christ was very vast including Asia, Europe and Africa, and it was described as 'world flood' even if it was from the human perspective.
I accept that other flood stories in that ancient culture are probably memories of the same flood.
The OT testimony as I said, actually denies a global flood (Psalm 104) and the flood story in Genesis can be legitimately translated as a large local flood that flooded the whole land and all the animals and people in the land were killed and covered all the high hills (and these hills I am told could have even been ziguratts)

It is documented by the factual evidence that the local catastrophic flood did not occur at the same time. The Ice Age glacial floods occurred over 11,000 years ago.
The documentation of the Bible is evidence that camels were used by traders and that rich people had camels. Abraham got his camels from the King of Egypt.
There is no independent objectively verifiable evidence documenting this. The Biblical record cannot be independently verified. The factual evidence is extremely well documented. Camels arrived in Palestine with the copper trade in 900 BCE.

So why isn't that evidence seen as valid if recorded histories of other cultures are seen as evidence?
The evidence IS NOT seen as valid in the other ancient cultural writings unless independently verified. Can you provide an example of the content of ancient writings of cultures considered as factual without independent scientific and archaeology documentation?

What Tel Aviv University found seems to have been a large scale use of camels in one place. The Bible is talking about nomads with small scale operations and who did not leave huge grave yards of bones.
The whole idea that the Tel Avid study refutes what the Bible says is rubbish.

"Seems to." This is a vague unfounded basis for assumptions of the Tel Aviv research. The research takes this into consideration. The archaeological evidence is specific in documenting the camels due to the copper trade, and this includes trade with Egypt regardless of scale.

You have failed to provide independent documentation of camels present in Palestine before 900 BCE
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
#1 presumes that the Pentateuch and Joshua were written about 600 years after the events.
Which is by the evidence.
The post also wants the conquest to have happened in the 13th century,, which is not the Biblical timing for the events.
The post also cannot allow the miraculous into history and so that is just a presumption of "not true" from the start.
The post has the writer (Bart Ehrmann) seemingly not understanding what is written in Joshua about the destruction caused by the conquest and so what would be expected to be found in the archaeology after the conquest.
The post did not refer to the conquest, but one of the sieges of Jericho. Bart is very aware of what was written in Joshua and cites it specifically. You have failed to respond to the citations.
The combination of errors made would no doubt make it compelling that the conquest did not happen, for a person who did not realise they were making so many errors.
It is compelling based on the evidence that the conquest did not happen.
It is interesting that so many people who know that the Biblical timing is around 1400 BC for conquest and that the archaeology of Canaan does fit this timing when Joshua is read carefully, still want to deny the conquest and make up their own version of what happened based on the archaeology of a false date and purposefully reading Joshua and interpreting it in such a way that the archaeology does not fit it. (I say "purposefully" because there are so many articles around about the way to interpret Joshua that fits the evidence, that they must know they are just saying the Biblical record is wrong when they know it can easily be shown to be accurate)
It is weird imo.
It remains that there is no evidence for the invasion. Yes, there were battles and sieges for control of Jericho at different times. What was cited by Bart in the article is specific and documented.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No, what we have is actual documented evidence of the evolution of the Hebrew form a primitive form not capable of compiling the Pentateuch.

The problem is you have failed to present the positive evidence to support your argument.

I understand that I haven't to your satisfaction. I have no urgency to attempt to convince you. I am convinced... and that is enough for me.

It is a very very real issue as far as the credibility of the Pentateuch, and when it was written.

All the argument you are presenting here is that you believe the Bible justifies itself without evidence, which is circular reasoning and not convincing. You still have failed to present any convincing evidence for your claims.

Again... I never said that the bible alone justifies itself without evidence. (not sure how you came to that conclusion) - in as much as I also said that the veracity of what is written is used by archaeologists because of its reliability. I also mentioned that it is obvious that the original copies are obviously gone because of time. I also showed that you were wrong on when the earliest Hebrew language started as they have now found older artifacts with writings... I am fine with understanding that science continues to correct itself and will continue until "write" actually meant "write" and "read from it" meant "read what is written.

Well . . . the archaeological evidence actually does confirm the limits of a primitive Hebrew language that could not compile the Pentateuch and there was absolutely no Hebrew during the time of Moses.

No... current viewpoints are that which you have mentioned.
Yes, the archaeologists have extensively used the TaNaKh to locate cities and judge events accordingly, and this is also true of the Iliad and Odyssey , but the Biblical record cannot stand alone as evidence. In fact, the whole Bible is a Narrative set in history that, of course, refers to places and people in history, but it is not a historical record. There is absolutely no evidence that the Pentateuch, and by the way the gospels, were written by eyewitnesses recording history.

False comparison. Does anyone believe that the Iliad and Odyssey are God given? no.

With your viewpoint, I might as well consider the Bahai faith the same as the Iliad. should I?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You are still ignoring the fact that moses didn’t write the Genesis, Exodus & other books. There are no evidence that any of these books existing in the 15th century BCE, which is early 18th dynasty. You will only find appearances of these texts from 6th century BCE or later.

But there are contemporary texts to Egyptian kings, such as Ahmose I & Thutmose III, such as stone stelae. None of them mentioned Moses or the Israelites being slaves in Egypt.

And Exodus 1 & 2 saying a king was built Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) during the 18th dynasty (15th century BCE), but the reality it is didn’t exist until the 19th dynasty (13th century BCE), is another indicator that the author of Exodus don’t know the real history of Egypt during that time.

That’s how anyone with common sense know that Moses didn’t exist in the 18th dynasty. Nothing Exodus says match up with the actual timeline in Egypt.
I usually like to start with basics--at the beginning. The books of the Bible were not categorized until later. And historians talk about patriarchs. That's important because Moses undoubtedly heard of those such as Abraham, Seth and others from his mother and others relating about Yahweh, or as it is said in English, Jehovah.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Which is by the evidence.

The post did not refer to the conquest, but one of the sieges of Jericho. Bart is very aware of what was written in Joshua and cites it specifically. You have failed to respond to the citations.

It is compelling based on the evidence that the conquest did not happen.

It remains that there is no evidence for the invasion. Yes, there were battles and sieges for control of Jericho at different times. What was cited by Bart in the article is specific and documented.

I will start with posting a site for you to have a look at about some evidence of Israel being in Egypt as described in the Bible and in the Egyptian history if interpreted with the Bible in mind.

 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Which is by the evidence.

The post did not refer to the conquest, but one of the sieges of Jericho. Bart is very aware of what was written in Joshua and cites it specifically. You have failed to respond to the citations.

It is compelling based on the evidence that the conquest did not happen.

It remains that there is no evidence for the invasion. Yes, there were battles and sieges for control of Jericho at different times. What was cited by Bart in the article is specific and documented.

Here is another site suggesting Israel and the Exodus to me.

 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Here is another site suggesting Israel and the Exodus to me.

I think the main issue is connected to your post. Archaeology is painstakingly slow due to deterioration and destruction and most people interpret lack of evidence as "it never happened".

But then...

We find artifacts that suggest and point to the reality that what was written is actually reliable.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I will start with posting a site for you to have a look at about some evidence of Israel being in Egypt as described in the Bible and in the Egyptian history if interpreted with the Bible in mind.

As previously cited there is evidence that 'some' Hebrew slaves were in Egypt and a small mixed migration likely took place, but this is not evidence of Exodus.

I will respond in more detail, but translating Hyksos does not translate to Joseph.

Citing Egyptian records and claiming that the Egyptian records are notoriously inaccurate is a selective contradiction does not represent the history of Egyptian records, and is an agenda smoke screen,

More to follow with references.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Which is by the evidence.

The post did not refer to the conquest, but one of the sieges of Jericho. Bart is very aware of what was written in Joshua and cites it specifically. You have failed to respond to the citations.

It is compelling based on the evidence that the conquest did not happen.

It remains that there is no evidence for the invasion. Yes, there were battles and sieges for control of Jericho at different times. What was cited by Bart in the article is specific and documented.

This site gives archaeological evidence for the early conquest of Canaan.


Many scholars read Joshua and expect a fullscale destruction by Israel in Canaan. That however is not what Joshua tells us.
The destruction is for a start conditional on Israel obeying God.
God says He wants to leave Canaanites in the land so it is not taken over by wild animals and to test the resolve of the Israelites to obey God.
When Joshua says a place was destroyed it usually does not mean the towns were pulled down or burned. Israel had to live in them and that is what God says that they were to do. Only 3 towns were burned down and dedicated to God this way and that is what the archaeology shows.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I will start with posting a site for you to have a look at about some evidence of Israel being in Egypt as described in the Bible and in the Egyptian history if interpreted with the Bible in mind.


Where we find ...

A doorjamb inscription discovered by archaeologists in ancient Avaris reveals the name of another such Semitic ruler: Sakir-har. “Sakir” means reward. This name has a close parallel to one of Jacob’s sons, Issachar (or “Ish-Sakir”), meaning “there is a reward.”​

Wow ... just WOW!
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I think the main issue is connected to your post. Archaeology is painstakingly slow due to deterioration and destruction and most people interpret lack of evidence as "it never happened".

But then...

We find artifacts that suggest and point to the reality that what was written is actually reliable.

Yes artifacts are found that point to the reliability of the Biblical account of Israel in Egypt, and the whole story in Exodus can be pieced together with those finds in archaeology and historical records.
Then the story of the conquest can be seen in the archaeology of Canaan of the 14th century BC. especially when Joshua is read carefully to see that mass destruction of cities and the killing of all Canaanites is not what Joshua tells us.
Some people seem to just want to go by what maybe a majority of archaeologists and historians say and others seem to want to go with anything that discredits the Bible.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Where we find ...

A doorjamb inscription discovered by archaeologists in ancient Avaris reveals the name of another such Semitic ruler: Sakir-har. “Sakir” means reward. This name has a close parallel to one of Jacob’s sons, Issachar (or “Ish-Sakir”), meaning “there is a reward.”​

Wow ... just WOW!

I suppose that is not all that the site tells us. It is giving an overview of evidence and includes things that are iffy at best and leaves out other things that I find more compelling. But it does imo make a reasonable case for Israel being in Egypt over the Biblical time frame.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I suppose that is not all that the site tells us. It is giving an overview of evidence and includes things that are iffy at best and leaves out other things that I find more compelling.

I'll begrudgingly accept "iffy at best."

I am reminded of the argument claiming that Britain derives from brit am (with brit meaning covenant and am meaning people) and, therefore, Britain refers to the lost tribes.

But it does imo make a reasonable case for Israel being in Egypt over the Biblical time frame.

Forgive me, but let me suggest that the phrase "Israel being in Egypt" is, itself, "iffy at best." I know of no one who argues that Egypt - however defined - was semite free, but I seriously doubt that any of them were running around with name tags sporting tribal designations.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I will start with posting a site for you to have a look at about some evidence of Israel being in Egypt as described in the Bible and in the Egyptian history if interpreted with the Bible in mind.

This site offers too much conjecture based on a religious agenda Hyksos does not translate to Joseph, and the people of Hyksos in the Kingdom of the Lower Nile were not Hebrews.

Yes, there is no conclusive evidence for the events in Exodus or Joshua.


In the Second Intermediate Period (18th–16th centuries B.C.E.), towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the West Asian (Canaanite) Hyksos controlled Lower (Northern) Egypt. In the 16th century, Ahmose I overthrew the Hyksos and initiated the XVIII dynasty and the New Kingdom of Egypt.

Archaeological discoveries at Tel Habuwa (also known as Tell el-Habua or Tell-Huba), a site associated with ancient Tjaru (Tharo), shed light on Ahmose’s campaign. A daybook entry in the famous Rhind Mathematical Papyrus notes that Ahmose seized control of Tjaru before laying siege the Hyksos at their capital in Avaris.

Excavations at the site, located two miles east of the Suez Canal, have uncovered evidence of battle wounds on skeletons discovered in two-story administrative structures dating to the Hyksos and New Kingdom occupations. The site showed evidence of burned buildings, as well as massive New Kingdom grain silos that would have been able to feed a large number of Egyptian troops. After Ahmose took the city and defeated the Hyksos, he expanded the town and built several nearby forts to protect Egypt’s eastern border. Tjaru was first discovered in 2003, but until now, the excavation only uncovered the New Kingdom military fort and silos. This new discovery confirms a decisive moment in the expulsion of the Hyksos previously known from textual sources.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This site gives archaeological evidence for the early conquest of Canaan.


Many scholars read Joshua and expect a fullscale destruction by Israel in Canaan. That however is not what Joshua tells us.
The destruction is for a start conditional on Israel obeying God.
God says He wants to leave Canaanites in the land so it is not taken over by wild animals and to test the resolve of the Israelites to obey God.
When Joshua says a place was destroyed it usually does not mean the towns were pulled down or burned. Israel had to live in them and that is what God says that they were to do. Only 3 towns were burned down and dedicated to God this way and that is what the archaeology shows.

I will refer in more detail, but in the Book of Joshua Joshua claims to have conquered all of Canaan and lists cities he conquered that do not exist at the time of Joshua

From another thread and is relevant.

Bart Ehrman, a historian at UNC University has done research over the years concerning the Bible.

First, the Biblical contradictions concerning Jericho.

Historical Problems with the Hebrew Bible: The Conquest of Canaan | The Bart Ehrman Blog

This will be my final post, for now, on the problems with the Hebrew Bible. I couldn’t resist one last set of comments on the historicity of the accounts narrated there, this time with respect to the stories in the book of Joshua about the Conquest of the Promised Land (Jericho and so on).

When considering the historicity of the narratives of Joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness. They were written some 600 years later, and were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation among people in Israel during all those intervening centuries. Moreover, they are clearly molded according to theological assumptions and perspectives. Biblical scholars have long noted that there is almost nothing in the accounts that suggest that the author is trying to be purely descriptive of things that really happened. He is writing an account that appears to be guided by his religious agenda, not by purely historical interests. That is why, when read closely, one finds so many problems with the narratives.

  • Internal discrepancies. As we have seen, parts of Joshua stress that Joshua was fantastically successful in conquering the land: “Joshua defeated the whole land” (10:40); “Joshua took all that land” (11:16); “Joshua took the whole land” (11:23). If it were true that Joshua took “all” the “whole” land – why are there so many parts of the land that the text admits were not taken? The Deuteronomistic historian later has to acknowledge that when “Joshua was old…the LORD said to him ‘very much of the land still remains to be possessed’” (13:1). And so we are told that Jerusalem had not yet been taken (15:63); or parts of Ephraim (16:10); or parts of Manasseh (17:12-13). At the end of the book Joshua has to persuade the people to drive out the natives living in the land (23:5-13).
  • Tensions with other Accounts. A similar problem arises between Joshua and other books of the Deuteronomistic history. In ch. 11, for example, the Israelite forces completely annihilate the city of Hazor: “they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire.” If that were true, why is it that in the next book, Judges, the Canaanites still very much live in and control Hazor, under their king Jabin, whose powerful army afflicted and oppressed the Israelites (Judges 4)?
  • General Implausibilities. A number of the stories in Joshua are so chock-full of the miraculous that historians simply cannot deal with them as historical narratives (see the excursus in ch. 1). None of the miracles is more striking than the account in ch. 10, where the Israelite armies are having such a huge success, routing the coalition of kings aligned against them that Joshua cries out to the sun to stop its movement in the sky. And the sun stands still at high noon for twenty-four hours before moving on again, giving the Israelites ample time to complete the slaughter. As readers have long noted, it would be a miracle indeed if the earth suddenly stopped rotating on its axis for a day and then started up again, with no disturbance to the oceans, land masses, and life itself!
  • External Verification and Archaeology. For biblical scholars, just as significant is the surviving physical evidence (or rather lack of it) for the conquest. Archaeologists have long noted that there is scant support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua. Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?
    • References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources outside the Bible.
    • Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
    • Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.).
    • Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).
And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua? The answer appears to be: none of the above. There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan. Archaeologists have discovered that few of the places mentioned were walled towns at the time. Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest apparently did not even exist as cities at the time. This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13th century BCE, as archaeologists have decisively shown (see box 4.2). The same thing applies to Ai and Heshbon. These cities were neither occupied, nor conquered, nor re-inhabited in the days of Joshua. Moreover, there is no evidence of major shifts in cultural patterns taking place at the end of the 13th century in Canaan. There are, to be sure, some indications that some towns in Canaan were destroyed at about that time (two of the twenty places mentioned as being destroyed by Joshua were wiped out at about the right time: Hazor and Bethel) But that is true of virtually every time in antiquity: occasionally towns were destroyed by other towns or burned or otherwise abandoned.

We are left, then, with a very big problem. The accounts in Joshua appear to be non-historical in many respects. This creates a dilemma for historians, since two things are perfectly clear: (a) eventually there was a nation Israel living in the land of Canaan; but (b) there is no evidence that it got there by entering in from the East and
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I understand that I haven't to your satisfaction. I have no urgency to attempt to convince you. I am convinced... and that is enough for me.

Again... I never said that the bible alone justifies itself without evidence. (not sure how you came to that conclusion) - in as much as I also said that the veracity of what is written is used by archaeologists because of its reliability. I also mentioned that it is obvious that the original copies are obviously gone because of time. I also showed that you were wrong on when the earliest Hebrew language started as they have now found older artifacts with writings... I am fine with understanding that science continues to correct itself and will continue until "write" actually meant "write" and "read from it" meant "read what is written.

No... current viewpoints are that which you have mentioned.


False comparison. Does anyone believe that the Iliad and Odyssey are God given? no.
It is not the veracity and accuracy of the Bible as the reason it is used by archaeologists. It is used like other ancient writings all over the world because the writings are narratives set in history that contain some events and people that are historical, but NOT considered accurate historical records.

Excellent comparison concerning the comparison of ancient documents from a neutral historical perspective. Only those who believe in the Bible give it historical credibility without outside evidence. As in the Illiad and Odyssey, but are NOT considered historically accurate and the Bible contains some historical events and people, but are not considered historically accurate and contain many myths and the supernatural not considered accepted historical events.
With your viewpoint, I might as well consider the Bahai faith the same as the Iliad. should I?

The Baha'i Writings consider the harmony of science and religion, and academic history as valid, and do not endorse the miraculous as evidence. If you want to discuss these issues concerning the Baha'i Faith start a thread and I will deal With it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think the main issue is connected to your post. Archaeology is painstakingly slow due to deterioration and destruction and most people interpret lack of evidence as "it never happened".

But then...

We find artifacts that suggest and point to the reality that what was written is actually reliable.
It's interesting that "YHWH" was a god of war in the southern Arabian Peninsula, and it appears that Jewish traders brought it north to eretz Israel. This may explain the reason why there are many references of YHWH's support of Israel/Judah's in wars that are found in Torah.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I'll begrudgingly accept "iffy at best."

I am reminded of the argument claiming that Britain derives from brit am (with brit meaning covenant and am meaning people) and, therefore, Britain refers to the lost tribes.

Yes that is a strange theory imo but the thing about the "theory" that Israel was in Egypt is that it is supported by the ancient documentation.
The writings on the patriarchs (Abraham etc) support what is known of the history of the times and visa versa. That is the sort of stuff that historians and archaeologists want in order to confirm accounts and with Israel in Egypts that is even more evident, and especially when it is combined with the archaeology of Canaan in the 14th century and what is written in the book of Joshua.
The whole thing from Abraham to end of Joshua is not confirmed specifically with documents specifically about the people mentioned etc but it is all confirmed circumstantially and even better than circumstantially as we move along in history.

Forgive me, but let me suggest that the phrase "Israel being in Egypt" is, itself, "iffy at best." I know of no one who argues that Egypt - however defined - was semite free, but I seriously doubt that any of them were running around with name tags sporting tribal designations.

If we are of a mind to believe the Biblical accounts, Israelites did know which tribe they belonged to while in Egypt.
But yes, the whole documentary hypothesis and skeptic assumptions about the truth of the supernatural and mistakes in the archaeology that put the Exodus to the 13th century and mistakes in Biblical interpretation on the conquest and etc,,,,,,,,,,,,, all this means that many people think they have a lot of solid evidence to say the Bible is wrong.
However it is really not hard to see that all this is not true. It is one mistake built on another, built on another until the Bible is shown to be historical sh*t.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
... the thing about the "theory" that Israel was in Egypt is that it is supported by the ancient documentation.

If one were to take "ancient documentation" as probative one would find oneself forced to embrace all manner of absurd claims. I suspect that you are very selective.
 
Top