possibly the reverse side of the coin here?
Could it be that you refuse to believe anything different from your religious beliefs?

I'm not refusing to believe...you know what? It's not worth it. Your post has no relavance or connection to the previous posts. They are stating "Nope, sorry...I can't think about that." That's what I'm addressing. You are trying (in a very clumsy manner) to insult me. That's about par for course with you and I should have just ignored your post. But I always get a kick out of putting egg on your face.

I will address your claims if you will give me some references and where I can find details about these archaeologists, their claims etc.

I have heard this argument before but I have never been given the information I would need to investigate these claims. If you will give me that information, the name of a book or any other archaeologists involved I would like to look into it.

JB

Start with Kathleen Kenyon.

I have presented the arguments before and I provided names and links to internet resources.

spider answer me this if you would - is kathleene a christian or not or is she atheist?

She is a world renowned archeologist who suggests that the Biblical narrative is wrong, because Jericho was destroyed earlier than the Bible claims.

thnx spider - all i needed to know.

All religions can be catagorized as "cults". A cult is by definition the same as a religion. A belief that utilizes unseen or imaginary forces to control people. Most religions use a form of brainwashing to make the patrons believe their religion is superior to others and that all who do not believe are "lost".

The OP is trying to split them but they all fall into the catagory of a cult.

It seems like this site (Jericho) was examined by several different groups of archaeologists all who seem to have their own very different opinions, none of which conclude or prove that the Biblical account is accurate.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/kingp/jericho.html

Rather than repost this page, I will post the link to it above for anyone interested.

My conclusion is that nobody has actually proven anything about whether these expeditions of Jericho confirm the Biblical account. In fact, they all seem to have different opinions.

In reference to Kathleen Kenyon, she actually concluded that the Biblical account was not confirmed according to the link above and the following.




Other investigators of Jericho:

Charles Warren, a British engineer, in 1868, but two German archaeologists Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger carried out the first scientific excavations at Jericho from 1907-1909 John :

Final conclusion: The site was unoccupied at the time the conquest would have occurred.


John Garstang, a British archaeologist, excavated at Jericho next, because he did not agree with the Sellin and Watzinger's findings. His excavation lasted from 1930.1936.

Final conclusion: In a word, in all material details and in date the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative. Our demonstration is limited, however to material observations: the wall fell, shaken apparently by an earthquake, and the city was destroyed by fire, about 1400 B.C. These are the basic facts resulting from our investigations. The link with Joshua and the Israelites is only circumstantial but it seems to be solid and without a flaw.

Bryant Wood: With Radiocarbon dating of some pottery:

Wood makes a strong case for the accuracy of the Biblical narrative of the destruction of Jericho, but ultimately it only tells us that the events recorded in the Book of Joshua do not disagree with the archaeological record. As Time magazine noted, "Other experts find little fault with Wood's archaeology, but they are more skeptical about his linking of the evidence with Biblical events". Most scholars reject the historicity of Joshua in favor of belief in peaceful conquest. The prevailing belief in academia is that the Israelites came in far later than 1400 B.C., perhaps by two centuries, and they came "not as military conquerors bust as a wave of immigrants" (Lemonick).

In conclusion: Lots of disagreement, no proof.



JB

I said evidence, not proof. The evidence tells us "that the events recorded in the Book of Joshua do not disagree with the archaeological record." Which is what I have said all along.

Spider, some of them do, some of them don't. Kathleen Kenyon's evidence does disagree with it. All of them seem to agree that an earthquake caused the walls to fall. None of them know when this really happened or when Joshua was there.

It is still a matter of what you choose to believe. So why even bring it up in the first place?

JB

You brought up Jericho. I was offering evidence and arguments to support the Biblical narrative.

Which you failed to do. Your evidence does NOT SUPPORT the Biblical narrative at all. The fact that some of them did not completely discredit it is not support for it.

JB

JB...



You posted that.

That's evidence. Not proof. But evidence.

spider without even looking it up was clear from how your response was to me that it was not proof of anything - thaqt's all JB's saying also - donot bring up supposed support for a claim backing your belief's unless you have verifiable proof - otherwise it's very misleading to other's, you can give your opininion's all day long or quote other's correctly and if there wrong well - there wrong - ok? - i'll do the same as i believe most do here also.

I don't!!!

I still believe in dragons. lol


Have a great one everyone

Perfectly correct and to the point .

That's ridiculous. Every criminal in the world would be set free if we required proof. We require evidence. Evidence is used to support arguments. It's difficult to prove anything as it is. With your standard of evidence, we would have to do an infinite regress to prove every fact. That's not going to happen. I have been very clear that I am offering EVIDENCE, not PROOF. There is a difference.

The killing of any innocent men ,innocent women , innocent children is wrong , wrong and wrong .
Since Israel controls the US no one says it is wrong .

Yes I know what I posted spider. But that is not even evidence in support of the Biblical account.

It just states that ultimately his opinions do not "disagree" or with the Biblical account. That in NO Way means to state that is it evidence IN SUPPORT of the Biblical account.

Also, there are other researchers that disagree with his account, so it is still not supportive evidence. It is all just opinion.

So be it, you can of course believe what you choose as you know. The only reason I even looked into it at all is because you complained that I was "ignoring" your points and you wanted me to address them. So I did.

I am satisfied that your supportive evidence does not support anything, and you were offering it as "proof or evidence in support" of the Biblical account, and it is neither.

JB