Archeological evidence that "supports" the biblical stories is totally meaningless.

All mythologies have some basis in historical facts. The authors who wrote about them were inspired by real events. The fact that there really was a battle or city associated with a story in the bible does give credence to it's claims of divine intervention. All that shows is that the men who wrote the biblical stories were indeed humans who lived in ancient times and were writing stories about things that were happening around them.

But we already know that. No surprise there.

Even Greek Mythology and all other mythologies can be traced to historical events. Just like Homer's Iliad and the city of Troy. Even if the city exists and there were indeed battles there it doesn't necessarily follow that Homer's account of it is historically correct. He may very well have just used those events as inspiration to write a fantasy. Or maybe he even blew a true story way out of proportion.

Archeological evidence doesn't indicate divine intervention. Nor is it evidence for it.

It's a given that the authors of the bible actually lived in ancient times and were inspired by actual events. But this in no way supports their claims of divine intervention or divine will.

This is what you stated Spider:



You called this a central fact and you claimed archeology has confirmed the account.

You also stated:



The most agreed upon conclusion by experts is that there was an earthquake there. Not such and "extraordinary" event.

Then you later said:



When you first state that "Archeology has confirmed the account described in the Bible. Minus God, of course."

That implies that you are claiming to have PROOF... NOT EVIDENCE.

Just admit you jumped to conclusions and were wrong.

JB

You are confusing evidence and proof. Evidence points to a conclusion, it is not proof. The evidence in this situation is the archeological data. Let's review the evidence.

1) All of Jericho's walls all fell except for the northern part of the innermost wall.
2) The food and valuables were left behind
3) The city of Jericho was burned.

That evidence doesn't contradict the Biblical narrative, which means the evidence points to the Biblical narrative as the truth. Now maybe we don't have enough evidence or maybe the evidence is misleading. And, of course, the evidence doesn't prove the Biblical narrative. What the evidence does do is point us in a general direction of the truth. Whatever happened in Jericho, the city looked like the Biblical story described. That's why the evidence supports my beliefs. Evidence can support many scenarios at the same time, so it is up to the individual to judge the evidence and come to a conclusion.

The walls of Jericho fell, except for the northern wall. Just as described in the Bible.

The food and valuables were left behind. Just as described in the Bible.

The city was burned. Just as described in the Bible.

That's evidence that supports the Biblical narrative. What I posted was technically correct. The archeological record does not contradict what the Bible says Jericho looked like when the Israelites moved on. That is evidence. It's not proof that the Biblical account is what happened, but it definitely is good evidence.



What conclusion did I jump to and how was I wrong? Your own sources state that the archeological evidence does not contradict the Biblical narrative.

correct spider, that's what's being said the evidence has been looked at here and found lacking by us as "proof" of anything - just your belief. which your entitled to. but it does bring up the concern of wether or not anything you give as evidence is proof of the bible - i think not.

The evidence points to the conclusion, the evidence is not proof. You reject the conclusion that the Biblical account is accurate...okay, fine. But if you deny that the Biblical account is even a possiblity given this proof then I must question your intellectual honesty.

Actually the evidence points to the conclusion that an earthquake may have happened. There is no proof even, when it happened.

JB

you keep stating we reject the conclusion, no, we don't accept it as the answer to your statement that it is logical to assume then that this is a point your making for assurence that it's jericho - that''s all, even if i bow to the finding's that they try to assume it is - i cannot justify in my own mind that i'm doing anymore than theorizing that it could be. theory, guess, is the best that can be said.

Imagine a murder scene. Professor Plum has been killed in the study with a lead pipe. The lead pipe has the fingerprints from Mr Green and Mrs Peacock and Miss Scarlet...so that peice of evidence points to all three suspects, correct?

The evidence from Jericho points to multiple conclusions, the Biblical account is one of them

I see your reasoning here.

Except the Biblical account has the walls coming down because people were marching and blowing horns. Hummmmm... that does not sound reasonable... oh I forgot... they had help from god. hummmmm.... nope --- I don't think that sounds reasonable either.

They were carrying the Ark. Some people say that the Ark was not of this world. Okay.. lets go with that idea. Maybe it was some advanced alien technology that produced certain vibrations of sound under certain circumstances and these sounds caused the walls to crumble.

I could think of a thousand fantasy stories to match that account.

JB

A Syrian general came to Elijah and asked to be healed from his skin condition. Elijah told the man to go wash seven times in the river, which the man did and he was healed.

It wasn't the washing that cured the man, it was the fact that God asked for this sign of faith and it was performed as requested.

So knowing that, I see a couple possiblities.

1) God required the noise from the Hebrews as a sign of their faith in God. When they did as commanded, God brought the walls down.

2) The Hebrews hit the correct resonance frequency to cause the stone to shatter. The Tocoma Narrows bridge was bought down by resonance caused by the wind blowing through it's supports. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTZ446tbzE

WOW! That is SCARE EEEEE!!!

Alright. I've been reading most of the posts.. Got bored after the 3rd page or so... Look. If anyone can work this out. George Carlin could've... and here's the video that prooves once and for all... Religion... Is bullsh*t

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

The point is that it doesn't matter.

Even if the biblical story was written as a result of a particular battle where an earthquake just coincidentally happened to occur while men were sounding trumpets it still doesn't mean a thing.

That precisely how myths get started. Something coincidental happens then someone writes a story about it.

I'm totally convinced that this is how the story of Noah's flood got started. Some major abnormally large flood happened somewhere and it became a story about an angry God who wanted to flush away all the evil people. It got blown way out of proportion to including building an ark to save all the animal kingdom etc.

It isn't likely that there is any divine intervention associated with any of these stories.

After all, a God who can miraculously cure individuals from cancer has no need to flood an entire planet if he wants to get rid of sinners. All he would need to do is give them heart attacks, (or cancer). The idea that he would resort to having Noah build an ark so he can flood the entire planet is nothing short of absurd.

Some goes with the idea of a whole culture of people knowingly refusing to repent as 'individuals' for 400 years. The idea is absurd as it can be. The idea that God would allow new babies to continually be born into this society is absurd. God supposedly has to breath the soul of life into everyone one them. If he didn't like the culture and all the people were knowingly refuting him why now just make them sterile so they can't have anymore children?

The biblical stories demand that their God be stupid. They demand it. They insist upon it.

In reality the reason the stories are stupid is because they were made-up by men, not by God.

This is how we know that the biblical stories can't be true. No all-wise, all-intelligent, all-loving, all-perfect creator could be as stupid as the bible claims.

This isn't meant to be derogatory in any way. It's just an observation. The stories demand that the God they refer to doesn't have the wisdom to fix anything. All he does is let everything get wildly out of control and then blame men for it. That's not a wise God.

An all-wise Heavenly Father should know better. He should be able to deal with things more wisely than the biblical stories suggest. An intervening God who just sits by and allows 400 years to pass by with doing something to save the innocent babies that are being born into a misguided culture, is just not a wise God. There's no excuse for that. Such a "Heavenly Father" would be an abusive farther to be sure.

Im not worried about the Battle of Jericho. Im worried about the atrocities being committed against the people of Palestine and Gaza right now.

I agree

So your saying we should let genocide happen and let "GOD" fix it?? Thats just silly

Desperate times call for desparate measures

Those children had no future anyway

Its the kind of desperation you are unable to understand

Youve never lived under occupation and watched your people systematically wiped out

Ive enountered Israeli Lobbyists and their paid internet supporters I apoligize for saying that to you I dont think you are one of them

And the world is just watching and doing nothing to stop it . Shame on humanity and shame on those who preach freedom , democracy and prosperity without condemning such atrocities .