rainerann
Star
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 4,550
Jericho is the famous city from the book of Joshua. We are told the city fell after the Hebrews had walked around it for seven days because the Lord had delivered the city into their hands.
There are two problems with this account based on archeology investigations of this site. The first problem is that the site demonstrates signs of human civilization around 10,000 BC with evidence of small tools from around this time in the area. This would be a problem if you believe the Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old. However, it is debatable whether the Bible is trying to assert the age of the earth. link
The second problem is the city of Jericho that fits the description in the Bible was destroyed in the 15th century BC. There is no evidence of a city within the range of 1400 to 1200 BC like Bible archeologists expect.
There is little to no evidence that a city was rebuilt after the destruction of the city from the middle bronze age until around 9th century BC (link). In theory, this would mirror what scripture says because Joshua placed a curse on whoever tried to rebuild this city.
"At that time Joshua imposed this curse: The man who undertakes the rebuilding of this city, Jericho, is cursed before the Lord. He will lay its foundation at the cost of his firstborn; he will set up its gates at the cost of his youngest." (Joshua 6:26).
However, the book of Numbers says that two and a half tribes were supposed to receive an inheritance from Jericho and eastward towards the sunrise (Numbers 34:15).
Joshua 16:11 mentions Jericho in the description of Joseph's inheritance.
"The allotment for the descendants of Joseph went from the Jordan at Jericho to the waters of Jericho on the east, through the wilderness ascending from Jericho into the hill country of Bethel."
Whether or not there was a curse placed on whoever tried to rebuild the city, the city was still useful in determining the boundaries of the Hebrews presence following the destruction of Jericho. There is no evidence that Jericho was useful in creating boundaries for this purpose.
In addition to this, there is the problem of Ai. Both cities were supposedly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua.
"Ai, ancient Canaanite town destroyed by the Israelites under their leader Joshua (Joshua 7–8). Biblical references agree in locating Ai (Hebrew: ha-ʿAy, “The Ruin”) just east of Bethel (modern Baytīn in the West Bank). This would make it identical with the large early Bronze Age site now called At-Tall. Excavations there in 1933–35 by a French expedition uncovered a large temple and other remains of the 3rd millennium BC. That occupation ended about 2500 BC, and there was no later reoccupation except briefly in the 12th–11th century BC. The biblical events, however, are usually assigned to a period between about 1400 and 1200 BC. A widely accepted explanation is that early Israelite tradition identified the Canaanite town that was buried under the Israelite Bethel with the imposing ruins of the still earlier At-Tall, only 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to the east." link
There are several problems with this description that are in addition to the obvious one that is admitted. The description in the Bible is pointing toward the remains of a city that didn't exist in the time of Joshua. This is the number one. Really, this already creates a closed case for the book of Joshua as a historical document if the description for where to find this city is inaccurate.
The other problem is that all of these sites would also have to correspond with the site that is confirmed to be the city of Jericho that was destroyed in the 15th century BC, which is not being acknowledged in the alternate hypothesis of a buried city. I don't know what the resistance is to admitting that Jericho was destroyed in the middle bronze age. The timeline either fits with when Jericho was destroyed or it doesn't.
If a city was found buried between 1400 to 1200 BC, this city would have had to be destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua according to the Bible, which would mean a minimum of 50 years between the defeat of Jericho and the defeat of AI if a city is found buried. This hypothesis has to jump through more than a few hoops to gain credibility.
If we continue further, we find that archeology is finding problems with just about every city that was supposedly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua. None of them are creating a picture that says that this happened during the lifetime of one person.
Dating the destruction of the city of Jericho to the middle bronze age creates a domino effect that upsets the whole book of Joshua as a historical perspective, and this isn't going to go away. I have loved the book of Joshua as much as the next person for many years. It has always inspired me to believe that major wars were not necessary. The only thing that is necessary is the pursuit of righteousness and many things could be accomplished with a small handful of people. However, archeology of Biblical accounts is still in its infancy and within the next 100 years, many things will change considering that the information they are producing is not supporting the premise that the book of Joshua is a historical document.
Personally, I think the church should try to take the bull by the horns because if they don't, they are going to be run over the bull. There is a reason why the Bible is so popular and it is because it works, but it works about as well as having an ox plow a field. It gets you somewhere, but the work probably could be accomplished quicker and more efficiently.
We don't want to trade one sort of ignorance for another, which is what ecumenism would do. Thinking that you can pick a sufficient truth like you can pick a lottery number is exchanging one sort of ignorance for another. In theory, if you can prove that the Bible is not a historical document through archeological efforts, you can justify promoting the idea that we can just grab a truth from here or there and it will good enough to create a postmodern religion like ecumenism and this is just one potential outcome.
However, archeology is not like postmodernist ideas. It is a science that doesn't care about your emotions the same way germ theory doesn't care if you would prefer to think someone with a fever is possessed by a devil. It would help us create a greater foundation that would help us refine the canon so that we could plow a field with a modern plow rather than using an ox and plow.
In addition to this, it is interesting to note that this whole problem would be solved if the names of the Pharaohs had been included in the book of Genesis and Exodus. None of this would be a problem if they had just included the name of the Pharoah who reigned during the lifetime of Abraham, Joseph, or Moses.
Considering the fame of the Egyptian leaders throughout the ancient world, it can be assumed that these names were intentionally left out so that identifying this time period historically would be close to impossible to do without a great deal of effort.
Why would someone want to do this? Thinking very soberly, the Gospel message has been the most effective way to create equality within a community. So it is very possible that there are many things we should reconsider like this throughout that Bible that exist as a way to control a community by necessitating a source of authority to pacify the confusion that is created by not giving the names for the Pharaohs, etc., etc.
If the Bible creates questions, then this requires someone to exist as a source of authority, like the pope for example. If the Bible answers its own questions and cannot be questioned by archeologists or scientists no matter where they dig or what theories they assume, then there is no need for one person to exist as authority over another.
We need to use archeology to our advantage to remove all forms of false authority or idolatry, rather than allow archeology to run us over and assert a different authority, which exchanges one sort of ignorance for another.
I would hope that some people will seriously consider what I am saying with patience and I also recognize that others will become like devils themselves as the result of what I am saying. However, as I said already, this is not going to go away no matter what you call me or how much you whine and complain about the evidence that is being produced by archeologists right now.
There are two problems with this account based on archeology investigations of this site. The first problem is that the site demonstrates signs of human civilization around 10,000 BC with evidence of small tools from around this time in the area. This would be a problem if you believe the Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old. However, it is debatable whether the Bible is trying to assert the age of the earth. link
The second problem is the city of Jericho that fits the description in the Bible was destroyed in the 15th century BC. There is no evidence of a city within the range of 1400 to 1200 BC like Bible archeologists expect.
There is little to no evidence that a city was rebuilt after the destruction of the city from the middle bronze age until around 9th century BC (link). In theory, this would mirror what scripture says because Joshua placed a curse on whoever tried to rebuild this city.
"At that time Joshua imposed this curse: The man who undertakes the rebuilding of this city, Jericho, is cursed before the Lord. He will lay its foundation at the cost of his firstborn; he will set up its gates at the cost of his youngest." (Joshua 6:26).
However, the book of Numbers says that two and a half tribes were supposed to receive an inheritance from Jericho and eastward towards the sunrise (Numbers 34:15).
Joshua 16:11 mentions Jericho in the description of Joseph's inheritance.
"The allotment for the descendants of Joseph went from the Jordan at Jericho to the waters of Jericho on the east, through the wilderness ascending from Jericho into the hill country of Bethel."
Whether or not there was a curse placed on whoever tried to rebuild the city, the city was still useful in determining the boundaries of the Hebrews presence following the destruction of Jericho. There is no evidence that Jericho was useful in creating boundaries for this purpose.
In addition to this, there is the problem of Ai. Both cities were supposedly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua.
"Ai, ancient Canaanite town destroyed by the Israelites under their leader Joshua (Joshua 7–8). Biblical references agree in locating Ai (Hebrew: ha-ʿAy, “The Ruin”) just east of Bethel (modern Baytīn in the West Bank). This would make it identical with the large early Bronze Age site now called At-Tall. Excavations there in 1933–35 by a French expedition uncovered a large temple and other remains of the 3rd millennium BC. That occupation ended about 2500 BC, and there was no later reoccupation except briefly in the 12th–11th century BC. The biblical events, however, are usually assigned to a period between about 1400 and 1200 BC. A widely accepted explanation is that early Israelite tradition identified the Canaanite town that was buried under the Israelite Bethel with the imposing ruins of the still earlier At-Tall, only 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to the east." link
There are several problems with this description that are in addition to the obvious one that is admitted. The description in the Bible is pointing toward the remains of a city that didn't exist in the time of Joshua. This is the number one. Really, this already creates a closed case for the book of Joshua as a historical document if the description for where to find this city is inaccurate.
The other problem is that all of these sites would also have to correspond with the site that is confirmed to be the city of Jericho that was destroyed in the 15th century BC, which is not being acknowledged in the alternate hypothesis of a buried city. I don't know what the resistance is to admitting that Jericho was destroyed in the middle bronze age. The timeline either fits with when Jericho was destroyed or it doesn't.
If a city was found buried between 1400 to 1200 BC, this city would have had to be destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua according to the Bible, which would mean a minimum of 50 years between the defeat of Jericho and the defeat of AI if a city is found buried. This hypothesis has to jump through more than a few hoops to gain credibility.
If we continue further, we find that archeology is finding problems with just about every city that was supposedly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua. None of them are creating a picture that says that this happened during the lifetime of one person.
Dating the destruction of the city of Jericho to the middle bronze age creates a domino effect that upsets the whole book of Joshua as a historical perspective, and this isn't going to go away. I have loved the book of Joshua as much as the next person for many years. It has always inspired me to believe that major wars were not necessary. The only thing that is necessary is the pursuit of righteousness and many things could be accomplished with a small handful of people. However, archeology of Biblical accounts is still in its infancy and within the next 100 years, many things will change considering that the information they are producing is not supporting the premise that the book of Joshua is a historical document.
Personally, I think the church should try to take the bull by the horns because if they don't, they are going to be run over the bull. There is a reason why the Bible is so popular and it is because it works, but it works about as well as having an ox plow a field. It gets you somewhere, but the work probably could be accomplished quicker and more efficiently.
We don't want to trade one sort of ignorance for another, which is what ecumenism would do. Thinking that you can pick a sufficient truth like you can pick a lottery number is exchanging one sort of ignorance for another. In theory, if you can prove that the Bible is not a historical document through archeological efforts, you can justify promoting the idea that we can just grab a truth from here or there and it will good enough to create a postmodern religion like ecumenism and this is just one potential outcome.
However, archeology is not like postmodernist ideas. It is a science that doesn't care about your emotions the same way germ theory doesn't care if you would prefer to think someone with a fever is possessed by a devil. It would help us create a greater foundation that would help us refine the canon so that we could plow a field with a modern plow rather than using an ox and plow.
In addition to this, it is interesting to note that this whole problem would be solved if the names of the Pharaohs had been included in the book of Genesis and Exodus. None of this would be a problem if they had just included the name of the Pharoah who reigned during the lifetime of Abraham, Joseph, or Moses.
Considering the fame of the Egyptian leaders throughout the ancient world, it can be assumed that these names were intentionally left out so that identifying this time period historically would be close to impossible to do without a great deal of effort.
Why would someone want to do this? Thinking very soberly, the Gospel message has been the most effective way to create equality within a community. So it is very possible that there are many things we should reconsider like this throughout that Bible that exist as a way to control a community by necessitating a source of authority to pacify the confusion that is created by not giving the names for the Pharaohs, etc., etc.
If the Bible creates questions, then this requires someone to exist as a source of authority, like the pope for example. If the Bible answers its own questions and cannot be questioned by archeologists or scientists no matter where they dig or what theories they assume, then there is no need for one person to exist as authority over another.
We need to use archeology to our advantage to remove all forms of false authority or idolatry, rather than allow archeology to run us over and assert a different authority, which exchanges one sort of ignorance for another.
I would hope that some people will seriously consider what I am saying with patience and I also recognize that others will become like devils themselves as the result of what I am saying. However, as I said already, this is not going to go away no matter what you call me or how much you whine and complain about the evidence that is being produced by archeologists right now.
Last edited: