• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Walls Of Jericho; Explain to me or Wonder as I do...

Somerville said:
First we have a problem with dating the existence of a people called "Israelites" as the most recent archaeology reports seem to show a religious group developing out of an earlier culture and not being an invading force but just societal changes within a group.

Second, the most recent findings show that there was little, if any, occupation of the site called Jericho at the time closest to the days of the Biblical story. Some academics have pushed the idea that whoever wrote the tale of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho was familiar with the ruins of the city and simply pasted their own explanation onto the ruins as yet another 'support' for their religious beliefs.

Rahab is just another fictional character in a text filled with myths, fantasies and history. Very little in the field of archaeology actually confirms much of the 'history' found in the Pentateuch. It is only after the 10th Century BCE that archaeology and the Old Testament begin to converge and even in that century and up to the Return from Babylon there is much which has found little confirmation.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, 'Bible and archaeology' is what a call a 'psuedo archaeology' site. In the case of Jericho, it ignores all the research that show Jericho fell long for the Canaanites were there, and that during the time of the the supposed exodus, Jericho did not HAVE walls.
 
Grand Mal said:
Seriously? You accept what that guy says? That's the wrong answer. You either believe what's in the Bible or you don't and whatever some blogger has to say about what God really meant should be irrelevant. Honestly, that, what you cited, is one of the most paper-thin, trivializing, uncaringly inaccurate apologies I've ever read.
Click to expand...


What apologies are you referring to? No one is trying to make an apology. Nor is this being trivialized.

Wrong! One does not have to take things literally just because it's written in the Bible - unless it's obviously meant to be taken literally.
One has to do some research/study to find out more about it, since the Bible is also filled with metaphors and poetry.

And no, you're wrong. This isn't merely a blog. It's a study, based on references. It's an attempt to find out, in what sense did the sun stop!
Read the rest of the conclusion - it's too long to post.


Explain how the article is, "uncaringly inaccurate!"
How do you find an article that gave several possibilities (explaining each and every possibility), "paper-thin?" What would be paper-thin is to simply say, "It was a miracle." And leave it at that.....just like your claim!
You don't simply make claims like that without any explanation to support your claim!

Oh, you say it's the wrong answer. Tell me what you think is the right answer?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
What apologies are you referring to? No one is trying to make an apology. Nor is this being trivialized.

Wrong! One does not have to take things literally just because it's written in the Bible - unless it's obviously meant to be taken literally.
One has to do some research/study to find out more about it, since the Bible is also filled with metaphors and poetry.

And no, you're wrong. This isn't merely a blog. It's a study, based on references.


Tell me what you think is the right answer?
Click to expand...

The right answer, for me, is that the story is hyperbole, an attempt to demonstrate the absolute degree of God's support for the Israelites. Obviously, the story would be different if written by a Canaanite.
Do you accept what that guy wrote? Which explanation, he offers seven, if I remember right. He has trouble separating 'rotation' from 'revolution' occasionally, but that's splitting hairs. So which interpretation is the right one, or did God just slow the earth's rotation to allow time for a genocidal slaughter?
 
Grand Mal said:
The right answer, for me, is that the story is hyperbole, an attempt to demonstrate the absolute degree of God's support for the Israelites. Obviously, the story would be different if written by a Canaanite.
Do you accept what that guy wrote? Which explanation, he offers seven, if I remember right. He has trouble separating 'rotation' from 'revolution' occasionally, but that's splitting hairs. So which interpretation is the right one, or did God just slow the earth's rotation to allow time for a genocidal slaughter?
Click to expand...

It is possible for God to have done any of those things cited. Why not?

And it needn't be supported or validated by science....unless God wants to. On the same token, why can't it be an hyperbole?


It's futile to speculate on this particular issue.
 
Last edited:
Divergent said:
Why do Christians celebrate taking Jericho? The story seems morbid to me and I'm Christian..

They were scared to death of Christians so they put up the walls due to us Christians. Once us Christians broke down the wall, we killed every man, woman, child and animal except for a prostitute and her friends.....
Click to expand...

What on Earth are you talking about ???
 
tosca1 said:
It is possible for God to have done any of those things cited. Why not?

And it needn't be supported or validated by science....unless God wants to. On the same token, why can't it be an hyperbole?


It's futile to speculate on this particular issue.
Click to expand...

It's not futile, it's a discussion. We don't have a decision to make here.
It's possible, yes, for God to have done any of those things. So why propose them as possibilities? Why not just say it happened as described in the Bible?
It's just the Israelites justifying the slaughter. Nothing more.
 
tosca1 said:
This is a very long article.


The language that Joshua uses in addressing the sun and moon is the language of ordinary observation still used today in the scientific age. Probably Joshua and his contemporaries thought of the sun as moving around the earth, but his language should not be pressed to construct a "view of the universe" any more than should todays reference to the rising and setting of the sun (Marten Woodstra, The Book of Joshua, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans: 1981, p. 175).

Some people feel that Joshua made a scientifically accurate request.

We might say, "How little Joshua knew." But he knew his God! He knew that God had promised to go before His people to fight their battles and give them victory (Joshua 10:8). And in this battle he saw victory in its grasp, but time was running out. If he didnt conquer the enemy before dark, they would regroup and attack Israel the next day.

Knowing his God, his Gods power, and his Gods promise, he called out to God for help, and in the presence of all Israel, he commanded the "sun to stand still." But the sun was already standing still, Joshua. It is the earth that moves, not the sun. Why didnt Joshua cry out, "Earth quit moving," or "Earth, slow down your spinning on your axis to prolong time."

Joshua had no idea that his command slowed down 6.6 sextrillion tons of spinning gravel and water to give Israel victory over her enemies. But Joshua did know something that God had revealed to him. Over 3,000 years ago he said something that would have met the approval of todays scientific establishment.
His command in the Hebrew language was not "Sun, stand thou still," but "Sun, cease acting, or "Sun, stop working." It was then that the gravitational pull of the sun affected the earth. It was then the earth began to slow down and the day was lengthened (Robert Boyd, Boyds Bible Handbook, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1983 p. 124).

It is not necessary to assume Joshua was scientifically sophisticated. It is more likely that God honored the spirit of his request than to assume Joshua had some scientific insight that was not shared by the people of his day.



Conclusion

We have seen that there are a variety of explanations to Joshuas long day without having to admit to scientific error. Although several of these views are possible, the theory that the sun actually slowed down its movement seems to be the best way of looking at the evidence. Leon Wood writes:



https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_625.cfm
Click to expand...

It's a good thing that this "God" became mute and now ignores us completely otherwise who knows what trials he would be putting us through today. Thankfully we can look on all of this as simple fairytale nonsense made up by storytellers and there is no one to tell us otherwise. Back then there was actually a reason to care about a God since he was liable to strike you dead if you ignored him....today not so much. God reminds me of Puff the Magic Dragon. I guess we all just grew up and he just went away never to be seen or heard from again. Even the Pope realizes that the Bible is just a story and warns us that it is not to be taken literally. Sort of sad really, it must have been nice to have a voice from above telling you what to do.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
It's not futile, it's a discussion. We don't have a decision to make here.
It's possible, yes, for God to have done any of those things. So why propose them as possibilities? Why not just say it happened as described in the Bible?
It's just the Israelites justifying the slaughter. Nothing more.
Click to expand...


Why propose the possibilities? Because you brought it up, remember? From out of the blue, you asked me a question, and you pursued it.



Grand Mal said:
Did God really make the earth stop rotating?

tosca1 said:
Wasn't it the sun that was commanded to stand still?


Joshua 10:12-14
Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:
Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jasher?
So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hastened to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded a voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
Click to expand...

Grand Mal

But when that was written people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Now we know that the earth revolves around the sun.
Don't we?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



So I gave you the article that gives all sorts of possibilities.

I suppose it would've been easier to just say that it happened as written in the Bible - but then, that would've ended the discussion.....because to say that it happened in a specific way, would be just speculations. There is no proof.

You're speculating that, "It's just the Israelites justifying the slaughter. Nothing more." With no proof to back it up!

Surely you don't expect me to take that as fact, just because you think that's what happened? What do you expect me to say?
That, you're right?

Actually, that there are evidences that support the narrative in the Bible (as written)....gives support to the possibility that God had performed a miracle about that! And the fact that there are some evidences that support the narrative.....provide evidence to the possibility that you're wrong in your speculation!



If God had indeed helped the Israelites in their victory like making the walls crumble - why would you think He'd stop at performing that miracle?

If we're going to discuss this, it will have to be along that rational vein.
But it'd still be speculations - although the possibility exists that it did happened as written in the Scriptures since there are scientific evidences that support the narrative as written.
 
Last edited:
Chagos said:
awfercryinoutloud.

Whole thing never happened but in the grasping at any straw we gotta even consider this puerile crap.:roll:
Click to expand...

prove the archeology is wrong. archeology has verified that it did happen.
so if you want to say that the archeology is wrong please post your authority on the matter.
PS this is your authority not someone else's.
 
iguanaman said:
It's a good thing that this "God" became mute and now ignores us completely otherwise who knows what trials he would be putting us through today. Thankfully we can look on all of this as simple fairytale nonsense made up by storytellers and there is no one to tell us otherwise. Back then there was actually a reason to care about a God since he was liable to strike you dead if you ignored him....today not so much. God reminds me of Puff the Magic Dragon. I guess we all just grew up and he just went away never to be seen or heard from again. Even the Pope realizes that the Bible is just a story and warns us that it is not to be taken literally. Sort of sad really, it must have been nice to have a voice from above telling you what to do.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant!


You're rambling....
 
ludin said:
prove the archeology is wrong. archeology has verified that it did happen.
so if you want to say that the archeology is wrong please post your authority on the matter.
PS this is your authority not someone else's.
Click to expand...
Read the article that was linked to in post #9

Read it in its entirety.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
hortysir said:
As a Christian, the main thing I "celebrate" about the story of Jericho is that the book of Joshua is a place in the OT that I can point to as an appearance of Jesus prior to the NT
Click to expand...

Says who? Quote the verse
Click to expand...



Joshua 5:13 - 15 (NRSV)
Joshua’s Vision
13 Once when Joshua was by Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing before him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you one of us, or one of our adversaries?” 14 He replied, “Neither; but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and he said to him, “What do you command your servant, my lord?” 15 The commander of the army of the Lord said to Joshua, “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.

You can "point to it" but that don't make it so. When one believes something to be "true", the historical background of a document seems to lose all other understandings.

I and many others disagree with the modern evangelical interpretations of an ancient text which are used by the evangelicals to show us the "prophecies" found in the earlier texts are fulfilled in the stories told in the Gospels. The scholarly understanding of the Jewish texts is one which says the early Christian apologists incorporated the ancient words into their writings in order to provide additional support for their theology.
 
zyzygy said:
The Skeptical Review Online - The Walls Of Jericho / Part Two - Author Brett Palmer
Click to expand...


Here 's the title of your source:


Deconstructing James Patrick Holding’s Evidence of Jericho


He's reacting to James Patrick Holding. I don't know what Holding's evidences are. I gave different sources, one is from the NY Times with quotes from relevant sources:




Dr. Lawrence Stager, professor of archeology in Israel at Harvard University, said: ''On the whole, the archeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction, and the date isn't too far wrong.''

Like many scholars, Dr. Ephraim Isaac, director of the Institute of Semitic Studies in Princeton, N.J., said attempts to establish the historical reality of biblical stories were irresistible, and sometimes successful ''There is no doubt that a good deal of information found in the Bible has a
grain of truth in it,'' Dr. Isaac said. ''However, we should be careful in trying to correlate biblical stories and archeological data.''

.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html]Believers Score in Battle Over the Battle of Jericho - NYTimes.com
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
What a very bizarre interpretation. IT's an angel of the lord, not Jesus.
Click to expand...
A mere angel would never consider itself to be on holy ground and to be bowed to.
Angels are only messengers
 
tosca1 said:
Here 's the title of your source:


Deconstructing James Patrick Holding’s Evidence of Jericho


He's reacting to James Patrick Holding. I don't know what Holding's evidences are. I gave different sources, one is from the NY Times with quotes from relevant sources:




Dr. Lawrence Stager, professor of archeology in Israel at Harvard University, said: ''On the whole, the archeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction, and the date isn't too far wrong.''

Like many scholars, Dr. Ephraim Isaac, director of the Institute of Semitic Studies in Princeton, N.J., said attempts to establish the historical reality of biblical stories were irresistible, and sometimes successful ''There is no doubt that a good deal of information found in the Bible has a
grain of truth in it,'' Dr. Isaac said. ''However, we should be careful in trying to correlate biblical stories and archeological data.''

.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html]Believers Score in Battle Over the Battle of Jericho - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

This is warning people not to do as you have done. Assume the tiniest grain means the whole countryside is corn.
 
Manc Skipper said:
This is warning people not to do as you have done. Assume the tiniest grain means the whole countryside is corn.
Click to expand...

At least, there's a grain of evidence to base one's assumption....compared to an assumption that's based on nothing at all! :lol:


Let that be the food for thought today.
 
tosca1 said:
At least, there's a grain of evidence to base one's assumption....compared to an assumption that's based on nothing at all! :lol:


Let that be the food for thought today.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A chain of ever greater castles built on a single grain. Such foolishness is to be avoided is what they are saying.
 
hortysir said:
A mere angel would never consider itself to be on holy ground and to be bowed to.
Angels are only messengers
Click to expand...

However, it was not the angel that demanding bowing down, but Joshusa in awe of the power of the lord. Indeed, Rambam's commentary on the passage (Rambam is one of the mediviael Jewish Commentators), associated that 'Captain of the Hosts' with the angel named "michael'.

Yehoshua - Chapter 5 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
 
RAMOSS said:
However, it was not the angel that demanding bowing down, but Joshusa in awe of the power of the lord. Indeed, Rambam's commentary on the passage (Rambam is one of the mediviael Jewish Commentators), associated that 'Captain of the Hosts' with the angel named "michael'.

Yehoshua - Chapter 5 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Click to expand...
I've heard that theory and I'm not dismissing it, either.
Just seems out of character for Michael to say he is worthy of holy ground status.
 
hortysir said:
I've heard that theory and I'm not dismissing it, either.
Just seems out of character for Michael to say he is worthy of holy ground status.
Click to expand...

And, how can you tell??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom