steamer

Like the great flood, it is becoming more and more apparent that the Israelites never actually invaded Jericho and thus the genocide probably never occurred. If it never occurred, is this good news or bad news to Christians?

So here are two biblical accounts of genocides that didn’t occur. If you add the Egyptian first born slayings, that is a third account we have no reason to believe. Is there some reason now to assume that any of them ever did occur? Is it better to believe in a just god or a god that slaughters innocents?

Christians may argue that god’s justice is different than ours, but if it is then Christians may be tossed into hell no matter how they act or what they believe because god has a different kind of justice where innocents are punished.

Jericho

"If the dates of certain schools of archaeology are to be accepted, then scholars who link these walls to the biblical account must explain how the Israelites arrived around 1550 BC but settled four centuries later and devise a new biblical chronology that corresponds. The current opinion of many archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account."

ModernHeretic

Sorry, but where is the argument that the genocides never occured? Can you point me to a source?

steamer

Did you want an argument about the flood and the Egyptian slayings or just the Jericho genocide?

Asha'man

You should check out The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman.

Modern archaeological methods have shown that the Exodus and subsequent conquest of Canaan are purely fictional, they simply never happened.

steamer

Nor did the supposed god-ordered genocides. To me, this ought to be good news for Christians. I suspect though that it is not. If only there were some Christian around to tell me what they think about it.

espritch

If some alleged Christians did show up to offer their opinion, how would you know they were True Christians(tm)?

steamer

I'd settle for a self-proclaimed Christian at this point.

Cheerful Charlie

It is pretty much agreed by Near Eastern archaeologists that much of the bible is not history. There was no Egyptian captivity, no exodus, no Moses, no invasion of Canaan. The Isrealites were typical Canaanites who created hill top farms in iron age Israel and were not invaders at all.

A very good primer is the book "Out of the Desert? - Archeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives" by William H. Steibing Jr. There is a vast bibliography for follow up study.

All the savageries of Exodus - Joshua existed only on paper, fantasies from fevered imaginations of ancient billygoat herder priests with some agenda.
If there is a God, these freaks slandered him badly, starting 2700 years ago.

"From Nomadism to Monarchy - Archeology and Historical Aspects of Ancient Israel"
by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman is an excellent read too, concentrating on where Israel did come from. Not Egypt.

Early Israel was a nation of typical Canaanites hardly distinguishable from their neighbors. Not a people that starting with 70 persons, growing to 2 1/2 millions in Egypt over 430 years as per the Bible.

Then many cities Moses and Joshua suppsedly destroyed were mostly abandoned ruins centuries before the first Israelites show up in history. The Bible is faux history.


CC

Joan of Bark

Even Robert L. Friedman, in his Commentary on the Torah, agrees that the invasion of Canaan did not take place. Of course, as a YHWH apologist, he'll use any argument to defend his belief in a just god.

windsofchange

Moved to BC&H as I think it's a better fit there.