FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-29-2008, 12:27 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Virtually right here where you are
Posts: 11,138
Default

<Edit> A little bit excessive don't you think, M.O.?
Also, have faith in people.
Lógos Sokratikós is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 12:45 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós View Post
<Edit> A little bit excessive don't you think, M.O.?
Also, have faith in people.
Excessive? No, the Moon thread justifies that description IMO. And have about as much faith in people as I do in God. Well, a little bit more.
makerowner is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 01:07 PM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 396
Default

There was an article in Archeology magazine in 2005 that discussed new findings that cast doubt on the town of Bethlehem being populated at the supposed time of Jesus' birth, making it unlikely that he was born there (if he was born at all. )


LL
Lazarus Long is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 01:17 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Long View Post
There was an article in Archeology magazine in 2005 that discussed new findings that cast doubt on the town of Bethlehem being populated at the supposed time of Jesus' birth, making it unlikely that he was born there (if he was born at all. )


LL
Isn't that usually said about Nazareth? Nazareth, the town that theology built.
Tammuz is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 02:47 PM   #15
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tammuz View Post

Isn't that usually said about Nazareth? Nazareth, the town that theology built.
Yes, there are historians who have concluded that Nazareth did not exist as a town until the 4th century, well after the supposed death of Jesus. They suspect that Jesus was referred to in some scripture as a Nazarite (a person who had taken a vow of holiness and was thus 'separated out' from the masses), and that it was later mistranslated to mean "a person from Nazareth", which became known as a Nazarene.

LL
Lazarus Long is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 10:37 PM   #16
Moderator - NAR
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Japan
Posts: 2,312
Default

Seems like this would be a better fit over in BC&H.
William is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 10:57 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
The Reality: Archaeological data shows that the walls of Jericho were destroyed over three hundred years before Joshua arrived.

Excuse me but the archaeological data shows that Jericho was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age c 1550 BC (roughly when the pharaoh Ahmose I chased the Hyksos (who were Semites) out of Egypt and back into Canaan. Archaeology has nothing to indicate that "Joshua" ever 'arrived.' In fact, Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University has made a pretty compelling argument that the whole story was concocted in the 7th century BC and that "Joshua" was a bit folklore that worked its way into the tale.

The only thing that makes a claim about "Joshua" is the old testament itself and that is a book which has been trashed by modern archaeology.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 04-30-2008, 07:27 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist View Post
In fact, Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University has made a pretty compelling argument that the whole story was concocted in the 7th century BC and that "Joshua" was a bit folklore that worked its way into the tale.
It is interesting that in the story of the spies who surveyed Canaan before the Israelites were to take it (Numbers 13-14), even though both Caleb and Joshua urged the Israelites to not depair and to proceed with the invasion of Canaan (Numbers 14:6-9), and both were promised entrance into Canaan (14:30,38), other verses indicate that Caleb alone was faithful and would be allowed admission to the Promised Land.

Quote:
Numbers 13:1-2; 4-6; 16b; 30-32; 14:22-24
Yahweh said to Moses, 2 "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites; from each of their ancestral tribes you shall send a man, every one a leader among them." 4 These were their names: From the tribe of Reuben, Shammua son of Zaccur; 5 from the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat son of Hori; 6 from the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Jephunneh; 7from the tribe of Issachar, Igal son of Joseph; 8 from the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea son of Nun...And Moses changed the name of Hoshea son of Nun to Joshua...25 At the end of forty days they returned from spying out the land...30 But Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, "Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it." 31 Then the men who had gone up with him {which included Joshua--JK} said, "We are not able to go up against this people, for they are stronger than we." 32 So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size...22 none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, 23 shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors; none of those who despised me shall see it. 24 But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me wholeheartedly, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it.
It appears that Joshua was added to a narrative in which originally only Caleb was the "good spy." (See also Deuteronomy 1:36.)
John Kesler is offline  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:30 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

When Israeli archaeologists gained access to Sinai after the 1967 war they ran right out to the oasis of Kadesh Barnea, where these supposed 2+ million Israelites hung out for 38 years and began digging for artifacts. The result?
They found nothing from the Late Bronze Age and only a small Iron Age fort which obviously was built much later.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:55 AM   #20
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pale Blue Dot
Posts: 463
Default

Let's also not forget that David and Solomon's Grand city of Jeruslaem was but a small insignificant village during their lifetimes (c. 1000 bce). There is absolutely no evidence of a united monarchy, nor of a vast and wealthy empire under Solomon. Any remarkable construction projects that were assumed to be from Solomon's era have been conclusively shown to be from King Omri of the northern kingdom.

The Bible is historically accurate? :rolling: Just because the writers set their stories in contemporary locations that the readers would be familiar with does not make it a historical document, any more than Godzilla is historically accurate because Tokyo exists. Plus, getting a few minor details right does not verify the supernatural aspects of the story, which I prophesy will NEVER be verified.
Darklighter is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:37 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.