Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:48:44 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qgu8e4d6l0ljm43khk9iq8c97np4qa5noh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:00:58 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e32vb4h40rr3tjoi5q4h309a6aiqocj1ed@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:34:42 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i2jtb45lojh6plftt5rjemgk7i9e47gi4g@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:00:12 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ejisb4pqiv86i3g7p82br643q16l7u74ii@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 01:01:54 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtqpb4ldq7ba7nahkjes2h7v1sc3ja26i8@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:20:37 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

[snip]
I see. No comment from you. Strange that.

I've shown you the evidence at Jericho. It's very,
very detailed, and accurate.

No, it is not that detailed and, most importantly, it does not match
the biblical dates.

I don't agree with you at all,

I don't care whether you agree or not - those are the scientific
results.

Scientific results, no. The archaeologists are the science
persons, not "the majority" that you claim are for your
date.

Well, archaeologists are not really scientists. They hand their finds
to scientists for dating, usually by radiocarbon dating.

Bob, I've shown you that Jericho has been dated by
radiocarbon dating to 1400 B.C. by Woods "plus
or minus 40 years" most recently by Woods.

And very few accept that figure because it is anomalous, the
overwhelming majority of test put the destruction of Jericho at around
1600BC.

Very few liberal people.

I don't know what political persuasion the scientists are. I don't
even know what religious persuasion they are. But I do know that they
are proper scientists who publish their results in proper peer
reviewed publications.

I've
shown you that he used 4 methods to date the site,
also.

He set out to fit the date with his interpretation of the bible. This
is the thing that, above all others, discredits not only his work but
that of many others as well.

I'm afraid that your liberalism is making you think that,
to the point that you are missing the truth. Woods is the
very one that is quoted in here by a poster that opposes
me,

Ah! Only in that Woods himself points out that his is very much a
minority view.

that says there is new information that people have
about Jericho. Are you not aware of that? In his position,
he can't afford not to include all information. I have
reported to you accurately the date that the site has been
tested at,

Nooooooooo. What you have given is the date he has chosen to publish.
It differs from most others. He admits few agree with him.

not once but many times, and you don't
understand how they are arriving at the other dates
that you have been quoting.

Yes I do.

This man has tested the
date by 4 accepted ways, and they all test to 1400. What
you keep quoting are people who date it according to
when Hyksos people did whatever. The Hyksos are not
the Israelites. They are Semitic but not Israelite Jews.

The dating to 1600BC is achieved by:-

1) Radiocarbon dating of the wood and other bio material from the
layer.

2) Radiometric dating of the pottery recovered from the layer.

3) Dating by either of the above methods of material found above and
below the burnt layer.

4) Dating of finds from the layers by other respected archeological
methods.

5) Comparison of finds with other sites in the area.

I've given you websites showing actual pictures
that show what I've told to you about the site,

You just don't get it do you? The websites you give are not credible
in this matter. What you need are cites to proper peer reviewed
articles.

And yet you still cannot come up with any proper peer reviewed
articles on the subject.

I've given you articles from people that actually have
been there and have seen what is there, Bob.

But not peer reviewed. I wonder why?

Someone
sitting in a building somewhere that is liberal that
reads only liberal articles is not a very good judge of
things. I read all the articles, liberal, conservative, and
everything. Can you read articles on both sides and
remain neutral?

I am about as conservative as it is possible to get.

I am beginning to think that you can't
do that.

What I do is to follow the scientific publications.

Woods includes all things, even things where
he says something is controversial and about others
that have other opinions other than his opinion. Unger
also does that in his writings (Unger died a few years
ago, but his works are still updated and published).
That's why anything written by Unger is so accepted.

including
pictures of the base of the walls, diagrams of the wall
that made stairstep-like entrance into the city, exactly
like it says in the Bible and also not some, but all of the
criteria met.

What criteria? That it matches a book of bronze age fairy stories?

Now what would a person call this kind of reasoning
from you? We spend a lot of time showing that
something is what is in the Bible, and when we get
there,

You haven't yet - that is your problem.

all you can do is slam the Bible and call it a
bronze age fairy story book.

I try to call a spade a spade.

It is with the scientific results that I side.

It is by the acceptable scientific methods of dating a
place that have been followed, Bob.

And by those accepted methods the date of the destruction of Jericho
has been calculated at around 1600BC.

Look into it and see why they are saying that, Bob.
Look in Wikipedia. It says that Kenyon's date says
there was no occupation of Jericho in 1400.

Correct.

She
totally ignores that Garstang dated it with C-14.
Then Wood also does that and finds 1400.

But the majority (by a long mark) of tests done agree with her's.

Her idea
is based on the Hyksos, which she thinks is the Israelites.

When are you going to understand that the people you call the
Israelites evolved out of the population of Canaan much later - about
1200-1000 BC.

But since Kenyon's work (and she did do many things
good) more of the city has been excavated, and people
going by her date are behind the current findings,

Wrong again.

including scarabs, pottery, etc. If you notice, whoever
wrote the article doesn't supply how the date of 1500
is arrived at. Do you see that? The person sums up
by just going by Kenyon's date alone and says "Clearly,
the destruction of City IV Jericho and the destruction
of Jericho by Joshua cannot be the same event if they
are separated by 150 years." Now, that doesn't even
match your own date of 1600!

The date is, IIRC, given as 1580BC +20/-30 years. 1600BC is just a
nice round figure that fits in that range.

No information is
given as to how the date was even arrived at. What
kind of truth is that?

Better than yours. Her work was published in proper journals, go and
look it up if you want.

Oh, but someone can come along
and say, "Gotta watch these Christians, because they
want the evidence to match what the Bible says!"

Ah...but then this article takes Woods to task, and
makes this amazing charge. It says that Woods says
in only 4 lines what his evidence is, and that it "does
not stand up to scrutiny." Well...what was in those
4 lines? The dating of the pottery, the radiocarbon
dating (!), and such things as this. Yes, it won't stand
up to scrutiny by someone that has blinders on, that's
for sure. So this person goes back to thinking that
Kenyon is right...and why? It's also amaaaaazing
that City IV Jericho exists if it was not occupied
as Kenyon claims. There's pottery, scarabs, grain,
a layer of ash, houses on the wall (which Kenyon
never saw I don't think), a base for the walls that
has been discovered...but she says it was not
occupied. Interesting! So, this writer says that
Woods ideas "must be rejected."

The "city" (oh I do have using that word for what was, at best, a very
small town) on that site was destroyed by earthquake and fire by
1550BC at the latest. Nothing more, even remotely resembling a "city",
was built on that site again for about 350 years. It may have been a
necropolis at one point, it may have had a few huts there at times,
but for most of those 350 years it was unused.

But Wood rebutted. Alas, his pottery dating, the
radiocarbon date was given...and such...these
things are unconvincing? Amazing...utterly amazing.
And now they conclude "The scholarly consensus
....brrrhhhemmm....says (fanfare) 1550 B.C. (The
scholarly consensus in the past has also said 1800 B.C.,
1250 B.C., 1600 + B.C., etc.) This person bases the
"Settling the Dispute" date on one piece of carbon -
ONE piece of carbon out of the whole site, that is
in a museum, and probably contaminated by now
anyway. But it's not dated by when it burned, it is
dated by when it was grown. And it was grown
150 years before the destruction date of the
supposedly uninhabited city full of pottery and
homes and grain. Couldn't someone figure out
that one piece of carbon could have been present
in a city that is on top of another city that is on
top of another city that is on top of another city
that is on top of another city in a tell that was
disturbed when excavation began unearthing it?
I guess not.

Guessing doesn't work.

but it is right that you
should express what you feel is right. I do feel that
you are not fair with your assessment of the
archaeological findings.

Hard luck, the science is good, has been confirmed by most researchers
and is generally accepted by all except those that demand "The science
must match the bible because that is the only truth."

It's the other way around, Bob. But you still don't get
something. If the writers wrote the Old Testament in
the 7th Century as you are claiming, and the tell at
Jericho was still covered up deeply with dirt, even if
word was passed down by word of mouth, what was
written down turns out to be accurate to the last detail,

Rubbish. No Joshua, no exodus, no invasion of Canaan, no battle of
Jericho and no walls tumbling down as a result of trumpet blaring.

Neither I, nor does the Bible say that the walls fell
because of the blasting of trumpets. It says that the
people were told to march around 7 days 7 times,
blowing trumpets and that when they did that, the
walls would fall. It never says those things caused
the walls to fall, only that it would happen.

You are pathetic at times. Have you never heard of cause and effect?

You still don't get it. The Bible does not say that there
was no earthquake.

Well you would have thought they would have mentioned it - big things
earthquakes, especially one large enough to wipe out a walled "city".

GARSTANG reported there was an
earthquake. There is no earthshaking news that is new
saying that there was an earthquake that shook up that
layer of the city. It was reported long ago by Garstang.

So?


The walls
fell because they believed God and did exactly what
he told them to do.

He is a fictional character, one invented by primitive man to explain
things that those men could not explain. As such "he" could not tell
people to do anything.

He answered their faith by
bringing about the collapse of the walls.

He is a fictional character, one invented by primitive man to explain
things that those men could not explain. As such "he" could not
actually "do" anything.

It does not
say that he didn't do that with an earthquake.

Earthquakes are a natural event, nobody can control them.

It does
not say that he did it with an earthquake either.

He is a fictional character, one invented by primitive man to explain
things that those men could not explain. As such "he" could not
actually "do" anything.

It
simply is not mentioned that there was an earthquake,
if it happened then.

Strange omission.

"The walls came tumbling down" ...they fell outwards
and flat.

So you say.


So an earthquake could have been
there. The point is that their faith was answered, and
apparently God was in control of when the earthquake
(if that happened then) would happen, and/or when it
would happen if there was no earthquake that day.

Your god is a fictional character, one invented by primitive man to
explain things that those men could not explain. As such "he" could
not actually "do" anything.

If you read the biblical account, they were not in the
city when the walls fell, they were off a distance
where they had been marching around the city. They
could have seen the walls fall, then gone in right
away to conquer the city.

There is no evidence that Jericho was conquered at any time that
matches the story. You also have to deal with the historical fact that
the Israelites evolved out of the Canaanite people around 1200BC, so
they never invaded anywhere.

There is proof. The city was burned.

Following an earthquake.

It has a layer
of ash all over it that is very obvious.

True, dated around 1600BC.

The walls
did fall outwards and flat.

So you say.

The grain is there.

Where else would you expect it to be?

The
houses on the wall...which you so lightly dismiss.

Because it was common practice.

The walls formed a rampart which allowed the
soldiers easy access into the city. Every single
detail given in the Bible is there whether you like
it or not.

Is it?

The grain was there in the houses, and
not only that, but the harvest had just taken place
prior to this event.

How do you know that?

Just...like...the...Bible....says.

A collection of bronze age creation myths and fairy tales.

They were already told what
to do when that happened. So all these people that
claim that it didn't happen with the Israelites blowing
horns need to go back and read what it says in the
Bible, because they are fighting a fight that is not
what is present in the verses. It doesn't matter if God
stationed invisible angels at the walls to wreck it
when the last trumpet blast came, or if he caused the
walls to crumble with an earthquake, or both even,

He is a fictional character, one invented by primitive man to explain
things that those men could not explain. As such "he" could not
actually "do" anything.

Me thinks thou protestest too much.

I think you dislike having the facts pointed out to you.

it just matters that after they put their faith into action,
the walls did fall after the 7 day period.

and the words in the Bible about Jericho are exactly
--
what the archaeologists found there. But according to
your version the ones handing down by word of mouth
what you claimed was a myth anyway,

What was passed down was a folk legend, please take the time to
investigate what is meant by "folk legend".

The story of Jericho was written down

Around 700-600BC.

and when it was
written down, Jericho was fallen already.

Up to a thousand years earlier, by natural causes.

What? And then salted with later pottery and
scarabs? No.

There is good evidence it was used as a necropolis.

The writer
could have been there,

Hardly, he would have to have been very old to do that.

It was not written in 600 B.C. as you've said. You have
no proof of that anyway. None.

You really think the experts have no evidence?


or he could have visited the site
and reported what was there. It doesn't matter.

But it does.

No, it doesn't because he reported what was there, and now
that it has been unearthed, we see that what was written is
what they found.

No it isn't.

Grains still there.

Where else would they be?

Walls fall outwards and
flat.

Did they?

A rampart was made of the walls because of the way
they fell. According to your claim, if the writer wrote in
600 B.C., he would have to uncover a tel, find the
evidence he wrote about, then cover it all back up again
for us to find years and years and years later.

You really are very stupid if you think that. Once again I ask you to
learn what folklore is.

But years
later, after the walls were long covered up with dirt that
formed the "tel" which is the ancient archaelogical site,
someone could not have written the story down in such
accuracy unless it was true.

Rubbish. Stories are handed down by word of mouth for centuries. It is
known as folklore - look it up.

All you are proving with this speculation is that
the story handed down would be the true story,

No, the story gets altered, personalized to the group listening to
make it more exciting to them.

since what was told is what is in the Bible and
is what is found at Jericho.

Not true.


Archaeology has shown that
what the Bible says is exactly what they found there.

For the last time NO IT HAS NOT.

It is what was found.

Wrong.

the grains,

Where else would you expect the grain to be? Do try to answer the
question - you keep trying to avoid it.

the wall,

What about it? There was a bloody big earthquake.

the houses
on the wall,

A common building technique.

the city was burned,

Following a major earthquake.

the walls formed
a rampart,

Did they?

the walls fell outwards and flat.

How else do you think they would fall? The can't fall inwards - the
"city" is an almost solid structure.

It took a while even to show all the details were there.
For example, the base of the walls were not found until
later in the examination of this site. But all the details
have now been verified to be there, just as it says in the
Bible.

How can someone manage to be so out of touch with reality as you are?

Reality is not denying or covering up what has been
found at Jericho.

I'm not - you are.

You can squabble over the date all
you want to, I don't care. But you are not going to
cover up the details that are at Jericho which the
biblical account says are there, that have been found
and attested to.

In the main there is little if any match with the biblical story.

had to have been
psychics in order to tell people what had not yet been
unearthed by archaeologists.

We knew a lot about the city of Troy - long before we uncovered it.

Many people had began to believe that Troy was just a myth
before it was finally discovered. So just because people
wrote about it, didn't mean that many people were not
skeptical that it existed. Here are some photos of Troy
that are people might be interested in seeing, and a brief
history about it's existence, if anyone is interested.
http://www.iit.edu/~agunsal/truva/truva/truva.html

But the fact that we knew a lot about the city of Troy - long before
we uncovered it - shows that you are wrong in your claim that the
writer had to be there when Jericho was destroyed.

You can't make up your mind which story you are
sticking with. The great details of the story of
Jericho are not so sharp in the story of Troy,

Clearly you have note read it.

except
for the wooden horse, which is too large not to
write about. But you don't believe the story of
Jericho anyway, remember?

Neither do I believe the story of Troy.

It didn't happen that way
anyway. You are either confused or have not heard

No, I'm not confused - you are deluded.

(snip)

the right teaching on the subject.

I suppose by that you mean "biblical" teaching. The bible has little,
if anything, to teach.

Simply the truth, Bob. Archaeologists do not attempt to
flatter the Bible. Quite the opposite.

Hohohohohoho!!! The web is full of sites , like the one your keep
quoting, that do exactly that - try to fit with the bible.

I didn't say anything about web sites. I was talking
about ARCHAEOLOGISTS. Real ones.

Who, almost to a man, disagree with you.

The Greek Septuagint
is not the only translated version of the Old Testament,
or didn't you know that? There are a good few others,
such as the Samaritan one. The Greek Septuagint was
a translation of the Hebrew scrolls and is proof that
--
there were earlier scrolls of the Old Testament. Not
only that, but the Dead Sea Scrolls group has found
enough fragments from the other books of the O.T.
with enough on them to identify what books they
came from, and those alone prove that there were
earlier copies way back in the B.C.

The DSSs are from the first century BC and early second century BC.

"The oldest known piece of biblical Hebrew is a fragment from
the book of Samuel discovered in Cave 4, and is dated from the
third century B.C."
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_dead_sea_scrolls.html

My own library contains books from the last 40 years or so, however
there are a couple that are over a hundred years old. The "odd" old
scroll in the DSS collection does not change the fact that DSSs are
from the first century BC and early second century BC.

Well, OK...but the DDS are a collection that were
saved during that time, and that just means that
that's when they started saving them.

No.

It doesn't
mean when they were written. For example, I could
start saving copies of the book of Genesis today.
Then two thousand years from today, someone
could find my house and my copies of the book of
Genesis, but it would not prove that they were
written during my lifetime.

Big difference here, we know when people started to write the bible
down.

Take care of those hundred year old books, by
the way. I have some of those from my grandparents.
That's kind of neat. What have you got? I've got a
school book from "Normal School" in Alabama, and a
History of Alabama from the 1800's., and a book
of favorite poems.

The Old Testament
was not written in the 7th Century.

Some of the books were written down by 600BC, the genesis we know
today did not arrive until about 360-340BC being a compellation of two
different version of genesis (resulting in two different creation
myths in the one book).

I've shown you
that with the Greek Septuagint, itself.

Have you? News to me.

And the answer to the above is yes,

Liar!

Liar?

Yes.

What are you talking about? The Greek
Septuagint shows that it was translated from
an earlier Hebrew text, and the Samaritan
Pentateuch confirms that there was an early
text, because it is a copy of that text. I thought
you understood that. That text would have to
be older than 300 B.C.

Yes, but could not have been older than about 650BC.

I have done that.

Nope.

You evidently don't understand what I told you.

I doubt you understand most of what you write.

Not that anyone knows what that means, of course,
since some is erased. : )

The people
making these claims sound very antiSemitic.

In what way?

It was not directed at you, and I think it refers back to
what had been snipped. I'm saying that there are those
that genuinely have true skepticism, which I guess is
like you, but then there are others that seem to just
be saying something against the Jews just to heckle
them as a people. I don't think that is what you are
like at all.

Try to keep in the real world. Your fantasy world doesn't work very
well.

I think you missed something.

Yes, any sense in what you wrote.

Many people do not know
--
what they even are and comment on Jericho without
the knowledge of what they found. You comment
even knowing what they found and ignore the
evidence that you say you need in order to make up
your mind about something.

Nononononono. Bloody hells bells! I'm not the one ignoring the
evidence to get things to fit with their fairy stories - you are.

I'm the one who accepts the scientific data.

Oh, yeah, right!

Yes, right.

I've spent a lot of time showing this
to you and you haven't accepted a bit of the evidence.

Because, so far, you have not come up with any.

Yes I have.

Once again you are either deluded or a liar. Which is it?

Maybe you were asleep when I gave you
pictures of Jericho and information from
there.

I'm sure you were not thinking when I told you to find credible cites
for reference.

They find "GOLIATH" written on something in the
place he lived, and you tried to say that "there must
be many people named Goliath,"

And the problem with that is?

It's like saying that when they find a tablet in merry
ole England saying "King Arthur" that someone
would say "there must be plenty of people named
King Arthur."

No, "King" is a title. There would have been a lot of people called
Arthur.

"King" was the point! It was specific. Goliath
of Gath is specific.

No more that Arthur of Tintagel.

Go gather the information
that there were a lot of giants in Gath whose
names were Goliath that lived during only a
certain time period and you win your argument.

Goliath the Giant is a fictional character.

The name "Goliath" was found exactly
where Goliath lived. How big could his city have
been?

Little more than a village by today's standards.

Exactly! How many people in a small town would
be a giant named Goliath,

None.

or even just named
Goliath? Who is going to name their baby after
an aggressive giant or an Ogre?

Hohohoho! Did she really say that :)

Your stupidity has just plumbed new depths.

How many people
live in your town who are named Shrek?

Yes, you are that stupid.

"The mound where the dig took place is widely
believed to be the site of the ancient city of Gath,
which the Bible calls Goliath's hometown."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Goliaths-name-found-at-Israeli-dig/2005/11/14/1131816832591.html

And your point is?

Just showing one of the articles about this.

And the point was?

completely snubbing
where it was found. Two houses built on the wall of
Jericho, a very surprising find,

No surprise at all, it was the norm.

Why do you think so?

and that is the absolute
only part of the wall intact,

Since nobody has excavated the whole site that is a conclusion you
cannot draw.

All of the wall is missing except for this part with houses
built on it. The bases of the city walls are found also.

Since nobody has excavated the whole site that is a conclusion you
cannot draw.

Show me proof that all the walls of this layer of
city have not been excavated, if you have it. That
would likely be the first thing they looked for...
it's Jericho.

Have you look at a map of the place?

and you act like it's no big
deal.

It isn't, not when you stand back, look at the evidence and apply some
common sense.

You are using uncommon sense. : )

Yes, it seems to be something you lack.

If you were getting anywhere, you would have
no need of insults.

Someone has to get through that incredibly thick skull of yours.


These houses were on the correct wall, not some
wall in China, and found in the exact biblical city where
the Bible said they would be.

But in a destruction that was at least 200 years, and possible 400
years, too early.

You were so sure it was 1800's B.C. weren't you?

No, I've not mentioned 1800BC.

And now it is 1600's, isn't it?

Correct.

I think you've said some other dates.

Did I?

But Bob, all the
supposed experts have come up with all kinds of
dates. And you need to know what they are basing
it on, too.

The evidence of course.

You argue this, but
then turn around and say there was no invasion and
that Joshua didn't exist.

Well Joshua is a fictional character. He may have some basis in
reality, but not in a way that is worth talking about.

If he has a basis in reality, that means he's real...hello?

Ah! So Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes are real? How about James Bond?

As for the Israelite invasion of Canaan, no, there is no evidence for
that. The evidence is that the Israelites "evolved" out of the
Canaanite population, possibly as early as 1200BC

So then the city that was uninhabited that had scarabs
dated later than you are saying,

Necropolis.

that had grains

Buried by an earthquake.

and walls
that tumbled down, flat and outwards,

Earthquakes can do that.

that had walls
that formed ramparts into the city,

Well, if they fell flat, how can they form a rampart?

that city just
spontaneously burst into flame and burned itself,

That happens when you have an earthquake. Fires start.

with
no one even living there?

Who said nobody lived there?

What are you talking about now?

Uh uh. And don't tell me that
an earthquake caused a fire that destroyed the whole
city but left the grains so that we could see them...

Some grain. So what?

and
the houses on the wall. The very fire shows that it was
destroyed.

By earthquake.

So you are not arguing with
facts, just making negative statements that do not
agree with your own statements.

My statements and reality have a much closer relationship than yours
do.

You might be basing your argument on someone
else's idea of truth, like a single piece of charcoal,
or a misunderstanding of who the Hyksos were.

No, reality.

These had all been buried
for centuries, just waiting to be revealed by excavation
of archaeology scientists.

When I reported about
the two houses found still unharmed that were built
--
on the wall of Jericho, you claimed that many people
in other places built houses on the wall.

Yes, at that time, that is correct. It was done to save on building
materials and time - the outer walls formed the back walls of the
buildings. Some would have been houses, some other buildings.

Joshua 6:17:
"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein,
to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that
are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that
we sent."
Joshua 6:25:
"And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's
household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel
even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which
Joshua sent to spy out Jericho."

Fairy stories.


But you did
not back up what you said. The Jamison-Fausset-Brown
Commentary says that in the Orient this was known to
have been done, but would that cover Canaan in that
day in time?

Remember that Canaan was under the rule of Egypt at the time, most
towns would have been Egyptian administrative centers, this made them
targets form the locals as well as wandering bandits.

Wandering bandits did not destroy the city of Jericho.
Egyptians did not do that either.

No, it was just a natural earthquake.

You are going in circles and proving nothing.

Trying to get some facts into your head is very hard work.

No it's not.

Then when are you going to start learning?

Nevertheless, these two houses obviously
survived quite a catastrophe,

Look at any modern earthquake. There are always some buildings that
escape.

If one detail had been found, that could be coincidence.
If two were found exactly as was reported in the Bible,
that could still be a coincidence. But for every single
detail that the scriptures say happened to be all at Jericho,
that shows that it was exactly as the Bible says it happened.

Remember the angel Katrina?

Was bedeuted dass?

I see, you have no answer.

About....what?

Reading problems now?

Even the fact that the city walls fell outward and flat, is
in Joshua 6:20.

Since the village walls [yes, I know it was classed as a city back
then, but with only about 2,000 inhabitants it would not qualify as a
town today, so I call it a village to keep things in perspective.

The size of it doesn't mean they didn't conquer it. Itr was a
strategic city.

It was, and it was an Egyptian administrative centre - another reason
we know it was not conquered.

The new city of Jericho was that in the 6th century B.C.
We were talking about an old layer of the one in the tell.

You do get yourself very confused at times.

Suzanne
--
Bob.

.

Quantcast