Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

[_Bret Ripley]

Yes, Jericho has been found and the evidence is that the walls fell outward and the city was burned.

I'm afraid your attributions have gone a bit wonky: I didn't write that. I did write this:

Yes, but Jericho's destruction occurred at least 150 years too early (mid-sixteenth century bce) to be attributable to Joshua's army. Jericho's destruction layer also lacks evidence of battle (arrowheads, skeletons, etc.) that would be expected had the city fallen as described in the Book of Joshua.

Hmmmm....it seems there is a continuous archeological record dating back tens of thousands of years. Miraculous that Jericho was utterly destroyed first by a global flood of 2,300 BC which only a handful of people on the planet survived - these people then sprung up enough offspring to go back and resettle Jericho as if nothing had ever happened. (see The Bible)

And then, just 800 years later in around 1,500 BC it is destroyed again by a rabble who brought it to it's knees by walking round it several times with heavy footsteps. And yet again this devastation is struck from the archeological record.

Actually, there is archaeological evidence of destruction around 1550 bce. This destruction involved a fire and at least one collapsed wall, but there is no evidence of wholesale slaughter. Perhaps more to the point, this occurred well before Joshua was even born (if we grant that he is historical).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n2/the-walls-of-jericho

AIG, forsooth? That's just cruel. And an article by Bryant Wood, for all love. Dr. Wood directs a Christian ministry whose stated purpose is not objective analysis of scientific data, but rather to reinterpret the data to make it better fit the Biblical narrative. It may be instructive to note that his attempt to re-date Jericho's destruction to 1400 bce has been thoroughly discredited.

Here: this article will cleanse your palate, boost your immune system and help prevent cavities: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/BPBobbyWallsOfJericho.html

[_Drifting]

Bret, I think you get me!

[Guest]

They didn't shoot arrows according to the Bible. The Hebrews simply marched around the city for 7 days and on the seventh day marched around 7 times and blew their rams horns. The people of Jericho were killed by the sword. The Hebrews would never have left the bodies just lying around, it was considered sinful. They were likely burned or buried.

1) The destruction of Jericho occurred at least 150 years too early to fit the Biblical narrative.

2) The Canaanite defenders (assuming there were any) would certainly have used arrows.

3) The destruction caused by the conflagration and the fallen walls would have caused bodies to be buried beneath the rubble.

Other than fire, the destruction layer in question does not exhibit the typical signs of battle that are common to battle sites. The consensus is that Jericho was destroyed by fire -- perhaps caused by an earthquake -- some time around 1550 bce (though probably a little earlier). If Biblical chronology is to be taken seriously, the conquest of Canaan could not have occurred much earlier than 1400 bce.

There is a lot of questions as to if the date of the event was correct. I feel you place far too much trust in man and nothing on the Word of God. Please see the following:
https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2 ... dence.aspx

[_Bret Ripley]

There is a lot of questions as to if the date of the event was correct.

Not really, no. At least, not a lot of questions coming from archaeologists not named Bryant Wood.

I feel you place far too much trust in man and noyhing on the Word of God.

I'm sure you do, and I appreciate your concern.

Please seethe following:
https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2 ... dence.aspx

Thanks, but I've already read this article. This is yet another article by Bryant Wood, whose attempts to force the data to match the Biblical narrative have been thoroughly rejected by the scholarly community. Brett Palmer sums it up like this:

Dr. Wood was obviously not honest with his research...Dr. Wood’s redating of Jericho has not been accepted by competent archaeologists, who all still accept that the end of the Middle Bronze town of Jericho should be dated to c. 1550 BCE. This does not align it with the biblical date for the conquest of Jericho: c. 1407 BCE.

By the way, I anticipated that someone might be tempted to bring this article up, which is why I mentioned that Wood's attempt to re-date the destruction to ~1400bce has been discredited. The article I linked to earlier addresses this. Here is the link again: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/BPBobbyWallsOfJericho.html

There really isn't much room for argument on this matter, which is why some defenders of Biblical inerrancy have proposed that Joshua must have subdued some other town called Jericho (a sort of "Jericho Jr., Jericho Sr." argument, if you will). At the time "the conquest" should have been occurring, Jericho was unoccupied (and un-walled).

I understand that this does violence to your worldview, and I am sorry about that (hey, I've been there).

[_LittleNipper]

There is a lot of questions as to if the date of the event was correct.

Not really, no. At least, not a lot of questions coming from archaeologists not named Bryant Wood.

I feel you place far too much trust in man and noyhing on the Word of God.

I'm sure you do, and I appreciate your concern.

Please seethe following:
https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2 ... dence.aspx

Thanks, but I've already read this article. This is yet another article by Bryant Wood, whose attempts to force the data to match the Biblical narrative have been thoroughly rejected by the scholarly community. Brett Palmer sums it up like this:

Dr. Wood was obviously not honest with his research...Dr. Wood’s redating of Jericho has not been accepted by competent archaeologists, who all still accept that the end of the Middle Bronze town of Jericho should be dated to c. 1550 BCE. This does not align it with the biblical date for the conquest of Jericho: c. 1407 BCE.

By the way, I anticipated that someone might be tempted to bring this article up, which is why I mentioned that Wood's attempt to re-date the destruction to ~1400bce has been discredited. The article I linked to earlier addresses this. Here is the link again: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/BPBobbyWallsOfJericho.html

There really isn't much room for argument on this matter, which is why some defenders of Biblical inerrancy have proposed that Joshua must have subdued some other town called Jericho (a sort of "Jericho Jr., Jericho Sr." argument, if you will). At the time "the conquest" should have been occurring, Jericho was unoccupied (and un-walled).

I understand that this does violence to your worldview, and I am sorry about that (hey, I've been there).

Do you realize that 100 year swing is nothing when regarding ancient archaeological evidence. Also, the fact surfaced that apparently there was a poor section and a wealthy section of town. So depending on where one does one's reasearch would make a difference...

Please see: http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/joshua/

[_Bret Ripley]

I understand that this does violence to your worldview, and I am sorry about that (hey, I've been there).

Do you realize that 100 year swing is nothing when regarding ancient archaeological evidence.

If you don't mind, I prefer to stick to the actual figures under discussion: it is a minimum of 150 years, not 100 years. When we are looking at events from the the 2nd millennium BCE, the precision with which the age of materials can be measured actually does make a difference of 150 (or even 100) a significant period of time. For example, for the time period in question radiocarbon dating is accurate to within about 40 years. Radiocarbon dating dates objects found in the destruction layer to the late 17th and early 16th century BCE. 1550 BCE marks the approximate latest time at which the destruction occurred.

Also, the fact surfaced that apparently there was a poor section and a wealthy section of town. So depending on where one does one's reasearch would make a difference.

I don't see how that helps matters at all. There is still no credible evidence of a destruction layer circa 1400 BCE.

Please see: http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/joshua/

I don't see anything here pertaining specifically to Jericho that argues for a later destruction date. In fact, the author indicates that evidence from other Canaanite sites makes it difficult to decide whether "the conquest" occurred around 1400BCE or 1250 BCE. This further illustrates that the evidence does not readily fit a literal reading of the Biblical narrative.

By the way: I've been checking out the links you've suggested -- have you had a chance to look at the article I linked to? Cheers.

(Edited to fix my formatting error.)

[_LittleNipper]

I understand that this does violence to your worldview, and I am sorry about that (hey, I've been there).

Do you realize that 100 year swing is nothing when regarding ancient archaeological evidence.

If you don't mind, I prefer to stick to the actual figures under discussion: it is a minimum of 150 years, not 100 years. When we are looking at events from the the 2nd millennium BCE, the precision with which the age of materials can be measured actually does make a difference of 150 (or even 100) a significant period of time. For example, for the time period in question radiocarbon dating is accurate to within about 40 years. Radiocarbon dating dates objects found in the destruction layer to the late 17th and early 16th century BCE. 1550 BCE marks the approximate latest time at which the destruction occurred.

Also, the fact surfaced that apparently there was a poor section and a wealthy section of town. So depending on where one does one's reasearch would make a difference.

I don't see how that helps matters at all. There is still no credible evidence of a destruction layer circa 1400 BCE.

Please see: http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/joshua/

I don't see anything here pertaining specifically to Jericho that argues for a later destruction date. In fact, the author indicates that evidence from other Canaanite sites makes it difficult to decide whether "the conquest" occurred around 1400BCE or 1250 BCE. This further illustrates that the evidence does not readily fit a literal reading of the Biblical narrative.

By the way: I've been checking out the links you've suggested -- have you had a chance to look at the article I linked to? Cheers.

(Edited to fix my formatting error.)

There is a question as to when the Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise. So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho. There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven... People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong. Humans are not God --- for all their attempts at perfection...

[_Bret Ripley]

There is a question as to when Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise.

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.

Edwin R. Thiel's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (frequently cited as the definitive work on the chronology of Hebrew kings) places the fourth year of Solomon's reign at 966BCE. 966 + 480 = circa 1446 BCE for the exodus, and 40 years in the wilderness puts the conquest at circa 1406 BCE. Others argue for a later date (~1250BCE), but it doesn't really matter because that date doesn't match the archaeological evidence either.

So even though there may be some question regarding the date of the exodus (assuming it is historical), the proposed dates do not match the archaeological record. I trust it is obvious that citing uncertainty on the part of Biblical literalists over the date of the exodus is a non-starter.

So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho.

I can't parse that sentence.

There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven.

I am taking the proposed dates set forth by Biblical literalists and comparing them to the archaeological record. If you can't see the ramifications of the discrepancies, with all due respect I'm afraid that's entirely on you.

People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, here. The results of radiocarbon dating are not expressed in absolute terms, but as a range. If I have been inconsistent in using terms such as "circa" and "approximately", it is due to laziness and not some unfounded certainty over a precise date.

Also, let me state that I am perfectly happy to be wrong. I like learning, and I typically learn more from being proven wrong than I do by being right. If you can demonstrate where and how I have gone wrong, I will thank you for it. However, I hope you will forgive me for observing that your posts on this subject seem to be little more than attempts to muddy the water. You do not seem interested in addressing the points or questions raised. If you have some evidence you wish to discuss, that's great. However, I am not very interested in participating in a scramble to claw out some plausibility-space for an ideologically-driven, evidence-be-damned reading of this ancient text.

[_LittleNipper]

There is a question as to when Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise.

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.

Edwin R. Thiel's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (frequently cited as the definitive work on the chronology of Hebrew kings) places the fourth year of Solomon's reign at 966BCE. 966 + 480 = circa 1446 BCE for the exodus, and 40 years in the wilderness puts the conquest at circa 1406 BCE. Others argue for a later date (~1250BCE), but it doesn't really matter because that date doesn't match the archaeological evidence either.

So even though there may be some question regarding the date of the exodus (assuming it is historical), the proposed dates do not match the archaeological record. I trust it is obvious that citing uncertainty on the part of Biblical literalists over the date of the exodus is a non-starter.

So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho.

I can't parse that sentence.

There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven.

I am taking the proposed dates set forth by Biblical literalists and comparing them to the archaeological record. If you can't see the ramifications of the discrepancies, with all due respect I'm afraid that's entirely on you.

People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, here. The results of radiocarbon dating are not expressed in absolute terms, but as a range. If I have been inconsistent in using terms such as "circa" and "approximately", it is due to laziness and not some unfounded certainty over a precise date.

Also, let me state that I am perfectly happy to be wrong. I like learning, and I typically learn more from being proven wrong than I do by being right. If you can demonstrate where and how I have gone wrong, I will thank you for it. However, I hope you will forgive me for observing that your posts on this subject seem to be little more than attempts to muddy the water. You do not seem interested in addressing the points or questions raised. If you have some evidence you wish to discuss, that's great. However, I am not very interested in participating in a scramble to claw out some plausibility-space for an ideologically-driven, evidence-be-damned reading of this ancient text.

Try to consider the following:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... nt-jericho
http://www.frontlinemin.org/exodus.asp
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... richo.aspx
http://www.truthortradition.com/iphone/ ... &Itemid=55

[_Bret Ripley]

Try to consider the following:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... nt-jericho

Seriously? You're killing me, here. The first is yet another article by the thoroughly discredited Bryant Wood (although in the article he refers to himself in the third person), and the second relies exclusively on Wood.

From the first article, here is an example of the type of deception in which Wood trades:

"...Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) ... dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city's destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC."

Wood is being dishonest. Watzinger/Sellin dated their finds to 1950-1550 BCE, and Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho's wall to approx. 1550 BCE. Addressing the question of the conquest, Kenyon wrote:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Contrary to what Wood wrote, Kenyon specifically ruled out a date of 1400 BCE. In other words, Wood is lying. Why on earth do you continue to cite him?

Now, enough already: will you please stop being content to simply link to discredited articles and offer some of your own thoughts on the various evidences?