Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Because of what was specifically reported. It's accurate or it is not.

---

It's specifically reported by people with limited knowledge. First hand accounts are often wrong.

---

You seem to be treating Scripture as no different than, say, a local newspaper.

Agree to disagree, I think.

---

I don't read the newspaper. I read the Bible--so no. I treat them differently.

Do I think their accounts are wrong? Technically speaking, yes, I do.

Like Coke Bear said (I think)--it isn't important how God brought down the walls of Jericho (trumpet, earthquake, etc). They came down and the Israelites won a great victory.

Either way he was present and did his thing.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

El Oso said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

YHWH or FSM? Because the FSM says right up front that when he intervenes supernaturally he erases all evidence that he did so. YHWH should have said that a long time ago.


Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

---

Or an earthquake. Either is plausible with the evidence we have.

---

Convenient timing, in that case, wouldn't you say?

---

What timing? Do you know, first, when Joshua was there, and second, when the walls fell?

---

Earthquakes happen frequently in the area. So frequently in fact that debris often falls in the Jordan River and dams it up creating patches of dry ground one can use to cross the river.

Funny--I seem to remember the Israelite's crossing the Jordan as they entered Canaan.

Did the Israelites confuse two separate common occurrences of a land they had never seen with acts of God? Did God use nature to enforce his will? Or did God do those things and we use what we know to explain him away?

---

Not sure where my reply went, will try to reconstruct it.

A long time ago YHWH should have done what the FSM did: declare that every act of supernatural intervention was accompanied by the erasing of all evidence of supernatural intervention.

---

But that wouldn't necessarily be true. There is what may well be physical and testimonial evidence of supernatural intervention at Jericho. As always, the question is how to interpret it.

---

The walls are down. That happened to just about every walled city around. Repeatedly. And for one of those cities, for one of those times, there is a claim that this time it was a supernatural event.

I see a high percentage chance that it was a natural event.

As to different religions with archaeological support, try Celtic Ireland and Scotland and Cornwall, etc. Every lake and mountain is the result of some supernatural event. Finn scooped this, Finn piled up that. The proof of their stories is literally written in the landscape. But today we call that mythology.

---

There are three relevant categories of story -- myths, legends, and historical accounts with supernatural elements. Myths are mostly symbolic descriptions of natural events with no traceable connection to specific times or places. The early chapters of Genesis are considered to be in this category. Legends are fictional tales based on real history or topography. The story of Moses is arguably in this category. Historical accounts may include supernatural interpretation of events by the author, but this doesn't place them in the realm of myth or legend. The story of Joshua is most likely in this category. Archaeological evidence can't definitely prove the truth of supernatural events. You're correct to observe this, and in fact it's the point I've been making all along. But if evidence is anything that tends to make an assertion more or less likely, then we have to count evidence in favor as well as evidence against.

Coke Bear said:

---

I tend to agree with El Oso on this point. I don't think it diminishes the "miracle" of the event. Just because a miracle has a logical explanation doesn't mean that isn't still a miracle. God instructed his people on what to do to bring the walls down. They followed His directions and he gave them an earthquake. That's still a miracle.

Having said that, could the horn blasts have made the walls crumble. Yes, I believe that God could have allowed this to happen somehow.

The same holds true for me with the 10 plagues. For many years, I truly thought that Charleston Heston was able to call each one of the plagues to happen: Blood, frogs, flies, boils, hail, locusts, darkness, and death. I'll still watch, because I love the story.

After a great deal of research, I understand that the Nile does turn red from algae blooms. Maybe it was the worst event in the history of Egypt. This causes the frogs to come out of the river (and fish to die). As they die, the flies and other insects are inevitable. The flies bring disease and boils.

These are natural events, but I believe that they were inspired by God to happen when they happen. Maybe Charleston Heston told the Ramses II about them in advance. God provided him that knowledge. It doesn't discredit the miracle.

The same thing with Elijah and the prophets of Baal. I believe that God sent the lightning down on Elijah's bonfire when he prayed for it. Miracle.

---

Don't you think you should be able to prove Moses existed and the Jewish people were in Egypt first, before you start in on the validity of a miracle?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

It would be the same if Michener's Texas were credible history and not historical fiction. You would still have to weed the history out of the fiction.

---

See my post immediately above. You still haven't told me what kind of evidence you're looking for.

---

How about a cast iron plaque marking a pile of tower rubble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

A cast iron artifact purporting to predate the patriarchal age would be instantly recognized as a hoax. Got anything else?

---

How about an angel standing there, reading the plaque out loud to all who can hear?

---

There's nothing like that in the text, so why would you expect to find it?

---

I think you asked what kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you confine the evidence to what's in the text, doesn't that limit God's ability to demonstrate who he is to the world?

---

No, I was going to get to that later. I'm asking how the historical and archaeological record differs from what you'd actually expect to find if the text were accurate. You chose Babel as an example, which should be an easy one since almost no one considers the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be reliable. A better case might be Jericho since there's no question that it exists.

---

Actually, I didn't bring up Babel as an example. I just commented on it. The historical and archaeological records are what they are irrespective of the text's accuracy. In the case of Jericho, wouldn't you expect a jealous god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and demanding of worship and credit for who he is to leave clear evidence of his supernatural involvement? Something more evidentiary than competing tales of primitive people, generated to show their god is bigger and more powerful than the gods of competing religions?

---

I have no idea what to expect from God other than what I see in the record. If you have any special knowledge, that's what I'd like to get at.

---

I only have the evidence of reality, rational thought, and reason. All of that tells me that, if Jericho mentioned existed, and the if the walls and city were destroyed, it is not believable that Yahweh did it. I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest. I think it mostly has to do with being raised in a tradition that teaches one to place unquestioning faith in that tradition. People are reluctant to question what they were raised on as truth.

---

It's clear that you don't find the Yahweh explanation believable, but that's a subjective judgment on your part. Don't just tell me your opinion is based on reality, rational thought, and reason. Show me your process.

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash you are right about walls falling naturally and by invading armies. It saddens me that Christians argue these stories on historicity.
These people of faith saw in these events the hand of God. The story reinforces the faith of Hebrews in their God.
The story raises all kinds of theologically and faith issues which are hugely more important and relevant to people of faith and seekers.
1). God uses a prostitute for salvation if his people
2). A city is destroyed at the hand of God? Women and children too? What kind of God does that?
3). What is a modern faith Jericho for us? What city or what institution or issue or cause do we march around today so institutional walls come tumbling down? Pro tip "It ain't gay marriage."
Think more along the lines of racism and poverty and children's health and education

---

^^^^^^
If you solve the historicity of Jericho then it's simply on to another story. You're chasing your tails. Take a look again at the above. It's an approach to scripture that looks at faith not supernatural

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

El Oso said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

YHWH or FSM? Because the FSM says right up front that when he intervenes supernaturally he erases all evidence that he did so. YHWH should have said that a long time ago.


Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

---

Or an earthquake. Either is plausible with the evidence we have.

---

Convenient timing, in that case, wouldn't you say?

---

What timing? Do you know, first, when Joshua was there, and second, when the walls fell?

---

Earthquakes happen frequently in the area. So frequently in fact that debris often falls in the Jordan River and dams it up creating patches of dry ground one can use to cross the river.

Funny--I seem to remember the Israelite's crossing the Jordan as they entered Canaan.

Did the Israelites confuse two separate common occurrences of a land they had never seen with acts of God? Did God use nature to enforce his will? Or did God do those things and we use what we know to explain him away?

---

Not sure where my reply went, will try to reconstruct it.

A long time ago YHWH should have done what the FSM did: declare that every act of supernatural intervention was accompanied by the erasing of all evidence of supernatural intervention.

---

But that wouldn't necessarily be true. There is what may well be physical and testimonial evidence of supernatural intervention at Jericho. As always, the question is how to interpret it.

---

The walls are down. That happened to just about every walled city around. Repeatedly. And for one of those cities, for one of those times, there is a claim that this time it was a supernatural event.

I see a high percentage chance that it was a natural event.

As to different religions with archaeological support, try Celtic Ireland and Scotland and Cornwall, etc. Every lake and mountain is the result of some supernatural event. Finn scooped this, Finn piled up that. The proof of their stories is literally written in the landscape. But today we call that mythology.

---

There are three relevant categories of story -- myths, legends, and historical accounts with supernatural elements. Myths are mostly symbolic descriptions of natural events with no traceable connection to specific times or places. The early chapters of Genesis are considered to be in this category. Legends are fictional tales based on real history or topography. The story of Moses is arguably in this category. Historical accounts may include supernatural interpretation of events by the author, but this doesn't place them in the realm of myth or legend. The story of Joshua is most likely in this category. Archaeological evidence can't definitely prove the truth of supernatural events. You're correct to observe this, and in fact it's the point I've been making all along. But if evidence is anything that tends to make an assertion more or less likely, then we have to count evidence in favor as well as evidence against.

---

When I weigh the evidence of both sides I find the naturalistic evidence to be stronger.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

El Oso said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

YHWH or FSM? Because the FSM says right up front that when he intervenes supernaturally he erases all evidence that he did so. YHWH should have said that a long time ago.


Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

---

Or an earthquake. Either is plausible with the evidence we have.

---

Convenient timing, in that case, wouldn't you say?

---

What timing? Do you know, first, when Joshua was there, and second, when the walls fell?

---

Earthquakes happen frequently in the area. So frequently in fact that debris often falls in the Jordan River and dams it up creating patches of dry ground one can use to cross the river.

Funny--I seem to remember the Israelite's crossing the Jordan as they entered Canaan.

Did the Israelites confuse two separate common occurrences of a land they had never seen with acts of God? Did God use nature to enforce his will? Or did God do those things and we use what we know to explain him away?

---

Not sure where my reply went, will try to reconstruct it.

A long time ago YHWH should have done what the FSM did: declare that every act of supernatural intervention was accompanied by the erasing of all evidence of supernatural intervention.

---

But that wouldn't necessarily be true. There is what may well be physical and testimonial evidence of supernatural intervention at Jericho. As always, the question is how to interpret it.

---

The walls are down. That happened to just about every walled city around. Repeatedly. And for one of those cities, for one of those times, there is a claim that this time it was a supernatural event.

I see a high percentage chance that it was a natural event.

As to different religions with archaeological support, try Celtic Ireland and Scotland and Cornwall, etc. Every lake and mountain is the result of some supernatural event. Finn scooped this, Finn piled up that. The proof of their stories is literally written in the landscape. But today we call that mythology.

---

There are three relevant categories of story -- myths, legends, and historical accounts with supernatural elements. Myths are mostly symbolic descriptions of natural events with no traceable connection to specific times or places. The early chapters of Genesis are considered to be in this category. Legends are fictional tales based on real history or topography. The story of Moses is arguably in this category. Historical accounts may include supernatural interpretation of events by the author, but this doesn't place them in the realm of myth or legend. The story of Joshua is most likely in this category. Archaeological evidence can't definitely prove the truth of supernatural events. You're correct to observe this, and in fact it's the point I've been making all along. But if evidence is anything that tends to make an assertion more or less likely, then we have to count evidence in favor as well as evidence against.

---

When I weigh the evidence of both sides I find the naturalistic evidence to be stronger.

---

That's fair.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

It would be the same if Michener's Texas were credible history and not historical fiction. You would still have to weed the history out of the fiction.

---

See my post immediately above. You still haven't told me what kind of evidence you're looking for.

---

How about a cast iron plaque marking a pile of tower rubble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

A cast iron artifact purporting to predate the patriarchal age would be instantly recognized as a hoax. Got anything else?

---

How about an angel standing there, reading the plaque out loud to all who can hear?

---

There's nothing like that in the text, so why would you expect to find it?

---

I think you asked what kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you confine the evidence to what's in the text, doesn't that limit God's ability to demonstrate who he is to the world?

---

No, I was going to get to that later. I'm asking how the historical and archaeological record differs from what you'd actually expect to find if the text were accurate. You chose Babel as an example, which should be an easy one since almost no one considers the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be reliable. A better case might be Jericho since there's no question that it exists.

---

Actually, I didn't bring up Babel as an example. I just commented on it. The historical and archaeological records are what they are irrespective of the text's accuracy. In the case of Jericho, wouldn't you expect a jealous god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and demanding of worship and credit for who he is to leave clear evidence of his supernatural involvement? Something more evidentiary than competing tales of primitive people, generated to show their god is bigger and more powerful than the gods of competing religions?

---

I have no idea what to expect from God other than what I see in the record. If you have any special knowledge, that's what I'd like to get at.

---

I only have the evidence of reality, rational thought, and reason. All of that tells me that, if Jericho mentioned existed, and the if the walls and city were destroyed, it is not believable that Yahweh did it. I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest. I think it mostly has to do with being raised in a tradition that teaches one to place unquestioning faith in that tradition. People are reluctant to question what they were raised on as truth.

---

It's clear that you don't find the Yahweh explanation believable, but that's a subjective judgment on your part. Don't just tell me your opinion is based on reality, rational thought, and reason. Show me your process.

---

Scientific method. We know that natural laws and physical processes and application of that knowledge can explain what is possible and what is not possible. Attributing the destruction of Jericho to an unseen god would be akin to attributing the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers to Yahweh/Allah miraculously flying those planes for his faithful hijackers into the towers. Show me your process for believing god miraculously destroyed the World Trade Center and Jericho. .

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

It would be the same if Michener's Texas were credible history and not historical fiction. You would still have to weed the history out of the fiction.

---

See my post immediately above. You still haven't told me what kind of evidence you're looking for.

---

How about a cast iron plaque marking a pile of tower rubble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

A cast iron artifact purporting to predate the patriarchal age would be instantly recognized as a hoax. Got anything else?

---

How about an angel standing there, reading the plaque out loud to all who can hear?

---

There's nothing like that in the text, so why would you expect to find it?

---

I think you asked what kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you confine the evidence to what's in the text, doesn't that limit God's ability to demonstrate who he is to the world?

---

No, I was going to get to that later. I'm asking how the historical and archaeological record differs from what you'd actually expect to find if the text were accurate. You chose Babel as an example, which should be an easy one since almost no one considers the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be reliable. A better case might be Jericho since there's no question that it exists.

---

Actually, I didn't bring up Babel as an example. I just commented on it. The historical and archaeological records are what they are irrespective of the text's accuracy. In the case of Jericho, wouldn't you expect a jealous god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and demanding of worship and credit for who he is to leave clear evidence of his supernatural involvement? Something more evidentiary than competing tales of primitive people, generated to show their god is bigger and more powerful than the gods of competing religions?

---

I have no idea what to expect from God other than what I see in the record. If you have any special knowledge, that's what I'd like to get at.

---

I only have the evidence of reality, rational thought, and reason. All of that tells me that, if Jericho mentioned existed, and the if the walls and city were destroyed, it is not believable that Yahweh did it. I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest. I think it mostly has to do with being raised in a tradition that teaches one to place unquestioning faith in that tradition. People are reluctant to question what they were raised on as truth.

---

It's clear that you don't find the Yahweh explanation believable, but that's a subjective judgment on your part. Don't just tell me your opinion is based on reality, rational thought, and reason. Show me your process.

---

Scientific method. We know that natural laws and physical processes and application of that knowledge can explain what is possible and what is not possible. Attributing the destruction of Jericho to an unseen god would be akin to attributing the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers to Yahweh/Allah miraculously flying those planes for his faithful hijackers into the towers. Show me your process for believing god miraculously destroyed the World Trade Center and Jericho. .

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

It would be the same if Michener's Texas were credible history and not historical fiction. You would still have to weed the history out of the fiction.

---

See my post immediately above. You still haven't told me what kind of evidence you're looking for.

---

How about a cast iron plaque marking a pile of tower rubble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

A cast iron artifact purporting to predate the patriarchal age would be instantly recognized as a hoax. Got anything else?

---

How about an angel standing there, reading the plaque out loud to all who can hear?

---

There's nothing like that in the text, so why would you expect to find it?

---

I think you asked what kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you confine the evidence to what's in the text, doesn't that limit God's ability to demonstrate who he is to the world?

---

No, I was going to get to that later. I'm asking how the historical and archaeological record differs from what you'd actually expect to find if the text were accurate. You chose Babel as an example, which should be an easy one since almost no one considers the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be reliable. A better case might be Jericho since there's no question that it exists.

---

Actually, I didn't bring up Babel as an example. I just commented on it. The historical and archaeological records are what they are irrespective of the text's accuracy. In the case of Jericho, wouldn't you expect a jealous god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and demanding of worship and credit for who he is to leave clear evidence of his supernatural involvement? Something more evidentiary than competing tales of primitive people, generated to show their god is bigger and more powerful than the gods of competing religions?

---

I have no idea what to expect from God other than what I see in the record. If you have any special knowledge, that's what I'd like to get at.

---

I only have the evidence of reality, rational thought, and reason. All of that tells me that, if Jericho mentioned existed, and the if the walls and city were destroyed, it is not believable that Yahweh did it. I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest. I think it mostly has to do with being raised in a tradition that teaches one to place unquestioning faith in that tradition. People are reluctant to question what they were raised on as truth.

---

It's clear that you don't find the Yahweh explanation believable, but that's a subjective judgment on your part. Don't just tell me your opinion is based on reality, rational thought, and reason. Show me your process.

---

Scientific method. We know that natural laws and physical processes and application of that knowledge can explain what is possible and what is not possible. Attributing the destruction of Jericho to an unseen god would be akin to attributing the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers to Yahweh/Allah miraculously flying those planes for his faithful hijackers into the towers. Show me your process for believing god miraculously destroyed the World Trade Center and Jericho. .

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

El Oso said:

---

Like Coke Bear said (I think)--it isn't important how God brought down the walls of Jericho (trumpet, earthquake, etc). They came down and the Israelites won a great victory.

Either way he was present and did his thing.

---

Since you did not capitalize 'He', I presume you mean Coke Bear "was present and did his thing".

But to your point, the matter of the numinous is important to the discussion, I believe. Demoting God to 'He used methods we humans understand' alters the message quite a bit.

"Hmm, that was weird."
"God did it."

quash said:

---

"Hmm, that was weird."
"God did it."

---

It reads better in Hebrew.

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Like Coke Bear said (I think)--it isn't important how God brought down the walls of Jericho (trumpet, earthquake, etc). They came down and the Israelites won a great victory.

Either way he was present and did his thing.

---

Since you did not capitalize 'He', I presume you mean Coke Bear "was present and did his thing".

But to your point, the matter of the numinous is important to the discussion, I believe. Demoting God to 'He used methods we humans understand' alters the message quite a bit.

---

Wow--your reading skills need some help.

God was the last stated singular noun used. It's clearly the antecedent for he. The only reference to Coke Bear was about something he said and it occurred before God so there's no way that pronoun ties to it.

But way to go--you busted me on not capitalizing he (on an Internet message board of all places)--you just took your bust too far and missed the point. Although, this is making your role in this discussion very clear now.

And if God controls nature--how am I demoting him? Would he not have caused the earthquake and therefore used his power? (Now I'm not capitalizing pronouns on purpose.)


And by the way--it really isn't wrong to not capitalize. It is neither right nor wrong to capitalize or not capitalize pronouns that refer to God. It is a matter of personal conviction, preference, and context. Some Bible translations capitalize pronouns referring to God, while others do not.

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Like Coke Bear said (I think)--it isn't important how God brought down the walls of Jericho (trumpet, earthquake, etc). They came down and the Israelites won a great victory.

Either way he was present and did his thing.

---

Since you did not capitalize 'He', I presume you mean Coke Bear "was present and did his thing".

But to your point, the matter of the numinous is important to the discussion, I believe. Demoting God to 'He used methods we humans understand' alters the message quite a bit.

---

Wow--your reading skills need some help ... But way to go--you busted me on not capitalizing he ... this is making your role in this discussion very clear now ... It is neither right nor wrong

---

Pretty sure I'm not the topic. My wife is getting jealous of how much you seem to obsess on me.

And just a suggestion, there are many fine decaffeinated brands on the market, which are just as tasty as coffee with caffeine.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

It would be the same if Michener's Texas were credible history and not historical fiction. You would still have to weed the history out of the fiction.

---

See my post immediately above. You still haven't told me what kind of evidence you're looking for.

---

How about a cast iron plaque marking a pile of tower rubble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

A cast iron artifact purporting to predate the patriarchal age would be instantly recognized as a hoax. Got anything else?

---

How about an angel standing there, reading the plaque out loud to all who can hear?

---

There's nothing like that in the text, so why would you expect to find it?

---

I think you asked what kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you confine the evidence to what's in the text, doesn't that limit God's ability to demonstrate who he is to the world?

---

No, I was going to get to that later. I'm asking how the historical and archaeological record differs from what you'd actually expect to find if the text were accurate. You chose Babel as an example, which should be an easy one since almost no one considers the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be reliable. A better case might be Jericho since there's no question that it exists.

---

Actually, I didn't bring up Babel as an example. I just commented on it. The historical and archaeological records are what they are irrespective of the text's accuracy. In the case of Jericho, wouldn't you expect a jealous god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and demanding of worship and credit for who he is to leave clear evidence of his supernatural involvement? Something more evidentiary than competing tales of primitive people, generated to show their god is bigger and more powerful than the gods of competing religions?

---

I have no idea what to expect from God other than what I see in the record. If you have any special knowledge, that's what I'd like to get at.

---

I only have the evidence of reality, rational thought, and reason. All of that tells me that, if Jericho mentioned existed, and the if the walls and city were destroyed, it is not believable that Yahweh did it. I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest. I think it mostly has to do with being raised in a tradition that teaches one to place unquestioning faith in that tradition. People are reluctant to question what they were raised on as truth.

---

It's clear that you don't find the Yahweh explanation believable, but that's a subjective judgment on your part. Don't just tell me your opinion is based on reality, rational thought, and reason. Show me your process.

---

Scientific method. We know that natural laws and physical processes and application of that knowledge can explain what is possible and what is not possible. Attributing the destruction of Jericho to an unseen god would be akin to attributing the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers to Yahweh/Allah miraculously flying those planes for his faithful hijackers into the towers. Show me your process for believing god miraculously destroyed the World Trade Center and Jericho. .

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

It would be the same if Michener's Texas were credible history and not historical fiction. You would still have to weed the history out of the fiction.

---

See my post immediately above. You still haven't told me what kind of evidence you're looking for.

---

How about a cast iron plaque marking a pile of tower rubble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

A cast iron artifact purporting to predate the patriarchal age would be instantly recognized as a hoax. Got anything else?

---

How about an angel standing there, reading the plaque out loud to all who can hear?

---

There's nothing like that in the text, so why would you expect to find it?

---

I think you asked what kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you confine the evidence to what's in the text, doesn't that limit God's ability to demonstrate who he is to the world?

---

No, I was going to get to that later. I'm asking how the historical and archaeological record differs from what you'd actually expect to find if the text were accurate. You chose Babel as an example, which should be an easy one since almost no one considers the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be reliable. A better case might be Jericho since there's no question that it exists.

---

Actually, I didn't bring up Babel as an example. I just commented on it. The historical and archaeological records are what they are irrespective of the text's accuracy. In the case of Jericho, wouldn't you expect a jealous god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and demanding of worship and credit for who he is to leave clear evidence of his supernatural involvement? Something more evidentiary than competing tales of primitive people, generated to show their god is bigger and more powerful than the gods of competing religions?

---

I have no idea what to expect from God other than what I see in the record. If you have any special knowledge, that's what I'd like to get at.

---

I only have the evidence of reality, rational thought, and reason. All of that tells me that, if Jericho mentioned existed, and the if the walls and city were destroyed, it is not believable that Yahweh did it. I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest. I think it mostly has to do with being raised in a tradition that teaches one to place unquestioning faith in that tradition. People are reluctant to question what they were raised on as truth.

---

It's clear that you don't find the Yahweh explanation believable, but that's a subjective judgment on your part. Don't just tell me your opinion is based on reality, rational thought, and reason. Show me your process.

---

Scientific method. We know that natural laws and physical processes and application of that knowledge can explain what is possible and what is not possible. Attributing the destruction of Jericho to an unseen god would be akin to attributing the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers to Yahweh/Allah miraculously flying those planes for his faithful hijackers into the towers. Show me your process for believing god miraculously destroyed the World Trade Center and Jericho. .

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

No, you use the scientific method to make determinations as to what is plausible and what is not plausible.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

No, you use the scientific method to make determinations as to what is plausible and what is not plausible.

---

Some people would try to use Science to deny God at any cost.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

No, you use the scientific method to make determinations as to what is plausible and what is not plausible.

---

Some people would try to use Science to deny God at any cost.

---

. Maybe people do not use science to deny God but to deny God works through control of physics. Maybe they believe God operates at the spiritual, faith, love and transcendent levels and not physical at all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

It would be the same if Michener's Texas were credible history and not historical fiction. You would still have to weed the history out of the fiction.

---

See my post immediately above. You still haven't told me what kind of evidence you're looking for.

---

How about a cast iron plaque marking a pile of tower rubble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

A cast iron artifact purporting to predate the patriarchal age would be instantly recognized as a hoax. Got anything else?

---

How about an angel standing there, reading the plaque out loud to all who can hear?

---

There's nothing like that in the text, so why would you expect to find it?

---

I think you asked what kind of evidence I'm looking for. If you confine the evidence to what's in the text, doesn't that limit God's ability to demonstrate who he is to the world?

---

No, I was going to get to that later. I'm asking how the historical and archaeological record differs from what you'd actually expect to find if the text were accurate. You chose Babel as an example, which should be an easy one since almost no one considers the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be reliable. A better case might be Jericho since there's no question that it exists.

---

Actually, I didn't bring up Babel as an example. I just commented on it. The historical and archaeological records are what they are irrespective of the text's accuracy. In the case of Jericho, wouldn't you expect a jealous god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and demanding of worship and credit for who he is to leave clear evidence of his supernatural involvement? Something more evidentiary than competing tales of primitive people, generated to show their god is bigger and more powerful than the gods of competing religions?

---

I have no idea what to expect from God other than what I see in the record. If you have any special knowledge, that's what I'd like to get at.

---

I only have the evidence of reality, rational thought, and reason. All of that tells me that, if Jericho mentioned existed, and the if the walls and city were destroyed, it is not believable that Yahweh did it. I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest. I think it mostly has to do with being raised in a tradition that teaches one to place unquestioning faith in that tradition. People are reluctant to question what they were raised on as truth.

---

It's clear that you don't find the Yahweh explanation believable, but that's a subjective judgment on your part. Don't just tell me your opinion is based on reality, rational thought, and reason. Show me your process.

---

Scientific method. We know that natural laws and physical processes and application of that knowledge can explain what is possible and what is not possible. Attributing the destruction of Jericho to an unseen god would be akin to attributing the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers to Yahweh/Allah miraculously flying those planes for his faithful hijackers into the towers. Show me your process for believing god miraculously destroyed the World Trade Center and Jericho. .

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion's magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept - if religious magisteria is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion's magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisteria is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

No, you use the scientific method to make determinations as to what is plausible and what is not plausible.

---

Some people would try to use Science to deny God at any cost.

---

. Maybe people do not use science to deny God but to deny God works through control of physics. Maybe they believe God operates at the spiritual, faith, love and transcendent levels and not physical at all.

---

so, you are saying they do not believe in an all powerful God (god)?

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

No, you use the scientific method to make determinations as to what is plausible and what is not plausible.

---

Some people would try to use Science to deny God at any cost.

---

. Maybe people do not use science to deny God but to deny God works through control of physics. Maybe they believe God operates at the spiritual, faith, love and transcendent levels and not physical at all.

---

I have encountered Christ in this solid, physical world. Have you not?

I believe the Scripture accounts without excuse or evasion. How about you?

All powerful in love.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

No, you use the scientific method to make determinations as to what is plausible and what is not plausible.

---

Some people would try to use Science to deny God at any cost.

---

. Maybe people do not use science to deny God but to deny God works through control of physics. Maybe they believe God operates at the spiritual, faith, love and transcendent levels and not physical at all.

---

I have encountered Christ in this solid, physical world. Have you not?

I believe the Scripture accounts without excuse or evasion. How about you?

---

I have experienced Him iin the world and yes physical. It's called incarnation. "When You have done it to the least of of these you have done unto me me." That's in the physical in the hungry, oppressed, etc.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're confusing the scientific method with scientism again. Science has nothing to say about what's possible or impossible outside the scope of its particular inquiry.

---

No, you use the scientific method to make determinations as to what is plausible and what is not plausible.

---

Some people would try to use Science to deny God at any cost.

---

. Maybe people do not use science to deny God but to deny God works through control of physics. Maybe they believe God operates at the spiritual, faith, love and transcendent levels and not physical at all.

---

I have encountered Christ in this solid, physical world. Have you not?

I believe the Scripture accounts without excuse or evasion. How about you?

---

I have experienced Him iin the world and yes physical. It's called incarnation. "When You have done it to the least of of these you have done unto me me." That's in the physical in the hungry, oppressed, etc.

---

True, but only in part.

He speaks in more than metaphor or allegory.

Miracles are real. Some do not see, and worse, some turn their face away from Wonder, lest they remember God.

Metaphor? Allegory? The scripture is clear it's the hungry in whom Christ present. Why metaphor? What does the text say!

Waco1947 said:

---

Metaphor? Allegory? The scripture is clear it's the hungry in whom Christ present. Why metaphor? What does the text say!

---

The text says Jesus changed water to wine, healed the lame so they could walk and the blind so they could see, and rose from the dead.

Why do you not know this?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Metaphor? Allegory? The scripture is clear it's the hungry in whom Christ present. Why metaphor? What does the text say!

---

The text says Jesus changed water to wine, healed the lame so they could walk and the blind so they could see, and rose from the dead.

Why do you not know this?

---

I know it. I asked about Mt 25. It's not allegory. It's about faith and helping hungry people.That's the text.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Metaphor? Allegory? The scripture is clear it's the hungry in whom Christ present. Why metaphor? What does the text say!

---

The text says Jesus changed water to wine, healed the lame so they could walk and the blind so they could see, and rose from the dead.

Why do you not know this?

---

I know it. I asked about Mt 25. It's not allegory. It's about faith and helping hungry people.That's the text.

---

So you know one chapter, and ignore the rest.

Sad, that.

Stupid assumption. That's just silly. Making up problems where none exist.
You know . . . Pharisees did that a lot.

Waco1947 said:

---

Stupid assumption. That's just silly. Making up problems where none exist.
You know . . . Pharisees did that a lot.

---

Yes, you do remind me of Caiaphas, and others here have called you on your hypocrisy, too.

But as to 'assumption', I recall and believe all of Scripture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Stupid assumption. That's just silly. Making up problems where none exist.
You know . . . Pharisees did that a lot.

---

Yes, you do remind me of Caiaphas, and others here have called you on your hypocrisy, too.

But as to 'assumption', I recall and believe all of Scripture.

---

. The "assumptions" were the ones you dumped on me not your understanding of the scripture. God gives you freedom to make your own assumptions about scripture but not mine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.