Sam Lowry said:

---

quash 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?

---

Did he say "historical fiction"? The bible can be written with some knowledge of history such that biblical archaeology is a thing. Heck, I used to subscribe to the mag Biblical Archaeology but it got repetitive and I cancelled after two years.

But as TS notes there some real reaches. And the fact that there some confirmations means the settings are historically accurate, but that's about it.

---

That's what I mean by historical fiction.

---

Ok, we probably agree on the definition then, these hiatorical locations are where these stories may or may not have occurred.

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

---

The thing that matters to me is credibility. It seems strange to believe a specific and vital claim in one place, but not another, solely because you want one to be true.

Neither of us was around during the time of the events described in Genesis. I say there's reason to believe the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least honest descriptions from people who were there. I say that, because while we cannot prove every last detail in the Bible, a lot of the claims have been supported.

Critics denied Jericho existed ... then they found it.

Critics denied there was a real High Priest named Caiaphas ... then his crypt turned up.

You're free to believe what you want, but in my experience the Bible is remarkably trustworthy, and that makes it even more valuable when I need to trust the Word.

---

Your edit contains a blatant lie. Nobody has ever doubted the existence of Jericho. It's been continually inhabited for the last 10,000 years. There was a minor debate as to whether or not it dated back to bible times, but no good creationist took that debate seriously because 10,000 years actually exceeds the timeline of the entire earth if one strictly believes in a 7 day creation and all biblical geneologies being accurate.

(Interesting situation for them to be in wouldn't you say?)

What was questioned was the biblical account of how the walls fell down.

So yes, the archeologist found the city. How could they not? It's been around for 10,000 years.

Then they started digging. And they found the walls. But they could not determine how they fell.

The study concluded that it cannot be determined whether or not the walls fell from an earthquake, it's a huge seismic area, battle, or some act of God.

So archeologist proved Jericho existed at the time of Joshua. The rest is a matter of debate.

JXL 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 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.

---

What "religious tabloid" do you think the article was published in? It's a video interview from Smithsonian.net, which I'm pretty sure isn't a "religious tabloid."

---

The one whose page the video was posted in. My point was that a religious tabloid had reposted it on their page in an effort to make a religious statement with the video. Read the tabloid web page article.

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.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash 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?

---

Did he say "historical fiction"? The bible can be written with some knowledge of history such that biblical archaeology is a thing. Heck, I used to subscribe to the mag Biblical Archaeology but it got repetitive and I cancelled after two years.

But as TS notes there some real reaches. And the fact that there some confirmations means the settings are historically accurate, but that's about it.

---

That's what I mean by historical fiction.

---

Ok, we probably agree on the definition then, these hiatorical locations are where these stories may or may not have occurred.

---

Yes. So the question is, how would the record look different if they had occurred?

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.

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

---

The thing that matters to me is credibility. It seems strange to believe a specific and vital claim in one place, but not another, solely because you want one to be true.

Neither of us was around during the time of the events described in Genesis. I say there's reason to believe the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least honest descriptions from people who were there. I say that, because while we cannot prove every last detail in the Bible, a lot of the claims have been supported.

Critics denied Jericho existed ... then they found it.

Critics denied there was a real High Priest named Caiaphas ... then his crypt turned up.

You're free to believe what you want, but in my experience the Bible is remarkably trustworthy, and that makes it even more valuable when I need to trust the Word.

---

Your edit contains a blatant lie.

---

** sigh **

Seriously, you're just throwing poo again.

Not interested.

So you got nothing? Just a lie? You can't refute it?

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

---

The thing that matters to me is credibility. It seems strange to believe a specific and vital claim in one place, but not another, solely because you want one to be true.

Neither of us was around during the time of the events described in Genesis. I say there's reason to believe the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least honest descriptions from people who were there. I say that, because while we cannot prove every last detail in the Bible, a lot of the claims have been supported.

Critics denied Jericho existed ... then they found it.

Critics denied there was a real High Priest named Caiaphas ... then his crypt turned up.

You're free to believe what you want, but in my experience the Bible is remarkably trustworthy, and that makes it even more valuable when I need to trust the Word.

---

Your edit contains a blatant lie.

---

** sigh **

Seriously, you're just throwing poo again.

Not interested.

---

Facts are poo? Go figure.

Have was not your lie. I bolded your lie above (you may have to expand quotes to see the bold I did). Now maybe you mistyped it or just misspoke--but no sane person has ever denied the existence of Jericho. It's been around for 10,000 years (maybe you'd like to debate that time frame). I'll save us some time. It's not important if Jericho's been around for 10,000 years or 6, 000 years--the archeology record is clear that it is a heavily researched site.

The research on the walls was done first in 1907, then again in 1909, then again in the early 1930s, then again in the mid 1950s (actually all but 3 years of the 1950s saw Jericho archeology digs), then again in 1997.

The city is not what is in dispute--what is in dispute is did an earthquake cause the walls to fall or did God? Science has yet to confirm an answer to that question. There's evidence for both sides.

Enter faith.

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

Waco1947 said:

---

So you got nothing? Just a lie? You can't refute it?

---

Waco, I get it that you like to 'win' in these forums, but I seek discussion, and I am trying not to get into useless bickering.

I did not lie.

But going back and forth with someone making a false accusation does nothing to add to the discussion.

If you read through this thread, you may notice that I brought up Job's account in the Bible, which you seemed to like, but you never went forward on that line of thought, I also addressed the human dependence on a sense of control in the context of Quantum Physics, but again no one wanted to discuss that aspect - everyone seemed keen on proving the other guy wrong, which does nothing but go in emotional circles.

So, I declined to play that game.

So what about you? Do you have anything to say that leads to deeper understanding, maybe a new perspective? Or will you just throw around challenges and disputes and pretend you 'won' when the audience gets tired of a discussion that does nothing but bluster and fart around with prideful claims?

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

---

The thing that matters to me is credibility. It seems strange to believe a specific and vital claim in one place, but not another, solely because you want one to be true.

Neither of us was around during the time of the events described in Genesis. I say there's reason to believe the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least honest descriptions from people who were there. I say that, because while we cannot prove every last detail in the Bible, a lot of the claims have been supported.

Critics denied Jericho existed ... then they found it.

Critics denied there was a real High Priest named Caiaphas ... then his crypt turned up.

You're free to believe what you want, but in my experience the Bible is remarkably trustworthy, and that makes it even more valuable when I need to trust the Word.

---

Your edit contains a blatant lie.

---

** sigh **

Seriously, you're just throwing poo again.

Not interested.

---

Facts are poo? Go figure.

Have was not your lie. I bolded your lie above (you may have to expand quotes to see the bold I did). Now maybe you mistyped it or just misspoke--but no sane person has ever denied the existence of Jericho. It's been around for 10,000 years (maybe you'd like to debate that time frame). I'll save us some time. It's not important if Jericho's been around for 10,000 years or 6, 000 years--the archeology record is clear that it is a heavily researched site.

The research on the walls was done first in 1907, then again in 1909, then again in the early 1930s, then again in the mid 1950s (actually all but 3 years of the 1950s saw Jericho archeology digs), then again in 1997.

The city is not what is in dispute--what is in dispute is did an earthquake cause the walls to fall or did God? Science has yet to confirm an answer to that question. There's evidence for both sides.

Enter faith.

---

I did not lie. And no, I see no reason to go round and round with you bickering on a point you won't concede.

Have a good evening.

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

---

The thing that matters to me is credibility. It seems strange to believe a specific and vital claim in one place, but not another, solely because you want one to be true.

Neither of us was around during the time of the events described in Genesis. I say there's reason to believe the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least honest descriptions from people who were there. I say that, because while we cannot prove every last detail in the Bible, a lot of the claims have been supported.

Critics denied Jericho existed ... then they found it.

Critics denied there was a real High Priest named Caiaphas ... then his crypt turned up.

You're free to believe what you want, but in my experience the Bible is remarkably trustworthy, and that makes it even more valuable when I need to trust the Word.

---

Your edit contains a blatant lie.

---

** sigh **

Seriously, you're just throwing poo again.

Not interested.

---

Facts are poo? Go figure.

Have was not your lie. I bolded your lie above (you may have to expand quotes to see the bold I did). Now maybe you mistyped it or just misspoke--but no sane person has ever denied the existence of Jericho. It's been around for 10,000 years (maybe you'd like to debate that time frame). I'll save us some time. It's not important if Jericho's been around for 10,000 years or 6, 000 years--the archeology record is clear that it is a heavily researched site.

The research on the walls was done first in 1907, then again in 1909, then again in the early 1930s, then again in the mid 1950s (actually all but 3 years of the 1950s saw Jericho archeology digs), then again in 1997.

The city is not what is in dispute--what is in dispute is did an earthquake cause the walls to fall or did God? Science has yet to confirm an answer to that question. There's evidence for both sides.

Enter faith.

---

Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

TexasScientist said:

---

Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

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 ruble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

Aha! The Russians did it! (see the bolded part)

Oldbear83 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 ruble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

Aha! The Russians did it! (see the bolded part)

---

Good catch. Corrected now, but I do think there is room for investigating Russian involvement.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 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 ruble with the inscription: I destroyed this tower to demonstrate my power and to punish man for foolishly thinking I live in the sky - Yahweh

---

Aha! The Russians did it! (see the bolded part)

---

Good catch. Corrected now, but I do think there is room for investigating Russian involvement.

---

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?

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash 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?

---

Did he say "historical fiction"? The bible can be written with some knowledge of history such that biblical archaeology is a thing. Heck, I used to subscribe to the mag Biblical Archaeology but it got repetitive and I cancelled after two years.

But as TS notes there some real reaches. And the fact that there some confirmations means the settings are historically accurate, but that's about it.

---

That's what I mean by historical fiction.

---

Ok, we probably agree on the definition then, these hiatorical locations are where these stories may or may not have occurred.

---

Yes. So the question is, how would the record look different if they had occurred?

---

The uniquely supernatural stuff would be found.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

---

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

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? Supposedly there are an infinite number available that have nothing better to do other than giving praise.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

---

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

---

It's more plausible than the primitive tale of magic.

How is the claim that people claimed Jericho did not exist...and then they found it not a lie?

The location of Jericho has been known, AND INHABITED, for 10,000 years. It's been continually researched since 1906.

There's a reason I won't concede the point. You are wrong about what you claimed.

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

---

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

---

It's more plausible than the primitive tale of magic.

---

Maybe. When they found the wall, all except the northern corner had fallen. The northern corner was still in tact.

According to the bible, the whole wall didn't fall.

I've seen Mother Nature destroy stuff in some unexplainable ways. If you're right, this would be one of those times.

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?

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?

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.

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?

El Oso said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Maybe Jericho was destroyed by man.

---

Well, believe that if you need to.

---

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

---

It's more plausible than the primitive tale of magic.

---

Maybe. When they found the wall, all except the northern corner had fallen. The northern corner was still in tact.

According to the bible, the whole wall didn't fall.

I've seen Mother Nature destroy stuff in some unexplainable ways. If you're right, this would be one of those times.

---

Rahab's place. Saw that on Time Tunnel.

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.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

El Oso said:

---

How is the claim that people claimed Jericho did not exist...and then they found it not a lie?

The location of Jericho has been known, AND INHABITED, for 10,000 years. It's been continually researched since 1906.

There's a reason I won't concede the point. You are wrong about what you claimed.

---

** sigh **

Here's one guy who still argues Jericho, as described in the Bible, did not exist:

https://ehrmanblog.org/historical-problems-with-the-hebrew-bible-the-conquest-of-canaan/

"Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest apparently did not even exist as cities at the time. This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13th century BCE"

There were others, and prior to the 20th Century, there were indeed a number of humanists who disputed the Biblical accounts because they did not believe Jericho, among other cities, was as described in Scripture.

You did not read all the sources I have, so I understand you reached a different conclusion.

But your ignorance does not mean I "lied".

And no, I don't feel the need to prove anything on that point, except to tell you to grow up and suggest you post something that goes in a better direction than accusation .

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

Yet again you make assumptions about what I have and haven't read. Next you'll be quoting Finkelstein.

Since you're big on context--let's look at the whole paragraph you chose one line from.

Archaeologists have discovered that few of the places mentioned were walled towns at the time. Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest apparently did not even exist as cities at the time. This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13th century BCE, as archaeologists have decisively shown (see box 4.2). The same thing applies to Ai and Heshbon. These cities were neither occupied, nor conquered, nor re-inhabited in the days of Joshua. Moreover, there is no evidence of major shifts in cultural patterns taking place at the end of the 13th century in Canaan. There are, to be sure, some indications that some towns in Canaan were destroyed at about that time (two of the twenty places mentioned as being destroyed by Joshua were wiped out at about the right time: Hazor and Bethel) But that is true of virtually every time in antiquity: occasionally towns were destroyed by other towns or burned or otherwise abandoned.

You should notice some striking differences between your focus (I underlined it) and the bold of the author's focus.

Ehrman is splitting some serious hairs in that doesn't exist=uninhabited. Cherenobyl is uninhabited. Does this mean it does not exist?

In the OT, towns were frequently established and then destroyed or abandoned for a variety of reasons. There's a big difference between something not existing and something being uninhabited for a short period of time.

What Ehrman was trying to do was prove that Jericho fell about 150 years before the Israelites arrived on the scene--and thereby prove the Bible is factually wrong. He's relying heavily on the archeology done in the 1950s, while the excavation done in the 1990s (with incredibly better technology) pretty much proved him wrong.

That dig concluded: there was a city there at the time of Joshua, it had walls, the biblical facts are verified in that the city suddenly fell, the walls fell outward--not inward, one section of the wall is completely in tact, and there was a great fire afterwards.

You're right--you didn't lie about what he said--you just selectively quoted it.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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?