quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?

Presumably let them die a slow death wandering around in the wilderness or bring up thousands of people who would undoubtedly turn on the destroyers of their parents once they reached adulthood? A really great investment in the future for Israel, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
In the "Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures" thread currently in Purg, EtymologicalEvangelical attempted to justify the killing of infants during the Conquest of Canaan with the following:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?

Presumably let them die a slow death wandering around in the wilderness or bring up thousands of people who would undoubtedly turn on the destroyers of their parents once they reached adulthood? A really great investment in the future for Israel, don't you think?

---

---

I read that three times just to confirm I'd read it accurately and I'm still in mild shock.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Tries out new Hat

mousethief, having read the Purg thread and seen the Hostly comment, I appreciate this topic should be discussed somewhere!

Strictly speaking, abortion and child murder are separate topics, one a DH, the other not. But we'll leave the discussion here because of the comparative link, at least until us newbie DH Hosts chat together with Louise, which I'm off to initiate. Whether its long term future will be here may depend on how the thread develops. It can have a gallop here pro tem.

Barnabas62
Dead Horse Host
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Justinian, old chap...

The realisation that there is a brutal reality outside of cosy middle-class western secular democracy does have that effect, I'm afraid.

Still... being in "mild shock" probably excuses you from actually being bovvered to answer the question. I wouldn't want to add to your troubles, poor soul.

[ 26. February 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Justinian, old chap...

The realisation that there is a brutal reality outside of cosy middle-class western secular democracy does have that effect, I'm afraid.

Still... being in "mild shock" probably excuses you from actually being bovvered to answer the question. I wouldn't want to add to your troubles, poor soul.

---

• Best would have been for God not to have fucked up his own creation enough that genocide of the adults was desirable.
• Next best would have been for God to do his own dirty work rather than turned his supposedly chosen people into a tribe of genocidal monsters.
• After that comes killing the adults and adopting the kids, bringing them up as their own children and redeeming the (supposedly) evil by surrounding them by light.
• Only after that comes telling people to crush the voice of their consciences and commit genocide on innocent children come into the issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If there is any moral principle that is revealed through the judgment on, say, Jericho, it is this: that God's judgment may be provoked such that He is forced to take the lives of the innocent, but the guilt for those lives is imputed to those who provoked the judgment. The same is true of rape and any other illegal and coercive intercourse, such as incest, which may necessitate an abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Mousethief -

Your entire approach to this problem is wrong.

I do not approve of the killing of Canaanite babies. Neither does God. He hates it as I hate it.

---

quote:

---

But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?

---

quote:

---

In fact, I would affirm that these children were actually murdered. Not by God, but by their own parents. Their own parents may not have actually physically killed them, but in effect they did so, by provoking the righteous judgment of God on the whole nation.

---

quote:

---

If there is any moral principle that is revealed through the judgment on, say, Jericho, it is this: that God's judgment may be provoked such that He is forced to take the lives of the innocent, but the guilt for those lives is imputed to those who provoked the judgment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we are making this about abortion, the obvious question for those who are pro choice but appalled by Joshua or Samuel is something along the lines of...

How can you get so upset about babies who might have been killed a few thousand years ago at the command of a character who might not even be historical but fight so hard to keep legal a practice responsible for the deaths of 30 million babies in one nation alone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we are making this about abortion, the obvious question for those who are pro choice but appalled by Joshua or Samuel is something along the lines of...

How can you get so upset about babies who might have been killed a few thousand years ago at the command of a character who might not even be historical but fight so hard to keep legal a practice responsible for the deaths of 30 million babies in one nation alone?

---

quote:

---

Personally, I think most abortions are sin. On the other hand, I'm not to prepared to say that about all abortions. Hard to write a law that only allows abortions in the case of incest, rape, and the life of the mother. So, keeping abortion legal is the only way to go about it. At the same time, I'd be OK if all abortion clinics were closed and the procedure was only performed in hospitals by an OBGYN with admitting privileges.

---

quote:

---

On the issue of the Israelites killing babies because God says so, I haven't a clue which of you is right. The old consensus was that Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel were all written by the Deuteronomists (D) meaning that they likely didn't see themselves as contradicting one another. On the other hand, OT scholars no longer accept that old consensus. We have no clue who wrote Joshua and Samuel and if they were worried about contradicting Deuteronomy or Ezekiel. So, the OT really might contradict itself.

---

quote:

---

But wait...there is more. EE gives a plausible explanation of why the two don't contradict each other. Plausible doesn't mean true.

Historicity aside. I take the stories as written to be a part of scripture and that they tell us something about God. That said, from a scriptural standpoint, the preponderance of scripture and tradition teaches that it is wrong to kill children because of what their parents do. I'd also claim it teaches the same thing about abortion.

---

quote:

---

We could also talk about the drone strikes that Obama authorized which killed children for the sins of their parents. Obama is firm believer in abortion being legal. So, I guess there isn't much of a contradiction for him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Mousethief -

quote:

---

[qb]But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?

---

---

No choice? No choice??

The sovereign and eternal God had no choice???



You'd rather restrict God's freedom of movement than look at alternative explanations - of which there are several available and all within the bounds of generally accepted Christian orthodoxy.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure that helps EE's position much. Basically you are saying that the OT is inaccurate or God is a bastard. That isn't much of a choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
EE, even if you take the accuracy of the bible as a given (rather than it being a set of tribal stories) the answer is the following.

Best would have been for God not to have fucked up his own creation enough that genocide of the adults was desirable.

Next best would have been for God to do his own dirty work rather than turned his supposedly chosen people into a tribe of genocidal monsters.

After that comes killing the adults and adopting the kids, bringing them up as their own children and redeeming the (supposedly) evil by surrounding them by light.

Only after that comes telling people to crush the voice of their consciences and commit genocide on innocent children come into the issue.

There might be a brutal reality. But "I was only following orders" didn't fly as a defence for genocide at Nuremberg.

---

quote:

---

(The incredible irony of this is that it is often the case that those sceptics, atheists and liberals who rail against these passages of the Old Testament, have no hesitation in declaring themselves against the pro-life position, as I have discovered on the Ship!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

It's ironic that you should bring up Nuremberg. If the nations of Canaan had not been judged there would most probably not have been a Jewish people for Hitler to persecute. The 'kindness' of Justinian types would have done Hitler's work for him thousands of years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
God being put in an 'impossible position' ...

'Nothing is impossible with God ...'

Don't you think you are in danger of putting restrictions on the Almighty, EE?

You often have a go at the Calvinists for making God out to be some kind of torturer - admittedly in terms of eternal predestination which is rather different to what we're discussing here - but don't you think that the same principle might apply?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I do not approve of the killing of Canaanite babies. Neither does God. He hates it as I hate it. But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also a bit puzzled that a supposedly omnipotent Being can be "forced" to do anything.

---

quote:

---

EE said:4. The last option is bullshit. You have no evidence whatsoever that the people were required to "crush their consciences". I am sure they were keen to protect their nation from an evil influence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Nothing is impossible for the God, who, in Christ, wept over Jerusalem. I assume you can see the paradox?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, the same principle certainly does not apply. Calvinism..., whereas I..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
1. God did not fuck up his own creation. Man did. We are, after all, beings with free will and moral responsibility.

---

quote:

---

2. The "next best" probably had something to do with God wanting his people to understand the consequences of evil in no uncertain terms. Being part of the process of judgment would have inculcated this truth into them like nothing else.

---

quote:

---

3. The adoption scenario is pretty absurd given the demographics as well as the psychology of the situation. For Israel to be overrun by thousands of children who would grow up asking what happened to their parents, and would undoubtedly be bent on revenge seems to me to be suicidal. Adopting a "fifth column" doesn't sound particularly wise to me.

---

quote:

---

4. The last option is bullshit. You have no evidence whatsoever that the people were required to "crush their consciences". I am sure they were keen to protect their nation from an evil influence

---

quote:

---

It's ironic that you should bring up Nuremberg. If the nations of Canaan had not been judged there would most probably not have been a Jewish people for Hitler to persecute. The 'kindness' of Justinian types would have done Hitler's work for him thousands of years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But what if He were put in an impossible position due to the extreme evil of the babies' parents, such that He had no choice but to judge them in the harshest possible way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Nothing is impossible for the God, who, in Christ, wept over Jerusalem. I assume you can see the paradox?

---

• Things are impossible for God
• God was pleased by the killing of babies
• The account is not reliable

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
The immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being does something he hates.

---

quote:

---

Then he can judge the parents not the kids. Killing the kids rather than commanding their adoption and God himself offering visible signs of repentance for having had to commit genocide is purely gratuitous.

---

quote:

---

"Honey. Why did you make me have to hit you. Why did you do it honey? I'm only hitting you because you provoke me." Fuck that noise. It's directly from the abusers' playbook.

---

quote:

---

I'd call that bullshit. I'd say that there is one obvious moral principle revealed by Jericho. And that is that God can retroactively be used to excuse any atrocity, even genocide. And that claiming that God commanded you to genocide means that some people will absolve you of guilt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am not using God to excuse anything. Am I planning to go off and commit genocide and that is why I am putting these arguments?

Errmm... nope.

Which rather shows how fucking stupid your comment was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure that helps EE's position much. Basically you are saying that the OT is inaccurate or God is a bastard. That isn't much of a choice.

---

That's a false dichotomy. It could be "both/and" just as easily as "either/or".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
If nothing is impossible for God, then God was not put in an impossible position.

Therefore God either had the babies killed because having the babies killed pleased God or the bible is an unreliable account.

Take your pick. Because there are only three options.

Things are impossible for God

God was pleased by the killing of babies

The account is not reliable

I go for option 3. You have ruled out option 1. And I believe reject option 3. Leaving you with a God who chose to have babies slaughtered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
God does not contradict logic

---

Oh good, that means God definitely was a mass murderer.

I do love this logical approach.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
StevHep -

Excellent post.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by StevHep:
Thirdly life belongs to its Creator and it does not end with death. If it is not possible for human agents of God to punish the guilty without having knock on effects on the innocent then they have the dilemma of either not punishing the guilty at all or of doing so but at a cost to the guiltless. However, justice denied in time can be secured in eternity if the Creator wills it to be so. In the cases of the Holy Innocents in Nazareth and the victims of abortion today when children are killed without the Divine Mandate we can have great hope or even certainty of their place in heaven. We have every reason therefore to hope for the same in the case of those innocents who die with it as in the case of the Canaanites and, indeed, also the Jews in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of Jerusalem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
2. Man has free will and therefore can thwart the preferred purposes of God, because God cannot contradict Himself by undermining man's free will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we are making this about abortion, the obvious question for those who are pro choice but appalled by Joshua or Samuel is something along the lines of...

How can you get so upset about babies who might have been killed a few thousand years ago at the command of a character who might not even be historical but fight so hard to keep legal a practice responsible for the deaths of 30 million babies in one nation alone?

---

Because a being without a functional brain isn't in any functional sense a human. It's a bundle of cells with no more thought, awareness, or other positive human traits than either a finger or a cancer. If it has no sentience I honestly don't care about it.

Next question?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Doesn't that contradict the Exodus account where God hardens Pharaoh's heart? Why doesn't Pharaoh get free will?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Justinian:
The immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being does something he hates. I've some seafront property in Florida to sell you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I feel that some of you are close to making a Hell call.

I encourage you to do so if you are so minded, not least because otherwise I may well beat you to it and you'll be disappointed not to have got there first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
Now EE seems prepared to argue that actually God does intervene, but only by genocide.

---

Only by genocide??

Where the hell did I say that?

Funny, but I thought I was simply upholding the truth and integrity of Scripture.
 

---

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :
 

quote:

---

So the Christian position is that killing kids is kind of a "no harm, no foul" situation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
Now EE seems prepared to argue that actually God does intervene, but only by genocide.

---

Only by genocide??

Where the hell did I say that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'm with SteveHep on these things being understood through the lens of the NT and to be taken typologically and so on. The Church effectively 'Christianised' the OT, of course.

---

quote:

---

No, the dispute Ricardus has is with your interpretation of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Doesn't that contradict the Exodus account where God hardens Pharaoh's heart? Why doesn't Pharaoh get free will?

---

I am not going to reinvent the wheel, so read my explanation in this post. It's about halfway through the post.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by pydseybare:
Because it says something about the God we're all supposed to be believing in. If we assert that the record in the bible must be true, then we're actually saying that all this crap about 'loving your neighbour' is actually not worth believing, because God himself doesn't practice that. And not only does he not practice it, he goes further and punishes individuals who have nothing to do with the original offence.

We might as well believe in the gods of Olympus, they at least did things for a reason: their own amusement.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by pydseybare:
I really don't think this has anything to do with abortion, and everything to do with the character of God.

---

And yet here we have a thread in Dead Horses talking about abortion.

quote:

---

originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure that helps EE's position much. Basically you are saying that the OT is inaccurate or God is a bastard. That isn't much of a choice.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by pydseybare:
Exactly. If this story is actually about God, it tells us something very serious about God: he is a bastard and if someone in your family gets on the wrong side of him, beware of the shrapnel.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by pydseybare:
We could. If that had anything at all to do with it.

---

Has as much to do with it as abortion. Considering how many people who have a problem with the OT love them some Barack Obama, I'd say it has even more to do with it. Especially since for many of those sorts of people I've met, religion is only useful if it can be used to support their political preferences.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Being typological and 'merely typological' are two different things, EE.

I am not saying that these events are purely typographical - I am sure there are historical events behind the accounts. I keep saying that and you appear not to notice. Perhaps because you are obsessed with arguing against what you think I'm saying rather than what I am actually saying.

Of course these things are in the Bible. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they weren't.

The issue isn't that they are there, but how they are to be understood.

Your view seems to be that the only legitimate way to understand them is as straightforward historical narratives in a way that no other ancient text from any culture happens to be.

I don't think that is tenable.

Nor do I see it as contradictory that the scriptures can be inspired and yet contain stories that are not 100% historically accurate in every respect.

That's not how these things work.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting

Glad to see a Hell call has been made for people to take all personal conflicts off this thread. Can I ask that people take their personal animosity to other posters off to the Hell Board as per C4* and back off from trading barely disguised personal insults on this thread.
Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses host

hosting off

* or just drop it on this board - the choice is yours.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Of course, I meant 'purely typological' not 'purely typographical'.


 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes but you aren't a Christian and didn't start a thread in Dead Horses comparing the two events. Personally, I couldn't care less about the new atheist opinion on Christian theology. I'm not sure why you are so troubled about what a God you don't believe exists told a character that historians don't believe existed to do several thousand years ago. Well, I know what reason you will give. I just think it's melodramatic malarkey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Justinian:
The immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being does something he hates. I've some seafront property in Florida to sell you.

---

No you don't. Florida is actually on the ocean. What you have is some ocean front property in Arizona.

Here

---

Thank you
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What I don't understand is this ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Then he can judge the parents not the kids. Killing the kids rather than commanding their adoption and God himself offering visible signs of repentance for having had to commit genocide is purely gratuitous.

---

Easy for you in your complacent comfort bubble to say something like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
That's not how these things work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Why is Justinian in any more of a 'complacent comfort bubble' than anyone else on these boards?

Why isn't EE's interpretative framework something of a 'comfort bubble'?

Why is it a comfort bubble for Justinian and not EE?

This sounds awfully like the holier-than-thou guilt trips that EE keeps accusing Pydseybare of imposing on people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's strange - and rather telling - that you ask me a string of questions, and then draw a highly spurious conclusion (before even allowing me time to answer the questions!!), but the elephant in the room is your - and certain other contributors' - refusal to answer the question that forms the title of this thread.

Answer that and then I'll answer your questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

"Honey. Why did you make me have to hit you. Why did you do it honey? I'm only hitting you because you provoke me." Fuck that noise. It's directly from the abusers' playbook.

---

Pathetic comparison. I don't need to say anything more about this bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
Unless otherwise specified, "or" is normally supposed to mean, logically, "at least one of the alternatives is true" rather than "at most one of the alternatives is true".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny, but I thought I was simply upholding the truth and integrity of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny, but I don't remember being the author of the book of Joshua. Read the account for yourself. It's pretty clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
To me, even if God never ordered the death of children, the mere fact the story is included in scripture tells us something about God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
For the undeserving sufferers, well emphatically as Abraham said, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" and should we not trust Him with that and ourselves get on with our lives as God wants - which in itself will be a major contribution to goodness in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Unless there is a good textual reason to doubt the historicity of an account, then it is perfectly acceptable to assume that it is accurate. That is generally how historical study works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'd believe in the god's of Olympus if I believed in the gods of Olympus. If I wanted to believe in a God that told me what I wanted to hear or thought I should want to hear, I could create such a God easily enough. I do not. So, I don't.
To me, even if God never ordered the death of children, the mere fact the story is included in scripture tells us something about God. Does it tell us something about God that most 21st century Westerners want to hear? Nope. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. As far as I'm concerned those stories are part of the tradition and must be wrestled with not just simply dismissed because we don't like what they tell us about God. What it doesn't do is contradict Jesus telling us to love God and love our neighbors. Unless you practice a hermeneutic of preferences and proof-texts, then it does or doesn't depending on you guessed it...

---

quote:

---

Well, Jesus who you claim is your example knew about these stories and said little to discount them. Rather, he said to love God. If you think that God is a bastard, it is because you are judging God by your own standards of morality. I am perfectly willing to admit that God as presented in the Bible is a bastard by 21st Century Western standards. I just don't care about those standards

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

originally posted by pydseybare:
We could. If that had anything at all to do with it.

---

Has as much to do with it as abortion. Considering how many people who have a problem with the OT love them some Barack Obama, I'd say it has even more to do with it. Especially since for many of those sorts of people I've met, religion is only useful if it can be used to support their political preferences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Only if you want YOUR words to be taken seriously. Blowing off other people's analogies with "pathetic comparison" is not argumentation at all. You should be able to show why it's pathetic, and indicate in what way it is disanalagous. Otherwise your post is pathetic bloviating.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny, but I thought I was simply upholding the truth and integrity of Scripture.

---

YES! THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! What you are upholding is the truth and integrity of your interpretation of Scripture. You mistakenly believe that you are upholding the truth and integrity of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny, but I don't remember being the author of the book of Joshua. Read the account for yourself. It's pretty clear.

---

It is indeed. But whether or not it is an accurate and historical account of what happened is a matter of interpretation. Reading the account will not tell us that, any more than reading Pride and Prejudice will tell us whether there was really an Englishman named Mr. Darcy who married a woman named Elizabeth under such-and-such circumstances. Despite the text being pretty darned clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The comparison between an abusive husband and the righteous judge who is God, is absurd. Are you seriously expecting people to accept that an abusive person has a legitimate right to appeal to the actions of God to justify his criminality?

---

quote:

---

Absurd. The implication of this is that God is not permitted to judge anyone for his evil, because if He does, some nutcase will say: "Aw well, God can be a nasty bastard, so therefore I am allowed to be!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton
In the acts of Israel in the early OT, we appear to have a very much 'one-off' situation in which God carries out such a providential judgement 'in the open', using his own people in their invasion of Canaan to execute judgement on the Canaanites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So anyone who takes an ancient account of an event at face value is guilty of "lunatic ravings" is he?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction? If so, please be so kind as to present it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ricardus -

Your dispute is not with me, but with the Bible.

Unless you have a version of the Bible without the offending accounts!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
For me, the evidence that it is not fully accurate (at least in the sense that it does not accurately portray God's view on what the Israelites should have done) is that it seems utterly in contradiction to the character of God as revealed in Jesus. Can you imagine Jesus - 'Love your enemies, bless those who curse you' Jesus - ordering his followers to commit ethnic cleansing?

But Jesus is our supreme window into the nature of God, is he not? What's going on here, then; as I asked upthread, is it that God's nature changed between OT and NT times? Does God want us to love our enemies except when they're really evil and pagan, in which case it's okay to slaughter them? I don't see a way out of this other than to take Joshua (and the other 'problem texts' in the OT' as not fully expressing the nature and will of God.

---

quote:

---

"Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels"

---

quote:

---

Does God want us to love our enemies except when they're really evil and pagan, in which case it's okay to slaughter them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
You seem to prefer to distort the grace and love passages, but don't offer any reason for it other than sarcasm.

---

 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, Jesus who you claim is your example knew about these stories and said little to discount them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But we know from the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus will judge certain people far more harshly than God judged the inhabitants of Jericho...

quote:

---

"Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels"

---

Matthew 25:41.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You say:

quote:

---

Does God want us to love our enemies except when they're really evil and pagan, in which case it's okay to slaughter them?

---

Who said anything about it being "okay to slaughter them"? There is nothing in the passage in Joshua (and in other similar OT passages) which sets forth these events as universal principles for Christian action (a point I made in my last post above). That is something you are reading into the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So, if I believe that it is true that God judged the people of Jericho as it is literally described in the Book of Joshua, then apparently I am somehow committed to the principle of destroying unwanted children or advocating genocide as a universally legitimate method of dealing with a perceived problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Not "universally legitimate". But the point is that you are saying genocide is OK if God commands it, which means you are leaving the option open for genocide to be a legitimate solution to future problems should you believe God is commanding it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This point about 'one-off' situations is very important.

What I have noticed from certain contributors, is that they seem to regard the content of the Bible as a set of universal laws, pretexts or precedents, such that if we believe that God acted in a certain way at a certain point in time, then He is bound to act in a similar way in other contexts, or that we are justified in distilling principles from His actions and applying them in other contexts.

---

quote:

---

So, if I believe that it is true that God judged the people of Jericho as it is literally described in the Book of Joshua, then apparently I am somehow committed to the principle of destroying unwanted children or advocating genocide as a universally legitimate method of dealing with a perceived problem. "You believe that God ordered the destruction of Jericho, therefore you believe in genocide." This is only not a non sequitur on the basis of an erroneous legalistic (and I would say, essentially humanistic) view of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

This reaction betrays a certain view of the Bible and even of God. It's as if such people are looking for a religion which is reduced to a mere set of universally applicable principles, and the Bible is seen as a repository of those principles. There seems to be no place in such a scheme for the reality of the living God. God does not set precedents, because He is not subject to human legal systems. In His wisdom He may act in a certain way in a certain context, in which there are factors which have no bearing on other contexts. Therefore to act in that way in that context cannot set a precedent for action in other contexts.

---

quote:

---

It's ironic (and very revealing) that someone like pydseybare talks about following what he feels the Holy Spirit is saying and yet, on the evidence of his comments on the Ship and particularly on this thread, he seems to espouse a view of the Bible, which leaves no room for God's sovereign working, despite claiming to believe in a God who is bigger than logic and moral consistency (as confirmed at the end of this comment)!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
The thing is, EE, what evidence do you have - other than your own interpretation - that the Book of Joshua isn't as I - and many others - believe it to be ... a work of ancient histography which is certainly based on historical events but which, like ancient histographies, contains a mixture of literal fact and mythology.

Why is that such a difficult context?

What evidence do you have for your assertion other than believing that the view articulated above is false?

Just saying, 'The Bah-ble says ...' doesn't establish anything.

Sure, these stories are included in scripture. That doesn't mean that we have to take them 100% literally.

Where do you get that idea from? Other than a particularly woodenly fundamentalist tradition to which you appear to subscribe.

It is not the Bible that we are getting at or criticising. It is your interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible and your interpretation of the Bible are separate things. They are not coterminous.

---

quote:

---

For me, the evidence that it is not fully accurate (at least in the sense that it does not accurately portray God's view on what the Israelites should have done) is that it seems utterly in contradiction to the character of God as revealed in Jesus. Can you imagine Jesus - 'Love your enemies, bless those who curse you' Jesus - ordering his followers to commit ethnic cleansing?

But Jesus is our supreme window into the nature of God, is he not? What's going on here, then; as I asked upthread, is it that God's nature changed between OT and NT times? Does God want us to love our enemies except when they're really evil and pagan, in which case it's okay to slaughter them? I don't see a way out of this other than to take Joshua (and the other 'problem texts' in the OT' as not fully expressing the nature and will of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
interpretation, falls down.

Therefore I take the accounts to be true, as I perceive that Jesus does as well. That is my evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The trouble with this is that this same Jesus made no attempt to disabuse us of the belief that the apparently historical events of the entry into the Promised Land were true. I would have thought that God would display his truthfulness and integrity through Jesus. Apparently not.

So I'm afraid that the one piece of evidence that has been offered to support the 'frog' interpretation, falls down.

Therefore I take the accounts to be true, as I perceive that Jesus does as well. That is my evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
The problem here, EE, is that you don't seem to be able to cope with the idea of story.

Jesus used stories all the time. Unless you're one of those people who genuinely believes that the Good Samaritan actually happened. So God, at least in the person of Jesus, is comfortable with making something up and using that made-up story to teach an eternal truth.

This is not surprising. If we are made in His image, and we are inveterate story-tellers, why is it against God's nature to be a story-teller?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
The problem here, EE, is that you don't seem to be able to cope with the idea of story.

Jesus used stories all the time. Unless you're one of those people who genuinely believes that the Good Samaritan actually happened. So God, at least in the person of Jesus, is comfortable with making something up and using that made-up story to teach an eternal truth.

This is not surprising. If we are made in His image, and we are inveterate story-tellers, why is it against God's nature to be a story-teller?

---

So therefore are you saying that any ancient writing that takes the form of an historical account must be viewed as a story or parable if it contains elements we don't personally like? Is that it?

OK. Let's suppose it's a parable then. None of the problems of the account fall away, because God is still 'God' in the story, and He still commands the slaughter of the inhabitants of Jericho. And Jesus made no attempt to clarify that the account was actually a load of bollocks.

So your point makes no sense at all.

By the way, the gospels make clear that Jesus spoke in parables, you know, just to help the reader. Funny, how the same help is not extended to us with regard to the historical accounts of the Old Testament, where we are just left guessing...

I suppose those who talk about the consistency of God's character as revealed in Jesus will have a contorted and acrobatically intricate answer for that problem. Wait for it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
A fair point in return, EE. But I have no problem with Jesus believing things that were / are not true. For example, Jesus seemingly believed in 6-day creation and a literal Adam and Eve. I don't. This doesn't bother me, though, because I take the self-emptying (kenosis) element of Jesus' incarnation as meaning that he became subject to human limitations and restrictions, which would include taking on aspects of his cultural context.

I know this viewpoint is open to the charges of subjectivity and relativism, but it seems like a better option than believing that God sometimes orders ethnic cleansing but nonetheless expects all his followers to love and do good to their enemies.

---

quote:

---

Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”

But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
I think I can actually rest my case here.

You do have a problem - a huge, insurmountable problem - with the concept of story. Specifically with the idea that something doesn't have to have happened to be true.

That's okay. I'm content with Jesus using OT stories to teach things as I am with Alfred burning the cakes, the spider in Robert the Bruce's cave, or the positioning of Cnut's throne.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Only if you want YOUR words to be taken seriously. Blowing off other people's analogies with "pathetic comparison" is not argumentation at all. You should be able to show why it's pathetic, and indicate in what way it is disanalagous. Otherwise your post is pathetic bloviating.

---

The comparison between an abusive husband and the righteous judge who is God, is absurd. Are you seriously expecting people to accept that an abusive person has a legitimate right to appeal to the actions of God to justify his criminality?

---

quote:

---

Absurd. The implication of this is that God is not permitted to judge anyone for his evil, because if He does, some nutcase will say: "Aw well, God can be a nasty bastard, so therefore I am allowed to be!"

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny, but I thought I was simply upholding the truth and integrity of Scripture.

---

YES! THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! What you are upholding is the truth and integrity of your interpretation of Scripture. You mistakenly believe that you are upholding the truth and integrity of Scripture.

---

and...

---

quote:

---

So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction? If so, please be so kind as to present it.

---

First it's presented alongside fiction such as Genesis. Or do you believe in both the six day creation and the Flood? Second, if taken on its own merits, rather than in the context of being alongside other works of fiction consensus is that the historicity is false.

So tell me. What evidence do you have that Joshua is more real than the six day creation? Or the Flood? And why should it be seen as in a different genre?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I cross-posted with EE and notice that he's used the 1 Kings 2 fire from heaven incident to bolster his own position ...

But with a different conclusion to the one I've reached.

Who is to say whether EE is right and I'm wrong or vice-versa?

It's a question of interpretation.

The fact that Christ alludes to this OT story doesn't tell us anything about whether he accepted it as historical fact or whether he saw it figuratively.

That element is supplied by us - our interpretation. It isn't incontrovertibly there in the text one way or another.

That's the point I'm making. You can't simply point to a text and say, 'There, Jesus seemed to take it literally so therefore we must ...'

I'm no expert but it seems from what I've read that there was a fair bit of latitude in how the Rabbis understood the OT stories. Some of them took a more allegorical approach, others were more literal.

The same was true as Christianity developed. In Alexandria, as is well known, a more allegorical school of interpretation emerged. In Antioch, it was more literal.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Gamaliel -

On and on and on and on and on ad nauseam you have hammered the point about "not either/or but both/and".

But now, when it suits your particular personal subjective position, it's a case of "not both/and but either/or"!

EITHER:

Stories

OR:

Historical accounts

I prefer to take the more educated, more nuanced and less simplistic view:

The two can co-exist.

And that seems far more consistent with something called 'reality'.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
For crying out loud, EE ... read what my posts say, not what you think they say. I have said that the OT stories contain both historical and mythological material at one and the same time ...

That they are both/and not either/or ...

Where have I said differently?

You are the one who is making the binary and oppositional points, not me.
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Wait - so they could be allegorical stories, they could actually be plain old-fashioned lies - the important thing to you, EE, is that Jesus Christ uses them, am I right?

Well Jesus Christ didn't use this particular story, hence he didn't think it mattered very much. How about that?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
How come everyone else has a personal, subjective position and you don't, EE?

How is your position more educated and nuanced than anyone else's?

What kind of reality is that?

It's unreality.

It goes like this:

EE - my position = nuanced, balanced, based on indisputable logic.

Everyone else's position apart from EE's = otherwise, subjective, unbalanced, unnuanced, uneducated ...



If it wasn't so tragic and deluded it'd be funny.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So there is a tension here. Jesus affirmed Elijah, but also made clear that we cannot treat events of the Old Testament as universal principles, and that if we do, the implication is that we are under the influence of a demonic spirit.

---

I agree with this, EE.

So why can't you apply a similar hermeneutical principle to the texts which seem to endorse divinely-sanctioned genocide?????


It is not just the atheists who are appalled by these particular texts. Do you really find it so absurd that evangelicals like me, who take Scripture seriously and live their lives by it, would also wrestle with the extremely troubling moral/ethical implications of this passage?

To ask questions of this particular text does not automatically mean that someone is a heretic who is only out to deconstruct the Bible.

The books of the OT were not written in the way in which 21st century people understand history. That doesn't make the biblical writers stupid. Or not inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it does mean that a woodenly literal understanding of Scripture does it no favours. Which is why I classify myself as 'open evangelical' and emphatically not 'fundamentalist'.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
The problem is, EE, is that you clearly don't understand how ancient texts work

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The idea of "leaving the option open" implies that I have some kind of choice in the matter, so that if I had the political power I could exploit my reading of the Bible to construct a pretext for acting in a certain way. Well clearly if I were choosing to act, then it wouldn't be God, would it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin
I agree with this, EE.

So why can't you apply a similar hermeneutical principle to the texts which seem to endorse divinely-sanctioned genocide?????

---

Oh FFS!!!!!



Indeed I do. What the hell do you think I have been saying?

Do you think I approve of genocide as a 'universal principle'?

Where did I say that?

I thought I had expressly said the very opposite!!

All I have been saying is that I believe that the events described in the OT actually took place. Nothing about their relevance for today.

[ 27. February 2014, 12:02: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There are stories which convey truth.

There are historical accounts describing real events.

Don't you think the two genres can co-exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All I have been saying is that I believe that the events described in the OT actually took place. Nothing about their relevance for today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'm typing quickly and I make mistakes.

Incidentally, I'm not taken lessons from a logician who doesn't even apply logic properly.

Which is far more serious.

You don't understand how ancient texts work because you've clearly demonstrated that in your approach to them. You treat them in a modernist way rather than a pre-modernist one.

You've only got to read you own posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All I have been saying is that I believe that the events described in the OT actually took place. Nothing about their relevance for today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Here's a simple question. If you honestly and truly believed that God was commanding you to commit genocide, would you obey?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
To repeat my earlier question Are you a Young-Earth Creationist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
You seem to prefer to distort the grace and love passages, but don't offer any reason for it other than sarcasm.

---

---

quote:

---

Facts and history utterly contradict this view. Most of the very great poets have been not only sane, but extremely business-like; and if Shakespeare ever really held horses, it was because he was much the safest man to hold them. Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
You asked for evidence that the passages are not historical. I give you two offers off hand. Firstly the archaeological evidence presented by Finkelstein and Silbermann in "The Bible Unearthed". Secondly ancient histories do tend to start with myth and move into fact, witness Livy who starts with Aeneas and Romulus and Remus but who nonetheless turns into a bona fide historian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Here's a simple question. If you honestly and truly believed that God was commanding you to commit genocide, would you obey?

---

Idealists deal in hypotheticals and second-guessing.

Realists don't.

I'm a realist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Here's a simple question. If you honestly and truly believed that God was commanding you to commit genocide, would you obey?

---

Idealists deal in hypotheticals and second-guessing.

Realists don't.

I'm a realist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just for the record, your refusal to answer the question is quite telling.

After all, as hypotheticals go it's quite a realistic one from your point of view. Because if God has commanded genocide in the past, and God is unchanging, then God may well command genocide again in the future. Is that not a logical conclusion to reach? And if so, is considering what your response will be should you be the one He commands not a pretty good idea?

---

Conversely, if one believes that God has changed his mind, what mental block is there to prevent you believing he might not change it back again?
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
So, EE, you are agnostic about origins, whilst at the same time affirming God as the maker of all things. Fair enough. That's my stance too.

So why, exactly, are you getting so incredibly indignant with anyone who is agnostic about the Canaanite genocide?

After all, if you are agnostic about origins, I guess you are agnostic about a literal Adam. Yet Jesus clearly talked about a literal Adam. Does that make Jesus wrong? (Posters like South Coast Kevin have already given credible - and orthodox - theories about that.)

If you were, in fact, a literal creationist, then your approach to biblical interpretation would at least be consistent.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Marvin the Martian -

Since you are into putting me on the spot concerning a hypothetical situation, then let me ask you one.

You are the leader of a nation, and you have absolute power with regard to military decisions. Your nation is at war, and is seeking to defend itself against an aggressor bent on the total annihilation of your people.

Now suppose there is a scenario in which, having considered all the options, the only way your nation can survive is to do something to your enemy which would result in the death of all its inhabitants.

Would you do that thing?

Yes or no?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I don't believe that such a situation could ever arise, but if it did then no, I would not wipe them out.

[ 27. February 2014, 12:48: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin
So why, exactly, are you getting so incredibly indignant with anyone who is agnostic about the Canaanite genocide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:


Hence Gamaliel's constant prattling. And what's-his-name, whom I have decided to ignore on this thread. Etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
I don't believe that such a situation could ever arise, but if it did then no, I would not wipe them out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore you would effectively commit genocide against your own people, since it is your responsibility to protect them, and you have the means to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


Anyway, I believe it's your turn to answer my question. Though I'm already fairly sure that your answer will be "yes, I would burn them all without a second thought".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If they want to think it's fiction. Fine. But don't expect me to agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Therefore you would effectively commit genocide against your own people, since it is your responsibility to protect them, and you have the means to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Not even slightly, the guilt would be on the opposing army's hands. But even if it were on mine, I would sooner answer to God for refusing to kill innocents than for actually doing so.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, I believe it's your turn to answer my question. Though I'm already fairly sure that your answer will be "yes, I would burn them all without a second thought".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin
You've left God out of your scenario, EE.

Is GOD telling the leader to make that decision? Is GOD ordering him to wipe out the aggressors' nation as an act of self-defence?

That is the crucial difference between your challenging hypothetical situation, and the situation as presented in Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Then I suggest that you ask God that question, and not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If they want to think it's fiction. Fine. But don't expect me to agree.

---

Why not, if you yourself are agnostic about the literal truth of the Creation narratives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But you have killed innocents, due to dereliction of duty.

---

quote:

---

Your apportioning of guilt does not change the reality on the ground.

---

quote:

---

Which is why I say that I am a realist, not an idealist. You idealistically talk about the apportioning of guilt, whereas I am talking about a leader fulfilling his duty to protect his people from an aggressor.

---

quote:

---

[b]Ah, I see where you are coming from. You want me to say 'yes' so that you can draw some conclusion about my character and desires.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You are the leader of a nation, and you have absolute power with regard to military decisions. Your nation is at war, and is seeking to defend itself against an aggressor bent on the total annihilation of your people.

Now suppose there is a scenario in which, having considered all the options, the only way your nation can survive is to do something to your enemy which would result in the death of all its inhabitants.

---

What? Are the infants SAS trained? Do they explode if their parent's heartbeat stops? No, wait! If their parents don't feed them at the proper time....
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Then I suggest that you ask God that question, and not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua (other than a vague appeal to the character of God as manifested in Jesus, which I have already addressed), then I take it that they are basically literal accounts.

---

quote:

---

But then again, theological liberalism is a myth, as there is often no bigot as dogmatic as a liberal bigot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Marvin the Martian -

Since you are into putting me on the spot concerning a hypothetical situation, then let me ask you one.

You are the leader of a nation, and you have absolute power with regard to military decisions. Your nation is at war, and is seeking to defend itself against an aggressor bent on the total annihilation of your people.

Now suppose there is a scenario in which, having considered all the options, the only way your nation can survive is to do something to your enemy which would result in the death of all its inhabitants.

Would you do that thing?

Yes or no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Partly, yes, though those conclusions can easily be drawn from what you've already said. But also to see if you have the courage and honesty to follow your theology through to its logical end, even if only in theory.

I mean, if Joshua was right to do what he did because God commanded it, then logically anyone else would be right to do the same thing if God commanded it again. You've already affirmed the first part, so why not affirm the second?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
/b]

---

Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua (other than a vague appeal to the character of God as manifested in Jesus, which I have already addressed), then I take it that they are basically literal accounts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I am simply saying - and you are obdurately refusing to accept - that the OT contains pre-modern historiography which, by its very nature, contains a mixture of literal history and mythology.

---

quote:

---

I am simply saying - and you are obdurately refusing to accept - that I BELIEVE THAT the OT contains pre-modern historiography which, by its very nature, contains a mixture of literal history and mythology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Oh if only it were that simple, EE ...

I've no more been posted with my own petard than you are an expert on ancient texts or even capable of framing a logical argument.

Of course I believe that ancient texts contain a mixture of literal history and mythology - in the C S Lewis sense of the term.

So does anyone else who has read Homer or Caesar, Tacitus, Herodotus, Plato or any other ancient text one might mention ... and there are Shippies around who will have read a lot more of them than thee and me. You may well have read a lot more of them than me.I am not trotting out my own personal opinion on these issues, but received and collective wisdom.

On the other hand, you are insisting on your particular form of fundamentalist conservative evangelical hermeneutic as the only viable option. 'God said it, it's in the Bah-ble, so there ...'

For someone who went to one of our top universities you don't half sound like some red-neck fundie out in the Appallachians at times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I am simply saying - and you are obdurately refusing to accept - that the OT contains pre-modern historiography which, by its very nature, contains a mixture of literal history and mythology.

---

No, that is not what you are saying.

This is what you are saying:

quote:

---

I am simply saying - and you are obdurately refusing to accept - that I BELIEVE THAT the OT contains pre-modern historiography which, by its very nature, contains a mixture of literal history and mythology.

---

You go on about interpretation, and how we all put our own construction on the Bible.

Well, it seems incredibly hypocritical not to apply YOUR rule to yourself.

Which rather underlines my comment about dogmatism and bigotry. Why don't you have the tolerance to accept different points of view?

You're a fundie. Plain and simple.

Hoisted with your own petard!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I studied theology (with a large philosophy elective element) in a so called 'liberal' faculty and came out with a 2:1. I debated not only with the other students but even some of the lecturers who respected me. You're an amateur and frankly I don't know why I condescend to respect your intelligence, given the nonsense you come out with at times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I studied theology (with a large philosophy elective element) in a so called 'liberal' faculty and came out with a 2:1. I debated not only with the other students but even some of the lecturers who respected me. You're an amateur and frankly I don't know why I condescend to respect your intelligence, given the nonsense you come out with at times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You are asking me to commit myself to a course of action within a hypothetical scenario. That was your original question, and I constructed such a scenario to help with the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Now someone may think that, because I believe that God ordered the destruction of Jericho, that I believe He delights in destroying people's lives, and because I choose to believe this, therefore I do as well.

---

quote:

---

But it's not a matter of "I believe this because it fits into what I want...", but "I am seeking the objective truth about God, whether I like what I find or not."

---

quote:

---

I don't accept the literal view of Joshua, because I have some deep desire to harm people with God's sanction. I accept it, because I believe it is objectively true, and although the account is troubling (and, might I add, I believe it is very troubling to God, because of the extent of evil which necessitated His judgment), I believe that the honest approach is to come to terms with it, and try to understand why such a course of action was necessary in that context.

---

quote:

---

In fact, just believing this account to be nothing more than a fable presents more of a problem to those who espouse that view. They now have to come to terms with the question of why the chosen people of God wanted to believe in that kind of God, and why Jesus made no effort to disabuse us of this image of God.

---

quote:

---

The fact is that there are situations in which the only options are evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua

---

Asked and answered. I've already linked Wikipedia once - the prevailing scholarly view isn't just that there is evidence to doubt the literal interpretation but that "Joshua is not a factual account of historical events". When you say "there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events" you are not only making a statement that is starkly factually wrong, you are demonstrating that you can't even be bothered to spend thirty seconds investigating the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The true Gamaliel is coming out.

What you are saying to me: your view is your own interpretation but my view is not, but objectively valid.

---

quote:

---

It takes a while to force you out into the open to show your true colours, but I am rather pleased that I have done it.

---

Curious, how you seem to believe you've scored some great victory here.

Nobody here has a problem with you having the freedom to believe whatever you want to. But if you are prepared to believe that God, once upon a time in the distant past, did order genocide, then you must naturally be prepared for some kickback, rather than throwing up your hands in horror at the very notion that people could question this. Or throwing at them the accusation that they are 'bigots' for questioning your interpretative framework.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

[QUOTE]It takes a while to force you out into the open to show your true colours, but I am rather pleased that I have done it.

---

Curious, how you seem to believe you've scored some great victory here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
the only way your nation can survive is to do something to your enemy which would result in the death of all its inhabitants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua

---

Asked and answered. I've already linked Wikipedia once - the prevailing scholarly view isn't just that there is evidence to doubt the literal interpretation but that "Joshua is not a factual account of historical events". When you say "there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events" you are not only making a statement that is starkly factually wrong, you are demonstrating that you can't even be bothered to spend thirty seconds investigating the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But you have killed innocents, due to dereliction of duty.

Your apportioning of guilt does not change the reality on the ground.

Which is why I say that I am a realist, not an idealist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Certainly Gamaliel's settled conclusion is contrary to the processes of proper research and robust scholarly analysis. In other words, his approach is academically invalid, although I suppose it's the kind of view one would expect from those dependent on a diet of popular media 'scholarship'. If he is such an expert on the Ancient World, he ought to know that archaeological evidence is notoriously flimsy, and theories change as more evidence is unearthed.

To be honest, on this thread I was focusing on textual evidence, and the internal coherence of the Scriptures, since that was the line of attack taken against the literal view. Clearly there is no internal coherent textual evidence to doubt the literal interpretation.

I will look at the archaeological evidence, and get back to you.

---

At least looking at the archaeological evidence will give you the opportunity to use the shovel you're currently digging a hole with for a different purpose.

You had the opportunity to actually apologise, rather than deliver a fauxpology and get another dig in a Gamaliel. But you blew it. Oh, internets...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, the evidence that it is not fully accurate (at least in the sense that it does not accurately portray God's view on what the Israelites should have done) is that it seems utterly in contradiction to the character of God as revealed in Jesus. Can you imagine Jesus - 'Love your enemies, bless those who curse you' Jesus - ordering his followers to commit ethnic cleansing?

---

quote:

---

EE said:
Also, you may like to present evidence to justify abusing (as in the hell thread - "lunatic ravings") someone who happens to believe that the book of Joshua is not fiction.

---

quote:

---

So anyone who takes an ancient account of an event at face value is guilty of "lunatic ravings" is he? Perhaps we should regard the entire history of the Ancient World as fiction, just to pander to mousethief's delicate sensibilities?

---

quote:

---

Hmmm... what were you saying about "being taken seriously", again?

---

quote:

---

What I have noticed from certain contributors, is that they seem to regard the content of the Bible as a set of universal laws, pretexts or precedents, such that if we believe that God acted in a certain way at a certain point in time, then He is bound to act in a similar way in other contexts, or that we are justified in distilling principles from His actions and applying them in other contexts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Personally, I have no problem believing that the genocidal event happened. Furthermore, I have no problem believing that the Israelites - including the writer of the Book of Joshua - believed that God had commanded them to do it. After all, we see such delusions even today (9/11 anyone?). The only bit I don't believe is that God actually commanded it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, Jesus who you claim is your example knew about these stories and said little to discount them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You're beginning to sound like a broken record, Gamaliel, trotting out your cliches and stock phrases.

---

quote:

---

The trouble with this is that this same Jesus made no attempt to disabuse us of the belief that the apparently historical events of the entry into the Promised Land were true. I would have thought that God would display his truthfulness and integrity through Jesus. Apparently not. <snip> Therefore I take the accounts to be true, as I perceive that Jesus does as well. That is my evidence.

---

quote:

---

So therefore are you saying that any ancient writing that takes the form of an historical account must be viewed as a story or parable if it contains elements we don't personally like? Is that it?

---

quote:

---

You have arrived at a verdict from zero evidence,

---

quote:

---

There are historical accounts describing real events.

---

quote:

---

that having looked at various archaeological claims by sceptics, the conclusions about the Bible seem to be based on the spurious principle of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

---

Exactly your argument for Jesus' belief in the the historicity of the Book of Joshua! OMG! You're killing me! Priceless, my precious! Priceless!

quote:

---

If they want to think it's fiction. Fine. But don't expect me to agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And what's-his-name, whom I have decided to ignore on this thread.

---

That could be almost anyone.

---

Pysdeybare wins the internet.

quote:

---

EE said:
I studied theology (with a large philosophy elective element) in a so called 'liberal' faculty and came out with a 2:1. I debated not only with the other students but even some of the lecturers who respected me. You're an amateur and frankly I don't know why I condescend to respect your intelligence, given the nonsense you come out with at times.

---

quote:

---

I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I may get 'called' by the Hosts on this one but I can't understand how the hell you got a 2:1 in Philosophy and Theology from one of our top universities by spouting the kind of crap you spout here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I really think that you're a troll at times, just winding us all up for the sake of it.

In fact, it'd be easier to believe that you are a troll than that you are educated to the level you claim and come out with the tosh you spout.

---

Host Hat On

That gets you a formal warning for troll calling, which is as you well know a matter for Admin. Specifically, it is a breach of Commandment 3.

In addition.

Gamaliel and EE

I am referring you both to Admin for your continued parading of your personality conflict (Commandment 4 applies) outside of Hell, despite Louise's specific warning to all contributors re Commandment 4 in this post. earlier in the thread. Ignoring a Host's post can get you both into further hot water with Admin.

Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host

Host Hat Off
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
EtymologicalEvangelical and Gamaliel

I've lost count of how many times you've been warned about personal attacks on each other.

The next time either of you takes a pot shot at the other outside Hell and one of us will start handing out enforced shore.

Clear?

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Ok, fair call and fair warning. I shouldn't have taken the bait.

My rhetoric ran away with me but that's no excuse.

I will endeavour to resist temptation. Other people are giving EE a better run for his money than I can.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua

---

Asked and answered. I've already linked Wikipedia once - the prevailing scholarly view isn't just that there is evidence to doubt the literal interpretation but that "Joshua is not a factual account of historical events". When you say "there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events" you are not only making a statement that is starkly factually wrong, you are demonstrating that you can't even be bothered to spend thirty seconds investigating the subject.

---

As a matter of fact, if you had actually researched this subject, you would know that there has been a debate about the dating of the conquest of Canaan, and the radiocarbon dating of items from Jericho (City IV).

---

quote:

---

I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur.

---

quote:

---

If he is such an expert on the Ancient World, he ought to know that archaeological evidence is notoriously flimsy, and theories change as more evidence is unearthed.

---

quote:

---

To be honest, on this thread I was focusing on textual evidence, and the internal coherence of the Scriptures, since that was the line of attack taken against the literal view. Clearly there is no internal coherent textual evidence to doubt the literal interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The conflict between these two interpretations is well analysed in this article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
EtymologicalEvangelical and Gamaliel

I've lost count of how many times you've been warned about personal attacks on each other.

The next time either of you takes a pot shot at the other outside Hell and one of us will start handing out enforced shore.

Clear?

---

I am sorry about this.

I will stick to a discussion of the evidence relating to the topic, and I trust that we can have a fruitful debate.

I will do my utmost to chill out from now on.

[ 27. February 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Except the radiocarbon dating is handled in a very cavalier manner: the very best dates clock in 1500s BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Except the radiocarbon dating is handled in a very cavalier manner: the very best dates clock in 1500s BC.

---

Could you expand on that point please.

What do you mean by 'cavalier' in this context?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
In that an article dated 2008, he's still using radiocarbon data that was discredited in 1995. In the addendum, Wood - despite using C14 to originally bolster his case - says that using C14 dating is wrong when it doesn't agree with the 'historical' date.

That's what I mean by cavalier. Either Wood agrees with C14, and has to accept what it says, or he doesn't. He doesn't get to choose which C14 dates he likes. (Clearly, he can do, but his credibility takes a massive hit.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Presumably we don't know long after the destruction of Jericho that people began to resettle the city. Isn't it one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world?

Presumably, even if Jericho fell in exactly the way the Book of Joshua describes, people soon started to settle there again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I agree that there is some controversy about the use of C14 dating (not least the question of distortion produced by the volcanic effect), and I also agree that he would be wise to clarify the issue, although he has attempted to do this in the addendum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, having had a look at some of the evidence it is by no means clear that the sceptics have a case.

---

quote:

---

So I am not convinced that the literal view has been kicked into the long grass. Far from it.

---

quote:

---

I await the refutation of Wood's thesis, so we can take the debate further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Yes, there is some controversy about C14 dating. But that is external to its use here. Wood is initially arguing that the C14 date from the charcoal fragment backs up his preferred date - then (and only then) when it's pointed out in the comments that the C14 date he's using has been re-evaluated in a peer-reviewed journal some 13 years previously to be 150 years earlier, it's all "C14 dates are unreliable".

That's an indefensible piece of hypocrisy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
Creosus has done this by pointing out how he's been found torturing his facts to fit his ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
To refute a thesis, we have to look at all the data and claims presented and not just focus on one error or weak argument, unless that error is presuppositional, which it is not in this case.

---

quote:

---

We are clearly dealing with a pre-modern historiographical account which - like all of these things - contains mythic elements. I'm not sure it even helps to try to suss out where the myth ends and the history begins ... the two things are fused together. That's how these things work, it seems to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
history professors solemnly warn their undergraduates not to cite in their bibliographies if they are aiming for something higher than a 'D'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
And, of course, this does not invalidate the point that I was making that history, like many other scholarly endeavours, dates horribly and perhaps, it was better for Holy Writ to present itself in the form of timeless myth than of a historical account that would be out of date in a couple of decades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
The only part I'm qualified to comment on is the C14 dating.

There is, however, the "holed below the waterline" argument. Wood's acceptance and then rejection of the C14 date when he's called out on it leads me to understand he's willing to skew other data to fit his thesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

If we are going to talk about evidence, then we should look at all the evidence dispassionately, and without relying on the ad hominem argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Dr Wood did his Ph.D. dissertation on Canaanite pottery of the Late Bronze Age. Therefore he is an expert in the subject.

---

quote:

---

The first group includes the fundamentalists, who believe in the reliability of the biblical text in all its details, and that the text forms the basis and guide for their archaeological work. I can mention, for example, Bryant Wood and his work on Jericho (e.g. Wood 1990), and Adam Zertal, who restored an imaginary altar on Mount Ebal on the basis of the biblical text (e.g. Zertal 1986–87). Both of them, as well as other scholars of this group, are good, professional archaeologists, but their archaeological work is clearly biased and distorted by their views on the biblical text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we are going to talk about evidence, then we should look at all the evidence dispassionately, and without relying on the ad hominem argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Assertions do not count as evidence.

Sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
John Garstang catalogued items of Cypriot pottery found in a wealthier part of Jericho, which Kathleen Kenyon did not excavate. At the time (the 1930's) Garstang did not appreciate the significance of the find, and yet the presence of this Cypriot bichrome ware - dated to the Late Bronze Age - blows Kenyon's theory out of the water, since she relied on the absence of such pottery to arrive at her earlier date for the destruction of the city. In his article Wood provides photographic evidence of these items, and this can be substantiated. Are you disputing this evidence?

---

quote:

---

Both of them, as well as other scholars of this group, are good, professional archaeologists, but their archaeological work is clearly biased and distorted by their views on the biblical text.

---

Actually this is a very incoherent appraisal. On the one hand, Wood and Zertal are affirmed as good, professional archaeologists, but they are accused of bias, simply because, like all scientists, they hold to a hypothesis, which they are seeking to confirm by investigation of the evidence. Either the evidence supports the hypothesis or it does not. Wood has shown that the evidence of the pottery found at Jericho supports his hypothesis, whatever the controversy about C-14 dating. The evidence of the pottery will not just go away.

This is not bias, but science.

Also, are we seriously to believe that those who hold to the philosophy of naturalism can never be biased thereby?

One could just as easily say that those who wish to prove the Bible to be historically inaccurate are biased.

It works both ways.
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 


Do you understand the peer review process? You can't just make up shit and then say that because your apparent evidence fits your preconceived theory, it shows that the theory must be right.

All scientific knowledge sits within a framework of understanding.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Then google: Bryant Wood photos fake (or some similar wording).

It shouldn't take you long, as I am sure his alleged fraud would have been exposed by now. After all, there are apparently enough people with the motive to rubbish his work.

You may like to do the same for the moon landings, and then report your findings on Alex Jones' or David Icke's websites.
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
OK, I did.

I got this link and this link.

You really should think about doing things before suggesting on public bulletin boards that others should do it.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Wood has shown that the evidence of the pottery found at Jericho supports his hypothesis, whatever the controversy about C-14 dating. The evidence of the pottery will not just go away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare
OK, I did.

I got this link and this link.

You really should think about doing things before suggesting on public bulletin boards that others should do it.

---

quote:

---

Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected.

---

quote:

---

In that time, Dr. Wood’s pottery evidence, scarab evidence, radiocarbon dating and mudslide story–all of which were mentioned in Wood’s original 1990 BAR article and championed by Mr. Holding in his Jericho article as well as in BHI-- have all been shown to be false. I’m not a professional archaeologist or Bible historian, but even I found all the relevant data relatively easily to show why the larger community of scholars reject Dr. Wood’s “findings” and have done so for nearly two decades now.

---

quote:

---

The bottom line here is Provan, Long, and Longman’s admission in one of the notes attached to this section of their textbook. They admit, “[W]e have noted already Bienkowski’s challenge and Wood’s response, and in our opinion Wood makes the better case” [344, n200]. Opinion hardly matters here, but it is important to point out that Provan, Long, and Longman are basing their opinion only on the original “dialogue” between Wood and Bienkowski in the 1990 BAR articles. Obviously, they were not “on the lookout” for any “adequate” refutations of the data presented by Wood post-1990. But, unlike Mr. Holding, they didn’t claim to be looking out for such material, either. Yet, I must confess that I find it somewhat refreshing to read these authors admit to their bias in accepting Wood’s dated conclusions on little more than their own personal feelings for the data rather than a detailed study of the contrary evidence, even if that admission is buried in a footnote.

---

So let's get this straight. No evidence is presented, and yet Wood's view is rubbished by someone (who earlier in the article admits to not being an archaeologist) who finds it refreshing that other scholars admit to their 'bias' in supporting Wood's view on little more than their personal feelings, rather than on a detailed study of the contrary evidence, which he refuses to divulge to us! So apparently he is not opposing Wood on the basis of personal feelings or bias, even though he gives us absolutely no reason to think otherwise! (Furthermore, in the text there is no evidence that these scholars "admitted to their bias" - that is something the author of the article is reading into their position. Maybe they did admit to it, but you couldn't be convinced of it from reading this article! The 'admission' that is quoted is not an admission at all. So this doesn't look very honest to me).

I'm glad I am not a psychologist. Try wading through that acrobatic evidence-free logic!
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 


Shitty reply found by google in response to a shitty article found by EE which 'supports' his assertions, even though shown to be unreliable.

Yeah, ok, EE. Thing is you've still not proven reliably your point.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare
OK, I did.

I got this link and this link.

You really should think about doing things before suggesting on public bulletin boards that others should do it.

---

Firstly, you are the one disputing Dr Wood's findings. Therefore it is incumbent on you to substantiate your misgivings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

I think pydsey should take more time to read through the evidence he is presenting, in order to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think pydsey should take more time to read through the evidence he is presenting, in order to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

What evidence, then, would it take for you to accept that the biblical account of the invasion of Canaan was not actual history?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

What evidence, then, would it take for you to accept that the biblical account of the invasion of Canaan was not actual history?

---

There are those who appear they would maintain their views even should God personally tell them otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
I'm reasonably certain it's you who should be embarrassed. The one source you're relying on has been unequivocally shown to be playing fast and loose with the only piece of genuine scientific data available, and still you spin and spin.

---

quote:

---

In fact, radiocarbon is such a source. In the early 1990's, when Wood first published his claims, there was only one radiocarbon measurement available for City IV. It was from a piece of charcoal dated by the British Museum to 1410 plus or minus 40 years B.C. Unfortunately, this date was later retracted by the British Museum, along with dates of several hundred other samples. The British Museum found that their radiocarbon measurement apparatus had gone out of calibration for a period of time, and thus had yielded incorrect dates during that period. The corrected date for the charcoal sample from City IV turned out to be consistent with Kenyon's ca. 1550 B.C. date for the City IV destruction.

The corrected date no longer supported Wood's proposal, but it was insufficient to falsify the proposal. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal give the date the wood grew, not the date it was burned. To be consistent with Bryant Wood's proposal, the wood which burned to produce the charcoal sample would need to have been cut from a living tree 150 years prior to the destruction. Of course, this is not impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
EE,

Serious question here: how old do you believe the Earth to be?

---

What the hell has that got to do with Jericho?



Anyway, gotta run. Have an evening shift. Hope to continue this discussion later...
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If you are a YECCie, their is no point discussing anything with you here. If you are not, why so tightly wound in this discussion?
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So, no, I am not embarrassed, because the evidence is on my side

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, it's obvious that you haven't even bothered to look at what you term "the only genuine piece of scientific data available". Not only is that description entirely false, but highly selective even within the range of the C-14 data.

There wasn't just one reading from the destruction level of City IV, but 19!

These all gave wildly different dates ranging from 1690 to 1520 BC.

---

quote:

---

And, of course, you continue to blatantly ignore the copious pottery evidence.

---

quote:

---

Are you expecting me to accept a theory based on an argument from silence (Kenyon's dubious lack of Cypriot pottery theory), rather than based on what was actually excavated?

---

quote:

---

So, no, I am not embarrassed, because the evidence is on my side, and I don't refer to blatantly contradictory articles to support my case, like pydsey has done.

---

You still don't get it do you
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What the hell has that got to do with Jericho?

---

quote:

---

Anyway, gotta run. Have an evening shift. Hope to continue this discussion later...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical


Looks rather self-refuting to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare
The lack of any kind of scientific reasoning ability is commonly associated with young earth creationists. You are showing all the classic signs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Right. If you know so much about the scientific method, then please explain it to me.

Go on. Let's see what you've got as far as understanding critical reasoning is concerned.

Instead of spending this whole thread just snapping at my heels with cynical comments, why don't you actually show me how to engage with the evidence in the way that you think is correct?

---

quote:

---

I will then evaluate your response, to see whether you actually understand the principles of critical analysis.

This should be interesting...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I will then evaluate your response, to see whether you actually understand the principles of critical analysis.

This should be interesting...

---

You clearly don't have that ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So, no, I am not embarrassed, because the evidence is on my side

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Except that your evidence rests entirely on the testimony of one scholar, who has been shown to be less than totally reliable (to put it nicely). Further it appears to be his word contra mundum, and his word is suspect. So, no, the evidence is not on your side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ricardus -

Could I just ask you if you have a higher qualification in politics and economics? Yes or no?

This is highly relevant by the way...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus
No. I have a BA in modern languages, which qualifies me to produce plausible bullshit in a range of languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Anglican_Brat -

Strange how you appeal to the Bible in order to undermine the Bible.

Looks rather self-refuting to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Archaeology is simply a work in progress, and in this case the evidence is somewhat contradictory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
and we are all allowed to critically examine information

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for reliability and honesty: why is it that Wood is being castigated for his error over one particular piece of evidence, which taken together with other C-14 evidence is not conclusive, when Kathleen Kenyon's view is not treated with the same concern, even though she built her theory of the dating of the destruction of Jericho on an argument from silence, namely, the lack of expensive imported pottery in a part of the city, which by her own admission was an economically poor area?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I will then evaluate your response, to see whether you actually understand the principles of critical analysis.

This should be interesting...

---

You clearly don't have that ability.

I'm sorry, EE, you just don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:
Well, if it is a personal attack to say that I think the evidence of this thread shows that EtymologicalEvangelical lacks the ability to judge my critical analytical skills, then I am very sorry indeed.

---

quote:

---

1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.

---

quote:

---

Dead Horses is really an extension of Purgatory, so not only do the Ship of Fools 10 Commandments apply, so do the Purgatory guidelines. We ask that you respect your fellow contributors by adhering to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Millions of people who do not have qualifications in politics and economics are allowed to make decisions that directly affect the political and economic structure of their country. It's called the ballot box.

Now why is it that the process of democracy credits ordinary people with intelligence (whether they are intelligent or not)? And why is it that the jury system allows ordinary people - not qualified in criminal law - to decide the fate of a defendant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because I assess historical evidence on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever to doubt the literal interpretation of the events described in, say, Joshua (other than a vague appeal to the character of God as manifested in Jesus, which I have already addressed), then I take it that they are basically literal accounts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:
5. Hence it is reasonable to be dubious about what this guy is saying (1) because he appears to only publish on his own website, not in peer reviewed journals (2) because he has been shown to be wrong on C14 data (3) because others do not accept his approach and have said so in peer reviewed journals in the field.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The articles detailing his controversial ideas appear in the Biblical Archaeology Review which is a non-peer reviewed popular magazine though does publish articles by serious scholars (they also published the opposition to his hypothesis). And in Bible and Spade which is dedicated to the inerrantist view and for which he is the editor.

---

quote:

---

He's published in Israel Exploration Journal 50(1-2):123-130 (2000) which does seem to be peer reviewed but the article, "Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1995-1998" does not seem to deal with the controversy in question directly (it was also in the Notes and News section so might not have the same peer review requirements of other sections). He has published in Levant 14(01): 73-79 (1982) also peer reviewed and again the article doesn't seem to deal directly with the controversy (among other things it was published before his hypothesis was proposed in 1990) "The Stratigraphic Relationship of Local and Imported Bichrome Ware at Megiddo".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is Wiki on Bryant Wood.

There is no conclusive connection between inerrancy views of scripture and honesty over research work. Nor are all peer review systems free from bias.

---

quote:

---

But, if you are a researcher of any kind, and you feel your work is being discounted because of your prior beliefs, then I think you have to work within the peer review system itself, rather than step outside it.

---

quote:

---

From a preliminary look, it seems that he has good claims to expertise re dating of pottery shards, coupled with some peer review of his work in that field. So far as carbon dating is concerned, not so much.

---

quote:

---

How can we explain such pervasive bias? Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Well he would" (as Mandy Rice Davis Davies put it memorably).

Or the problem of Bulverism ("you say that because you are a mother!") as C S Lewis put it.

More colloquially yet; "Playing the man rather than the ball".

The only real antidote is to take findings and conclusions on their merits, rather than start off suspicious. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

---

There is no 'playing of the man', if he had published this in a journal, had a better record of research, worked in a respected university insitute, had not been accused of bias by colleagues.. and so on, there would be no obvious question of credibility.

Unfortunately, this is one of the ways we are taught at university to assess claims of this kind.

If one does not use a measure of credibility in reading reports, one is inevitably going to get caught up in answering any-old-crap questions from very uncredible sources.

[ 03. March 2014, 10:59: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
We all take shortcuts based on judgment. Will this really be worth my time? That's the beauty of peer review. If a paper has got through the preliminary vetting then it's worth a read whoever the author may be. If it hasn't, then we all take a view.

Folks build up a different kind of credibility even here. We all create our own track records triggered whenever anyone sees a name or an avatar. It's a good idea to avoid the "scroll past" the reputation. A kind of highly informal and not obviously fair peer review.

The issue is that biased people also have insights. Since bias is normal, that's basically all of us. The root of prejudice is that little phrase "pre-judge" i.e. to judge not on merit but some form of prior opinion of the worth of a person's work.

Pre-judging may be necessary, and it may often be right, but it is not free from risk of Bulverism.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Here is the thing. A Biblical archaeologist might be perfectly objective. However, given the nature of humans for confirmation bias, the very idea of approaching any endeavor with an inherently limited* framework is not good science. So is this still bulverism to when such a person speaks contrary to the mainstream?

*And suspect framework. Where on the inerrancy spectrum does a person fall? Jericho or Noah?

And before any attempts to get all Scientismist on my arse, yes anyone can approach research with a bias. However this sorts itself out eventually unless contained within an artificial housing such as Biblical archaeology.

ETA: Oh, Oh, this relates to the OP. When one believes the bible stands without interpretation, without human bias, one is painted into genocidal corners.

[ 03. March 2014, 16:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
What's wrong with the usual tests of replicabilty or falsification? In general, scientists and researchers don't have to pass character tests before being allowed to practise their chosen fields. They are expected to have demonstrated a certain level of competence through various tests on the way to achieving qualifications.

Good science can be, has been, and is being, done by folks who are hardly paragons of virtue in their personal lives. People compartmentalise. Why should we apply special tests to folks of particular religious beliefs? Their work will either stand up, or it won't. It looks as though Wood's Jericho assertions won't stand up, which just demonstrates that the system works, provided that research results are open to independent scrutiny.

I agree it is relevant to this thread, since there is more than one DH in play at this point. But the point has wider relevance than just this thread.

[ 03. March 2014, 18:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
My comment was not meant to deride to any religion and I truly do not care what religion any scientist belongs to, with the following caveat: A person subscribing to a literalist view of a work such as the bible is unsuited to science endeavours which contradict said view. Such as an evolutionary biologist who believes in a 6,000 year old earth.

I do have a problem with the let science sort it out philosophy, in that this is fine for the scientific community; but causes problems with the general public by putting out plausible, but inaccurate data.

And I think tying to prove religion is missing the point from the first.

[ 03. March 2014, 20:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sure, but unless you accept the disciplines of the research methods in play in your chosen field, you will never meet the necessary qualification standards which will get you to the starting line.

There is some measure of self-selection involved. People do not, generally, expose themselves to severe cognitive dissonance.

If I give an example from a different field, F F Bruce was a distinguished professor of exegetical studies , who was also a life long member of the Christian Brethren, a movement noted for conservative evangelical viewpoints. But Bruce was a maverick within the movement to which he belonged. He was an intelligent, reforming voice within a theologically conservative movement.

Basically, we make a mistake if we assume either a lack of honesty or competence simply because there are tensions as a result of membership of two dissimilar groups. It may be that it takes both courage and wit to cope with those tensions. It may look very difficult to us.

Some people prefer to be inside the tent pissing out. Of course one may be suspicious of the motives of any researcher who we perceive as having a axe to grind. But why assume it will be used to subvert scientific research processes? The reforming aim may lie elsewhere.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If someone gets caught out in a concealed agenda, either way, they will lose their credibility. It is simply wrong to believe they have, inevitably, such an agenda.
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If I give an example from a different field, F F Bruce was a distinguished professor of exegetical studies , who was also a life long member of the Christian Brethren, a movement noted for conservative evangelical viewpoints. But Bruce was a maverick within the movement to which he belonged. He was an intelligent, reforming voice within a theologically conservative movement.

---

quote:

---

Basically, we make a mistake if we assume either a lack of honesty or competence simply because there are tensions as a result of membership of two dissimilar groups. It may be that it takes both courage and wit to cope with those tensions. It may look very difficult to us.

---

quote:

---

Some people prefer to be inside the tent pissing out. Of course one may be suspicious of the motives of any researcher who we perceive as having a axe to grind. But why assume it will be used to subvert scientific research processes? The reforming aim may lie elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If someone gets caught out in a concealed agenda, either way, they will lose their credibility. It is simply wrong to believe they have, inevitably, such an agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not defending Bryant Wood, pydseybare. I'm defending the right of anyone of any persuasion whatsoever to pursue any career for which they have the talent. I'm defending the principle that any research work they do should be judged on its merits, not pre-judged on the basis of assumptions about prior beliefs.

Both you and lilbuddha seem to be arguing that biblical inerrantists cannot on principle be trusted to do decent archaeological research work. I'm arguing that is an unnecessary assumption. If the work is no good, peers will find it out by the usual peer review processes. There is no need to second guess them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:


Both you and lilbuddha seem to be arguing that biblical inerrantists cannot on principle be trusted to do decent archaeological research work. I'm arguing that is an unnecessary assumption. If the work is no good, peers will find it out by the usual peer review processes. There is no need to second guess them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What part of "not defending Bryant Wood" are you failing to understand, pydseybare?

---

quote:

---

I'm not an innerantist, I don't believe in Intelligent Design, I have no time for scientists who make claims for research which they are not prepared to see tested by their peers. I don't like concealed agendas, I have no time for special pleading.

---

quote:

---

The principle I am asserting is this one. It is wrong to pre-judge serious research work by asserting that the results must have been tainted by the prior beliefs of the researcher. I'm sticking to that, come what may. Arguments like that have been used historically to persecute minorities. It is a matter of individual freedoms.

---

quote:

---

If you want to say "may have been tainted" then we have an agreement. Bias is normal, but it is not wrong to be cautious about the possible impact of prior beliefs in this field of research.

---

quote:

---

He is asking you to believe that all negros lie, that all negros cannot be trusted. A belief which itself is a lie, as I am sure I do not have remind you gentlemen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, I will have one final go at this tangent, because there is an important point at stake here.

There is a misplaced middle term in your argument, pydseybare.

a) Bryant Wood has demonstrated that his research findings have been affected more by his beliefs than the facts.

b) Bryant Wood is an inerrantist

c) Therefore all innerantists will demonstrate the same flaw. They cannot be be trusted to do proper, peer-reviewable research work in any area where the findings may challenge their beliefs.

There is no "therefore" about it. There is simply an assumption.

---

quote:

---

There is a finding of guilt in advance of evidence and applying it to a group of people (inerrantists) on the basis of your understanding of the way their beliefs affect their character.

In my rebuttal, I will refer to Atticus Finch's closing submission for the defence, in the trial of Tom Robinson in "To Kill a Mockingbird".

quote:

---

He is asking you to believe that all negros lie, that all negros cannot be trusted. A belief which itself is a lie, as I am sure I do not have remind you gentlemen

---

lilBuddha got my point. Are you still sure you don't? Do you really believe that all inerrantists are forced to lie when faced with inconvenient findings? Do you believe that all innerantists are so lacking in personal integrity that they cannot face inconvenient facts? That seems to be what you are saying. If you are, that is pre-judging a lot of people you don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:


I am totally arguing that someone with an inerrant view of the bible is an unreliable and likely biased source for data in an area which impinges directly on their faith.

They might not be biased, of course the way to prove this is to get a job with a secular university and to publish in a peer reviewed journal. The way not to do it is to set up your own website and journal. That seems pretty obvious to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:

I am not prejudging anyone, I am simply applying a normal test of credibility. This has nothing to do with dismissing scientific research because the author is black, is gay, is a woman or whatever other abuses you can make up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The problem I had was with simply with the italicised part of your earlier post.

I am more than happy to accept your clarification that no such bias has ever been intended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Dr Wood has presented some evidence concerning the dating of Bronze Age pottery. Frankly, it makes not a shred of difference whether he is a graffiti artist presenting his theory scrawled on the back wall of a public toilet. Or whether he's a local down the pub who scribbled it on the back of a fag packet. What really matters is whether the evidence itself is sound.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that these long-winded ad hominem attacks are just a cynical way of avoiding the challenge of the evidence.

Play the ball. Not the man.

---

quote:

---

The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0–6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.

---

quote:

---

My dating of the destruction of Jericho to ca. 1400 B.C. is based on pottery, which, in turn, is based on Egyptian chronology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As I write this, I am standing in Room 57 (Ancient Levant) of the British Museum. There is no pottery from Jericho exhibited here, but quite a bit from Lachish. I have just compared Dr. Wood's claim with the kind of pottery found in Lachish dated 1400 to 1200 BC. Hmmm... same design (bichrome). I'm afraid I can't see the Jericho type pottery design in the section for the 16th century BC.

But who knows? Perhaps the British Museum lacks credibility as well?

---

Just as you confuse your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself, you confuse your interpretation of the display at the British Museum with the knowledge of the curators of the British Museum. TWBFIIWSS. (That Would Be Funny If It Weren't So Sad)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


I'm a huge fan of the British Museum. I love their free guided tours. I once went on one of the Assyrian rooms. Fascinating. All those lion hunts and winged man/eagle/lion things and blokes with funny beards ... all those siege engines at Lachish and crossing the Euphrates in giant coracles ...

Wonderful, wonderful stuff.

Of course, looking at the Assyrian friezes I became completely convinced of the absolute historical veracity of the story of Sennacherib and the angel smiting his hordes outside Jerusalem ... 'and behold, when they awoke they were all dead men.'

I also realised that the famous poem by Byron, 'The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold/And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold ...' wasn't actually a poem at all but a first-hand journalistic report ...

I am aghast.

For a bright bloke, EE you don't half miss the point at times.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The last comment was ad hominem. I withdraw it.

What I would say instead is, 'For someone who claims to be a Philosophy and Theology graduate from one of our leading universities, your arguments often strike me as rather thin and full of category errors.

It could well be that I'm missing something - but I very much doubt it because plenty of other Shipmates seem to have the same reaction.

For whatever reason, the standard of logical argument and theological insight that you would have imbibed on your course doesn't appear to translate itself into the ability to argue a cogent and convincing case.

In this instance you appear to make a logical jump across several assumptions rather than waiting for there to be data to support those assumptions.

It strikes me as something of a short-cut.

'There is no Jericho pottery in the British Museum display from the time that Wood dates the fall of the city, therefore this strongly supports this thesis.'

Which is rather like the following schema where Z = The Book of Joshua is historically accurate in every detail and the other letters and dashed represent actual data (letters - upper case for substantial data and lower case for incomplete or questionable data) and the dashes missing data.

A _ _ _ E _ f _ _ h _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ q _ S _ _ v _ _ _ Z

There are plenty of gaps to fill in.

It's only an analogy but even if we accept that the balance of probability leans towards the date that Wood suggests it by no means supports the contention that:

- The British Museum display has the last word on the matter.

- The Bible has somehow eluded the characteristic common to all ancient writings, that of containing both literal historical fact (or being set against an historical background) and also mythological historiography at one and the same time.'

I hope that's less ad hominem.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Just as you confuse your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself, you confuse your interpretation of the display at the British Museum with the knowledge of the curators of the British Museum. TWBFIIWSS. (That Would Be Funny If It Weren't So Sad)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, the displays are pretty clear. I was not hallucinating when I read the dates of the different styles of pottery from the same region as Jericho. If you want to call straightforward empirical evidence an 'interpretation', then fine. Perhaps we should apply this rule to any straightforward observation of empirical evidence?

---

quote:

---

Bichrome ware with concentric circles is dated as Late Bronze Age pottery. This is pretty clear circumstantial evidence that confirms Dr Wood's claim for the pottery excavated by John Garstang at Jericho.

---

quote:

---

I will continue to present evidence. Certain others (thankfully a minority) can continue to insult me, but I am not going to lower myself to that level. And this includes ignoring the two posts after your one (which I will not be reading) after having seen the first one introduced with a sniggering emoticon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I will continue to present evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Side-by-side photos that can be verified to be what they say they are, that would be evidence. Your say-so about an exhibit at the British Museum compared to a description from a website? Nay, that ain't evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Side-by-side photos that can be verified to be what they say they are, that would be evidence. Your say-so about an exhibit at the British Museum compared to a description from a website? Nay, that ain't evidence.

---

I think we can reasonably discount reports until the actual samples are compared side-by-side by experts.

---

I can see your point.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And even then, if the evidence passes muster and the early date for the destruction is verified, how does that 'prove' that the description in the Book of Joshua is an accurate blow-by-blow account of what actually happened - complete with trumpets and genocide?

There's a step of faith involved all ways round, of course.

As well as the archaeological evidence - such as it is - there's also the literary-critical aspects. I don't see those being addressed.

It seems to be the case that because it's in the Bible it must by very virtue of that fact be an empirically testable account of what actually happened - otherwise we make God out to be a liar - because God doesn't tell stories - and therefore the whole basis of our faith collapses like a pack of cards.

This, it seems to me, is such a brittle view that when it breaks, as surely it must, rather than bends then it's going to do some damage both to the individual holding it and those around him and nearest and dearest to him.

I'd genuinely hate for that to happen.

Put some bend in that wooden post or tree trunk of yours, EE, otherwise it will snap with an almighty crack when the wind blows ...


 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And even then, if the evidence passes muster and the early date for the destruction is verified, how does that 'prove' that the description in the Book of Joshua is an accurate blow-by-blow account of what actually happened - complete with trumpets and genocide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For me, the important question is: what does the evidence tell us?

---

quote:

---

Cypriot bichrome ware, although produced in Cyprus, is found mainly in southern Levantine mainland sites. Unlike the Cypriot ceramics tradition, this ware is wheel-made. Cypriot bichrome is characterized by its most common decoration: two black lines with a red line in between them. Between those lines geometric, floral or zoomorphic decorations would often appear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Which makes the incredibly abusive response to my views all the more ridiculous. Anyone with any scholarly nous should keep an open mind, not fling around accusations of bias etc..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, the displays are pretty clear. I was not hallucinating when I read the dates of the different styles of pottery from the same region as Jericho. If you want to call straightforward empirical evidence an 'interpretation', then fine....

---

quote:

---

But who knows? Perhaps the British Museum lacks credibility as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Can I remind you that I started this tangent when you blithely asserted that there was no doubt as to the historicity of the events described in Joshua?

There is doubt by the bucket-load, something you seem to now to be approaching from entirely the other side in that you're claiming that the events described in Joshua might be true.

Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

---

quote:

---

The problem here, EE, is that you don't seem to be able to cope with the idea of story.

Jesus used stories all the time. Unless you're one of those people who genuinely believes that the Good Samaritan actually happened. So God, at least in the person of Jesus, is comfortable with making something up and using that made-up story to teach an eternal truth.

This is not surprising. If we are made in His image, and we are inveterate story-tellers, why is it against God's nature to be a story-teller?

---

quote:

---

In other words, you assumed that the account of the destruction of Jericho as recounted in the Bible must be merely a story

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

It is absolutely true that there is no textual evidence to doubt the historicity of the account in Joshua, other than a vague appeal to the supposed character of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I am just making the point that if we are to ignore the possible influence of Kenyon's views on her work, then we should apply the same moral standard to our view of Dr Wood. Bias is bias. It makes no difference what the philosophy is towards which a scholar is apparently biased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Here's a good place. You know how I make my living, right? I make stuff up and people pay me for it? I would never, ever, let the words "merely a story" ever pass my lips.

---

quote:

---

I reiterate. You Do Not Understand The Idea of Story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs
I don't see how anti-zionism affects the specific topic of the destruction of Jericho.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

And by the way, all I have so far concluded about the archaeological evidence is that it is inconclusive, and so therefore I find no reason not to give the text the benefit of the doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What you seem to be insisting on, is that if I accept the historical accuracy of a text which recounts events that are not to your liking, then "I don't understand the idea of story", because I apparently can't comprehend how this text could function as a story. What I want to know is: did the events actually occur? To argue that they could not have occurred, because that would undermine the metaphorical / figurative / symbolic / didactic value of the text, is a completely fatuous claim. That is tantamount to saying that reality could never teach us anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare
This, to me, shows the limitation of your approach. One could just as easily say that there is no reason to give the text the benefit of the doubt.

If one has a vested interest (in any direction, actually), one is obviously most likely to read the evidence in a way that supports your position. In fact, there is almost no evidence that could ever be cited that will tilt you (and I'm talking about one in general rather than anyone specifically) off of your preconceived position.

So if you desperately want the bible to give a provably true record of the Joshua conflicts, there is almost nothing that anyone could say that will knock that belief, and almost any evidence, however tenuous, will be brought out in support of it.

Hence the scientific process, peer review and so on and so forth. Otherwise we're left at the mercy of crazies and fundamentalists who want to push us to believe in their precious ball of wax.

---

quote:

---

I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I agree that some so-called "Bible believing Christians" are totally closed minded, but such a state of mind is not confined to such people. In fact, I don't accept that such people even have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare:
"Charge of the Light Brigade was a military success"

Once again, I'm not qualified to assess historical opinions - I just heard a similar view on the radio yesterday and thought it was interesting. It might well be a totally unsupported minority view of the conflict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha - it was a Radio 4 programme yesterday morning - I heard it too. It said that the first report of everyone being killed was a mistaken first report from the front. I'm currently trying to find a link.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Insisting on evidence is not close-minded. Insisting on some form of intellectual rigour is not close-minded. Reaching a firm decision based on evidence and intellectual rigour is not close-minded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Insisting on evidence is not close-minded. Insisting on some form of intellectual rigour is not close-minded. Reaching a firm decision based on evidence and intellectual rigour is not close-minded.

---

Indeed.

And your point (in the context of this discussion) is.....?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
You seem to be calling everyone close-minded who believes the assertions above. We're not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
You seem to be calling everyone close-minded who believes the assertions above. We're not.

---

Errmm... nope.

I am calling people closed-minded, who try to force an unproven position on other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs
I don't see how anti-zionism affects the specific topic of the destruction of Jericho.

---

It's glaringly obvious.

God commanded Israel to invade and occupy Canaan by driving out the inhabitants. How does that not provide a justification for Zionism?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I find it unacceptable that a certain constituency of people should be singled at as being particularly prone to bias, whereas others are treated far more leniently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
You seem to be calling everyone close-minded who believes the assertions above. We're not.

---

Errmm... nope.

I am calling people closed-minded, who try to force an unproven position on other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That there is some room for doubt is not a weakness in my argument. It is a feature.

---

This needs to be shouted from the battlements.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha - it was a Radio 4 programme yesterday morning - I heard it too. It said that the first report of everyone being killed was a mistaken first report from the front. I'm currently trying to find a link.

---

I would appreciate the link, thank you.

---

quote:

---

<snip> Wells offered the conventional wisdom that dailies provided a premature version of events instead of a “true chronicle” because they had no time to check references and to reflect on them. Hence, he asserted, audiences did not learn from later books but unlearned from them journalism’s prior misstatements that tended to accumulate as copy flowed in complementing or correcting earlier columns. <snip> source

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, I can understand your point, but the problem is that one can say this about anyone with any philosophical or theological position.

---

quote:

---

I find it unacceptable that a certain constituency of people should be singled at as being particularly prone to bias, whereas others are treated far more leniently. For example, what evidence could ever shake Richard Dawkins' view of the origin of the universe and of life? I've seen enough of him through his writings and videos to know that he subscribes to what can only be described as "naturalism of the gaps" or "science will work it out one day". He has faith that the philosophy of naturalism will one day be vindicated, and nothing can shake him from that viewpoint. If there are any problems with, say, abiogenesis, or cosmology, it's not sufficient to cause him to question his particular form of fundamentalism.

---

quote:

---

And let us look at the mystics and existentialists, who say that their particular spiritual experience is the basis of what they believe about God and reality. Absolutely no evidence could ever shake them from their belief that they can rely on the feelings that they believe God has given them, because, by their own admission, such feelings are outside the investigation of evidence and reason. Therefore they also are fundamentalists.

---

quote:

---

I agree that some so-called "Bible believing Christians" are totally closed minded, but such a state of mind is not confined to such people. In fact, I don't accept that such people even have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.

---

quote:

---

As for the insinuation from your post that I am closed-minded and nothing could shake my viewpoint, I am very prepared to admit that I am wrong, and I have conceded arguments to my 'opponents' in debate quite a number of times. In fact, on this very thread Justinian seems to have overlooked the fact that I conceded that my statement that there was no evidence to doubt the historicity of the Jericho account was wrong:

quote:

---

I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur.

---

I find it particularly bad form in debate to ignore a concession. But Justinian and others keep banging on about how my comment concerning the lack of evidence was wrong, when I have already admitted it!

---

quote:

---

The fact that they clearly don't accept my concession can only mean that they are simply not happy to leave the issue in a state of doubt and ambiguity, in which evidence is inconclusive, but rather that they insist that I should submit to their position. In other words, they appear to be imposing their form of fundamentalism on me. Clearly I am not the fundamentalist in this debate, because I am prepared to keep an open mind by acknowledging the difficulties in drawing a definitive conclusion from the evidence.

---

quote:

---

If you or anyone else insists that I should interpret evidence in accordance with your particular viewpoint, when the evidence is clearly inconclusive, then you have no grounds to accuse me of closed-minded fundamentalism. I think that is rather obvious!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No worries, CK. From pydseybare's link, the change in view seems more reinterpretation and supposition than any new evidence. Is this your impression from the radio interview?
If so, I would again lay the charge of more unnecessary deaths rather than credit for victories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I agree that some so-called "Bible believing Christians" are totally closed minded, but such a state of mind is not confined to such people. In fact, I don't accept that such people even have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.

---

Irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that bible-believing Christians are the only group who are unable to see beyond their worldview.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare
wow, that was difficult:

quote:

---

The first group includes the fundamentalists, who believe in the reliability of the biblical text in all its details, and that the text forms the basis and guide for their archaeological work. I can mention, for example, Bryant Wood and his work on Jericho (e.g. Wood 1990), and Adam Zertal, who restored an imaginary altar on Mount Ebal on the basis of the biblical text (e.g. Zertal 1986–87). Both of them, as well as other scholars of this group, are good, professional archaeologists, but their archaeological work is clearly biased and distorted by their views on the biblical text.

---

Ussishkin, D. (2007). Questions of methodology. In Proceedings of the British Academy (Vol. 143, pp. 131-141).

---

quote:

---

Again, this is irrelevant. Your point was wrong by such a degree that you've been attempting to row-back from it ever since. In fact, there are very good reasons for thinking that the evidence in the OT of the destruction of Jericho is not correct. You've not conceded that point, you've just repeatedly stated that you want to believe it to be true and pointed at a very narrow (and disputed) piece of material as evidence.

---

quote:

---

This has the air of desperation of the person who wants to believe that the female filmstar he is stalking is in love with him - on the flimsy evidence of a pro-forma letter he once received. Most reasonable people would say that such a stalker was being delusional.

I think, at very best you are being delusional in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I am glad you now admit that the claim you made on p.4 of this thread is now irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

So Wood is a "good, professional archaeologist", but he must be 'clearly' biased, because he's a fundie. No other reason.

---

quote:

---

Given that bias can affect anyone with any philosophical position, and given that all scientists are led by certain assumptions, then any fair-minded person would have to conclude that the argument you quoted is completely redundant.

---

quote:

---

But this is an example of singling out so-called Bible believers for special censure.

---

quote:

---

Where have I repeated that I "want to believe it to be true".

Please could you provide the relevant quote from my comments. Since you claim to be so concerned about evidence, then this is not really a lot to ask, is it?

---

quote:

---

You make an absurd comment like that and accuse me of desperation!! Sheesh!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare
How is that irrelevant? Saying that inerrantists are biased with reference to biblical archaeology is obviously not to say that others are also not biased.

---

quote:

---

Well strictly speaking the point I was making was that his worldview means that he wants to interpret facts in a certain way.

---

quote:

---

Refute it then. Prove to us that you're not just delusional and hanging on to this disputed evidence because it happens to superficially support your position - despite the fact that the overwhelming evidence and scholarly opinion is in the opposite direction.

---

I assume that you have heard of the concept of "burden of proof"?

Or maybe not....?

Yeah, I mean, the police knock on my door and accuse me of having assaulted someone in the local park. They offer no convincing evidence (although they did take a vote down the station and the majority of coppers reckon I must have done it), and their whole case can be summed up in one declaration: "Prove that you didn't do it!!"

What a joke.
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is not one single shred of evidence in what you quoted that proves - or even suggests - that Dr Wood is biased. The fact that he works under a hypothesis, namely the truthfulness of the Bible, is no different from what any other researcher does.

---

quote:

---

For example, science itself could not work unless we accept the principle of the uniformity of the laws of physics and chemistry. Now suppose evidence emerges that challenges this assumption (for example, the double slit experiment). Do scientists suddenly jettison their prior assumption, or do they suspend judgment until further evidence becomes available?

---

quote:

---

But no. The moment some piece of evidence appears to challenge the historicity of the biblical accounts, certain indignant and insistent voices demand that the researcher concludes that the biblical account is false. But those same voices would not apply the same rule to the assumptions undergirding the whole of the rest of science.

---

quote:

---

Well, according to that 'reasoning' (which is actually a form of the genetic fallacy) I could say that you are only saying what you say because you want to. Anyone can accuse anyone else of this. It's very poor thinking, and it has no place in any kind of sensible debate.

---

quote:

---

If I take this idea to its logical conclusion, am I to believe that you hold the position you do, because you don't actually want to? After all, if you wanted to hold this position, then, of course, by your own (fallacious) reasoning, that undermines its veracity.

Do keep up...

---

quote:

---

I assume that you have heard of the concept of "burden of proof"?

Or maybe not....?

Yeah, I mean, the police knock on my door and accuse me of having assaulted someone in the local park. They offer no convincing evidence (although they did take a vote down the station and the majority of coppers reckon I must have done it), and their whole case can be summed up in one declaration: "Prove that you didn't do it!!"

What a joke.

---

I am interpreting the words you have used on this thread - and I believe they indicate that you are delusional for the reasons I have given. I don't have to supply any other burden of proof, it is now down to you to show that my interpretation is wrong.

Yet again, you show a total lack of knowledge of the terms you are using.



 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pydseybare
Yes it is. Very different from most other researchers, in fact so different that other people in his field think this makes his work non credible.

---

quote:

---

True but irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

I'm not demanding anything, I'm just saying that Dr Wood's views are not credible for the reasons given above - namely the known existence of a worldview to which he subscribes, the fact he doesn't work for a credible institution, the fact he doesn't publish his work in peer reviewed journals, the fact that his views are in a massive minority. All of which speak to his credibility.

---

quote:

---

Bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about yet again. It is no fallacy to judge someone based on something they profess to be a worldview if the thing they're saying obviously likely to be strongly influenced by the worldview.

Every person wants to be consistent. If you have an prior attachment to a view of the bible as being literally true in every respect, clearly that is going to colour the way you view historical evidence which speaks (or you believe speaks) to that view - as you have here shown.

---

quote:

---

I am interpreting the words you have used on this thread - and I believe they indicate that you are delusional for the reasons I have given. I don't have to supply any other burden of proof, it is now down to you to show that my interpretation is wrong.

---

"I am interpreting..."; "I believe...". Yeah. It's what's going on in your mind, and therefore the burden of proof is on you, because you have made the accusation. That's how reason works. If it's not to your particular liking, then tough.

So we have had so far...

1. The appeal to authority.
2. Bare assertion (while ignoring prior refutation).
3. The ad hominem.
4. The genetic fallacy.
5. Misplacing the burden of proof.

FIVE logical fallacies in just one post!

And to top it all, the person making these fallacious arguments talks about CREDIBILITY!!!!!

I congratulate you on this quite remarkable feat!!

 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Just... stop. Please. This is just embarrassing.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
Just... stop. Please. This is just embarrassing.

---

Another post packed full of irrefutable evidence, I see!


 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Two sentences which are merely assertions, the only 'hint' of evidence being an appeal to the opinions of "other people in his field", who themselves provide no supporting evidence for their assertions!

Therefore a meaningless appeal to authority (another logical fallacy).

---

quote:

---

It is hugely relevant, as I explained. But clearly you didn't understand the point, hence your repetition of an already refuted assertion. (Another fallacy).

---

quote:

---

The ad hominem is also a known logical fallacy.

Doing well, aren't we?

---

quote:

---

Oh dear oh dear. So someone who wants to believe something to be true therefore lacks credibility when researching that subject. Therefore, according to "pydseyian logic", we have to make sure that we are either totally apathetic about the subject being researched or we are inimical to it, in order to secure our credibility. What utter tosh!

---

quote:

---

"I am interpreting..."; "I believe...". Yeah. It's what's going on in your mind, and therefore the burden of proof is on you, because you have made the accusation. That's how reason works. If it's not to your particular liking, then tough.

---

quote:

---

So we have had so far...

1. The appeal to authority.
2. Bare assertion (while ignoring prior refutation).
3. The ad hominem.
4. The genetic fallacy.
5. Misplacing the burden of proof.

FIVE logical fallacies in just one post!

---

quote:

---

And to top it all, the person making these fallacious arguments talks about CREDIBILITY!!!!!

I congratulate you on this quite remarkable feat!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs
If it was shown that Wood's dates were definitely wrong, his worldview would be in serious trouble.

If it was shown that Kenyan's dates were definitely wrong, her worldview would not be in any kind of trouble.

Their vested interest is simply not the same. That's not to say that one or the other doesn't have bias. As you have pointed out (again), that is certainly the case. What you don't seem able to acknowledge is what the outworking of those biases means. You've just made the same point again, despite it already having been answered:

---

quote:

---

It's not that a certain group of people are singled out as being prone to bias. It's that a certain group of people are being singled out as allowing (or being in danger of allowing) their biases to influence their approach to evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yet more bare assertions.

QED

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But you are assuming that they are actually driven by vested interest. You have failed to make any case that Dr Wood is driven by vested interest other than the bare assumption that he must be because of his view of biblical inerrancy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But if you are right, then you are effectively saying this: anyone who approaches evidence with a prior assumption that the Bible is true, must be regarded as someone lacking credibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why not also say the same for someone who assumes that the Bible can't be true? The same argument applies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, just think how fatal the evidence for a miracle (say the resurrection of Jesus Christ) is to the atheist worldview?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am simply making the point that this problem of 'bias' - or "perceived bias" - cannot be confined to a religious / spiritual worldview. The non-religious could have even more of a problem with this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for Zionism: well, I don't think it takes too much imagination to infer that Zionists will try to fashion arguments from ancient history to justify their occupation of Palestine. Any event that could provide that justification - such as the destruction of Jericho - is therefore damaging to anti-Zionism. I am not saying that Kenyon was biased, but her viewpoint exposes her to bias as much as Wood's viewpoint exposes him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
However we understand OT history, I think it's pretty axiomatic that we are not dealing with descriptions of events in the contemporary sense. That doesn't mean that these events didn't take place, but it is to acknowledge what appears to me to be pretty self evident - that the OT accounts contain both history and mythology at one and the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Indeed, why would it need to say it in the text as it was axiomatic at the time it was written that this was how these things worked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Exactly that. How ancient texts work. That's what is axiomatic.

It's axiomatic that ancient texts work like that because all the studies show them to work like that. That's how they were written. That's how the work. There is plenty of literary and scholarly evidence to that effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure you've understood the Doc Tor's salient point but we'll let that pass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor
EE, "every single history from the ancient world"? Hell, every single history written. It's only quite recently that historians have concerned themselves with veracity.

---