It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The book of Joshua

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I have just spent the morning reading the archaeological notes from a 1967 study of the area that tells of the campaigns of the Israelites in central, southern and northern Canaan, the destruction of their enemies, and the division of the land among the Twelve Tribes, and well the archaeological evidence does not add up. There is no trace of mass destruction, no indication of a major change as told in the book of Joshua. Would anyone care to share insight am I missing something? DId "GOD" really command the conquest of a land where no actual battle took place? The Israelites GODS chosen people I sincerely doubt it
The Magdalene laundry by Mary Coughlan - woe lord why wont you let me wash away the stains

www.youtube.com...



edit on 5-2-2019 by DpatC because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2019 by DpatC because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2019 by DpatC because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

Evidence like what, what have archeologists found or not found
What are you expecting to see



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

I've spent some time trying to get a handle on this. The Bible can not be proven by archeology not just for Joshua but also for Exodus. There is much written and many attempts to resolve this. The problem is further exasperated by the differences in various versions of the Bible.

Timeline of the Bibles differ because the Septuagint and the Massoretic texts have different ages for the patriarchs. This changes dating of events by hundreds of years.

When comparing timelines in the Bible to Archeology and Egyptology, one popular method to make them synch is to try to revise the historical chronology. Since the scientists are resistant to this, any attempt of this type is guaranteed to be controversial. One popular attempt is the New Chronology by Egyptologist David Rohl. This places the events of the Bible about 350 years earlier than the current timeline. It seems to produce a much better match but is, of course, controversial.

I would like to post one of his videos but they are all more than an hour long. He also has a film called Patterns of Evidence that I enjoyed. Search Google video or YouTube for rohl new chronology. You will find them.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
The archaeological record for the Israelites during that time period is a problem.

I guess it all comes down to a question of dating when the Exodus from Egypt occurred. Since the Bible mentions the Israelities building store houses for Rameses, people (scholars, archaeologists) assume that the Exodus occurred under that pharoah. So people have been looking for evidence of the Israelities in the archaeological layers of time using that Pharoah as a marker. And they don't find anything.

But apparently if you move the date of the exodus to 200 years earlier, a bunch of stuff adds up and corresponds to the biblical narrative.

Michael Heiser is currently doing a series on Exodus, and his first three episodes focus on the problems for the dating of the Israelities history based on the time of the exodus. It's called the Naked Bible Podcast and you can find it on iTunes.

There's also an archaeologist named David Rohl who has matched up a lot of archaeology to the bible by moving the assumed date of the exodus to 200 years prior to what the experts have been looking for, and he shows how well everything matches up (including the fall of Jericho) when you move the date. His stuff can be found on YouTube.

Basically, it's all a mess, and depends on when you date the Exodus from Egypt.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl
The archaeological record for the Israelites during that time period is a problem.

I guess it all comes down to a question of dating when the Exodus from Egypt occurred. Since the Bible mentions the Israelities building store houses for Rameses, people (scholars, archaeologists) assume that the Exodus occurred under that pharoah. So people have been looking for evidence of the Israelities in the archaeological layers of time using that Pharoah as a marker. And they don't find anything.

But apparently if you move the date of the exodus to 200 years earlier, a bunch of stuff adds up and corresponds to the biblical narrative.

Michael Heiser is currently doing a series on Exodus, and his first three episodes focus on the problems for the dating of the Israelities history based on the time of the exodus. It's called the Naked Bible Podcast and you can find it on iTunes.

There's also an archaeologist named David Rohl who has matched up a lot of archaeology to the bible by moving the assumed date of the exodus to 200 years prior to what the experts have been looking for, and he shows how well everything matches up (including the fall of Jericho) when you move the date. His stuff can be found on YouTube.

Basically, it's all a mess, and depends on when you date the Exodus from Egypt.


It reminds me of another problem Im having with timelines of the calendar of Enoch to that of the prophecy of Daniel. Thats for your comments



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DpatC
Modern historians tend to get their understanding of the "conquest" period from Judges rather than Joshua.
In Joshua, it happens in one sweeping campaign, and the Canaanite population is destroyed.
In Judges ch1, it happens piecemeal, and many patches of Canaanite population are left intact.
The implication is that Judges ch1 describes how it happened, and Joshua is an "idealised" version, describing how it "should" have happened from the viewpoint of the later Israelite generations.



edit on 5-2-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

My belief is that some of the stories told in the bible are really retellings of events that took place much much earlier than the time period given.

Maybe even to different people entirely.

Joshua taking down castle walls using sound may be one of those older tails.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DpatC

My belief is that some of the stories told in the bible are really retellings of events that took place much much earlier than the time period given.

Maybe even to different people entirely.

Joshua taking down castle walls using sound may be one of those older tails.


You got my attention,I'm intrigued what earlier stories would you be thinking off



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

Wasn't moses parting the water part if the exodus? Pretty sure I read a few years back of chariots and bones were found where they think it all went down back then. I would say that is archeological evidence.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DpatC

My belief is that some of the stories told in the bible are really retellings of events that took place much much earlier than the time period given.

Maybe even to different people entirely.

Joshua taking down castle walls using sound may be one of those older tails.


The Epic of Gilgamesh being a prime example



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

Some might say that the story of jesus is just a rehash of the story joseph.
www.bible-history.com...

Then there is this guy sargon of akkad who has several parallels with biblical stories.

en.wikipedia.org...


The part of the interpretation of the king's dream has parallels to the biblical story of Joseph, the part about the letter with the carrier's death sentence has parallels to the Greek story of Bellerophon and the biblical story of Uriah




Similarities between the Sargon Birth Legend and other infant birth exposures in ancient literature, including Moses, Karna, and Oedipus, were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909.[48] The legend was also studied in detail by Brian Lewis, and compared with a number of different examples of the infant birth exposure motif found in European and Asian folk tales. He discusses a possible archetype form, giving particular attention to the Sargon legend and the account of the birth of Moses.[6] Joseph Campbell has also made such comparisons




Sargon is also one of the many suggestions for the identity or inspiration for the biblical Nimrod. Ewing William (1910) suggested Sargon based on his unification of the Babylonians and the Neo-Assyrian birth legend.[50] Yigal Levin (2002) suggested that Nimrod was a recollection of Sargon and of his grandson Naram-Sin, with the name "Nimrod" derived from the latter


Also most cultures around the world have a version of the flood story. Though most are of course from much farther back in time then the bible suggest the earth even is.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

lol you answered your own question lol



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DpatC



Hey DpatC, here is part of a talk Dr. Heiser have on archaeology and the bible; this is the portin dealing with the Exodus, and he talks about Jericho as well.





posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: cognizant420
You're probably thinking about this:




top topics



 
4

log in

join