[_ Old Earth _] Jericho

[Blazin Bones]

Does science have anything to explain this story?

 

[Judy]

I deleted all the replies so far. Because none of them had anything to do with the topic :o And all of them were flaming responses. :-?

 

[Asimov]

Does science have anything to explain this story?

Aside from the mythical possibilities that this never happened, in "Asimovs Guide to the Bible" Isaac Asimov states that if this even were true, an earthquake could be the explanation for the walls collapsing. It would then just be a matter of "embellishment" to gloss over the details of what really happened, and voila, you have a bona fide biblical story.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Okay first I want to apologize for how I reacted in my deleted post in this thread.

As for the earthquake Idea, are there any sources that suggests such an event?

 

[Asimov]

Okay first I want to apologize for how I reacted in my deleted post in this thread.

As for the earthquake Idea, are there any sources that suggests such an event?

None, it is speculation. I can look it up in the book to see if there are any references he cites, but I'm fairly certain it is speculation. The battle of Jericho takes place in the book of Joshua, am I correct?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Yes. The story can be found in chapters 4-6

 

[Asimov]

Yes. The story can be found in chapters 4-6

Ok: Asimovs Guide to the Bible, pg 213 reads

Joshua 6:20....the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat...

If the Biblical account is taken literally, this is a miracle, but those who seek natural explanations often suggest that it was an earthquake that did the trick. If so, it was a most fortunately timed earthquake (Allusion to the mythology of the event).
Actually, it is easy to suppose that the circling of the city had a carefully designed tactical purpose. In the first place, it served to dishearten the city's defenders still further, for the people of Jericho would be nervous indeed at the somber and majestic spinning of a supernatural net about the city.....Secondly, while the defenders watched in fascination at the slow parading about the city, and listened to the awesome sound of the trumpets, they might not have had time to see and hear the very mundane activity of Joshua's sappers slowly underminding the city's walls....

Interesting, is it not?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Well that's an interesting opinion, but not very scientific. The opinion uses a semi-logical reasoning, but it's still just an opinion not backed by scientific evidence.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Well that's an interesting opinion, but not very scientific. The opinion uses a semi-logical reasoning, but it's still just an opinion not backed by scientific evidence.

Brutus...well that's the rub, isn't it.

It is virtually impossible for science to explain this tale, other than posit theories that might accomplish the same task as the supernatural causes in the bible.

If you are asking for scientific proof or evidence of an alternative story of Jericho, you simply will never get one.

The only possibly way to prove a scientific cause is to know two things.

1. When exactly this happened. I don't believe anybody knows within 20 years exactly when Jericho happened, let alone the exact day. I think they guess it is between 1450-1400 BCE.

2. There would have to be some independent record of an earthquake or some other natural cause occuring at that same time. As you well know, records from this time are extremely rare.

For example, we use Chinese records of a bright star appearing during the day on July 4, 1054 to explain the supernova that created the crab nebula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_nebula

Let's say a native american mythology had their god create a new sun for a few days about this same time. Well, we could easily disprove the supernatural tale because we have independent scientific "evidence" to prove it was a supernova.

We simply will likely never be able to "disprove" the supernatural claims of the OT, in particular, because there is no way to "prove" any other natural event occured. All we can do is state that natural causes or embellishment by the writers could be a valid explanation.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Hear hear, well spoken Bru-Thinkerman.

 

[Blazin Bones]

The logic of ThinkerMan does it again.

The purpose of this forum was to discuss things of Christianity as they relate to science. I asked a yes or no question. The answer is no, because we were not there to see it for ourselves, and have nothing to build logical scientific explainations upon. So while we can all suggest a possibility as to what actually happened, we can't prove anything.

I asked because I didn't know if anyone else knew something I didn't. At the end of every discussion we'll have one thing will be left to decide, God's truth or Man's truth?

 

[Gary]

Asimov (x2) debunked

Asimov: Asimovs Guide to the Bible, pg 213 reads

[snip the rubbish]
You don't really read and believe that stuff do you Asimov???

Debunking Asimov
http://www.inerrancy.org/asimovot.htm

Question: In Josh 6, did the walls of Jericho fall because Israelite sappers dug under the walls while the Canaanites were distracted by the marching, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.213 says?

Answer: Asimov has a clever theory, but there are three problems with it.

1. They only marched around the walls for seven days, which would not have been enough time to tunnel under the walls. Remember, ancient peoples did not have explosive charges, so they would have to do extensive digging under the walls.

2. They would have required great precision in their digging, to go the correct depth up the hill and possibly under a ditch.

3. There is no record that the concept of digging under city walls to undermine them was even thought of at that time, 3,400 years ago.

:bday: :bday: <---- two-hatter for Asimov (x2)

 

[Asimov]

Asimov (x2) debunked

Asimov: Asimovs Guide to the Bible, pg 213 reads

[snip the rubbish]
You don't really read and believe that stuff do you Asimov???

Yes, Gary, hence the term "suppose". This is what is known as speculation.

Brutus asked for a possible explanation, and I provided one.

 

[Asimov]

The logic of ThinkerMan does it again.

The purpose of this forum was to discuss things of Christianity as they relate to science. I asked a yes or no question. The answer is no, because we were not there to see it for ourselves, and have nothing to build logical scientific explainations upon. So while we can all suggest a possibility as to what actually happened, we can't prove anything.

I asked because I didn't know if anyone else knew something I didn't. At the end of every discussion we'll have one thing will be left to decide, God's truth or Man's truth?

Considering that "God's Truth" was written by men, it's kind of easy to decide which one is true, and which one isn't.

 

[bibleberean]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Asimov]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Using the bible to prove the bible, are we berean?

 

[bibleberean]

I consider the bible an authoritative source. In a Christian forum it is appropriate to quote the bible.

I never apologise for quoting scripture. :D

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[Asimov]

I consider the bible an authoritative source. In a Christian forum it is appropriate to quote the bible.

Yes, but using it to prove it? That's fine if you consider it 'an' authority. But when discussing, you might want to provide more than one reference.

I never apologise for quoting scripture. :D

Yes, and that's all you seem to do.

 

[bibleberean]

I consider the bible an authoritative source. In a Christian forum it is appropriate to quote the bible.

Yes, but using it to prove it? That's fine if you consider it 'an' authority. But when discussing, you might want to provide more than one reference.

I never apologise for quoting scripture. :D

Yes, and that's all you seem to do.

I might want to provide more than one refernce and then again I might not.

Thanks for the compliment on scripture quoting. I appreciate it. :D