Walls of Jericho - 1000 Bible Images

The description of the archaeologoy of Jericho as it relates to Joshua 6 asserts that Joshua's narrative conerning the walls of Jericho is misleading and does not relate to any historical fact. The asertion concerning the "grace of God" does not make the article any more palatable. My understanding of the grace of God is that it is based on reality and not someone's fancy.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

Agreed. That's preposterous.

However, I've also realized over the years that a resource that is useful for use may not always have an orthodox view attached to it, i.e. "thanks for the great picture, pardon me while I ignore the caption...!" [:D]

George Somsel

The description of the archaeologoy of Jericho as it relates to Joshua 6 asserts that Joshua's narrative conerning the walls of Jericho is misleading and does not relate to any historical fact. The asertion concerning the "grace of God" does not make the article any more palatable. My understanding of the grace of God is that it is based on reality and not someone's fancy.

So what do you intend to do? Invent walls which don't exist in the archaeological record? Date walls according to whatever seems palatable to you? By such tactics you only marginalize yourself and begin to appear as a kook. I would suggest that you strenuously avoid such a program.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132774#Comment_132774

George,

I guess I'm weird....

The entire entry for the drawing of the wall is that it never existed and that the whole story we embellished/made up.

I'm going to go with the author of Scripture on this one...and not some copy writer.

I'm not ashamed to say that my predisposition is that the book is inspired and what's in it is not "made up fiction" to serve a purpose as the caption explains.

So what do you intend to do? Invent walls which don't exist in the archaeological record?

Actually George, they did exist...

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html

Here is a quote from the article:

More recent excavations

In the spring of 1997, two Italian archaeologists conducted a limited excavation on the ancient tell of Jericho. Lorenzo Nigro and Nicolo Marchetti, working under the auspices of the new Palestinian Department of Archaeology, excavated for one month on the fringes of Kathleen Kenyon's west and south trenches. Their dig was the first foreign expedition in the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank since self-rule began in 1994.

After their excavation, Nigro and Marchetti announced they found no evidence for a destruction from the time of Joshua. While it is too soon for the academic community to see details of their discoveries, their announcement suggests their excavation was conducted to disprove the Biblical account of Joshua's capture of the city. Is it further possible that the Palestinian Authority supported this dig for the express purpose of denouncing any Jewish connection to the site?

As to their evidence, Dr. Bryant Wood, Director of the Associates for Biblical Research and one of the leading experts on the archaeology of Jericho, recently responded.

“It matters little what the Italian archaeologists did not find in their month-long dig. The evidence is already in. Three major expeditions to the site over the past 90 years uncovered abundant evidence to support the Biblical account.”

As Wood went on to point out, John Garstang (1930-1936) and Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) both dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city's destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC.

In September 1997, Dr. Wood visited Jericho and examined the results of the Italian excavation first hand. Incredibly, he found the Italians had uncovered the stone outer revetment wall at the base of the tell with part of the mudbrick wall built on top of it still intact. In the balk of the Italian excavation, at the outer base of the revetment wall, Wood noticed the remains of the collapsed mudbrick city walls which had tumbled. Not only did the Italians find the same evidence uncovered in the earlier excavations, it fits the Biblical story perfectly!

Wood reports:

“The Italian excavation actually uncovered most of the critical evidence relating to the Biblical story. But even more exciting is the fact that all the evidence from the earlier digs has disappeared over time. We only have records, drawing and photos. But the Italians uncovered a completely new section of the wall which we did not know still existed. I had my photograph taken standing next to the wall where the mudbrick collapse had just been excavated!”

Unfortunately, the Italian archaeologists, the Palestinian Authorities, the Associated Press and most of the world doesn't realize any of this. It is a sad commentary on the state of archaeology in the Holy Land, when the purpose of an excavation at a Biblical site is to disprove the Bible and disassociate the site with any historical Jewish connection.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132780#Comment_132780

George,

I guess I'm weird....

The entire entry for the drawing of the wall is that it never existed and that the whole story we embellished/made up.

I'm going to go with the author of Scripture on this one...and not some copy writer.

I'm not ashamed to say that my predisposition is that the book is inspired and what's in it is not "made up fiction" to serve a purpose as the caption explains.

So what do you intend to do? Invent walls which don't exist in the archaeological record?

Actually George, they did exist...

Yes, there is evidence that there were walls at Jericho. All cities of any size had them at that time. There is, however, no evidence that they existed at the time proposed for the Exodus or that "Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and the walls came tumblin' down." You cannot distort the facts to support the text. That is not faith. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (NRSV, Heb 11.1). I don't need to have faith that I have a shovel in my hand (If I do). It's there. I need faith to accept that for which I have no proof. In what do we have faith? That "the walls came tumblin' down"? No. We have faith in God. I think it was J. B. Phillips who said, "Your God is too small." God, who called the universe into being out of nothing is far grander than we could ever imagine. We cannot make an image of him in our minds and demand that he conform to our imagination. We puny humans struggle to express as best we can the greatness of God and our relation to him. Our statements may be factually in error, but that God created the universe and everything in it is not in error if we have faith (It only seems so if we don't have faith). So, if your faith demands the seen, go find Noah's ark -- oh, that's right, someone already claims to have done so.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132795#Comment_132795

You cannot distort the facts to support the text.

George,

Why are you accusing me of distorting facts?

Did you read the article I linked? Those people who did the archeology did say that these were there at that time.

Now who do I believe? You...or the person who went there and dug?

[quote]So, if your faith demands the seen, go find Noah's
ark -- oh, that's right, someone already claims to have done so.

I never said anything of the kind, George....

Your tone is not appreciated.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132806#Comment_132806

You cannot distort the facts to support the text.
f
George,

Why are you accusing me of distorting facts?

No, but I would certainly accuse "Dr" Woods of distorting the facts. He is the worst kind of "biblical archaeologist" -- spade in one hand and a bible in the other (and they MUST agree). Your credulity will eventually result either in a rejection of The Faith or in in terminal gullibility.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132816#Comment_132816

No, but I would certainly accuse "Dr" Woods of distorting the facts. He is the worst kind of "biblical archaeologist" -- spade in one hand and a bible in the other (and they MUST agree). Your credulity will eventually result either in a rejection of The Faith or in in terminal gullibility.

So...you have some evidence that Dr. Woods is distorting facts concerning this issue? By all means....let us in on it....

Secondly, everyone has a bias...there are no neutral parties...so to make negative insinuations against Dr. Woods because he believes the bible is correct as a presupposition shows your bias that secular humanist based Archeological conclusions are the standard of measure.

We all have bias'...you have yours, I have mine.

I'm not looking for a "material lifeline" George, so you can cut out the condecending tone and false accusations.

Aureliano Tan, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132774#Comment_132774

George, it is kind of sad that you are engaging in name calling on a matter-of-fact issue. It appears from the other replies that the Italian dig was not to find the facts but to disprove the Biblical record. If one has an axe to grind, the evidence will be 'found' to support it. All prior digs at Jericho appears to support the Biblical record. I do not understand how you cannot live with that. Your definition of faith does not appear to be the same as mine. The Hebrews 11 definition is true enough but it certainly does not apply to the matter at issue, which is the accuracy of the Biblical record. Maybe our basic difference lies in our understanding of how Scripture relates to faith and the God we worship. If you view your faith as disconnected from the Biblical record, then we really do not have much in common to discuss. Respectfully, Aureliano Tan Jr.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132818#Comment_132818

I'm not looking for a "material lifeline" George, so you can cut out the condecending tone and false accusations.

For the sake of understanding, what do you mean by "material lifeline." I think I know, but I don't want to misunderstand.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/132840#Comment_132840

For the sake of understanding, what do you mean by "material lifeline." I think I know, but I don't want to misunderstand.

George,

I was responding to your assertion that I'm grabbing onto any old archeological find to prop up my faith as if it was so weak I needed Noah's Ark to validate it.

I was rejecting that assumption.

I'm going to stop commenting on this thread George, I don't want to say anything that I'd regret.

bob

MJ. Smith

The description of the archaeologoy of Jericho as it relates to Joshua 6 asserts that Joshua's narrative conerning the walls of Jericho is misleading and does not relate to any historical fact. The asertion concerning the "grace of God" does not make the article any more palatable. My understanding of the grace of God is that it is based on reality and not someone's fancy.

Isn't the appropriate question "Does Logos accurately reflect their source material?" Typographical errors, linkage errors etc. fall on Logos. Factual errors fall on the original creator of the material.