The Biblical Galatians

[pattrick123]

The Biblical legend has it that the Israelites destroyed the fortified walls of Jericho by circling it with the Ark of the Covenant for seven days. Or did they not? Not only did Kathleen Kenyon almost single handedly change the way in which archaeological excavations in the Levant were approached, but she also proved that there was no sign of Jericho during the Late Bronze Age.

----------------------------------------------------

The Legacy of Kathleen Kenyon

[caldrail]

That's interesting because I've seen news reports of archaeology demonstrating a very early beginning for Jericho. Part of the problem here is that the Bible is a religious text adopted from Judaean sources, censored by Roman sources, and rewritten since. Whilst there might well be history in it, a history book it is not and the Bible should be considered very unreliable.

The Ark of the Covenant has by mythology a vast store of power (and is reputedly kept locked away out of sight in modern Ethiopia). Personally I find the story a little hard to accept but then Christianity is a matter of faith, not substance.

As for the revision of archaeology I can't say, and since Kathleen Kenyon appears to be the only one interpreting the data this way, it remains her personal conviction. I have no idea whether she's right, but I will bear in mind what has been said for both sides of the argument.

[Mallette]

On 11/15/2018 at 4:12 AM, caldrail said:

That's interesting because I've seen news reports of archaeology demonstrating a very early beginning for Jericho.

Agreed. Way back, including collapsed walls at a time period consistent with the biblical story. Like so much of the biblical canon I consider the story as much myth as fact, but many biblical tales appear to be based in history that is occasionally verified. As most is pre-Roman I won't go into any of it here, but the old testament certainly has a lot of facts on its side right down to the order of creation coinciding with the order of evolution and the early Earth being "...without form, and void." I find those who seek to dismiss it to be non-objective, and those who need proof to believe it to be of little faith. 

Just the facts, mam, as Joe Friday used to say.

Dave

[caldrail]

The problem is that so many people seem fixated on proving the Bible is correct when they should be investigating whether it's right. I've seen missionaries (who often pose as archeologists) who spotted a rock formation in Anatolia that resembles the shape of a sea going craft and proclaimed it immediately as Noah's Ark, despite the fact that rock doesn't float, the site is solid and composed of native material, and there is evidence of glacial melt in the area. The Old Testament is not a history book. It's a religious text and creates a mythology for the use of Judaean sects including what would become Christianity. The Book of Genesis has some interesting assertions and indeed, the idea of parallel with science & research is something I've heard since I was a child - I have yet to be convinced that in distant antiquity the processes of planetary development were understood or even known about (Please forgive me but filling in that assertion with claims of extra-terrestrial visitations just won't cut it).

Human beings are good at pattern recognition. That's why we lay random accusations at other people or influences so often with passionate belief. Is the Book of Genesis a parallel? No. It isn't. The Bible is literal, not allegorical, and you cannot stretch the text to suit an alignment that was never there to begin with.