After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
Archaeology also shows that Jericho didn't have the "walls tumbling down" when Joshua fought it.
I don't believe archaeology knows what it is talking about. The scriptures say that the walls came tumbling down, so they did. And that's that. So how do we reconcile the fact that the archaeological remains down show a tumbled down wall. I think it can be reconciled in a couple of ways. 1) Archaeologists may have the wrong ruins, that is, they are excavating a town that is not Jericho. 2) The have the right town, but all of the tumbled wall was used as building materials for constructing another wall and building homes. 3) After the walls tumbled, and the town was destroyed, it was rebuilt in another location keeping the same name.

Whatever the case, there has to be a reconciliation. Or are we to suppose that the bible could be wrong about so simple a thing? If we can't trust the bible on so simple a thing as the destruction of Jericho, why should we believe the story of the parting of the Red Sea, or the story of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky, or the parting of the waters of Jordan, or manna falling from heaven?

I consider it far more likely that archaeologist are wrong than it is that the scriptures are wrong.

When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to
ask is if they ever press charges. --Jack Handy
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to