What evidence is there for or against an Israelite conquest of Canaan.  Archaeological or Biblical.?
375723
The archaeological and biblical evidence do not match each other.  For instance, from the archeological record, it appears that Ai, the second city conquered in Joshua, was unoccupied at the time of the conquest.  Quoting from the Jewish Study Bible:\n\n"...the intense archeological investigation of virtually all of the places mentioned in Joshua that can be identified with current sites reveals no pattern of destruction that can be correlated, in either chronoly, or location, with the period of early Israel.  ...the military and destructive aspects of the so-called conquest are probably not entirely historical, but rather are literary-theological constructs to portray the overarching idea of Israel acquisition of the land promised to their ancestors.  Indeed, most scholars now speak of Israelite settlement in the land, rather than of conquest, especially because archeology has aso shown that earliest Israel consisted of scores of new villages -- settlements of previously unoccupied territory in the central highlands--rather than rebuilt towns or destroyed Canaanite strongholds."\n\nSo, there you go.  Take it for what it is worth.
432730
No, he did not. Watch the video at the link. It compares the Bible to the Book of Mormon with archaeology and anthropology and there's also another video here proving the DNA of Native Americans to be Asian and not Hebrew in origin. You can watch the videos online for free.
1111838
the bible is something like "believe but do not search". But if you read between the lines you could get a scientific answer.
524067
The Hebrew text of the Old Testament does not necessitate that **all** animals on earth were wiped out by a global flood.\n\nThe terms used in the text are consistent with a local/ regional flood and that the animals that were saved on the ark were ones that were relevant to the local ecology (that Noah and his family lived in).\n\nCordially,\nJohn\nhttp://www.GodSci.org\n[God and Science]
221509
The whole Moses/Egypt/slavery thing is BS.  Besides the bible, there is no record of Hebrews in Egypt being held in slavery.\n\nEven if the Pharaoh wished to cover-up his embarrassment over losing to Moses... don't you think that all the other Egyptians that lost their first born sons would put down some record?!?  I mean, that is a monumental event!  Can you imagine how much impact there would be if all the first born male animals and children died in America today?  This would have been an earth shattering event that would be recorded in tons of sources.\n\nLet's imagine that it actually did happen in Egypt though.  Don't you think that instead of covering up the incident (which would be next to impossible), that the Pharoah would instead put a spin on it?  He'd probably say this his god, Amon-Ra, killed all the first borns because the Egyptians weren't faithful enough to the Pharaoh.\n\nBesides the bible, there is no record of the Hebrew's slavery.  \n\nAs to the attacking the land of Canaan... why would a peaceful and loving god wish to have humans attack and kill one another?  Why wouldn't he have Moses just do more miracles and convert the Canannites?\n\n-----\nScheb, you totally ignored my point.  All the first born men and animals killed?  It's not a defeat, it's a disaster.  The plagues should have been recorded somewhere!  Nile river levels, livestock purchases, reduction in the sale of frog legs, something!  By the way, what's with the idea of a benevolent and loving god killing children and animals (like puppies, kittens, and ponies) because a government leader pisses him off?  The people didn't vote him in, they didn't have a choice in who their leader was!  That's divine justice, oh yeah! <-- note sarcasm.
1072062
both are right.. in science studies, they only proved that dinosaurs came first. but in the bible, we cant question it bec its gods words
468032
Moses is thus one of the most influential men in human history. Even so, for well over a century, Moses has come under fire from both scholars and clerics. Many challenge the belief not only that Moses performed miracles and led the Israelites out of Egypt but also that he even existed. \n\nAt first glance, such skepticism might seem to have merit. For example, critics observe that archaeological proof has been found to confirm the existence of such Bible personages as Israelite King Jehu, but no archaeological evidence has been found to confirm the existence of Moses. This is hardly proof that Moses is a myth, however. Skeptics once argued that others mentioned in the Bible, such as Babylonian King Belshazzar and Assyrian King Sargon, were likewise myths—until archaeology later confirmed their historicity.\n\nAuthor Jonathan Kirsch reminds us: “The remnants and relics of biblical Israel are so sparse that the utter absence of Moses in any source except the Bible itself is neither surprising nor decisive.” According to Kirsch, some thus argue that it is unlikely that Moses could be a mere figment of someone’s imagination, since “a life story so rich in detail and dialogue, so complex . . . , could not have been made up.”\n\nAs for the lack of archaeological evidence for the wilderness sojourn, we must remember that the Jews were nomads. They built no cities; they planted no crops. Presumably, they left behind little more than footprints. Still, convincing evidence of that sojourn can be found within the Bible itself. Reference is made to it throughout that sacred book. (1 Samuel 4:8; Psalm 78; Psalm 95; Psalm 106; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5) Significantly, Jesus Christ also testified that the wilderness events took place.—John 3:14.\n\nUnquestionably, then, the Bible’s account of Moses is credible, truthful. Even so, he lived a long time ago
928543
There is both Biblical and non Biblical evidence. Josephus was a Jewish historian of his day. Never a christian BTW. He gave an account of Jesus is his record. Biblically, David the King wrote a Psalm all about the crucifixion a method of execution not used until the Romans invented it some 500 years later. Proof there is not. If there were we would all be damned because proof makes faith of no effective and people as saved by the grace of God through faith. Without faith we die...   Jim
695340
not just a connection.  he is under the belief that he has to cause it.  biblical writing in Eziekiel, Deut., Joshua and another it is stating that Isreal will be taken over by the rightfull owners. Cush, Persia and some other country (we dont know by the name of which) will then wage war against Isreal which then God will allow 1/2 the people in Isreal to die for dissobediance.He will then destroy all the attackers and spread their bodies and blood in the rivers to prove He is God.  It also states Abraham and Joshua were followers of Islam and that they are the rightful owners of the state of Judah.  So they think it is their right to take back Israel to bring back the Lord God or create armageddon.
316769
:}\nG-d is real the exodus was not Abraham's but Israel with Moses
492720
Hey Jim, finally a good theological question from you, I knew you had it in you! Your starting to come over to the other side, I can just feel it. In all seriousness, there is no record the children of Israel coming out of Egypt washed their clothes, used deodorant, or brushed their teeth! After forty years, this would be a pretty ripe bunch, maybe that's why the walls of Jericho fell flat!,. what do you think?
484043
Israel is associated with the earliest stage in the history of humanity by the "Galilee Skull", while recent excavations in Jericho have produced the oldest evidence of organized city life.  \nThe first known inhabitants of Israel in historic times were the Canaanites from whom the land long took its name. By c. 3000-2500 BCE the inhabitants seem to have been largely Semitic speaking; they introduced the use of bronze and developed cities. The Bible mentions seven tribes which dominated the country. The long struggle for its control between the South (Egypt) and the North (Assyria), which - in varying political forms - was to dominate the local scene down to the 19th cent. had already begun at this time. The country was now divided into large numbers of warring city-states ruled over by petty "kings." \n\nIt first enters into Jewish history with the immigration of Abraham whose descendants continued to consider it their home. The Tel El Amarna letters throw much light on conditions in Canaan in the 15th cent. BCE and on the conquests of the Semitic "Habiru," perhaps denoting or comprising incursions by the Israelite tribes. The Israelite tribes gave the country (henceforth "the land of Israel") its unity and historic significance. Except during the brief Crusading interlude (1099-1187), the concept of "Palestine" has in fact existed only in relation to Israelite and Jewish history. The Israelites' invasion was a slow and difficult process: they first established themselves in the plains, and only gradually obtained control of the hill-country; the process was completed with the capture by King David of Jerusalem in c. 1000 BCE. Meanwhile, the disunited and sometimes warring Israelite tribes, ruled over by regional Judges, were the prey of other invaders from the north and east. The most dangerous were the Philistines, sea-invaders from the Aegean, near Greece, who obtained firm control of the Maritime Plain in the 12th cent. BCE and thence pushed inland.  \n\nFor a time, it seemed probable that they would subdue the whole country. But the threat forged union on the Israelite tribes at last, largely through the spiritual dominance of the Prophet Samuel and the military genius of King Saul who established a monarchy embracing the entire country. His work was completed by his son-in-law King David who finally crushed the Philistine menace and extended the boundaries of the state in all directions. The latter's son King Solomon raised the kingdom to a great pitch of magnificence by his maritime enterprises, his lavish court, and his ambitious buildings, including the Temple at Jerusalem to serve as a religious center. The heavy taxation which all this necessitated resulted in widespread discontent, and after King Solomon's death, the northern tribes revolted.  \n\nHenceforth, the Land of Israel was divided for many years into two rival and sometimes warring states -- the smaller kingdom of Judah in the south [from which derives the word "Jew"], and the larger, more luxurious and more powerful kingdom of Israel (or Shamron-Samaria) to the north. The latter, weakened by internal dissensions between rival dynasties and recurrent wars with the kingdom of Syria (Damascus), succumbed in 721 to the Assyrians, its inhabitants being to a great extent deported and replaced by new settlers.  \n\nThe kingdom of Judah, more secluded geographically and more staunch spiritually and politically, for the moment escaped but succumbed in 586 before the Babylonians (Iraq). Jerusalem was now destroyed, large numbers of the inhabitants deported, and the monarchy abolished. An attempt to renew organized political life in subordination to Babylonia under Gedaliah, a member of the old royal house, was ended by his assassination (582 BCE).  \n\nOn the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire, the Persian (Iranian) king Cyrus permitted the children of the exiles, who had continued to cherish
1172922
Yes it's very interesting. I've heard different versions of this. What's actually a good read and goes into some detail about this stuff is "the bible code II".\n\nif you place yourself back in biblical times and saw a ufo how would you describe it? "it came from the heavens"\n\nif the occupants came out how would you describe them? "gods"\n\nif they showed you something as simple as a cigarete lighter what would you say? "they can perform miracles, creating fire from their hands"\n\nthere are many references in the bible that describe things that can be interpreted as aliens.\n\nso i wouldn't say there is no evidence like a poster mentioned here. check out the link i am providing that seems to show that we have been visited throughout recorded history...
1059969
Not all of it, but quite a bit of it. The creation of mankind relates most closely to the myth of Enki and Ninhursag. The Creation itself relates to myths that can be found throughout Sumer. Cain and Able comes from the myth Inanna prefers the farmer. The biblical myth of the snake and the tree comes fgrom a portion of Gilgamesh even so much as to include lilith. Much of the begats were taken as the hebrew version of the kings list. Noah can be taken from the sumerian flood stories. \n\nMuch ot the later stuff is Canaanite. Job was taken from Canaanite stories forexample. \n\nThis was because Abraham came from the city of Ur. He would have worshiped the sumerian gods by their Akkadian names and would have done things in a sumerian manner. \n\nThe ten commandments are actually rather close to a sumerian contract, and the commandments, if taken in the proper historical context, can be shown to make much more sense from a sumerian point of view.\n\nAdendum:\nto T.O. snooze !: the tablets we have from the sumerians can be easily dated both by scientific means and by comparing them to the historical accounts shown elsewhere. If compared with the bible we see that Abraham was said to come from the city of Ur and so if we find biblical stories in an erlier form then we can tell who had the stories first. \n\nTo Kevin: Where are you getting this? Your information doesn't fit with the known archeological evidence. \n\nTo Jengen: Why answer the question if you know nothing about the subject. He asked a simple archeology based question. He did not request a flawed sermon.
332198
Thank you for the article- it had some interesting insights!\n\nI have long thought that there was something odd in the part of Genesis 2:1 and the phrasing Genesis 1 used. I've been looking for things that explained it and your article did just that.\n\nIt simply makes no sense that the God who sent His people to the wilderness for 40 years would have (or needed to) rush the planet in 6 days, then fake various items to make it seem much older. He does not work that way at any other time, so why then?\n\nI have said for years that when the Bible and science or reality conflict, our understanding of one or the other is flawed- and I think we've really messed up our understanding of the Bible!
55619
No scientific research has proven the Bible wrong.  Some might scoff at this statement but what science has proven wrong is false beliefs held by some within the church,  beliefs that were not found in the Bible (i.e. the flat earth).  There is past and recent archaeological research that supports the historical accounts in Exodus and other books of the Bible.  Below are two sources for further information.
980148
No disrespect but I have never heard anyone think that the pharaoh Anknaten was Moses.I major in ancient history.,and I study Archeology. The only evidence there is about Moses does not call him by name.There are hieroglyphics on the walls in Egypt the depict a vast number of people leaving Egypt and show writings of some of the miracles.They are saying that it might have been Anknatens father who was the Exodus pharaoh and not Ramses the second. They are thinking that is why Anknaten believed in one god, the Aten.I will tell you this, a lot of archaeologists take a bible with them on some of their digs as a historical map of sorts. So in a sense, the bible is historical proof in a way.The site that guy gave you 2 answers before me is false. It is looking at things from a different point of view. I study American and well documented History and archeology.