The Old Testament Claims....

[Minimalist]

Numbers 21

Arad Destroyed

21 When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them. 2 Then Israel made this vow to the Lord: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy[a] their cities.” 3 The Lord listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah.[

But, when archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni dug there....

The lower area was first settled during the Chalcolithic period, around 4000 BCE. Excavations at the site have unearthed an extensive Bronze Age Canaanite settlement which was in place until approximately 2650 BCE. The site was then apparently deserted for over 1500 years until resettled during the Israelite period from the 11th century BCE onwards, initially as an unwalled piece of land cut off as an official or sacred domain was established on the upper hill, and then later as a garrison-town known as 'The Citadel'.

it turns out to have been an Israelite site built on the ruins of a much older Early Bronze Age town.

No King of "Arad" existed to attack the so-called "Israelites."

Episode One in the new series I will call BIBLE BULLSHIT.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Episode One in the new series I will call BIBLE BULLSHIT.

Nice, but probably redundant; I think that may have been done already,more than a few times. But hey, whatever floats your cookies.


I saw that in a documentary recently.

PLUS it seems that not only did the Jews NOT conquer Canaan,they WERE Canaanites, probably refugees from the crumbling Mesopotamian empires.


The Biblical claims of Joshua's conquests and genocide in "The Promised Land' are contradicted by current archaeology,as far as I'm aware. (As indeed is the myth of the Exodus)

[ThomM]

The Biblical claims of Joshua's conquests and genocide in "The Promised Land' are contradicted by current archaeology,as far as I'm aware. (As indeed is the myth of the Exodus)

Virtually all of the claims of the Old Testament for the "great" jewish state are not supported by or proven wrong by history and archeology

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html - The Archeology department of TEL AVIV University has pretty much established the bible to be fairy tales

Jericho did not exist at the supposed time of Joshua.
The jews were not in bondage to Egypt at the supposed time of moses - who also has no basis in reality. There was no Exodus - no wandering in the desert - no great flood - no Adam and eve - no day creation - and there is not a single document that we have - that can be dated to the supposed time of the christ that even mentions that name.

[Minimalist]

I regard it as a sacred task to annoy the fuck out of fundies.

[System of Solace]

The supposed tomb of Christ has never been found. Although some claim they have, Christians can never agree on it. Which is a reoccurring Christian trait.

[thesummerqueen]

Was it you or a podcast that suggested a book to me about how Nazareth was a fictitious place, Min?

[System of Solace]

Was it you or a podcast that suggested a book to me about how Nazareth was a fictitious place, Min?

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

[FallentoReason]

'Nazareth' is just one of those things that came from 'tradition', just like St. Matthew really writing his own Gospel.

[Minimalist]

Rene Salm's The Myth of Nazareth is quite good in that he studiously reveals the archaeological evidence.

However, this





is faster.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I had not seen that Min,thank you.


However, I think you are preaching to the converted (if you will forgive the expression) Nothing as prosaic as archaeological and/or historical evidence will convince the believer of anything which contradicts dogma. Far too threatening.