"Of the cities of these peoples that the Lord thy God Giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but though shalt utterly destroy them" (Deut 20:10-18)

In the above listed passage, Moses commands his people to take exterminate the inhabitants who live there. In the book of Joshua, there is a detailed account of the many cities taken by the "Chosen people". We see a vicious campaign of conquest and extermination that would put even the Nazis to shame. I think that if Moses or Joshua were alive today they would be concidered war criminals.

As a lifelong christian who grew up believing in the Bible I have read passages like that above with great shock. I have asked many questions but have never got a satisfactory answer. Here are the theories I have heard in regards to the conquest of Canaan:

1) In able to create a nation of priests to serve the Lord God, it is necessary for all enemies of God to be destroyed. The land of Canaan was the land promised to the people of God and all others who inhabited the land were trespassers. (The commonly accepted biblical theory)
2) While God did indeed order his chosen to take the promised land with violent force, by the time of the New Testiment God himself had changed. THis is why Jesus stated "He who lives by the sword shal perish by the sword".
3) Moses himself was not as reverent as people say he was. The command to conquer the holy land was not the commands of God but of Moses.

I myself tend to go with the last of these theories. I do know that the Bible itself was written by man and re written and re edited until it became the book as we know it today.

What do you think?

------------------
If thinking for myself is a crime I plead guilty.

Hmmm . . . I don't really have a problem with ANYTHING God does. I know that sounds blind, but, uh, it's all his, and I'm just happy to have another hour or two here to enjoy it! LOL!

As far as the people who got booted out of the Holy Land (and the ones who didn't quite make it out!), you have to understand that a) those people had made war against the Jews earlier and b) those people had fair warning to get the heck out of Dodge.

Throughout history, people who have fought against God's armies haven't done so well. Here's another example. God warned the people, they didn't listen, they died. It's NOT about genocide. God didn't say "go kill the blacks" or "go kill the Gypsies". God said "I'm giving you your land back."

If God wanted those people dead, he probably had a good reason. Heck, I'll hopefully get a chance to ask him one day.

"They created sin so they could win."

This to me is another example of people perverting the real sense fo God and what she/he/it means. Twisting it to be used as a tool...

------------------
Manu Narayan

Manu, it's like that sometimes, but it wasn't the case then. I mean, at this time in history, God was pretty interactive! I mean, there were angels and burning bushes and pillars of fire . . . food falling from heaven. Basically, God said "go take your land back", and they did. The walls of Jehrico crumbled after a trumpet sounded . . . plop . . . no walls. God wasn't fooling around!

See, the "sin" wasn't a rally-call for the Jews. They were ready to call it a day at any time and just settle, but God had a place for them where He WANTED them. The Jews weren't lead by some conquering hero. They were led by God.

Here's something to think about. The Jews basically came in and cleared out Israel (or a significant portion of it) without significant loss of life (relatively). Basically, about halfway through the march, most of their enemies had gotten the word that the Jews were coming, and they had an angry God on their side . . . time to leave!

Now, normally, throughout history, when a country is counquering as easily as the Jews did, the momentum drives on until the army runs out of gas. This didn't happen. Once the "right" land was taken, the counquering stopped. God said "that's enough".

I don't pretend to know why. All I know is that God wanted His people there and other people out. It's not my place to question the will of God.

Originally posted by D Durden:
Manu, it's like that sometimes, but it wasn't the case then. I mean, at this time in history, God was pretty interactive! I mean, there were angels and burning bushes and pillars of fire . . . food falling from heaven. Basically, God said "go take your land back", and they did. The walls of Jehrico crumbled after a trumpet sounded . . . plop . . . no walls. God wasn't fooling around!

See, the "sin" wasn't a rally-call for the Jews. They were ready to call it a day at any time and just settle, but God had a place for them where He WANTED them. The Jews weren't lead by some conquering hero. They were led by God.

Here's something to think about. The Jews basically came in and cleared out Israel (or a significant portion of it) without significant loss of life (relatively). Basically, about halfway through the march, most of their enemies had gotten the word that the Jews were coming, and they had an angry God on their side . . . time to leave!

Now, normally, throughout history, when a country is counquering as easily as the Jews did, the momentum drives on until the army runs out of gas. This didn't happen. Once the "right" land was taken, the counquering stopped. God said "that's enough".

I don't pretend to know why. All I know is that God wanted His people there and other people out. It's not my place to question the will of God.

Wait how do you profess to know what things were like back then or what God did or didnt say or what decisions the Jews made? You are going off of interpretations of myths passed down from generation to generation over hundreds of years.



------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Originally posted by D Durden:
[B]Manu, it's like that sometimes, but it wasn't the case then. I mean, at this time in history, God was pretty interactive! I mean, there were angels and burning bushes and pillars of fire . . . food falling from heaven. Basically, God said "go take your land back", and they did. The walls of Jehrico crumbled after a trumpet sounded . . . plop . . . no walls. God wasn't fooling around!

See, the "sin" wasn't a rally-call for the Jews. They were ready to call it a day at any time and just settle, but God had a place for them where He WANTED them. The Jews weren't lead by some conquering hero. They were led by God.

Here's something to think about. The Jews basically came in and cleared out Israel (or a significant portion of it) without significant loss of life (relatively). Basically, about halfway through the march, most of their enemies had gotten the word that the Jews were coming, and they had an angry God on their side . . . time to leave!

[B]

I see yet another interesting aspect to this. In modern days, we are seeing a renewal of this same sort of conflict. The nation of Isreal is in a perpetual state of war with the Palestinians. Both groups use scripture to justify their claims. This is why I see any kind of Holy War as the worst sort of war.

------------------
If thinking for myself is a crime I plead guilty.

Eactly Criminal!

A holy war is a war, but witha diuvine mandate...

Now, Dave, I don't want to insult you at all, as I know you are a firm believer in your faith...but how do you KNOW that happened? I mean, when you look at it, it could be a LONG BIG game of telephone...or even just 'stories' written...

------------------
Manu Narayan

http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif no no Manu the Bible is 100% truth it has all been historicaly documented, yup. Right down to the color of BVDs they used to wear. Why its the "gospel truth" you couldnt possibly get any more factual than that. Sarcasm... ha... funny...

------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

There where two things happening back then...
People drinking lots of wine, and sh!t thats hard to believe.

I think one lead to the other. http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif

Manu, I don't KNOW anything . . . I have faith. So, no, I don't KNOW the Bible is correct. I BELIEVE it is. However, no one has offered up anything either more credible or more spiritually enriching than the Bible. It's one of the few facets of my life that's based strictly on feelings and gut-instincts.

The Bible talks about things "changing" over time i.e. someone adding a spin to the meanings. God said that he would not allow His Word to be "tainted" or "perverted" to change the meaning. Now, we HAVE had some translation problems, but the general meaning has stayed the same. People who study the Bible can figure out right and wrong, and what's expected of a Christian (or Jew).

Will there be holy war? Yup. The Bible says there will be.

Actually, yes. It's REQUIRED before joining the Presbyterian Church (no poo-poo . . . we even visit other places, learn thinga about them . . . the whole enchilada . . . pretty unbiased, too, considering it's usually the other church's people who do the activities).

Without getting into specifics about each religion, I found Christianity "spoke" to me more than the others. I like some of the principles of the places and people I visited, but they either didn't "speak" to me or they had some kind of "tragic flaw" that made me discount them. It's hard to explain, but I didn't just pick a random belief out of an index. What I believe culminates from my studies and what my heart tells me. Granted, I'd RATHER believe in other religions. I'd much rather be Wiccan or otherwise, but that's not in my heart. Actually, I'd rather just not believe in anything so I could be free to pursue ALL of life's pleasures, but, I can't do that either. There's got to be something more.

No offense taken AT ALL Manu. I have NO PROBLEMS dealing with questions on my beliefs. I know where you're coming from.

Question Dave.

Have you looked into any other faiths? What proof has the bible shown that another faith has or has not?

------------------
Manu Narayan

Originally posted by D Durden:
Actually, yes. It's REQUIRED before joining the Presbyterian Church (no poo-poo . . . we even visit other places, learn thinga about them . . . the whole enchilada . . . pretty unbiased, too, considering it's usually the other church's people who do the activities).

Without getting into specifics about each religion, I found Christianity "spoke" to me more than the others. I like some of the principles of the places and people I visited, but they either didn't "speak" to me or they had some kind of "tragic flaw" that made me discount them. It's hard to explain, but I didn't just pick a random belief out of an index. What I believe culminates from my studies and what my heart tells me. Granted, I'd RATHER believe in other religions. I'd much rather be Wiccan or otherwise, but that's not in my heart. Actually, I'd rather just not believe in anything so I could be free to pursue ALL of life's pleasures, but, I can't do that either. There's got to be something more.

No offense taken AT ALL Manu. I have NO PROBLEMS dealing with questions on my beliefs. I know where you're coming from.

Out of curiosity...was it the church that took you on those field trips? And what other religions did you learn about?



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

A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective.
Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Strategic Assessments

Actually, yeah, it was the church. We visited Hebrew, Hindu, and Moslem places of worship (generally, DURING worship). We actually participated with the Jews! That was pretty cool. Them and the Hindu people were VERY receptive and open about what they believe. We, of course, went to a Catholic church and other prots. Oddly enough, out of them ALL, it was a very "We're all holy in God's eyes . . . we're just a little more holy than most" prot church down the road that knew the least about "us". They had some really freaky ideas about what Presbyterians believe and all. The Jews and the Hindus knew a lot about us . . . but our own "family" didn't.

It was very eye-opening.

Originally posted by D Durden:
What I believe culminates from my studies and what my heart tells me. Granted, I'd RATHER believe in other religions. I'd much rather be Wiccan or otherwise, but that's not in my heart. Actually, I'd rather just not believe in anything so I could be free to pursue ALL of life's pleasures, but, I can't do that either. There's got to be something more.



Are you being sarcastic or do you really have a desire to break free from the confines of religious ideology?



------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Hmmm . . . I'm trying to think how to best reply.

How about this Cody, and I'm NOT being sarcastic. Go fly. I mean RIGHT NOW. Fly. Break free of the confines of physics. FLY MAN! See, you're just following the same old crap that your parents taught you and teachers did. It's just a plot to keep you on the ground and paying big dollars for plane tickets. It's been a conspiracy since the Masons and the Shriners met in . . . blah, blah, blah . . .

Cody, there ARE no religious confines for me. I believe in something, but that doesn't confine me to anything. I feel something is truth. Prove my feelings wrong. You can't . . . no more than I can prove you wrong. The thing is, I don't WANT to prove you wrong. I have no desire. You feel something differently than I do (or, in your hostility, you're denying a feeling . . . who knows?).

It's obvious that you have a real problem with religion, and that's you're right. I don't care. My soul isn't impacted one way or the other. Something you MIGHT want to do, if only for yourself, is to figure out WHY you have this hostility. It might be good for you.

Originally posted by Criminal:
"Of the cities of these peoples that the Lord thy God Giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but though shalt utterly destroy them" (Deut 20:10-18)


First of all we seem to be referring to Old Testament "chosen people" as Jews. There are the 12 tribes of Israel with one tribe being Judah which was at war with the other tribes from time to time. The relation to Jews of today in the UN "state" of Israel is very controversial since there is evidence that most are decendents of a non-semitic tribe from Turkey.

Taking a quote out of Deuteronomy is difficult. The Israelites had prayed for liberation and finally achieved it as described in Exodus. So they were instructed to be very harsh with their enemies as their enemies were with them. The premise apparently is that the Israelites were to be a blessing for Earthlngs. They were supposed to lead by example and show to the world that they had faith in the Creator and not the Creator's creation necessarily. Obviously, the Israelites continually failed to be true to the Creator and were punished accordingly. It is like a love affair in which the Creator still hopes his cheating girl friend will come around and be loyal consistantly. Then they was to be a spiritual wedding of sorts described in the New Testament.

Originally posted by Snouter:
First of all we seem to be referring to Old Testament "chosen people" as Jews. There are the 12 tribes of Israel with one tribe being Judah which was at war with the other tribes from time to time. The relation to Jews of today in the UN "state" of Israel is very controversial since there is evidence that most are decendents of a non-semitic tribe from Turkey.

Taking a quote out of Deuteronomy is difficult. The Israelites had prayed for liberation and finally achieved it as described in Exodus. So they were instructed to be very harsh with their enemies as their enemies were with them. The premise apparently is that the Israelites were to be a blessing for Earthlngs. They were supposed to lead by example and show to the world that they had faith in the Creator and not the Creator's creation necessarily. Obviously, the Israelites continually failed to be true to the Creator and were punished accordingly. It is like a love affair in which the Creator still hopes his cheating girl friend will come around and be loyal consistantly. Then they was to be a spiritual wedding of sorts described in the New Testament.
One thing I have learned in life is to think critically. Perhaps it is sinful to take a work like the Bible and be critical of its authors but I do wonder if we ever would have seen the conquest of Jerico or Hebron from the defenders point of view. These were people defending their home from a foreign invader. Ultimately they were defeated and the inhabitants were killed to the last man, woman and child. I suppose it would have been different if the isrealites were instructed to offer terms of peace and convert these people to follow their religion and way of life, but Moses's instructions were not to convert, enslave or drive off these people. Instead it was to exterminate them. Odly enough, the isrealites were not successful. We should remember that the Gabronites used a clever deception to make peace with Joshua. Furthermore some inhabitants such as the family of the harlot Rahab who hid the two spys of Joshua were spared. Also some of the stonger cities, such as Jerusalam were not conquered. Jerusalam was not to be taken until the time of David. It is also important to remember that by the time of David and Solomon, the Canaanites were no longer the enemy of the Isrealites (the Phillistines, a race of seaborn invader from Crete) were the chief enemy of David. Solomon even accepted the friendship of the king of Sidon, long an enemy of the Isrealites.

One final note, the great Christian Theologian, St Augustine of Hippo claimed to be a decendent of Canaanites, or Phoenicians as they were known by that time. Hippo, know known as Bone in modern day Algeria, was founded by Phoenicians in ancient times.




------------------
If thinking for myself is a crime I plead guilty.

First of all we seem to be referring to Old Testament "chosen people" as Jews. There are the 12 tribes of Israel with one tribe being Judah which was at war with the other tribes from time to time. The relation to Jews of today in the UN "state" of Israel is very controversial since there is evidence that most are decendents of a non-semitic tribe from Turkey.

Yes, I have heard that up to 90% of those who call themselves Jews are really Khazars (Khazakistan... Southern Russia)... a Turkish "race".

Perhaps it is sinful to take a work like the Bible and be critical of its authors but I do wonder if we ever would have seen the conquest of Jerico or Hebron from the defenders point of view.

I don't think it is at all... if anything, I consider it to be a good thing. Blindly believeing in something without understanding why can itself be dangerous IMO.

Here is something I remember reading from Isaac Asimov. When Cain killed Able, and was cursed, he supposedly took his wife and founded a city around where Jericho should have been. Interesting thing to note is that Adam and Eve gave birth to cain, Abel, and then many other sons and daughters. Kind of makes you wonder who... or WHAT Cain took as a wife! At any rate, there are those who suggest that Jericho may have been the first city ever founded...meaning that under a different name, it may have been the one that Cain founded. Only throwing this out as there might be more to the story than the obvious.

------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Originally posted by Turbostang:

Here is something I remember reading from Isaac Asimov. When Cain killed Able, and was cursed, he supposedly took his wife and founded a city around where Jericho should have been. Interesting thing to note is that Adam and Eve gave birth to cain, Abel, and then many other sons and daughters. Kind of makes you wonder who... or WHAT Cain took as a wife! At any rate, there are those who suggest that Jericho may have been the first city ever founded...meaning that under a different name, it may have been the one that Cain founded. Only throwing this out as there might be more to the story than the obvious.



Yea because we all know that humans have lived in city states since the days of the first tribes... What??? This is another example of BS bible stuff. People didnt just pull agriculture, trade, language, masnory, and metal working out of their butts nor did god bestow the full line of "How to For Dummies" on the first inhabitants of the earth: Human beings originally lived in packs and tribes, they were hunter gatherers they did not practice agriculture and they did not live in fortified cities like Jericho supposedly was. Lets according to the bible Cain and Abel were like the secong generation of human beings ever right? That would put them right about at the point where people discovered how to sharpen sticks to use them as tools. If you actually believe the second generation of humans to walk the earth were capable of constructing intricate political, agricultural, and architectural formations of a city state then you are sadly misguided. I suppose right after that the third generation of humans swam across the Atlantic and into the Pacific then hiked into the Andes and founded the Incan Empire, is that in the bible too?


------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Originally posted by D Durden:
Hmmm . . . I'm trying to think how to best reply.

How about this Cody, and I'm NOT being sarcastic. Go fly. I mean RIGHT NOW. Fly. Break free of the confines of physics. FLY MAN! See, you're just following the same old crap that your parents taught you and teachers did. It's just a plot to keep you on the ground and paying big dollars for plane tickets. It's been a conspiracy since the Masons and the Shriners met in . . . blah, blah, blah . . .

Cody, there ARE no religious confines for me. I believe in something, but that doesn't confine me to anything. I feel something is truth. Prove my feelings wrong. You can't . . . no more than I can prove you wrong. The thing is, I don't WANT to prove you wrong. I have no desire. You feel something differently than I do (or, in your hostility, you're denying a feeling . . . who knows?).

It's obvious that you have a real problem with religion, and that's you're right. I don't care. My soul isn't impacted one way or the other. Something you MIGHT want to do, if only for yourself, is to figure out WHY you have this hostility. It might be good for you.

Yeah apparently I grossly misinterpretted what you were saying. I thought you were saying that your rational mind disavowed religious ideologies and that you only clung to them out of emotion.

As far as my hostility to religion Ill gladly tell you why: I am hostile towards hieracrchial religions because:

A. they espouse that right and wrong are fundamental laws of the world, and disavow the capacity of the individual to make his/her own valuations

B. they espouse hieracrhies such as man being subserviant to god etc.

C. They raise emotion above objectivity.

D. They serve to divide people into competeing factions.

Those are my 4 main problems with A obviously being my biggest complaint. Now those are just my gripes with religion in general. As for Christianity I have several additional specific objections most of which I already voiced to you in the Bible thread but which I will paraphrase here in no particular order:

1. Christianity offers a distorted, one sided, and historically dubious model of history (the Bible)

2. Christians often espouse especially stringent hirearchies beginning with the catholic church and continuing in the various Protestant personality cults ie Lutheranism, Calvanism, etc.

3. Christianity via its rejection of objectivity can be used to defend such institutions as Slavery, War, Racism, Sexism, etc

4. Christianity often elevates such flaws as meekness, lameness, obediance, ignorance, and self deprication to positions of merit. Which I view as a rejection of our capacities as humans.

5. Christians have often been particularly quick to enact harsh retribution to silence its criticizers throughout history.

6. I find the Christian brand of morality to be very invasive and an attempt to stifle very common and in some cases naturaly inclined human behaviour.

7. Many Christians often believe in their various forms of Christianity to the exclusion of other religions. This has lead to the christian "missionary movement" that has lead to the destruction of countless cultures throughout history (and continues to do so today). Not to mention all the civil wars and disease it has caused throughout history.

8. Christianity perverts charitable actions from being simply for emotional health and the benefit of fellow humans into a kind of wage labor in which you are serving god in return for posthumous priviledges.

9. Christianity uses threats of "damnation" (whatever the hell that is) to coerce its followers. Basically a subtle allusion to violence and an attempt to inflict emotional stress on persons who dare to stray from christian morality.

Anyway, get the idea? I could list more objections but its late and im tired so ill leave it at that for now. But thats the source of my hostility Dave and I think its plenty to be hostile towards.



------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Originally posted by CodyChaos:
Human beings originally lived in packs and tribes, they were hunter gatherers they did not practice agriculture

Did you mean they lived in caves also? Apparently Neanterthals did, but there is absolutley no evidence humans evolved from them or any other subhuman. The subhuman simply died out. The religion taught in the public schools however promotes the myth that humans magically evolved. There is no evidence to support it. In fact, the evidence in the human body, such as a lengthy intestinal tract, indicates humans are and have always have been primarily vegatarians.

Originally posted by Criminal:
One thing I have learned in life is to think critically..... These were people defending their home from a foreign invader

To think critically in this case requires you to ascertain who is the true invader and who has a true right to the land. If the Creator promised the land to a particular group for doing what was required of them, that promise is to be fulfilled according to the Bible. If there are enemies occupying the land who intentionally worship "other gods," the Creator gets jealous and angry. This same jealousy and anger is applied extensively throughout history to the Israelites according to the Bible for their misbehavior also.

Originally posted by Criminal:
I suppose it would have been different if the isrealites were instructed to offer terms of peace and convert these people to follow their religion and way of life...

C'mon, when has that approach ever worked in human history? The Creator had His hands full just trying to keep the Israelites from believing in false gods. All is fair in love and war.

A. they espouse that right and wrong are fundamental laws of the world, and disavow the capacity of the individual to make his/her own valuations

That's right, as long as the end justifies the means, even murder itself is OK.

B. they espouse hieracrhies such as man being subserviant to god etc.

Someone has to be the chief, and someone has to be the indian, don't they? I guarantee that if you go into any employer with that attitude of "I'm going to do my own thing, and the hell with the rules", you won't have a job for very long.

C. They raise emotion above objectivity.

So do liberals.

D. They serve to divide people into competeing factions.

If you say so. However, it seems that if anyone is good at getting people divided into quarreling factions, liberals are.

------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

[This message has been edited by Turbostang (edited 08-12-2001).]

Turbo,

People dont NEED rulers, maybe you do, but i dont. Second, if you believe ends justify means then ok im not going to argue but that still involves making a personal moral judgement. Yea the ideas of liberal government authority is counter productive too, but hey its what the theocrats use to inflict their moral laws on the masses, If we could devolve the government we could likewise devolve the power of the theocrats.

------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Originally posted by Snouter:
[B] Did you mean they lived in caves also? Apparently Neanterthals did, but there is absolutley no evidence humans evolved from them or any other subhuman. The subhuman simply died out. The religion taught in the public schools however promotes the myth that humans magically evolved. There is no evidence to support it. In fact, the evidence in the human body, such as a lengthy intestinal tract, indicates humans are and have always have been primarily vegatarians.


No i dont mean they lived in caves. They were hunter-gatherers in that they were nomadic and roamed large areas most likely on a seasonal basis. They ate nuts, berries, fuits, roots, leaves, once they developed the basic technology and tactics to kill animals then they incorporated meat into the diets.

------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Cody . . . how would you propose a society of no leadership, "ruler", or government? I'm NOT being sarcastic!!! I'm honestly being curious.

Originally posted by Turbostang:

Here is something I remember reading from Isaac Asimov. When Cain killed Able, and was cursed, he supposedly took his wife and founded a city around where Jericho should have been. Interesting thing to note is that Adam and Eve gave birth to cain, Abel, and then many other sons and daughters. Kind of makes you wonder who... or WHAT Cain took as a wife! At any rate, there are those who suggest that Jericho may have been the first city ever founded...meaning that under a different name, it may have been the one that Cain founded. Only throwing this out as there might be more to the story than the obvious.



That is an interesting point. All the same, if what the Bible is 100 % correct it should not matter because during the great flood, all people of the earth were destroyed except Noah and his family. All Canaanites were decended from Canaan, son of Ham.

------------------
If thinking for myself is a crime I plead guilty.

The thing is there is archeological evidence that suggests that Jericho might be up to 10K years old! Want to see some photos?

Here is one...

http://www.wzo.org.il/juice/map/jericho/j2.jpg

Remember a few years when they discovered the "ice man" in Switzerland? The estimate the man lived around 5000 BCE. At that point, man already had perfected the axe, the bow, leather working, and had knowledge of medicine.

Either way, it punches holes in the theory that man at that point in time were strictly hunter-gatherers.

I'm with Durden on the leadership issue... I really would like to know how a society would function without leadership.



------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Originally posted by Turbostang:
The thing is there is archeological evidence that suggests that Jericho might be up to 10K years old! Want to see some photos?

Here is one...

Remember a few years when they discovered the "ice man" in Switzerland? The estimate the man lived around 5000 BCE. At that point, man already had perfected the axe, the bow, leather working, and had knowledge of medicine.

Either way, it punches holes in the theory that man at that point in time were strictly hunter-gatherers.

I'm with Durden on the leadership issue... I really would like to know how a society would function without leadership.



How do you know its 10,000 years old by looking at the photo??? How do they even know its actually the city of Jericho?
Yeah maybe ice men in Switzerland did have axes and leather but they didnt have vast irrigation systems nor had they constructed walled cities. Even then that was only around 5,000 BC, according to your sources, and you are claiming Jericho predates those achievements by 3,000 years. So it sounds like a pretty weak case to me.


------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Originally posted by D Durden:
Cody . . . how would you propose a society of no leadership, "ruler", or government? I'm NOT being sarcastic!!! I'm honestly being curious.

Excuse me but i never said no leadership or government, I said NO RULERS. Theres a big difference. Please dont extend my quotes like that. Ill start another thread and we can discuss it there.



------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

Originally posted by Turbostang:
I'm with Durden on the leadership issue... I really would like to know how a society would function without leadership.



There is no leadership issue. I never said a SOCIETY would function well without LEADERSHIP. Now it is very much possible for an INDIVIDUAL to exist without leadership and it is possible to have small societies or communities which function without RULERS but if you ever want to organize large projects then somebodys probably going to have to display some LEADERSSHIP though that doesnt mean they have to be authoritarian about it or do it in a violent manner.



------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

LOL! Oh boy, talk about grasping for straws!

Time dating methods... ever heard of those? You know... the sort of thing they use to date mummies and such... or don't you believe in thise either? ROFLMAO!!!!!!! Oh, and if you wish to open that can of worms, then you just shot your whole concept of evolution in the foot, because the same methods used to determine the age of the city are the smae general ones used to determine the age of fossils, etc. LOLOL! Nice try! http://discussanything.com/Ubb/biggrin.gif

As far as the ice man goes... hey by your very own words, people of the era were supposed to be hunter-gatherers, correct? Well, there goes another one out the window! Hehe!

------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Wow, wow, Cody, I love you, man, I really do. It's funny that we always got into piddling arguements about our different opinions when we really had a lot of thoughts so similar. But yeah, after reading through everyone's thoughts, I don't feel like repeating anyone, so here's what I have to say on top of what Cody has said. First of all, for the person who suggested that humans evolved as vegetarians due to a lengthy intestinal tract, how about this little gem? Human teeth have a relatively thin coating of enamel on them, which is consistent with omnivores, due to the fact that most vegetarian mammals have very thick enamel to protect their teeth from all of the dirt that is consumed along with vegetables. And I think everyone has to realize that yes, the Bible was based on truth, but it must be realized that it is someone's version of history. There has been many correlations between the bible and archeological discoveries, but that doesn't mean that Jesus turned water into wine. Like everyone knows, the best lies use as much of the truth as possible. So when Sodom burned down or whatever happened to it, and people noticed that it had more than its fair share of gays, it all of a sudden becomes God's revenge. Well, if it works like that, God must hate white trash, cuz he put a trailer-park seeking device on every tornado in the United States. I don't hear about any natural disasters taking out the Castro (gay) district in San Francisco. Just realize that anyone can make just about anything serve his purposes. Oh, and by the way, it's Mike Yoo.

Wow, wow, Cody, I love you, man, I really do. It's funny that we always got into piddling arguements about our different opinions when we really had a lot of thoughts so similar. But yeah, after reading through everyone's thoughts, I don't feel like repeating anyone, so here's what I have to say on top of what Cody has said. First of all, for the person who suggested that humans evolved as vegetarians due to a lengthy intestinal tract, how about this little gem? Human teeth have a relatively thin coating of enamel on them, which is consistent with omnivores, due to the fact that most vegetarian mammals have very thick enamel to protect their teeth from all of the dirt that is consumed along with vegetables. And I think everyone has to realize that yes, the Bible was based on truth, but it must be realized that it is someone's version of history. There has been many correlations between the bible and archeological discoveries, but that doesn't mean that Jesus turned water into wine. Like everyone knows, the best lies use as much of the truth as possible. So when Sodom burned down or whatever happened to it, and people noticed that it had more than its fair share of gays, it all of a sudden becomes God's revenge. Well, if it works like that, God must hate white trash, cuz he put a trailer-park seeking device on every tornado in the United States. I don't hear about any natural disasters taking out the Castro (gay) district in San Francisco. Just realize that anyone can make just about anything serve his purposes. Oh, and by the way, it's Mike Yoo.

IDig . . . your argument is well stated. I'm with you on the omnivore thing, too. Our teeth profiles point out the same conclusion.

Now, WITHOUT entering religious debate, arguing the Bible's accuracy is a "sticky wicket" with Christians around. Since Christians DO believe that Jesus did the water to wine miracle (as well as all the other things written about), there's not much room for compromise.

It's kinda' funny. I heard this discussion between two people who are normally VERY open-minded . . . bordering on the L word (lol!). Here's kinda' how it went . . .

"Be open minded Jeff . . . the Bible COULD be wrong in some respects."

"No. It's God's word i.e. infallible."

"But, it's gone through so many translations that surely 10-20% is wrong or changed!"

"The Bible says that God won't allow His Word to be perverted."

"So, you're saying that just because some man said that God said that He would protect His Word, you believe the Bible to be correct?"

"Absolutely. It's God's Word."

"And you can't compromise that maybe God isn't perfect?"

"Uhhhhh . . . no?"

"You're SO close minded . . .

LOL! For Christians, it's not a matter of being close-minded or even blind. It's just what we believe.

------------------
Go ahead and call Cosmo "Chief" and Bill is "Fearless Leader" . . . I'm HAPPILY "Minister of Spanking"!!

Famous Last Words:
Socrates - "I drank WHAT?"

Originally posted by D Durden:
"But, it's gone through so many translations that surely 10-20% is wrong or changed!"


In my study of the Bible, although they are generally easier to read, most "new" translations of the Bible are indeed not correct.

The best way to study it is in the Hebrew and Greek. Since most people can barely speak English, the next best way is the 1611 King James Version which includes the Apocrypha.

It gets real interesting when the Dead Sea Scrolls are also brought into the picture. They support the 1611 translation, but include other documents that are controversial.

The oldest Old Testament manuscript used by the King James translators was dated approximately A.D. 1100. Obviously, that old manuscript from A.D. 1100 was a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. for over two thousand years. How could we be sure that the text in the A.D. 1100 copy of the Scriptures was identical with the original text as given to the writers by God and inspired by Him?

In 1947, a Bedouin Arab found a cave in Qumran near the Dead Sea which ultimately yielded over a thousand priceless manuscripts dating back before A.D. 68, when the Roman legions destroyed the Qumran village during the Jewish war against Rome.

When the ancient Hebrew scrolls from these caves were examined by scholars they found that this Qumran site contained a library with hundreds of precious texts of both biblical and secular manuscripts that dated back before the destruction of the Second Temple and the death of Jesus Christ. Once the Bedouins recognized the value of the scrolls they began searching for additional documents in every valley and cave near the Dead Sea. The most incredible discovery was the immense library of biblical manuscripts in Cave Four at Qumran that contained every single book of the Old Testament with the exception of the Book of Esther. Multiple copies of several biblical texts such as Genesis, Deuteronomy and Isaiah were found in Cave Four. Scholars were able to reach back a further two thousand years in time to examine biblical texts that had lain undisturbed in the desert caves during all of the intervening centuries. The scholars discovered that the Hebrew manuscript copies of the most authoritative Hebrew text, Textus Recepticus, used by the King James translators in 1611, were virtually identical to these ancient Dead Sea Scrolls. After carefully comparing the manuscripts they discovered that, aside from a tiny number of spelling variations, not a single word was altered from the original scrolls in the caves from the much copied A.D. 1100 manuscripts used by the Authorized King James Version translators in 1611. How could the Bible have been copied so accurately and faithfully over the many centuries without human error entering into the text? The answer is found in the overwhelming respect and fear of God that motivated Jewish and Christian scholars whose job was to faithfully copy the text of the Bible.

Most editions of the Bible after 1611 make subtle, but significant changes that disqualify them as being consistent with the original.

Revelation 22:18-19 has a warning regarding changing the words of that book in any way. It can be surmised that the same goes for other books related to it.