Interesting evidence of an ancient Middle East Meteor Cataclysm...Jericho? Sodom?

[Goonie]

Well, the OP suggests that the high intensity shock waves (that is, sound and ground vibration) from a meteor strike did the trick.

If a meteor strike was powerful enough to bring down the walls, just thnk what it would have done to the Israelites.

 

[Estrid]

40 mile an hour winds did that to a concrete bridge.

It doesn't take much force to destroy structures, if conditions are right.

Mighty big "if".

 

[RDKirk]

If a meteor strike was powerful enough to bring down the walls, just thnk what it would have done to the Israelites.

Depends on where they were really standing at the time. Clearly it did not destroy all life in the Levant.

Behind a ridge, over in the next valley further south, they'd likely have been okay.

During the 40s and 50s, the US tested tactical nuclear weapons with American soldiers sitting in trenches only a couple of miles from ground zero.

 

[Halbhh]

Interesting, and makes sense.
A couple of additional thoughts
I am certainly a skeptic, though it
would not be so that I " wish to reject"
and look for reasons to!
(I hope I am more intellectually honest
than that!)

Flipping your thought the other way, where does
faith come in when a perso rejects clear and unimoeachable
evidence that their chosen reading of the Bible is
not correct?

Good question. Several things happen. While faith is necessary at times to fully understand some parts of scripture, another aspect is that everyone is unique and also at a different point in their journey, so that they will be ready to learn certain things in particular, according to where they are at. And, in addition to some not fully understanding something yet, and putting a different emphasis on some other part than another person would, there is also sometimes people trying to reach a conclusion about some page too soon. And summarize a final summary (mistakenly or incomplete) when they ought to remain open to learning more, in time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Less than 100% true is obvious.
"Thirty cubits", say, is approximate.

What persent of inaccurate / untrue can it be
and retain validity?

I think the question is fundamentally flawed. It's akin to asking what percent of your local library is true/untrue; and asking how valid your library is. Does the existence of Lord of the Rings in your local library represent something untrue that detracts from the "validity" of the library? I don't think the presence of both fiction and nonfiction in a library to be an indicator for how "valid" the library is.

It's not a perfect comparison, but it is better to think of the Bible as a library of books rather than as a book, because the Bible isn't a book, but a collection of books.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

I think the question is fundamentally flawed. It's akin to asking what percent of your local library is true/untrue; and asking how valid your library is. Does the existence of Lord of the Rings in your local library represent something untrue that detracts from the "validity" of the library? I don't think the presence of both fiction and nonfiction in a library to be an indicator for how "valid" the library is.

It's not a perfect comparison, but it is better to think of the Bible as a library of books rather than as a book, because the Bible isn't a book, but a collection of books.

-CryptoLutheran

Even so, "Lord of the Rings" may present valuable truths even if it is not factual.

 

[Estrid]

I think the question is fundamentally flawed. It's akin to asking what percent of your local library is true/untrue; and asking how valid your library is. Does the existence of Lord of the Rings in your local library represent something untrue that detracts from the "validity" of the library? I don't think the presence of both fiction and nonfiction in a library to be an indicator for how "valid" the library is.

It's not a perfect comparison, but it is better to think of the Bible as a library of books rather than as a book, because the Bible isn't a book, but a collection of books.

-CryptoLutheran

So how does a person decide which books are the word of God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Even so, "Lord of the Rings" may present valuable truths even if it is not factual.

I believe it was a Christian that said, "The Bible is true, and some of it happened."

 

[ViaCrucis]

So how does a person decide which books are the word of God.

A person doesn't.

The Church has, over the centuries, reached a more-or-less general consensus of what books are to accepted as canonical and sacred; and confesses that through these we hear the one Word of God, which is Jesus Christ Himself.

The Bible is, for the Christian Church, the Christ-bearing text that we hear and confess as a faithful testimony of Jesus and the Church's hope and faith in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Estrid]

Good question. Several things happen. While faith is necessary at times to fully understand some parts of scripture, another aspect is that everyone is unique and also at a different point in their journey, so that they will be ready to learn certain things in particular, according to where they are at. And, in addition to some not fully understanding something yet, and putting a different emphasis on some other part than another person would, there is also sometimes people trying to reach a conclusion about some page too soon. And summarize a final summary (mistakenly or incomplete) when they ought to remain open to learning more, in time.

I don't see how that applies to things that simply are not accurate.

 

[Estrid]

A person doesn't.

The Church has, over the centuries, reached a more-or-less general consensus of what books are to accepted as canonical and sacred; and confesses that through these we hear the one Word of God, which is Jesus Christ Himself.

The Bible is, for the Christian Church, the Christ-bearing text that we hear and confess as a faithful testimony of Jesus and the Church's hope and faith in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

So you never know if the book is fiction, historical fiction,
literally true to the last letter, or what?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you never know if the book is fiction, historical fiction,
literally true to the last letter, or what?

You seem to be conflating the concept of Scripture being "the word of God" with Scripture being a particular genre.

Let's take one example: The book of Job is part of a genre of literature known as wisdom literature, and is therefore in the same literary genre as the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, as well as the Deuterocanonical books of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. Job is not a historical text, but the text is set in an historical period (the time of the patriarchs, before Moses, before the Exodus, etc); and the text wrestles with complex questions about the struggle of man in the world and how the "righteous man" responds to turmoil. What makes Job interesting isn't that there was an historical person named Job, but rather the interplay between Job, his friends, and God, and the situation in which Job has found himself.

Job is "fiction", in the sense that the people and events being spoken of aren't historical individuals who experienced these things in actual history. Though I think calling Job "fiction" is also kind of lazy--as I said, Job is wisdom literature. The point of the text isn't its literary characters themselves, but rather giving voice to diverse ideas, exploring and wrestling with difficult concepts that we could possibly identify as ancient Hebrew philosophy.

Esther is another example of a non-historical work that explores diverse themes. In fact Esther is probably an example of an ancient Jewish comedy, and its significance is in the way the work talks about its characters and their situations. Esther is also an interesting book because it exists in two forms, the older Aramaic form which is still found in Jewish and Protestant Bibles, and a later Greek redaction that adds extra material to make the work a more serious, somber one which was found in the ancient Septuagint and, therefore, is the one accepted in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

The book of Daniel is an example of early Jewish apocalyptic literature, interweaving stories about Daniel, a refugee from Judea held captive in Babylon; who serves as a visionary that talks about not only the end of Exile but also invokes God's promises of freedom in the midst of the Jewish struggle against the Seleucids during the Hellenistic/Maccabean period. The work was most likely written during the Maccabean period.

All of these are Scripture, they are held as sacred, divinely inspired, and good and useful for the Church.

That there was no historical Job or Esther doesn't rob either text of their meaning; the quasi-historicity of Daniel is likewise unproblematic.

Both Jews and Christians, historically, have not been "fundamentalist" in their view of the Bible--allowing these texts to have a lot of room to say what they're saying, and allowing us as readers to wrestle with these these texts and how they continue to inform and have meaning in the lives of the people who believe in the God about whom these texts talk about.

Specifically in Christianity, we believe that God's Revelation isn't a book, or collection of books, but a flesh-and-blood human being: Jesus of Nazareth, whom we believe and confess to be the Messiah (Christ), the only-begotten Son of God, and the Incarnate Word of God: God in the flesh.

The Bible is, therefore, in Christianity, about Jesus. The Christian approach to the Bible is that the Bible is about Jesus. That sounds like an overly simplistic statement, but in actuality means a very deep contemplation and reading of the Bible as a larger, complex narrative of God meeting the world and God intending to rescue the world. The Bible, in its history, in its stories, in its myths, in its poetry, in its prophecy, in its myriad of expression is, ultimately, we believe by faith, directing everything back to what happened in those four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and there understanding not just what God did in Jesus two thousand years ago, but what that means today and also what it means for the future of the universe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Halbhh]

I don't see how that applies to things that simply are not accurate.

Yes, inaccurate ideas about scripture are indeed very common. Too often someone will claim what is actually just a theory based on certain ideas or assumptions is "scriptural", or a particular doctrine (one of various competing doctrines that don't agree with each other, i.e a theory...). But a doctrine or understanding is only good if it agrees with every bit of scripture that applies to that subject. Many widespread doctrines do not agree with all verses that speak of some topic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Architecture 2,000+ years ago lacked modern engineering and safety standards. It is possible the walls were built rickety enough to be vulnerable to a resonance based attack. Or perhaps the walls were poorly maintained.

'Rickety'? They were seige walls:

"These walls were structured on a three tiered plan. The walls started with an earthen rampart, or embankment, which ran from ground level upwards on an incline to a stone retaining wall - the second tier. The stone retaining wall stood 12 to 15 feet in height (4-5m) on top of the earthen embankment, as the digital image below depicts.​

On top of the stone retaining wall, stood another wall made of mud-bricks, 6 feet (2m) thick, and 20 to 26 feet (6-8m) high. Together these two walls combined to form a fortification 32 to 41 feet high."

History of Israel​

Britannica calls them "massive stone walls".

A diamond is the hardest material on earth. Even it can be fractured and broken by a gentle tap from a hammer if contacts the right point. Its not about force or resistance. Resonance and the right frequency is like kryptonite to superman. A lot of force or contact aren't necessary if conditions are right.

Let me know when you work out the resonant frequency of the walls described above. I suggest that if you were constructing for maximum damping you'd be pushed to find a less resonant structure.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, the OP suggests that the high intensity shock waves (that is, sound and ground vibration) from a meteor strike did the trick.

That's quite possible, but boots on the ground, as suggested by 1rreducibly Complex, wouldn't touch them.

 

[Estrid]

Yes, inaccurate ideas about scripture are indeed very common. Too often someone will claim what is actually just a theory based on certain ideas or assumptions is "scriptural", or a particular doctrine (one of various competing doctrines that don't agree with each other, i.e a theory...). But a doctrine or understanding is only good if it agrees with every bit of scripture that applies to that subject. Many widespread doctrines do not agree with all verses that speak of some topic.

I meant inaccurate by outside- the Bible examination.

 

[Estrid]

You seem to be conflating the concept of Scripture being "the word of God" with Scripture being a particular genre.

Let's take one example: The book of Job is part of a genre of literature known as wisdom literature, and is therefore in the same literary genre as the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, as well as the Deuterocanonical books of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. Job is not a historical text, but the text is set in an historical period (the time of the patriarchs, before Moses, before the Exodus, etc); and the text wrestles with complex questions about the struggle of man in the world and how the "righteous man" responds to turmoil. What makes Job interesting isn't that there was an historical person named Job, but rather the interplay between Job, his friends, and God, and the situation in which Job has found himself.

Job is "fiction", in the sense that the people and events being spoken of aren't historical individuals who experienced these things in actual history. Though I think calling Job "fiction" is also kind of lazy--as I said, Job is wisdom literature. The point of the text isn't its literary characters themselves, but rather giving voice to diverse ideas, exploring and wrestling with difficult concepts that we could possibly identify as ancient Hebrew philosophy.

Esther is another example of a non-historical work that explores diverse themes. In fact Esther is probably an example of an ancient Jewish comedy, and its significance is in the way the work talks about its characters and their situations. Esther is also an interesting book because it exists in two forms, the older Aramaic form which is still found in Jewish and Protestant Bibles, and a later Greek redaction that adds extra material to make the work a more serious, somber one which was found in the ancient Septuagint and, therefore, is the one accepted in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

The book of Daniel is an example of early Jewish apocalyptic literature, interweaving stories about Daniel, a refugee from Judea held captive in Babylon; who serves as a visionary that talks about not only the end of Exile but also invokes God's promises of freedom in the midst of the Jewish struggle against the Seleucids during the Hellenistic/Maccabean period. The work was most likely written during the Maccabean period.

All of these are Scripture, they are held as sacred, divinely inspired, and good and useful for the Church.

That there was no historical Job or Esther doesn't rob either text of their meaning; the quasi-historicity of Daniel is likewise unproblematic.

Both Jews and Christians, historically, have not been "fundamentalist" in their view of the Bible--allowing these texts to have a lot of room to say what they're saying, and allowing us as readers to wrestle with these these texts and how they continue to inform and have meaning in the lives of the people who believe in the God about whom these texts talk about.

Specifically in Christianity, we believe that God's Revelation isn't a book, or collection of books, but a flesh-and-blood human being: Jesus of Nazareth, whom we believe and confess to be the Messiah (Christ), the only-begotten Son of God, and the Incarnate Word of God: God in the flesh.

The Bible is, therefore, in Christianity, about Jesus. The Christian approach to the Bible is that the Bible is about Jesus. That sounds like an overly simplistic statement, but in actuality means a very deep contemplation and reading of the Bible as a larger, complex narrative of God meeting the world and God intending to rescue the world. The Bible, in its history, in its stories, in its myths, in its poetry, in its prophecy, in its myriad of expression is, ultimately, we believe by faith, directing everything back to what happened in those four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and there understanding not just what God did in Jesus two thousand years ago, but what that means today and also what it means for the future of the universe.

-CryptoLutheran

That is a much more nuanced (and
educated) view than what I usually hear.

Of course, from my perspective, all of
it looks very different than from yours.

 

[tas8831]

Or that men who had authentic experiences with God wrote them as their level of understanding and knowledge allowed.

Which would mean that our modern 'interpretation' is flawed.

 

[tas8831]

Walls follow the same mechanics and principles as bridges.

Which makes them vulnerable to many of the same things.

Examples of walls falling via soldiers marching in step across them?

 

[RDKirk]

Which would mean that our modern 'interpretation' is flawed.

The first thing to be clear about--and may Christians are not--is the purpose of scripture. Scripture is not a text of astronomy or geography or archeology or biology--not even, really, history.

All Scripture is God-breathed [that is, inspired by God] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. --2 Timothy 3

Scripture is a book of Judeo-Christian philosophy with the purpose of training Christians for the tasks of the mission set forth by Christ (the Great Commission).

For that purpose, it's not particularly important whether it gets its astronomy or geography or archeology or biography--or even, really, its history--correct. Those are not the foundations of its reliability for its own stated purpose.

Edit: "Biography" corrected to "biology."