Jan de Koning wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 03/05/02 -0400, Walter Hicks wrote:
> >I read 40,000 men (Joshua 4.13) but I don't see that as the basic point.
> >The smaller the area, the easier it is to walk around it. One does not
> >have to walk right at the side of it. They can march as many abreast as
> >they want to and as far away from the walls as is necessary. It does not
> >make sense to me say that smallness would be limit.
> The 40,000 men were in Joshua 4:23 were the men of the tribes left on the
> east side of the Jordan, see verse 12. Numbers 2:32 mentions the total
> number of men in Israel as 603,550. On the seventh day seven times means
> in effect that 4,221,850 men had to walk around. Realistically, how do you
> fix that in a limited space?
I still don't read the Jericho attack as by more than 40,000 Armed men
-- versus all of the men orf Israel ---- but (even if I assume that that
you are correct)
There is a world of difference between 600,000 men walking a distance 7
times and 4.2 million men doing it once.
I'll present my arguments & discussion to you on that OFFLINE.
> My only point was and is, that we do not always know what certain words
> mean, and what certain ways of talking were at that time. Nor do we know if
> 1,000 in the early books of the bible means our number 1,000. Could it be
> "clan"? Anyway, I would like to know how you would manage the marching of
> that many people around the small area which Jericho was. Also, even if
> you only take the men of the tribes east of the Jordan, how did the people
> in Jericho even dare to fight against Israel?
> I may have mentioned it in the past, but my philosophy prof. in 1942 warned
> us about the words "truth", "Objective", "subjective". These words are
> based on the philosophy the speaker (often unknowingly, and also
> unwillingly) adheres to. All of us on this forum are Christians, but many
> have never thought about the background of their thinking about other
> subjects than science. The result is long drawn out discussions which
> don't get anywhere because the writers have a different philosophical
> background. That does not show in the reporting of the measuring of facts,
> but it does show in the explanation of the facts. Some will struggle
> (often without success) to get the explanation of the facts and their (own)
> reading of the Bible in agreement. Others are studying the disagreements,
> without coming to hasty conclusions a large part of the scholarly community
> cannot accept.
> Personally, I only want to say: I am not a biblical scholar. My subject
> was math, its history and philosophy. But I do think that God spoke the
> "truth" in nature and is not trying to fool us. And God spoke the "truth"
> in Scriptures and is not trying to fool us. The difficulties of
> coordinating these truths will keep many people busy for many years, but if
> we want to participate we should not do away with one side or the other.
> Jan de Koning
Your points are well taken, Jan. I might even say that I agree with many
of them and then point out the ones with which I agree
------- but that might break an implicit the ASA "no agreements rule"
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 04 2002 - 00:02:09 EDT