I’m going to briefly comment on this post:
The analysis is somewhat confused. Denying the geocentric interpretation of Joshua’s long day is hardly equivalent to denying the historicity of the canonical book–or the specific event in question.
Also:
One result of this is that Dr van Bekkum --primarily on archaeological grounds-- places the conquest at the late date of about 1220 BC (and the Exodus at about 1260 BC). This contradicts I Kings 6:1 (480 years between Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon's reign [about 967 BC]).
“480 years” is a Biblical figure. “967 BC” is not.
The Bible doesn’t give a date for the Exodus or the Conquest. Early dates for the Exodus and the Conquest are embedded in an ANE chronology that makes use of various secular dating methods and sources. The calendar that Byl is using to date biblical events is a synthetic construct which pieces together some biblical notices with extrabiblical sources, techniques, and inferences.
The analysis is somewhat confused. Denying the geocentric interpretation of Joshua’s long day is hardly equivalent to denying the historicity of the canonical book–or the specific event in question.
ReplyDeleteByl's analysis isn't focused on denying a geocentric interpretation of Joshua's long day. Rather, his analysis focuses on Dr. Van Bekkum's thesis, his methodology, and his treatment of the book of Joshua as a whole.
Hence, Byl says, "Van Bekkum questions the historicity of much of Joshua. Thus, for example, Joshua did not conquer Jericho (contra Josh.2&6) or Ai (contra Josh.7-8), since according to van Bekkum these were uninhabited ruins at the time; the sun and moon did not actually stand still (contra Josh.10); the Canaanites did not have yet chariots of iron (contra Josh.17) at that time; the Israelites numbered only several 10,000 (not 600,000 men as per Num.26:51); etc."
Actually, I think he's using Van Bekkum's liberal view of Joshua as a whole as a pretext to defend geocentrism. And he's linking a denial of "biblical geocentrism" to an implicitly liberal hermeneutic. That's his prerogative, and he's welcome to make his best argument. But geocentrism has become something of a cause for Byl. And he's looking for opportunities to promote his position.
ReplyDeleteI've only read about a half dozen or so of Byl's articles and while I've seen him arguing that arguments against geocentrism are inconclusive, I don't see any of what you say in this article.
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear to me exactly what Byl's position is on geocentrism. In the following quote, he doesn't sound geocentric. At least not in the traditional sense. He says,
The ultimate focal point of the entire creation is God's heavenly Throne. Would it not be most fitting for God to designate this--the dwelling place of the Absolute--as the ultimate standard of absolute rest?
The link between the earth and God's throne will become even more obvious in the future, after the earth is renewed. Then God's dwelling place shall descend from heaven to be with man (Rev.21:1-4), and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be established on the earth itself (Rev.22:1-5).
The universe in its fullest sense is therefore neither helio-centric nor geo-centric but, rather, Christo-centric.
Above quote taken from here: http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2011/07/moving-earth.html
ReplyDelete