Model Highlands Element For: Fill & Download for Free

The scholarly consensus is that the exodus as described in the book of Exodus did not happen and that the subsequent seven year military conquest of Canaan as described in the book of Joshua did not happen. This is collectively known as the Conquest Model.William G Dever, prominent archaeologist and biblical scholar, says in the video below:To make a long story short, today not a single mainstream biblical scholar or archaeologist any longer upholds biblical archaeology’s Conquest Model. Not one.There are major differences and contradictions between the book of Joshua and the book of Judges, so when evidence started to cast serious doubt on the Conquest Model, scholars started to propose models that favoured the narrative in Judges at the cost of the Joshua narrative. Then, as even more archaeological and other evidence became available over the last few decades which also cast doubt on the Judges narrative, scholars have proposed other models as alternative explanations for the origins of the Israelites. The different models can be roughly classified into the following four categories:Conquest Model: This model states that the exodus, the forty year wandering of the Sinai and the short seven year military conquest of Canaan by a massive unified army of Israelites happened exactly (or mostly in some variations) as described in the books of Exodus to Joshua.Peaceful Infiltration Model: This model states that the book of Judges is true (or mostly true in some variations), that the book of Joshua contains major embellishments and exaggerations (or is entirely fiction in some variations) and that a small (or large) exodus from Egypt happened, but that the Israelites peacefully infiltrated the central highlands and only later conquered the rest of Canaan.Peasant Revolt Model: This model states that the Israelites in the central highlands arose predominantly from Canaanite peasants who revolted against their masters on the plains. Some models include a small exodus of Israelites from Egypt, who then intermingled with the Canaanite peasants in the highlands and later overcame their previous masters in the Canaanite cities on the coastal plains.Ruralization Model: This model states that the early Israelites were predominantly Canaanites who fled the chaos and economic collapse on the plains during the Bronze Age Collapse, and who then gradually evolved their own identity and religion from Canaanite culture and polytheism.As mentioned, the Conquest Model is rejected by serious scholars. The Peaceful Infiltration and Peasant Revolt Models have some adherents, but the majority of scholars reject it and are adherents of some form of the Ruralization Model.The debate among archaeologists and scholars are not predominantly about what model is the most accurate — most of them accept the Ruralization Model. Instead, the debate is about questions like whether the biblical account is almost exclusively fiction (minimalists like Israel Finkelstein) or whether some elements of the narrative is based on historical events, albeit highly embellished (conservative scholars like William G Dever), whether there was some cultural influence from outside Canaan and so on.For more detail about the different models, see Frans du Plessis's answer to The book of Joshua says that it took the Israelites only a few years to capture Canaan, but according to the book of Judges it took much longer. Which book is correct?For more detail about the Ruralization Model, see Frans du Plessis's answer to Do we have extra-biblical evidence for the origins of the Israelites?Question answered:What is the scholarly consensus on the historicity of the Exodus story in the Bible? What percentage of scholars believe there is a historical basis for the Exodus?

It was an intervention at the behest of the government of Afghanistan at that time that morphed into a full blown counterinsurgency operation lasting more than nine years.Soviet soldiers observe the highlands, while fighting Islamic guerrillas at an undisclosed location in Afghanistan, April, 1988.To understand how this all started, we have to trace the history of the government of Afghanistan all the way back to the independence of Afghanistan in 1919.In 1919, the British and the Afghans signed the Treaty of Rawalpindi which granted Afghanistan independence under the rule of King Amanullah Khan. Khan then embarked on a series of diplomatic visits aimed at breaking Afghanistan’s isolationism and opening her to the world.Over the course of 14 years, Afghanistan would see a continuous revolving door of leaders with many being assassinated or overthrown by their predecessors with King Zahir Shah being proclaimed the final king of Afghanistan in 1933. Afghanistan would remain neutral in World War 2 and throughout much of the early Cold War, playing both the East and West for investment projects to help modernize and strengthen the country.Last King of Afghanistan Zahir Shah (1933–l973)In the 1960s, Shah accelerated his modernization plans, promising free elections and equal rights for both men and women. These were not popular with parts of the government, specifically Shah’s cousin and former Prime Minister, Mohammed Daoud Khan, who overthrew Shah in 1973 while he was abroad in Italy on a diplomatic visit. Daoud then became the first President of Afghanistan.Under Daoud, the country really saw no departure from the policies of Shah, save for the curbing of civil liberties to some degree and Afghanistan prospered under his presidency. Tensions mounted however as the policies of Daoud became more oppressive and he moved himself and Afghanistan further from the Soviets and closer to the U.S. and Iran who was still a U.S. ally at this time.First President of Afghanistan Mohammed Daoud Khan (1973–1978)Eventually, the factional strife overtaking the PDPA (People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan) became too much and on April 27th, 1978, the PDPA overthrew Daoud in the Saur Revolution, killing him and most of his family.The new government under Nur Muhammad Taraki and the far more liberal wing of the PDPA began an even more intensive series of modernization programs aimed at bringing Communism to Afghanistan. They made a particular effort of bringing women closer and closer into equality with men, going so far as to allow them to participate in politics. This set off the more Islamic factions of the government who saw these reforms as a direct attack on Islam itself.Second President of Afghanistan Nur Muhammad Taraki (1978–1979)Things turned sour when the PDPA started a series of land reform campaigns modelling themselves after similar programs within the Soviet Union. This backfired horribly as the rural population saw their plots of land shrink dramatically and their crop yields with it. This made Taraki more repressive in handling the population when growing unrest as a result of the land campaign spilled over into an uprising. The uprising was crushed brutally but the damage was done.Events quickly spiralled as the population of Afghanistan turned against Taraki and the government with numerous units of the Afghan Army mutinying across the country. Taraki felt his positioned threatened and wanting to avoid the fate of his predecessors, invoked the ‘Friendship Treaty’ the Afghans had signed with the Soviet Union in December of 1978 which promised military assistance if requested. The Soviet Union reluctantly armed the Afghan Army and sent advisers to train the force into a more effective form.While this was all taking place, another power struggle developed in the PDPA between Taraki and a former friend, Hafizullah Amin. Amin won the struggle, orchestrating a coup against Taraki and having him arrested and executed once he was effectively removed from power.Amin proved too radical for the Soviets who witnessed the unrelenting chaos his presidency was bringing to Afghanistan, Amin’s regime being even more repressive than Taraki’s. The Soviets then decided to support the more moderate elements of the PDPA and organized a KGB strike led by Alpha Group in what was known as Operation Storm-333.Soviet armored infantry entering Afghanistan, December, 1979.On December 25th, 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with over 80,000 troops storming in from the northern border while Alpha Group began its raid against Amin. Amin had thought the Soviets were still on his side when they invaded only to have this proved wrong when Alpha Group stormed the Tajbeg Palace where he was hiding. He was arrested, tried, and executed.From this point on, the Afghan government was propped up by Soviet forces who attempted to pacify the countryside against the rising Islamic elements that were holding out in the countryside. Effectively, this became the Soviet Union’s ‘Vietnam,’ taking their attention for well over nine years.The rest, they say, is history.

I am a Buddhist and an ordained Buddhist teacher.Buddhism is best seen as both an offshoot of Hinduism and as the result of the Buddha’s own critique of Hinduism.With no offense to Jenny Wright, who provided an answer to this question which I admire, I can say that Buddhism is both an offshoot of Hinduism and a result of a response to Hinduism much as Christianity is both an offshoot of Judaism and a response to Judaism. The reasons for the split, though, are quite different. The early years of Christianity brought non-Jews into a more Jewish view of the world, monotheism. The early years of Buddhism were entirely within a Hindu realm and could be seen as a reform movement within Hinduism or as a new tradition that broke away from Hinduism.Philosophically, the Buddha analyzed the six different Hindu metaphysical systems, showed all of them to be erroneous, and rejected them. Of these systems, three were unitary, two dualistic, and one materialistic. The Buddha proposed an alternate model that came to be called non-dualism. Also, the Buddha rejected all extant views on reincarnation and all ideas of a soul (atta or atman) that Hinduism offered. So, philosophically and theologically, Buddha rejected Hinduism. But Hinduism is more than a religion.There are many aspects of Hindu life and spiritual practice that the Buddha maintained, and some he rejected. He encouraged healthy living and spiritual development through yoga and meditation. In this sense, his school was simply one more spiritual school among many in the forest ascetic tradition of India which had already been going for over 2,000 years and is still with us today. But the Buddha rejected the caste system and supported the idea that all men and women, regardless of social status, could Awaken. Thus he disagreed with a major element of Hindu culture as well.We also need to consider that “Is Buddhism an offshoot of Hinduism” is our question, not the Buddha’s. The Buddha had no notion of “Hinduism” as we have it now, and certainly no notion of Hinduism as one of many religions. He and everyone he ever met we would call Hindu. So the idea of “being a Hindu or not” would make no sense to the Buddha.So Buddhism at the time of the Buddha was, at once, just one more forest meditation practice and teaching system offering a path to liberation, and also a radically new Way contradicting many core beliefs that have been part of Hindu religion, philosophy, and culture.Within India, Buddhism was largely, but not completely, subsumed back into Hinduism. Outside of India, it grew to be a world religion in the Sri Lanka and Thai Peninsula, the Tibetan highlands, and all nations in the Chinese sphere of influence. In recent centuries it has come to the West and also returned to India.As a scholar of religious history, I have paid particular attention to the philosophies of Hinduism at the time of the Buddha in order to understand how he created a new philosophical system. I have also paid attention to both Hinduism and Buddhism as complex religious, social, and philosophical systems.