True or False: When the Jews 1st entered Israel with Joshua they 1st entered & settled in the West Bank?

False, the story is a myth created to give the impression of a superior race taking what their god had given them. Hebrews were a tribe in the north of what was to be called Samaria.
@simple simon, you are absolutely 100% incorrect. Archaelogy DOES NOT corroborate MOST of the Biblical accounts- the Exodus, Solomon's Temple, a united Israel, Saul, David, Solomon, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph NONE corroborated by archaeology. Except archaeologists found a temple to Yahweh, trouble is- it was in SAMARIA.
@simple simon, yea I don't see any proof of any of the things listed there, and on reading the article on Jericho, I actually laughed a couple of times! A city was sacked and burned, like every other city in the area, multiple times, oh and it had WALLS to JUST like the biblical narrative, like every other city there. And what does the narrative say about making the sun stand still? I did not find ONE piece of evidence linking the tribes to the fall of Jericho in your link. Oddly missing is the fact that in 1400 BCE Canaan was under Egyptian control. Oh and the date of Solomon reign based on archaeological evidence made me laugh again; what evidence? Where is the source for such a HUGE breakthough in archaeology, that professors would be talking about for decades- hmm don't see anything. THE FACTS are the Hebrews were a tribe in nothern Samaria worshipping a pantheon of gods led by El and his consort Asherah, one of their 70 sons was named Yahweh. We have proof of this, Egypt mentions fighting them in 1200 BCE yet they are so unimportant that no cities are mentioned just Israel is no more, where every other nation has a list of the great cities burnt. Sorry but evidence is this piece of arrow dated to this period is undoubtedly of Hebrew origin. Even the Jewish record is not written until almost 1000 years after the supposed events. Archaelogical evidence? There has never been a dig yet (and there's been plenty) to suggest the Joshua narrative happened. An ME history prof once told me this " Are the places in the Bible real? For the most part yes. Does that mean the Bible is an accurate tool for archaeologist? Absolutely not, just because Atlanta actually was burnt during the civil war doesn't prove Rhett Butler REALLY dumped Scarlet O'hara"
oh. I am neither Muslim, I find anything people must believe because somebody else told them to is very dangerous and an insult to the intelligence, nor Arab- I and my family are Canadians- since the early 18th century going back both sides (except for a Scottish grandfather). I did teach in the ME in the 90's.

According to the Bible the answer is yes.

According to modern archaeological digs from the last decades - it's likely that the Israelis have never taken over the land as the bible tells, but were here from the first place or entered gradually along hundreds of years.

One theory is that there were two different nations, one was called Israel which lived mostly along the coast line and the other one was called Jewdiah and lived mostly in the West Bank. They were only united in about 8th century BC into one kingdom.

Of Course it is true.
Almost all Bible stories were confirmed by archaeologists.
And evidence was found that Jericho Walls fell.

@mirchdav and other Muslims- suddenly you can't use the Google search?????

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles...

to answer you abe and yossi, there were people living there before the israelites arrived from sinai and egypt [assuming the historical account in torah and joshua are accurate]. in fact there were people and a city of salem complete with king and high priest of god [melchizadek] befrore abram got there from ur of the chaldees. so the land shares a history with peoples there before during and after the hebrew presence. we call those people palestinians. before they were called phillistines ammonites ammorites jebusites moabites caananites etc.

True

bible stories are not real, and using the bible for historical evidence is absurd.