Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mike PSS · 07-07-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coragyps

Indeed, how do we? This question should be applicable to the equally ridiculous life spans in Genesis, eh, afdave? Or are they exempt?

Of course. It's all open to question. But if, as Josephus claims, we have quite a few ancient sources claiming roughly the same thing, then this carries quite a bit of weight.

So Dave.
When Josephus claims the folowing article w.r.t. the post-flood.

Quote:

6. Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."
...

CHAPTER 4.

CONCERNING THE TOWER OF BABYLON, AND THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES.

1. Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm

So it looks like there were OTHER people who survived the flood in Armenia by climbing to a higher place.

How many? Did the flood, and the waters of the deep, and the surfboarding continents, and those dasterdly mountains form while still keeping alive these same mentioned people in Armenia?

Are the works of Josephus truly ones you want to hang your hat on?

Dave?

The Evil One · 07-07-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't think that we should pronounce very authoritatively unless we can talk about the language in question, tho. Do we know that they are in sumerian? Semitic languages are all rather similar, and we do have people in the forum who can talk about them.

Sumerian was not a Semitic language. It was an isolate. You are probably thinking of Akkadian. That exhausts my knowledge on the subject.

Quote:

The numbers in all ancient texts relating to this period are very large. Ancient authors raise the question of whether these are truly years rather than some shorter period. Thus I was interested as to what term is used in these king lists to which you allude. Do you have a source for these?

Mostly I have read about them in commentaries on Genesis, where they are mentioned as a counterpart to the patriarchal lifespans. As I say, I know very little about the sumerian king lists beyond this. I am attempting to use them as a counterpoint to afdave's claims about Genesis and Josephus. I'm sure you're right about ancient authors' scepticism about the exact lengths of time. But I don't see this as on-topic, since the point is that treating the king lists as uncritically as afdave is treating Genesis and Josephus would lead to reigns of 30-40K years -- which afdave would not consider to be well-established.

My aim is not to pronounce authoritatively on the king lists or the exact translation of the units therein, but to point out afdave's selectivity with regard to uncritical treatment of ancient written sources.

Quote:

Your other comments seem to merely reiterate, and I refer you to what I wrote about them originally.

Hardly. You challenged my use of the term "extraordinary claim", and I provided clarification of exactly what I meant by the term "extraordinary claim", in the hope of explicating the matter to your satisfaction. Apparently you are not satisfied. Ah well.

Sauron · 07-07-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

I say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ...

I would only wonder whether there was any practical difference between this oft-repeated statement and saying "unwelcome claims require extraordinary evidence"? I rather think that 9 times out of 10 there is not.

Then you'd be wrong.

The problem is that 99% of the time the claims from the christians tend to be:

* contrary to what we know about how the universe works;
* contrary to other lines of evidence from history or archaeology;
* require special pleading or exceptions to general rules of evidence, in order for the claims to stand

So the reason you are so often hearing the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not because the claims are unwelcome; it is because the claims are untenable, yet christians want them accepted anyhow. Knowing that they cannot get their claims in through the front door like everyone else, christians try to change the rules of the game or recharacterize the standard for evidence.

Quote:

Let's be open-minded at least until we have examined the data, hey?

Many of us have already examined the data.

Quote:

...as they now are. If so, does this statement (and all those that followed) not mean only that the ante-diluvians were not like modern men? Since we are supposing that they lived to be thousands of years old, I think that we knew that already...

We are not "supposing" that; afdave's argument is making that claim.

You cannot prove that antediluvian men were different by pointing to their long ages, until you prove in fact that they did have such long lifespans in the first place.

Assuming the conclusion as part of the argument won't work.

Quote:

I'm not in any sense committed to the proposition that ante-diluvians lived for a vast period. I merely point out an argument that has no content once you examine it.

If that was your goal, then you failed at your task.

Sauron · 07-07-2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Well, archaeology is very valuable, but most ancient history is not revealed by it, and most people of antiquity are unknown from it. It's one of the three pillars of our knowledge of the past, not the only one and not, indeed, the most important one.

My, my. What an interesting series of claims.

Whenever you're ready to prove them, let us all know. It might be easier to start a new thread.

Sauron · 07-07-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Yes, it does seem that people say "give me extraordinary evidence" primarily when they don't WANT to believe something.

No, only when believing what you're claiming would require ignoring everything we know from science, history, archaeology and common sense.

Quote:

The odd thing is that most people who claim that 1000 year old patriarchs are a myth turn right around and buy into many stories which could be equally mythical ...

1) DNA self-organized from pond scum
2) Dinosaurs evolved feathers and became birds
3) Flagella magically built themselves

Except that every time you've tried to show that these three things were "mythical"

you've gotten your ass kicked about 30 different ways. Then because you couldn't answer the rebuttals, you exited the threads where these debates started.

And then instead of finishing these debates, you slink off to start new threads, pretending that your old arguments weren't demolished. You may have forgotten about your defeats, but everyone else is fully aware of them.

Given your behavior, you should hardly wonder why the standard of 'extraordinary evidence' applies to your claims.

Minimalist · 07-07-2007, 10:40 AM

Seeing as how modern archaeology has dismissed the whole concept of the Patriarchs as pious fiction it does seem rather silly to be arguing how old they may have been. They were fictional characters. They can be as old as the authors of those stories want them to be.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1202581

Quote:

Finkelstein and Silberman examine here what have become well-known archaeological anachronisms in the text of Genesis describing the time of the patriarchs, and then attempt to read these obviously ahistorical details to place the origin of the text in its actual date of creation. One of the most interesting and simple ahistorical passages is the reference to camels as beasts of burden in the caravans of "Ishmaelites" (Eastern Arabs) to whom Joseph is sold by his brothers. These camels are noted in Genesis as being loaded down with "gum, balm, and myrrh" (the main staples of Arabian commerce during the Assyrian conquest of the seventh-eighth centures BCE) for trade to Egypt. The use of camels as beasts of burden was not widespread among peoples of the Near East until well after 1000 BCE; in fact, excavations at the site of Tell Jemmeh, a point of passage between Arabia and Egypt, and Assyrian sources of the time indicate that the use of camels in this trade could not have been referenced as a mere incidental detail until around the seventh century BCE. To indicate a more potent ahistoricity in geography, Finkelstein examines Isaac's meeting with the "king of the Philistines" at Gerar - in fact, there is no evidence of Philistine activity there until after 1200 BCE, and Gerar was not a significant site until the seventh century BCE.

These observations are taken by the two authors together with the mention of a border and tenuous interaction with Arameans in Genesis (this group was not a dominant factor until at earliest the ninth century BCE), the rather amusingly vile and incestuous origins cited for the nations of Ammon and Moab (mortal enemies of seventh-century and newly-expansionist Judah), the mention of place and people names unknown or historically unimportant to Judah until the Assyrian period of the eighth-sixth centuries BCE (the descendants of Ishmael, the Kadesh oasis in the south, and the cities of the Assyrian Empire), and finally, the documents' focus on Judah as recipient of the royal birthright and on the south and its cities as the geographical capital of Israel ("as if," Finkelstein and Silberman write, "an American scripture describing pre-Colombian history placed inordinate attention on Manhattan. . .or the. . .land that would later become Washington D.C."). To the two authors, these anachronisms do not just make a Middle Bronze Age origin for the major portion of Genesis unlikely; they in fact point to compilation of the main "J" source around the seventh century BCE from local traditions, by a Judahite group that was focused on the expansion of that nation to all of Canaan proper.

Dave Hawkins · 07-07-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

The odd thing is that most people who claim that 1000 year old patriarchs are a myth turn right around and buy into many stories which could be equally mythical ...

1) DNA self-organized from pond scum
2) Dinosaurs evolved feathers and became birds
3) Flagella magically built themselves

That would be odd.
I, for one, don't believe any of those things. I believe the 1000 year old patriarchs is a myth, and the other things you list are wildly inaccurate characterizations of some pretty reasonable conclusions.

Best I can tell, you do indeed. But you would use more flowery language so that it doesn't seem quite so obvious that you believe in something rather fantastic.

Sauron · 07-07-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

That would be odd.
I, for one, don't believe any of those things. I believe the 1000 year old patriarchs is a myth, and the other things you list are wildly inaccurate characterizations of some pretty reasonable conclusions.

Best I can tell, you do indeed.

I think you'll find that nobody believes your cartoon version of science.

Of course, if you'd actually get around to *proving* that your version accurately reflected reality, then maybe you'd win a few converts.....

Quote:

But you would use more flowery language so that it doesn't seem quite so obvious that you believe in something rather fantastic.

But it was your own "flowery language" that created the strawmen versions of science in the first place, Davey.....

VoxRat · 07-07-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Best I can tell, you do indeed

Well, that's your problem. "Your best" - as the old song goes - "just ain't good enough".

The Evil One · 07-07-2007, 11:14 AM

afdave: Any chance of you commenting on

(a) why you don't treat the Sumerian king list as uncritically as you treat Genesis?

(b) why you consider ancient written testimony to be weighty evidence in spite of extensive explanation of the reasons why it isn't?

These are among the current substantive issues of the thead, whereas pontificating about pond scum and flagella are not.

And after all, I did raise both issues in my first reply to you on the previous page (post #3), directly after you requested our opinions in the form of words "What say you?".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2007, 11:14 AM	#50
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	afdave: Any chance of you commenting on (a) why you don't treat the Sumerian king list as uncritically as you treat Genesis? (b) why you consider ancient written testimony to be weighty evidence in spite of extensive explanation of the reasons why it isn't? These are among the current substantive issues of the thead, whereas pontificating about pond scum and flagella are not. And after all, I did raise both issues in my first reply to you on the previous page (post #3), directly after you requested our opinions in the form of words "What say you?".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.