FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2005, 07:28 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,027
Default

From the Skeptical Inquirer article,
Quote:
Nickell says that the ossuary's defenders turned science and the burden of proof upside down, jumping to the conclusion that the ossuary's inscription was authentic, sticking to their assumptions after new evidence came out, and demanding others to prove it a forgery.
Isn't that just the way its done? Don't NT scholars automatically take a document as having the presumption of veracity until there is very strong evidence against it? I'm not sure about other branches of history. But isn't this really just accepted practice, because otherwise we would have to throw out almost all of our information about the distant past?
sodium is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:08 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.