The Evil One

-shrug- My rule-of-thumb definition of an "extraordinary claim" is that it is a claim that would require substantial proportions of what we already know, based on accumulated evidence, to be false.

If ancient millenarians existed, then large amounts of modern biology and archaeology would be false. Modern archaeology and biology are backed up by huge mountains of evidence. Therefore the claim of ancient millenarians is an extraordinary claim. The evidence provided to support it would have to be at least equally as weighty as the huge mountains of evidence that support modern b. & a., if I was to accept it.

For the same reason the claims of homeopathy about water memory are incompatible with the entirety of modern oparticle physics. So the evidence for those claims would have to be at least equally as weighty as the evidence supporting modern particle physics for said claims to be accepted.


Don't know, not an expert on Sumerian any more than afdave is an expert on Koine, but every account of the king lists I've encountered gives the peiord in "years", multiplied out from the original Sumerian base-six units. If you have some reason to believe that this is anything other than accurate I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on it.

It is off-topic, though, as my main point was that afdave is being unwarrantedly selective in his use of ancient sources - namely, by relying on a Jewish source (Josephus) who can hardly be expected to not support the OT lifespans, which is what afdave is trying to demonstrate.


Erm, not really, since the statement that followed, which you snipped, was "... real archaeological and palaeontological evidence shows us that people in the past did not live longer than us and in fact, in many cases, much less".

A statement which I made with the precise intention of pre-empting any attempt on afdave's part to make the objection that you just made, and which I feel annuls said objection entirely.


A heap of real biological, archaeological and palaeontological evidence points to the conclusion that human beings have never lived longer than they do today. If you think that pointing this out -- and pointing out that some seriously heavyweight evidence would be required to overturn this conclusion -- constitutes a content-free argument, there's clearly little I can say to dissuade you, so I shan't attempt to.

Dave Hawkins

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

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

etc. etc.

aa5874

I have often wondered if Methuselah was even born in the first place.

The Evil One

No it doesn't. Didn't you read my post? Human testimony, especially second-hand testimony, is the weakest form of evidence there is.

Calilasseia explained why.

It's not without weight entirely -- and when you've got no other evidence to go off it can get you a long way -- but it certainly doesn't have enough weight to overturn our solid knowledge of reality based on the findings of the physical sciences.

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.

Sauron

Josephus repeating what his rabbis told him is not "confirmation." Apparently you are one of those christians who believes that a using a xerox machine can create multiple sources, too.

You gonna finish the other E/C threads you started, Davey?

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.

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?

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

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sauron

Excuse me? Missing the point on purpose?

1. You offered Josephus quoting rabbis, etc. as external evidence for these long lives.
2. However, one person repeating someone else's unsubstantiated claim is not an independent corroboration. [edited to add - and it now seems that the other sources in Josephus have nothing to say about Hebrews or patriarchs]
3. Do you have anything else?

1. Alleged biblical account.
2. For which Josephus offers no independent verification at all.

1. By recognizing the difference between (a) two accounts and (b) a single account being told by two people;

2. By corroborating a written account with other lines of evidence;

3. By tossing out patent nonsense like ants as big as dogs, flying serpents, talking snakes, and lifespans of 1000 years.

Only those which can be corroborated. Unlike your Methuselah claims.

Sauron

What a strange question.

You are here trying to debate that these long lifespans are true, yet you admit that you haven't read any of Josephus' alleged sources.

Pot-kettle-black?

Constant Mews

Based on past behavior, Dave will never finish the other E/C threads he started. And he is not even finishing this one: he is relying on selective use of sources, sheer conjecture, and ignorance of science. That doesn't bode well, I'm afraid.