Sven

Of course I think, Dave. Pot. Kettle. Black.
That's exactly why I don't make the claim you strawmanned out of my post.

It's about corroboration. A text which is corroborated well by archeology is considered to be more reliable than one which isn't.

But before you cry "victory" once again (because some things in the bible indeed are corroborated by archeology), of course only ordinary things are considered reliable because of corroboration. That's similar to the diagrams showing the reliability of C14 you still ignore in your formal debate.

Anyone wants to bet who long it will take for Dave to misquote what I wrote above?

Archeology.

Dave, you missed four important things:
1) These written records were found be archeologists, not historians. They were dug up.
2) They are mostly very close to the time when these things happened, at best one generation later (inscriptions on buildings, in graves, etc. are of course within months of the actual event). Josephus, on the other hand, wrote at least 2000 years later.
3) Historians don't accept any records - even if they are as close to the events as I pointed out - of extraordinary, even miraculous events at face value.
4) Many of these artifacts were dated using C14 - something which you don't accept. So why do you even discuss these items?

Gullwind

The problem with this is that, based on when the accounts say they began having children, the Patriarchs were becoming fathers at the ages of six or so.

Not that some haven't used this as an explanation anyway.

Calilasseia

Oh dear.

Let's run through this step by step shall we?

[1] Human beings produce written records.

[2] Human beings can make mistakes. Therefore any written record should, if it is to be considered reliable, be cross checked independently. This is where artefacts come into play. Something that archaeologists have understood for a long time.

[3] Human beings are also capable of lying, inventing stories etc. Again, another reason why any written record should be subject to careful cross checking to establish its reliability. If an old document claims, for example, that 2,000 years ago, Africa included amongst its inhabitants a race of 50 foot tall humans, then one becomes immediately suspicious for a number of valid scientific reasons. (Try engineering stresses on bone for one). However, if someone digs up a skeleton belonging to one of these 50 foot people, then suddenly that document begins to look a bit more reliable. At that point, we have to engage in some rethinking to accommodate this new discovery. But, UNTIL such remarkable claims as the existence of a race of 50 foot tall giants in Africa are verified independently, we are not required to assume the veracity of those claims a priori. Indeed, the more remarkable the claim being made in an old document, the more reason we have for regarding that claim with suspicion UNTIL said independent verification takes place.

So, given [1] to [3] above, why should we not regard remarkable claims in the Bible with the same suspicion as any other written document? Why should we not subject those claims to the same critical standards? As a corollary, why should we give credence to those remarkable claims in the absence of corroborating evidence?

VoxRat

Well, now that you ask, I say:
"of course not"

Someone - two thousand years closer to the "actual event" than we are - wrote about Daedalus and Icarus flying with wings made of wax and feathers. Does that mean I need to do a lot of research before considering this myth to be pure fantasy?

What say you?

purple_kathryn

am I allowed to laugh or would it lower the tone?

Elijah

I believe in the long life spans. One of my nuttier beliefs.

I think the long life spans are what led to our huge mental advances/jumps. I think that after the mental advances we left our natural habitat and natural way of living and our life spans dropped back down to high but not crazily high. (The Fall.) I think nature goes/went thru combinations of animals looking for ones that can survive and eventually one that can/could survive indefinitely. I think Jesus knew this and when he was talking about eternal life, he meant the real stuff.

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.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Coragyps

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

Agenda07

Laugh away, I don't think the tone can get any lower.

Dave Hawkins

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.