Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2019 7:50 AM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume:
Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Author Topic:   Why, if god limited man's life to 120 years, did people live longer?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 151 of 230 (494893)
01-19-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by rcmemphis
01-19-2009 5:00 PM


Re: Accuracy vs. Inerrancy
I would like to hear of the evidence against the exodus (assuming it's not an argument from silence) keeping in mind that the Egyptians would most definitely lack the incentive to record such a strike and embarrassment against them.

The Egyptians probably would not but I would think that the Hittites or Assyrians would have used the sudden firstborn death in each Egyptian family as a sign that it would be a good time to attempt to overthrow Egypt and thereby take control of Canaan.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by rcmemphis, posted 01-19-2009 5:00 PM rcmemphis has not yet responded

    
rcmemphis
Junior Member (Idle past 3699 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-18-2009


Message 152 of 230 (494897)
01-19-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Larni
01-19-2009 5:52 PM


Ok, now I gotcha.

I think those two verses could be viewed in light of any other scripture that would not contradict the possibility that I offered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Larni, posted 01-19-2009 5:52 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 6:34 AM rcmemphis has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3219 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 153 of 230 (494930)
01-20-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by rcmemphis
01-19-2009 5:00 PM


Re: Accuracy vs. Inerrancy
Sorry for the misquote.

No problem, it happens.

Albright's quote was "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament."

I am afraid you are misquoting again, accidently of course, because you have left out a very important word from the end of the sentence you have quoted. The actual quote is from Albright's Archaeology and the religions of Israel John Hopokins Press, Baltimore. (1956)

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

So it is the plausibility of the tradition that Albright is on about not the evidence to support the Exodus and Conquest.

In my studies I must have read over 50 books/journal articles by Albright, you really cannot study this subject and not read Albright, just as today you cannot approach this subjecy and not read dozens of books/articles by Bill Dever. What Albright was saying is that while there is nothing to substantiate the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest, there was nothing found to date that made the basic background of Israel's entry on to history's world stage (as described in the Bible) impossible.

Remember though that Albright did write this over 50 years ago, well before the rise of New Archaeology when 'archaeologists' interpreted every find in the Holy Land through the Bible stories, since the mid 70's, with the rise of New Archaeology, this was seen as bad practice. It was seen as bad practice before by a minority but they were essentially ignored by the public.

I can't speak to Glueck's interpretation of the text

Well I feel that I am qualified to. Glueck reinterpreted the texts because of the wealth of contradictory evidence that he found, or in the case of the Edomites, didn't find. But his quote from the last post is exactly along the same lines as Albright, they aren't actually saying that there's evidence to support the Bible's version of the Exodus and Conquest (in fact at one time Albright thought that there were two Exoduses) they are saying that nothing has been found to make these events implausible.

You should read a range of Albright's writings, you can trace how his opinion of the evidence changes over time. Although Albright was a racist and religious bigot, I do have some respect for him because he did move away from a literal reading of the text when faced with overwhelming contrary archaeological evidence.

I would like to hear of the evidence against the exodus

There's dozens of threads here about the Exodus, I don't know if Admin would allow another one.

(assuming it's not an argument from silence)

Most definitely not, despite what fundy websites say.

keeping in mind that the Egyptians would most definitely lack the incentive to record such a strike and embarrassment against them.

I would avoid saying 'most definitely' when speaking about the motivations of an acient people, you really don't know what the Egyptians would do. And to put another fundy myth to bed, the Egyptians did record defeats, the Hyksos is probably the best example of this.

But, as has been said, do you think that a massive defeat of the Egyptians would go unnoticed by their neighbours?

Let me turn this around a little. In an archaeological context, what would you expect to find in Egypt if a nation of 2-3 million had been living there for centuries and then just up and left one day?

Try and be objective, and think about it logically, what would we reasonably expect to find?

We may need to take this to another thread for discussion since it is off-topic here. So let me know if you wish to pursue this and I'll ask if we can open another thread on it. But if you are not genuinely interested then let me know, I have wasted enough time with people whi have already made their mind up about something that they really don't know that much about (I am not saying this applies to you).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by rcmemphis, posted 01-19-2009 5:00 PM rcmemphis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2009 7:34 AM Brian has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 154 of 230 (494934)
01-20-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by rcmemphis
01-19-2009 7:42 PM


I think those two verses could be viewed in light of any other scripture that would not contradict the possibility that I offered.

It is not sufficient to not be contradicted. You need to be able to support your position.

I don't think you have, yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by rcmemphis, posted 01-19-2009 7:42 PM rcmemphis has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15394
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 155 of 230 (494944)
01-20-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Brian
01-20-2009 5:02 AM


Re: Accuracy vs. Inerrancy
quote:

Let me turn this around a little. In an archaeological context, what would you expect to find in Egypt if a nation of 2-3 million had been living there for centuries and then just up and left one day?

Brian, to put this in context do you have a decent estimate of the population of Egypt at the most likely times ? The only one I could find was 5 million. If that's about right, then once we've counted losses due to the plagues, we're talking about a loss of something like half the population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Brian, posted 01-20-2009 5:02 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Brian, posted 01-20-2009 9:33 AM PaulK has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 156 of 230 (494963)
01-20-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by rcmemphis
01-19-2009 5:07 PM


Re: Accuracy vs. Inerrancy
Could you provide me material so I can look at the developed argument of the Genesis 1 refutation?

Give me until this evening, and I will either open a new thread or refer you to an old one where this topic has been discussed. It would lead us off topic here,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by rcmemphis, posted 01-19-2009 5:07 PM rcmemphis has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3219 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 157 of 230 (494965)
01-20-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by PaulK
01-20-2009 7:34 AM


Egypt population
Hi Paul,

I think maybe your population estimate may have been for the whole Empire, because it seems a bit high.

I have a couple of sources right now and can get more if you would like them.

Hassan, Fekri A. (1999) The Dynamics of a Riverine Civilization: A Geoarchaeological Perspective on the Nile Valley, Egypt World Archaeology, Vol. 29, No. 1, Riverine Archaeology (Jun., 1997), pp. 51-74 Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

The population of Ancient Egypt that could be supported by basin irrigation and cereals is estimated at 1.2 million during the Old Kingdom (3000-2200 BC), 2.1 million in the New Kingdom (1550-1070 BC) and 3.2 million in the Graeco-Roman period from 332 BC to AD 395 (Hassan 1993:170). Although these figures are dramatically below the modern population size of 60 million, they are consistent with estimates of 2.5 million in the seventh century AD and 3.4 million during the late thirteenth century. Population increase during the Old Kingdom is estimated at 0.13 per cent per year, analogous to esti- mates in Neolithic contexts, slackening to 0.057 per cent for the New Kingdom. The rate was still lower from the New Kingdom to the Roman period at 0.024 per cent per year. The population of Egypt did not exceed the Graeco-Roman peak of 3.4 million until the nineteenth century. Rapid population increase was possible only after the adoption of perennial irrigation in 1820.

The period we are looking at is the new kingdom, where you will see that the population was around 2.1 million, which is fractionally more than the lowest estimates for the Hebrew population and about a million less than the high estimates for the Hebrew population.

Plus, I have posted these here before:

Mendenhall, G.E. (1958) ”The Census lists of Numbers 1 and 26 JBL 77, 52-66.

''Such a number would have, indeed, caused Egypt's Pharaoh consternation, for not only would there have been very little room for them in Egypt, but a group of this size could likely have taken over Egypt with or without weapons they would hardly have to fear Pharaoh’s army, which was probably at most about 20,000 men'' (64-65).

And, of course, there's the study done by A Lucas in The Palestine Exploration Quarterly 76, in which he uses early 20th century population growth for Egypt and applies it to the group that entered Egypt fpr a period of 430 years and gets a population estimate for the Hebrew Exodus group of just over 10 000, which is far more sensible but still has no evidence to support it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2009 7:34 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2009 2:28 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15394
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 158 of 230 (495044)
01-20-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Brian
01-20-2009 9:33 AM


Re: Egypt population
If the entire pre-Plague population was 2.1 million, losing 2 million people with no sign that it happened is completely stupid !
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Brian, posted 01-20-2009 9:33 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
cjh7583
Junior Member (Idle past 3699 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-05-2009


Message 159 of 230 (507502)
05-05-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by rcmemphis
01-18-2009 7:45 PM


Possible Limits On Human Life-span?
Hello all,

I would like to start by saying that I am no expert in theology, however if logic is a common practice among most of you as well, then perhaps these few notes will give some balance to this discussion.

Abraham lived to be 175 years (Gen. 25:7-8). His life started just after Noah died and ended 175 years later. The statement written by Moses was that God said "...yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.", give or take which translation you read. The message is pretty much the same. I do not state for one second that I know the exact meaning of these words, however, if Abraham's life was chronicled later by the same man who wrote the above verse, then logic tells me that perhaps there is another intended meaning to the words. Perhaps it would be wise to consider that there is a possibility that the words could mean something slightly different from the obvious direct translation. Any record or event must be proven true or proven false. If science cannot prove something true or false, then it is known as theory, however for the sake of this discussion, I use the word BELIEF.

And I would like to finish with a quote from a very esteemed evolutionary and theological scholar who's name escapes me at this moment.

"The knowledge of the infallibility or fallibility of a phenomenon is not as crucial as the discipline of being unbiased to either side."

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added some blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by rcmemphis, posted 01-18-2009 7:45 PM rcmemphis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Theodoric, posted 05-05-2009 7:28 PM cjh7583 has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2009 8:45 PM cjh7583 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6583
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 160 of 230 (507529)
05-05-2009 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by cjh7583
05-05-2009 4:46 PM


Re: Possible Limits On Human Life-span?
quote:
If science cannot prove something true or false, then it is known as theory,

I would first suggest you learn what a scientific theory is.

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers..
It has nothing to do with true, false or proven.

Besides that, did your post even have a point? I have read it four times now and I have no clue what your point is.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by cjh7583, posted 05-05-2009 4:46 PM cjh7583 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 161 of 230 (507534)
05-05-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by cjh7583
05-05-2009 4:46 PM


Re: Possible Limits On Human Life-span?
If science cannot prove something true or false, then it is known as theory, however for the sake of this discussion, I use the word BELIEF.
And I would like to finish with a quote from a very esteemed evolutionary and theological scholar who's name escapes me at this moment.

Here are some definitions which may help you understand these terms, which apparently are unfamiliar to you:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.


"The knowledge of the infallibility or fallibility of a phenomenon is not as crucial as the discipline of being unbiased to either side."

As near as I can determine, this quote does not exist on the internet. Perhaps you have misquoted it?

Until you can provide a source and an author, I'm afraid we'll have to disregard it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by cjh7583, posted 05-05-2009 4:46 PM cjh7583 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by IchiBan, posted 05-05-2009 10:21 PM Coyote has responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3197 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 162 of 230 (507537)
05-05-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Coyote
05-05-2009 8:45 PM


Re: Possible Limits On Human Life-span?
"The knowledge of the infallibility or fallibility of a phenomenon is not as crucial as the discipline of being unbiased to either side."

Sounds reasonable to me, attributed or not. And who is the 'we' you claim here and generally infer to be speaking for, since very often we get no more than your word or assertion and 'trust me'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2009 8:45 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2009 10:36 PM IchiBan has responded
 Message 164 by Theodoric, posted 05-05-2009 11:39 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 163 of 230 (507539)
05-05-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by IchiBan
05-05-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Possible Limits On Human Life-span?
"The knowledge of the infallibility or fallibility of a phenomenon is not as crucial as the discipline of being unbiased to either side."

Sounds reasonable to me, attributed or not. And who is the 'we' you claim here and generally infer to be speaking for, since very often we get no more than your word or assertion and 'trust me'.


The quote is from an "esteemed evolutionary and theological scholar" or some such. But it does not show up anywhere google reaches, and I would certainly not trust it on that basis.

And it would seen to me that "evolutionary" and "theological" scholars are somewhat opposite. Evolution is a science, and relies on facts and the scientific method. Theology is a study of beliefs, with no necessary connection to either facts or reality, and it certainly does not rely on the scientific method.

Describing theology, Heinlein said it best:

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by IchiBan, posted 05-05-2009 10:21 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by IchiBan, posted 05-12-2009 1:46 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6583
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 164 of 230 (507541)
05-05-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by IchiBan
05-05-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Possible Limits On Human Life-span?
"The knowledge of the infallibility or fallibility of a phenomenon is not as crucial as the discipline of being unbiased to either side."

I have not been unable to find this quote anywhere also. I will be one of Coyote's "we". I am quite capable of researching things like this. If it exists on the internet, or as rightwingers like to call it, the "tubes", I can find it.

I can't believe you are trying to call coyote out on this. The original poster obviously thought he could get some mileage out of a lame ass quote that really doesn't say anything except newagey mumbo-jumbo. If he can attribute it, he should attribute it. You Sir should not be questioning that he asks for a source.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by IchiBan, posted 05-05-2009 10:21 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by bluescat48, posted 05-12-2009 6:59 PM Theodoric has responded

    
rcmemphis
Junior Member (Idle past 3699 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-18-2009


Message 165 of 230 (507563)
05-06-2009 11:48 AM


I think what he's saying is that the example of someone living over 120 years is so close to God's quote in Genesis of limiting man's life to 120 years that: the author of the book, or the redactor, or the compiler of Genesis chapter (however it wouldn't matter)wouldn't possibly put a contradiction like that in the bible even if they were trying to make it up. I would say if anything this increases the reliability, as Sir William Ramsay found concerning Luke's gospel: lots of unapologetic seeming contradictions that turned out to later be fact.
Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by cjh7583, posted 05-06-2009 1:37 PM rcmemphis has not yet responded
 Message 167 by ochaye, posted 05-06-2009 2:27 PM rcmemphis has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019