Any comment W_Fortenberry?

If W_Fortenberry is lurking could he respond to this message.W_F, in The BIble unearthed topic, which is now closed, you asked me to clarify a few questions for you.I posted a considerable reply, (Post #66)which involved quite a few hours work. Can I take it for granted that my response was adequate and that you are happy to agree with my conclusions?I realise that people can be very busy in their private lives and you may not have had time to reply. But it has been quite a few weeks since I replied to you, and I am interested to know if you have found any faults in my responses.If you do not have time to answer all the points, a quick note to acknowledge that you have read the message and intend/do not intend to reply, would be appreciated.Best WishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!{Added link for message 66 - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-23-2003]

Hi TL and thanks for the post.I am currently preparing a Master of Theology thesis by research at Glasgow University. A lot of the material I post here is from the research that I am doing for that. Most of the stuff I post here, not all, is basically material that I have read but decided to discard or modify greatly.For example, using the impossibly long life-spans of some characters to cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the Bible isn't really required for a thesis of this level, no respected scholar would really argue that these lifespans are in fact literal.So posting that on here isn't really that great a chore, it is just a case of remembering exactly where in my notes I have references to this and then either typing them out of pasting them into a post.However, there are times when I have been asked something in here, say by Nuklhed, and I have taken time to go into the Uni library and check out a handful of books relevant to that question. This too isnt that great a chore as it could be of use in any further research that I do. Even if I do not use the material it all contributes to a better overall understanding of the topic , so it is all worthwhile.I was a little disapppointed that W_F didnt respond, but it is no big deal, I understand that there could well be many much more important things going on in his life right now. I suppose there's also the fact that I could use a lot of the material again if I get involved in another discussion board, or in a private email debate.Brian.Brian.

Hi W_F,Very good to hear from you, I hope all is well with you.Thankyou for replying, I fully understand how difficult it can be to get time to respond. I am very busy myself right now with the end of term administration tasks to do, but we break up on Friday and I have seven weeks vacation from school. It wont be much of a break as I still have Uni work to do.But take as long as you need, and I hope we can continue this debate im maybe a little more amicable terms, I realise that I have been a little acerbic towards you and promise to lighten up in future posts. My apologies for that and hopefully we can learn a lot from each other.Best WishesBrian

HI W_FortenberryGood to hear from you again.The claim I made, and I stick by, is that in regard to using the Bible as a source for reconstructing the 'historical' origins of Ancient Israel, then historians have problems with the reliability of the Bible as an accurate source.I listed several reasons, and there is probably a few more that casts doubt on its reliability, the concept of a Golden Age for example.But anyway, in regard to the exceedingly long lifespans the actual reasons given for these life spans really has nothing to do with whether these people actually did live for these lengths of time.As the investigation into the origins of ancient Israel is an historical pursuit, historians need reliable sources as they attempt to reconstruct what actually happened.Now the Hebrew Bible is only one source that is used for reconstructing Israel's origins, and if a historian wants to use it as a source, then its reliability as an accurate source for reconstructing history has to be demonstrated.If a historian decided to use the Hebrew Bible as a source then in his thesis he needs to demonstrate that the source has been proven to be reliable. Now if he is claiming that his source says that people could live to be almost a thousand years old then he has to show that it is actually possible.You cannot say that it is in the Bible therefore it is true and this is your evidence, you cannot use a source as proof that the source is accurate, so is there any external support for this claim.A historian today would look at the claim of these life spans and the research whether this is possible. For example, he may ask himself what is the longest that anyone has lived that can be verified from various independant sources. Nowadays it is very unusual to find anyone who has lived beyond 120 years, this would place some doubt in the investigators mind because the Bible is claiming that people lived over seven times longer than any person that we know of.The claim that someone lived to 969 years of age has to be shown to be possible, saying that it is in a book is not proof that anyone can live that long. Regardless of what reasons are given, a flood or anything else, it has to be shown that it is possible for a human to live that long. You will find that there is no evidence at all of anyone living for that length of time, you can say 'well it says so in the Bible so thats evidence', but it isn't, this is only evidence of someone's belief.I think we actually be at cross purposes regarding this claim. I am not questioning the internal harmony of the Bible here, I am questioning whether or not the accounts of alleged historical events are actually accurate or not. The Bible claims that at a certain time in history people could live to be nearly a thousand years old, we know that humans today cannot live for anything near that length of time, and it has not been demostrated that in the past people lived for these fantastically long periods of time.In fact, skeletal remains from many near sites over a long period of time all over the near east, show that humans would be very lucky to live to be 50 years old nevermind 969.This evidence, placed alongside the Bible claims, means that many historians try to reinterpret the verses that claim long life spans. I really do not think that a serious historian would entertain the possibility that humans could, at one time. live to be such a great age, it goes against everything that we know of from archaeology and science.Of course, this doesnt mean that they couldn't live that long, but it simply hasn't been shown to be possible. So until it is demonstrated that it was possible, then this is just one reason why the Bible is no longer taken as the reliable historical source that it once was.Remember, I am not questioning the internal harmony of the Bible here, this is not what is meant by 'reliable' in this context. What I am questioning is whether the historical claims made by the Bible are reliable or not, and can the Bible be depended on for reconstructing an accurate picture of the past. I feel that any source which is happy to include these fantastic claims, may not be that reliable, and we also have the possbility that these life spans could be interpreted to be closer to an acceptable time.I will admit that these fantastic lifespans by themselves do not make the Bible unreliable as a historical source, there are many more solid reasons why this is the case, but it does plant that seed of doubt which should alert the investigator that perhaps the authors we not really that interested in recording accurate history, there may be other reasons why the biblical authors recorded these stories.Do you have any evidence from outside of the Bible that proves that around 6000 years ago it was possible for people to live for almost a thousand years?Brian.

Hi Rrhain,In doctrbill's defence, I am sure he said elsewhere that in the 'years as months' scenario, that we shouldnt start counting until the person has reached puberty, or something along those lines. I think that doctrbill would have noticed the problem that you pointed out.I agree that with your conclusion that thse ages are simply a mythological trait. This might have simply been a common motif at the time these stories were made up. For example, there are lists of Babylonian Kings that claim some kings lived as long as 24 000 years. Anyone who takes these lifespans literally has a very difficult task in proving them possible. As I said in the previous post, it isnt a case of saying that a book says this happened, you need to prove that the proposition is possible, and by all the knowledge that we have it simply isnt.Perhaps there is evidence of people living to these extraordinary ages, but it has never been demonstrated to be so, and all the evidence from archaeology and science points undeniably to much shorter lifspans.Brian.

Hi Rraihn,This is from Doctrbill's website: http://www.sun-day-school.us/many_moons.htm Phenomenal ages are listed for the Hebrew ancestors (Genesis 5). Adam is said to have lived 930 years. Methuselah - 969 years! If we merely divide thesse numbers by 12.38 and expect that to give us their ages in years, we discover a problem. When applied to all ancestors in the list it suggests that some were having children before they were out of diapers!
It is probable that these people figured the age of manhood at the onset of puberty. There is biblical evidence that boys became members of society at thirteen years of age (Genesis 17:18,25; 2 Kings 22:1) - roughly 160 cycles of the moon. Hebrew culture continues that custom with a ceremony called barmitzva. Brian.

Hi,I agree that it doesn't wash, however, I was only pointing out that Doctrbill had dealt with the problem of very young children becoming fathers. He hadnt overlooked this error. That his solution, in my opinion and yours, isn't convincing wasnt what I was trying to get at.Another problem that literalists need to solve regarding the ages as well, is that some early Bible versions disagree on some chronological data.For example, the Masoretic text has Adam as 130 when he 'begat' for the first time, the Samaritan Penteteuch agrees, but the Septuagint claims that Adam was 230.Also, the MT has Methuselah dying at 969, the SP agrees, but the LXX says 720. Eber is a total disaster, all three give different ages, the MT says 464, the SP says 504 and the LXX says 404!True, they all claim extraordinary lifespans, but which one is the accurate one. There are literally hundreds of chronological discrepencies between different Bible versions, this coupled with the contradictions between the Bible chronologies and archaeological data proves that most, if not all, bible chronologies are artificial.Cheers!Brian.

Hi db, The stats I quoted this morning was form Jeremy Hughes’ book Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Sheffield Academic Press, 1990, p7.There are many discrepancies between different Bible verses, and a couple of good books and articles on the subject are:Albright W F The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel BASOR 100 pp16-22Barr J Why the World was Created in 4004 BC: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology Bulletin of the John Rylands Library No.67 1984 pp 575-608Barr J Luther and Biblical Chrnology BJRL No.72 1989Finnegan J Handbook of Biblical Chronology Princeton University Press 1964.Hayes J An Introduction to Old Testament Study SCM London 1979Klien R W, Archaic Chronologies and the Textual history of the Old
Testament Havard Theological Review No.67, 1974 pp255-263.Larsson G. The Chronology of the Pentateuch: a comparison of the MT and the LXX Journal of Biblical Literature No.102, 1983 pp401-409.Miller J M Another look at the chronology of the early divided monarchy JBL No.86 pp276-288Morgernstern J Supplementary studies in the calendars of ancient Israel Hebrew Union College Annual No.10 1935, pp1-148Thiele E R The Mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings: a reconstruction of the chronology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1951As I said there are hundreds of discrepancies between early Bible versions, and it isn’t surprising when you consider how many different versions there are. There are even many different versions of the Septuagint, these are all versions of the Septuagint:Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Vatanicus
Codex Venetus
Codex Cottonianus
Codex Coislinianus
Septuagint Lucianic recensionI do not own versions of these, but I access to dozens of different Bibles and translations at the reference section of my university library. However, I usually rely on translations and quotes in books and journal articles. I do not really dwell of the chronologies, I am of the same opinion as yourself that these discrepancies are not a big deal. However, I do think that it is little things like this that, when added to other problems, make the Bible less reliable than some people would like to think.One final thing, it isn’t necessarily the case that people are trying to discredit the Bible by highlighting these discrepancies, I think most people are really trying to discover how and why the Bible was written and that perhaps we need to change or perception of the text.We could argue all day over whether this Bible says X was 404 years old but that Bible says X was 504, these aren’t really a big deal. The Bible has much bigger problems than this if it is to be seen as a reliable historical document, in fact, the negative evidence for the enslavement, Exodus, desert wanderings, and conquest of Canaan, are problems that the Bible will never recover from.Brian.

Sure, take as long as you need to compile a reply, there’s no hurry and I understand that people have other things in their lives to attend to, I look forward to your reply. I hope that when my research is finished that it may compel the believer NOT to question their actual faith, but to question if they are reading the Bible the way in which it was meant to be read. My zeal is not for proving the Bible wrong, my ‘zeal’ is for discovering the historical origins of Ancient Israel, and the Hebrew Bible is simply one source that is used in the investigation.The point I was trying to make in post 66 is that modern day historians have various reasons for doubting the credibility of the Bible. Prior to around 1970, and the advent of the ‘New Archaeology’, many historians did take the Bible’s account of Israel’s origins as being plausible, some, such as Albright, Wright, Glueck, and Rainey all, at some stage of their careers thought that the Bible was 100% accurate in its reporting. However, with advances made in archaeological methodology and the employment of more advanced instruments, modern day scholars who are involved in the search for Ancient Israel’s historical origins have abandoned the biblical narrative to varying degrees.The most vociferous and prolific writer on the subject is Bill Dever, he has went from his early stance of an accurate Bible narrative to one where he either rejects parts of the accounts or he reinterprets the text to fit the archaeological evidence. The evidence against the Exodus is so overwhelming that Bill Dever has told a symposium on the Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence that : Until about a decade ago, this attempt at archaeological confirmation (of the Exodus) was still being pursued. Today, however, all that has changed, as I shall show. And with the new models of indigenous Canaanite origins for early Israel, there is neither place nor need for an exodus from Egypt. page 67.And: The implication of the new picture of indigenous Late Bronze Age Canaanite origins for the majority of the early Israelite population is clear. Not only is there no archaeological evidence for an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event. We can account for Israelite origins, historically and archaeologically, without presuming any Egyptian background. As a Syro-Palestinian archaeologist, I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue, despite this symposium’s raising it again. page 81Quotes from: William G. Dever Is the any archaeological evidence for the Exodus in Ernest S Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana 1997. (p. 67-87)I would like you, and some others here, to realise that I am NOT out to try and destroy the Bible, credit me with the sense that I know I could never actually do that anyway, but my apparent ‘attacks’ on the credibility of the Bible is purely from the angle of historical investigation. Part of my intent is to evaluate whether the Bible contains accurate historical information, or are most historical claims merely ideological?A final note on this. The belief that the Bible contains 100% accurate historical accounts really is only confined to the layperson. Sure you may find one or two modern day ‘scholars’ who try to defend the Bible’s credibility as an historical source, Bryant Wood for example or Nahum Sarna, but these people are the ‘Kent Hovinds’ of the archaeological world.Bryant Wood’s claims about Jericho, and its dating by Kathleen Kenyon, had the maximalists whooping for a short time, but Wood’s thesis has been totally discredited and even if his claims were true, his understanding of archaeological data is embarrassingly poor. A quick example of Wood’s poor understanding is that he obviously knows that all radiocarbon dating results have a plus and minus window, in this case Wood’s was 3080 + or — 40 years. It is unacceptable to use only one radiocarbon assay for dating an archaeological event, and it is also unacceptable to ignore the dating methods deviation for dating precisely an archaeological event.Anyway, his argument has been binned as the radiocarbon assay he used has been identified as being part of a large series of systematically defective dates. I will make one prediction, only one of us will ignore the evidence and plod on regardless I look forward to hearing from you, I will be off-line from the 31st of July until the 10th of August as I will be on holiday, so I will be unable to reply during that period.Best Wishes.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 07-27-2003]

Hi Culverin,Hope you are well.I only have a few minutes so I cannot respond in any great detail, bit I would like to comment on a couple of points you raised in this post.First: Could I just say that in my area of research, Syro-Palestinian Archaeology, that there are many conclusions reached without the aid of these instruments and/or techniques you mention. You do not need any instruments in these cases, just a pair of eyes.Sometimes it is the complete absence of evidence, where you would expect there to be some, (at Kadesh-Barnea for example) that enables an archaeologist to come to a conclusion.Arcaheologists also have an added confidence in dating techiniques nowadays because so many different techniques often yield the same results, or within an accepted 'window' of error.I would argue that, if an archaeologist is 'placing his faith in something' then it is in tried and trusted methods. The results presented by archaeologists are open to everyone's scrutiny, and these results can be falsified, but until someone falsifies a conclusion then the original stands.A good example was the one I cited in regard to Bryant Wood's rejection of Kathleen Kenyon's dating of the destruction of Jericho. Kenyon's results are available to everyone, Wood examined these and then rejected them based on his own carbon dating results. However, once the error in calibration was noticed at the British Museum, Wood's thesis was rejected.The dating techniques used nowadays are very reliable, and the fact that different techniques consistently give the same dates are testimony to this. I think you mean 'fallible' here, or are you being facetious?Anyway, the implication is the same. I think what might be the problem is that you are citing cases from a very long time ago. I think that Piltdown man was exposed about 50 years ago, and remember it was scientists who uncovered this, not some creationist avenger.But since the 1970's dating techniques and archaeological methodology has come a very long way. I am afraid that the errors touted by certain creationists/inerrantists are simply wishful thinking. In many cases, it is all they have to support their stance.Brian.

Hi Percy,The 4000 BCE date comes from Bishop Ussher who added up all the genealogies in the Bible to get a creation date of 4004 BCE. This date was the generally accepted date of creation by many churches up until the Enlightenment, after this most realised that this date has to be symbolic/schematic.Brian.

Hi W_Fortenberry!Just saying hello, it is nice to see you again. I hope you and your loved ones are very well.Brian.

Hi W_F,Thanks for your reply.Can I just remind you of the claim that I made on the other thread. What I am stating is that modern day historians doubt the reliability of the Bible because of these themes.The way in which I use the Old Testament is as an historical source for attempting to reconstruct the origins of Ancient Israel. What I am claiming is that historians have doubts about the reliability because the Bible has certain traits that seem unhistorical, in this case the apparently regimented time scales, the passing of periods of time that are too well packaged. Historians doubt that these chronologies are accurate because, in their experience, and frankly in everyones personal experience, life isn't quite that well ordered, you even agree with this.However, your explanation for the schematic chronologies is that God is behind these chronological structures, which is fair enough on a theological level. But, in relation to an historical enquiry, God cannot be considered as a factor. God has never been proven as an entity that can affect the natural world. Historians only examine items that can be verified, they need cold, hard examinable evidence.Therefore, God is not a part of historical enquiry, sure your explanation is accpetable in a theological sense, but it isn't acceptable from an historical viewpoint, and I am speaking exclusively from an historical viewpoint.Imagine that you are a student at a university and you are studying history, and you use God as a reason for an event. Your tutor would remind you that you are in the department of History not Divinity or Religious Studies.What is essentially happening when God is included is that you are including a factor that cannot be examined by historical methodology, how could the historian verify that God has intervened? You are introducing an X-factor, whenever there seems to be a problem then 'God' is the cause.I think, as I have said before, that we are approaching the problem from two different angles. I am looking at the Old Testament claims from an historical point of view, which cannot include God, and you are coming from a theological point of view, which is has God as its main factor.My basic argument is that historians doubt the Bible because it is unreliable when used as an historical source, I welcome your responses to this claim, but your responses have to be given from an historical viewpoint, coming from a theological viewpoint is NOT addressing a historical problem. You are answering an 'X' type question from a 'Y' type method of enquiry.I realise that this restricts you greatly in being able to address these problems but this is the nature of historical research. The supernatural is beyond the realms of historical enquiry, any alleged supernatural event has , for the historian, to have a natural explanation because natural events can be verified and examined. For example, the parting of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds), may have been cuased by a volcanic eruption on the Island of Thera, this would be accessible to the historian, but God is not in the equation.To address my claims from an historical viewpoint would require you to present specific examples of similar well-ordered, verifable neatly packaged chronologies from other sources. You could say then that the apparent schematic chronologies in the Old Testament are possible because in such and such a culture we have evidence of similar well-ordered chronologies.My claims that these schemes undermine the reliability of the Bible as a reliable source for reconstructing accurate history doesn't mean that the Bible is untrue, it only means that for some people, historians in this instance, doubt that events have been recorded accurately.So I would like to repeat that from a historical viewpoint God cannot be used as an explanation, if you are going to seriously address these historical problems then you have to do it from an hisrorical approach.Can I assume that my first point about the long life spans have been accepted by you as a valid reason for historians doubting the accuracy of Bible?Again this doesn't mean that the Bible is untrue, I am only asking if you agree that it is valid reason for historians doubting its authenticity because these long life spans have never been verified.Thanks again.Brian.PS, I am glad you are back at the forum, I very much enjoy your contributions, it isn't often that I get to discuss topics that are directly related to my area of study. Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

Hi W_F,Thanks for the reply.If you can prove that God exists and interacts with the natural world then sure it validates your arguments, and it would more than likely make you a very rich man!Could I offer a friendly word of caution. Be careful not to mistake Belief that God interactedwith Proof that God interacted.A mistake that is often made is that because people said God interacted with them it doesn't necessarily mean that He did.I have long ago stopped trying to disprove God, if my studies into the historical reliability of the bible proves that the BIble is not a reliable source for reconstructing history I still wouldnt claim that this disproves God.Anyway, good luck in your quest and don't forget your Scottish friend when your first million dollars roll in!Cheers, take care.Brian.

Hi W_F,Nice to hear from you again.Thanks for the post, I will respond as soon as I can, which will be more than likely next weekend sometime.I have an emormous workload this week that I really need to deal with first before I can give your post the respect it deserves.I hope this is okBrian.