|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why, if god limited man's life to 120 years, did people live longer? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rcmemphis Junior Member (Idle past 5470 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If the entire pre-Plague population was 2.1 million, losing 2 million people with no sign that it happened is completely stupid !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cjh7583 Junior Member (Idle past 5469 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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:
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4967 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
"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'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
"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'. 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. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rcmemphis Junior Member (Idle past 5470 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024