(September 28, 2013 at 4:56 am)Aractus Wrote: Okay, a few things, let's work in reverse-order. "Any other ancient text", well let me repeat the example I've already given you.Your example indicates that taking the ancient texts at face value may lead historians to an incorrect conclusion. Doesn't that reinforce the point I made?
Further, if the initial source had stated that these pyramids were being built for gods who stood twenty feet tall and breathed fire, historians would not have accepted that as fact. It would be expected that they would approach any extra-normal claims with considerable suspicion. I think that they would approach claims of prophecy similarly. It may help them determine dates, but not by assuming that the "prophecies" were made prior to the event in question.
Aractus Wrote:So don't presume to go on to me about what constitutes an acceptable level of evidence, if the single piece of writing by Herodotus is enough to convince historians that the pyramids were built by slaves for 2400 years, then I expect to see counter-evidence that is at least equal to the evidence that I've provided, not a simple dismissal of the evidence.You stated to Missluckie that you can prove that the Bible isn't 'fake' but that her bias would prevent her from accepting it. Then you provide the testimony from texts for which the dates are in a wide range and for which acceptance may depend heavily on bias. And you follow it up with a Wiki entry that specifically denies that the date of Paul's death is known and that the guesses as to his fate are made by those who stand the most to gain by pretending that they're reliable.
I don't see how your information proves that the Bible is not fake. Acceptance or rejection of your argument is based at least to some degree on bias. And that was my point.
Aractus Wrote:We don't need to presume when they were written, we do what is done with all historical documents, we date it as best we can from the available internal and external evidence.The range given for the gospels is something like 44AD to 137AD. If it's as simple as assuming that what is stated in the texts is honest and true and extrapolating from there, those date ranges would be much narrower.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould