| Jirakon said: If you believe humans could live up to 930 years in the past then you are a blind follower. The life expectancy has only risen with technology/medicine. Humans could barely get past age of 20 in the early days. Technology/medicine wasn't needed before "the early days". As the human genome (and behavior) got more and more corrupted, life expectancy dropped dramatically. As technology/medicine arose to combat this, life expectancy went up. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Im not goona start a thread about that tho, but just to say that to believe in the bible is believe in somethin some other humans wrote without you even been there to know if its true.(no facts) I can't be sure, but I think you're trying to insinuate that there isn't much evidence for the truth of the Bible, which is an overwhelmingly false statement. There's plenty of evidence from manuscripts, archaelogicy, prophecy, science, history, statistics, and many other fields. A quick search can show you everything you need to know, and there are hundreds of books that go into detail. Here's a quick link with just a small portion of the vast amount of evidence: http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/manuscript-evidence |
"As the human genome (and behavior) got more and more corrupted, life expectancy dropped dramatically... Is it really that hard to comprehend? "
It's not that it's hard to comprehend the idea you're pushing, it's that men living more than 900 years in a savage environment is such an extraordinary claim that it requires extraordinary verification. And I see none.
As for the link you posted, it does coalesce historical details and narrative in almost every sentence, committing the sin -in logical terms- of trying to achive truth by adjacency.
An example: the Jericho walls. That site states
"discovery in 1930s by John Garstang. The walls fell suddenly, and outwardly (unique), so Israelites could clamber over the ruins into the city (Joshua 6:20)."
Now, no free thinker would have a problem with the idea that there was a city of Jericho, that it was subjected to a siege during which its walls crumbled in an episode that became a narrative piece for the local tribes and then was incorporated in the bible.
Thus, a free thinker, even an atheist one, would have no trouble with the archeological discovery of the Jericho walls, just as they had no trouble with Schliemann discovering the historical remains of Troy, with traces of several wars culminating in significant parts of the city being burned down.
But just as the remains of Troy don't prove the narrative of the Ilyad was actually faithful to reality regarding the greek gods' interventions for a chritstian reader such as yourself, so the remains of walls around the town of Jericho aren't proof of the narrative part ( ".. so Israelites could clamber over the ruins" is a telelogical argumentation).
As you see, it tries to get truth value for the narrative part (the walls crumbled when the israelites blew the horns and sent their war cry, because god wanted so) by adjacency with the historical core (existence of Jericho's walls) which is supported by archeology. That's poor argumentation and we deserve better, including you.
