tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post3723659861008486243..comments2008-12-01T10:58:15.081-06:00Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-36020564002503746922008-12-01T10:58:00.000-06:002008-12-01T10:58:00.000-06:00newkingjim - my point is that those who deny that the Bible is an accurate record of history do so primarily on the basis of absence of evidence. Thus, anything that reduces that absence also reduces support for their view.Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-4376639287521562292008-12-01T10:55:00.000-06:002008-12-01T10:55:00.000-06:00Tim - to hear a few scholars talk, there is absolutely no doubt that these artifacts are forged. This judge is convinced that there is doubt. Other scholars are inclined to believe they are authentic. My point is that experts must be allowed to discuss the matter. (Burleigh's book and editorials seem to regard anyone who suggests these aren't laughable forgeries as a religious idiot.)Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-54740133478886284102008-11-29T18:48:00.000-06:002008-11-29T18:48:00.000-06:00&gt;with each (authentic) discovery, the ground is eroding from underneath them&lt;<BR/><BR/> This is a vague comment that I would like to see fleshed out some. I&#39;m not sure who you say the ground is eroding underneath.<BR/> To say the least, recreating an accurate picture of the past is a difficult ting. I am of the opinion that if you weren&#39;t there, you should speak of it with great care.newkingjimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-5468465451888451962008-11-11T20:49:00.000-06:002008-11-11T20:49:00.000-06:00Todd, there is a key difference though between the judge and the scholar. The judge is interested in whether the prosecution has proved the objects to be forgeries "beyond reasonable doubt". The scholar weighs the evidence (such as we have it) in a different balance of proof. For an unprovenanced artifact we might require the opposite - that those claiming it genuine demonstrate this "beyond reasonable doubt". This (also?) is probably case unproven. Or we might merely require it to be "likely" to be genuine - in which case our scholarship is afterwards founded on dubious evidence...<BR/><BR/>I am not saying these objects are fakes - but it seems to me that there is sufficient doubt that I would not wish to see any significant scholarly decision made on the basis of their genuineness.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.com