For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

And as I pointed out previously, archaeology has been VERY kind to Jews and Christians thus far.

When you pointed this out, did you do so with specific examples and citations?

Because, while some of the OT and NT contain some archaeological accuracies, they also contain many inaccuracies. 

And not just minor inaccuracies, major ones.

For example: the vast majority of archaeological evidence points to the Hebrews arising from the Canaanites, not invading from another land. 

[/quote]

Non‐existent cities

Many of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlment was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period, and was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco–Roman accounts. Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.
. . . . . .
Edom

Edom was not yet a nation. In fact, the region wasn't even inhabited yet. The place the Hebrews stop at wasn't even built until 800 BCE, as the earliest Iron Age settlements (copper mining camps) date to the 9th century BCE and the main excavated sites have been dated between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE. However, the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

Yeah, right.  Archaeology has been real kind to the bible.

I won't waste my time trying to illustrate the truth of what I said since it's clear that you can't or won't accept any examples. But let me say this: The Old and New Testaments of the Bible may have all sorts of problems that need to be sorted out if one is to be a believer, but archaeology isn't among them. If anything, the evidence in the ground suggests that the Bible is surprisingly reliable with regard to these things.

Whether that accuracy supports its supernatural claims is another matter, of course.