For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

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.

NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

NOVA: Archaeology Of The Hebrew Bible

Your empty blather is as unconvincing as your empty claim.

Jorm-

You've stepped into waters over your head at this point. If you need to learn more about how archeological evidence supports the accuracy of Biblical texts, all you have to do is read.

But if you've pre-determined that NOTHING in the Bible is true, then you can dismiss anything you want. I think you're guilty of this.

Look, I'm not making the case that the supernatural claims of the authors of the Bible are legit, but stating that the Bible is inaccurate historically, geographically, or whatever just makes skeptics look stupid.

Don't do that.