No, what I'm illustrating is how they misuse the statement. We have "evidence" of what Jerusalem was in the 10th century that contradicts their claim. Can we ever "prove" that their version did not happen? Not to a believer's satisfaction.
Their answer to that is to ignore the evidence and insist that the evidence they want is there we just haven't found it yet. Unlike what Paul says above, they are using this in the tangible sense which is why lunatics keep wandering over Mt. Ararat looking for the fucking ark.
I could forgive the average fundie for failing to comprehend the difference but a scholar such as Kenneth Kitchen should know better. In fact, when the subject is Egyptology which is his field he does know better. When the subject turns to religion ( primarily his own ) he turns into a sputtering apologist.
The problem with the "my back yard" scenario is that it is readily visible and measurable and there should be deeds on file in the local property registrar's office. They are insisting that what cannot be seen is actually there and we just haven't found it yet. No matter what is found they will continue to insist that what they believe in has not yet been found. There is no way to satisfy that mindset.
For a scholar, like Kitchen, he should be able to understand where his mantra would lead. No one could publish anything because all of the information on any given subject has not been found. Scholars, including him, cannot function that way.
Their answer to that is to ignore the evidence and insist that the evidence they want is there we just haven't found it yet. Unlike what Paul says above, they are using this in the tangible sense which is why lunatics keep wandering over Mt. Ararat looking for the fucking ark.
I could forgive the average fundie for failing to comprehend the difference but a scholar such as Kenneth Kitchen should know better. In fact, when the subject is Egyptology which is his field he does know better. When the subject turns to religion ( primarily his own ) he turns into a sputtering apologist.
The problem with the "my back yard" scenario is that it is readily visible and measurable and there should be deeds on file in the local property registrar's office. They are insisting that what cannot be seen is actually there and we just haven't found it yet. No matter what is found they will continue to insist that what they believe in has not yet been found. There is no way to satisfy that mindset.
For a scholar, like Kitchen, he should be able to understand where his mantra would lead. No one could publish anything because all of the information on any given subject has not been found. Scholars, including him, cannot function that way.
