(September 30, 2014 at 3:33 am)Aractus Wrote: The commentary in the ESV Bible reads in part:
- "Doubts have often been cast on the historical reliability of the exodus account. It is true that no remains of the Israelites have been found in the area of Goshen in the eastern Nile delta or in the wilderness of Sinai. But in neither area would such remains be expected to survive. The mud-built huts of the Israelites have long been destroyed by repeated flooding, and, wandering through the wilderness, the people would not have left buildings or other permanent traces. It thus is unreasonable to expect such archaeological evidence. Furthermore, one should not expect to find extrabiblical texts regarding Israel’s stay and departure from Egypt, because the story is negative about Egypt. Egyptian texts are quite propagandistic and such a defeat would not mention such a defeat."
I don't think the person making this argument realizes that it's not really helping him, either. I mean, yeah, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence in and of itself, but we have to remember what's being discussed: a civilization wandering through the wilderness for forty years being fed daily by magic sky-food. Apart from the Bible's claims, there's no evidence for this, either.
It seems more reasonable to just assume it didn't happen until we find some other reason to believe it.
