For those who want proof of the exodus

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, there would be evidence of Noahs ark, if Noahs ark ever existed or was even possible.  Yes, there would be evidence of such a flood, however you determine it's extent to have been.

You would, firstly, need to disabuse yourself of the notion that the text is even remotely accurate, already a concession.  Then..you'd need to find a cataclysmic flood happening at a time and to a people with considerable boatbuilding know how...and the logistical and technical ability to support that boatbuilding culture.  If you have reduced the narrative to some middle-eastern redneck floating on his chicken coop down a swollen river then I have no idea why you're even discussing it.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Crossless2.0]

"Missing."

It's suppose to be missing... I know you claim to be a hindu now, so FYI the Ark... Not apart of the exodus..

Reading in context, Snowflake. It's a thing.

Jor didn't mention the Flood story as part of the Exodus narrative. Nor is she a Hindu anymore.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess it's just another one of those things god hid from us.  Hid the flood, hid the boat, hid the culture that could have built the boat, hid the resources from which the boat could have been built...and hid the magic which must have been present to keep it intact and afloat.

With all of this subterfuge going on, it's hardly surprising that people fail to believe in such nonsense.

[Pat Mustard]

Everyone knows that slavery occurred in the United States during the late 20th century. 

But the more closely we examine the archaeological record from say, the Kennedy Administration through the Reagan years and into the Bush presidencies, there is simply no evidence of slavery whatsoever.

Therefore, based on this lack of evidence during the period examined, it must be concluded that slavery never existed in the United States.

You're a fucking prolapsed anus you know that, you idiot?

You can't even get your false analogy correct, never mind find one that has any relevance to the topic.

[Angrboda]

It's suppose to be missing... I know you claim to be a hindu now, so FYI the Ark... Not apart of the exodus..

Then it is indeed "apart" of the Exodus. Maybe if you'd bothered to understand the context, you'd have understood the relevance of my mention. But don't let a lack of reading comprehension spoil your incessant need to say something.

[Simon Moon]

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.

I never claimed that the Bible does not contain some archaeological (and historical) accuracies.

The problem is, it contains so many inaccuracies. 

And wouldn't you say that texts, supposedly inspired by the all powerful creator of the universe, shouldn't contain any? And wouldn't you say that the fact that it does contain inaccuracies, call into question the credibility of the texts?

[GrandizerII]

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.

I never claimed that the Bible does not contain some archaeological (and historical) accuracies.

The problem is, it contains so many inaccuracies.

That's a key flaw with athrock's way of reasoning in this thread. Athrock seems to only focus on supporting evidence but ignores negating evidence.

[veoli]

I never claimed that the Bible does not contain some archaeological (and historical) accuracies.

The problem is, it contains so many inaccuracies.

That's a key flaw with athrock's way of reasoning in this thread. Athrock seems to only focus on supporting evidence but ignores negating evidence.

That's what I was thinking. I wonder if he thinks the same re: the burden of proof on Gods existence.

Will have a read through.

[Minimalist]

the evidence in the ground suggests that the Bible is surprisingly reliable with regard to these things.

Now you have crossed over into simply lying.

[Simon Moon]

the evidence in the ground suggests that the Bible is surprisingly reliable with regard to these things.

Now you have crossed over into simply lying.

Well....

Way earlier in this thread, I suggested that he was miss informed, and the consensus of archaeologists disagree with him.

But many pages further into this thread, since he is still making the same claim, "lying" may be a more accurate descriotion.