For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

Are you saying that there ought to be the remains of a wooden boat that didn't rot or get turned into firewood by the locals? And because there isn't, we can be certain that the Ark never existed?

Why would you even suspect there was an ark without evidence to suggest it?

You mean other than the fact that an ancient text says there was?  

So, what is missing is CORROBORATING evidence that can give us greater confidence of in the initial evidence provided by the text, no?

Besides which, you don't need the lack of physical remains to be certain that the ark never existed. The puerile impossibility of the whole story manages to sink the boat all by itself.

Oh? Is that how historians work? They begin from a position of hostility toward the text they are examining and assume none of it is true as they begin their research?

Or do men of science pride themselves on being objectively neutral until all the facts are in?

[athrock]

"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..

Hindu?

So, Jormungandr is actually a polytheist and not an atheist?

That's a bit of a game-changer, isn't it?

[athrock]

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

Oh.

[Cyberman]

Then explain, without once resorting to fairytale devices, precisely how the largest wooden boat ever constructed without metal bracing managed to stock between two and seven of every animal on the planet, keep them fed and alive, maintained by a crew of eight for a whole year. Explain how the mountaintops got covered by water, where it came from and where it went afterwards. Explain how the only evidence for any of this is one story in a collection of mythological texts, and why anyone would even consider it as an historical event without reference to the story.

[athrock]

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.

If we are forced to accept the idea the the Exodus just HAD to occur during the reign of Rameses despite the complete lack of evidence for that, then the analogy is perfect.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand it.

[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.

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?

The number, importance and relevance of these alleged inaccuracies is the crux of the matter, isn't it?

Whole books have been written by both sides, so each camp has its ammunition at the ready.

However, does "inspiration" automatically require "inerrancy"? For example, if the ancient writers had no knowledge of medicine, geography and what-not, would God necessarily have forced the authors to write accurately about things that they could not possibly know? 

No, that's not what it means for the Bible to be an "inspired" text, and the writers were not merely taking dictation.

[athrock]

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 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.

Incorrect.

I'm aware of the negative evidence, but so far, I'm simply not impressed by it.

This is the same approach taken by Simon Moon in the quote from him in my signature below, so, I'm following a well-trod path, I think.

[athrock]

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.

If I thought you had any credibility at all that would weawwy hurt my feewings.

[athrock]

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.

Simon-

Don't misunderstand my position. Yes, I am aware of the consensus of the majority of archaeologists. 

However, Minimalist is more open-minded than that. For example, he accepts the minority view of the laughable Jesus Mythicists, so surely he won't take exception to me taking a few minutes to tease out the view of the minority as expressed by Mahoney and others, will he?

I mean, if he can embrace a flat-earth view like that, why can't I have a bit of fun, too? 

[athrock]

Yes, Simon.  Which is not to say that there cannot be some religious scholars with integrity.  This example, from an earlier thread, provides a stellar example of such.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24217-po...#pid608332

Between 1965 and 1972 Joseph Callaway, an American archaeologist and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor who had studied method with Kenyon, reopened the investigation. And he confirmed Marquet-Krause's results beyond doubt. To his credit, he acknowledged the excavations of Ai as a major blow to the "conquest theory." He put it this way in 1985":

For many years, the primary source for the understanding of the settlement of the first Israelites was the Hebrew Bible, but every reconstruction based upon the biblical traditions has floundered on the evidence from archaeological remains....(Now) the primary source has to be archaeological remains.

Moreover, Callaway -- a southern gentleman of great moral character-- took early retirement from his very conservative seminary rather than risk being the cause of theological embarrassment.

I doubt that we will see anything like Callaway's integrity exhibited by these clods.

Or Callaway may have been wrong. Like Kenyon.

"An alternative proposal is that the Bible's chronology of events is accurate, and the Biblical Ai is not to be located at et-Tell, but a different site entirely. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell.[1] David Livingstone has also suggested Khirbet Nisya as another possible location for Ai." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et-Tell