MarkA

Some of your points are rather odd. Archaeologists do not set out to disprove the events mentioned in the Bible. Archaeologists set out to discover evidence of past human activity and to place it in context. For example, when earlier Israeli archaeologists claimed to have discovered cities ascribed to the empire of Solomon it caused a sensation. When re-excavation took place recently, other Israeli archaeologists demonstrated that the earlier claims had no basis in fact. While the earlier excavations were clearly clouded by wishful thinking, the latest work was conducted in a careful, scientific and rational manner.

If you really believe that no archaeological evidence exists that refutes specific claims in the Bible, then you should acquaint yourself with the work carried out by Israeli archaeologists over the last decade or so. They are freely available in the literature and are extensive. These works absolutely show such claims as the existence of the empires of David and Solomon are bogus, that the Hebrews did not destroy Jericho or any of the cities claimed to have been conquered by them, that the flight from Egypt did not happen as the Bible says and so on.

MarkA

Thank you for the welcome mountainman and Withered. I hope we have lots of interesting discussions and debates.

JayW

No I didn't mean that. I meant tha dependng on some anti biblical opinion to disprove the Bible is no different than using the Bible to prove itself.

But there is. Even if that were true, it would not be proof that David didn't exist,so we're back where we started. You seem to believe that archeology uses the lack of evidnce to prove non existence. That is not true. A lack of evidence does nothng to any part of the Bible,especially damage.

I've never suggesed that anything like that. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anythng. if a person puts faith in the first thing they read, or even everything that satisfies their belief, they will never learn he truth. The point was that for every written opinion against Christianity, there is a written opnion for.

And I have never claimed that the Bible is without doubt true. I have claimed that there is evidence hat mkes some of it possible, but I have never claimed it is true.

When did I contradict myself? Who did I use as an apologist? I never tried to make a point of apology,only that you can't depend on every anti christian opinion you read. I had no intention of presenting apologetics. It was to show the futility of presenting just any piece of anti Chrstian material as truth.Regardless of what is shown, thee is just as much Christian material to be foubd. If one can be taken as fact, they all can.

Baalazel

You are a welcome addition to the board MarkA.

Baal

JayW

I understand what archeologists do, In fact I believe Im sid that they don't look for anythign hat disputes the Bible. That is except maybe Israel Finkelstein.

I have acquainted myself with most of them, for the past twenty years. I've aquainted myself with Archeologists in Egypt and most of the middle east. There is no evidence o prove the Bible false. Even Finkelstein,who swaers that the nation of Isreal didn't exist until late in history has never mde the claim that there is evidence. He has claimed there is no evidence.

DaMan121

It can, eg the Exodus - you would expect millions of people to leave a trace, there is none, therefore it didn't happen as described in the OT. Maybe there was a few hundred, either way, its not the way its described.

Not if that other source is backed up with physical evidence.

Gullwind

Okay, let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's say you know a guy who claims to have walked in and deposited $1,000 in his account at a certain bank. That's not too unusual an event so it's not hard to believe, but you decide to investigate.

You find out, however, that no one at the bank that day remembers him. He does not appear on the security video, there is no record of the transaction and he does not even have an account at the bank.

Now. There is a complete lack of evidence that this man did what he claimed he did. By your line of reasoning, we would still be justified in believing that he deposited the money. There is no positive evidence he didn't, just a lack of evidence that he did. Would you still believe him?

The difference is that certain events are expected to leave positive evidence behind. The Plagues of Egypt are an example. These are events that would have destroyed Egypt as a nation, completely destroyed an entire years food supply (more so that a famine year in which a little was grown - the plagues wiped it out 100%) and eradicated a large part of their transportation infrastructure. Yet no one - not a single Egyptian scribe - bothered to record the events at all. Not one single foreign nation recorded a flood of Egyptians buying up any cattle, horses, camels donkeys, pigs or sheep they could find. No mass graves of all the firstborn killed have been found, no piles of burned animal bones from the thousands of livestock that died (some several times!).

Just like the bank analogy, the lack of positive evidence where it should be found is evidence that the events never happened.

JayW

That would be true except that here are records of Egypt suffering drought,famine, and major crop loss. There is also evidence of volcanic ash from the island of Satorini not only in Egypt,but in Syria Palestine and Anatolia. The fact that Egypt does no have any inscriptions that tell you there were people leaving Egypt enmasse doesn't mean a lot, since Egypt's history is not complete. There are several texts telling of some kind of disaster,but are not complete enough to interprete as anythng definite. Some of those tects tell of famine, one of which lasted seven years, but is not connected with the Bible, so don't suggest that I said that. If you get the chance read the Ipuwer papyrus. It tells of a caststrophe similiar to what you are suggesting. Sayng that Egypt has never suffered such calamity is based on a lack of information. Egypt certainly has.

JayW

Where would you expect those traces to be? According to Manetho the Hyksos had 240,000 military men stationed at the city of Avirus. They left Egypt with their families. There has never been a trace of them found except at Jeruslem after thay becme settled there. Would you expect traces of the Israelites n the sinai where they spent two years? There are traces of Semites there in the form of burial tombs in a large graveyard. There are inscriptions there writen in Hebrew and Egyptian. There are signs of Semitic burnt sacrifices there. You could look for signs to be in Moab, where there are no sign of semitic camping. That should prove something.

Gullwind

None of those are of the degree that the bible describes for "the" Ten Plagues. Of course Egypt suffered locusts - but not to the degree of destroying the entire years crop. Of course Egypt suffered disease - but not to the extent that ALL of their domestic animals were killed. And, none of these happened essentially at the same time.

Its a matter of degree. Yes, Egypt suffered similar events to the plagues over its history, but there is no evidence that it ever suffered so many, so close together, to such an extreme degree. That kind of disaster would have left specific types of evidence in specific places. That evidence has not been found, thus justifying the conclusion that those specific events did not happen.