> -----Original Message-----
> From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:26 AM
> I would like to point out that rejecting a lack of evidence is in no way
> comparable to rejecting evidence. Because there is no
> archaelogical evidence
> for the Exodus leaves the issue open. As Edwin Yamauchi points out in his
> book The Stones and the Scriptures, only a minute fraction of the
> archaeological data has been investigated. Consequently, it
> should be borne
> in mind that with archaeology, the absence of evidence is not evidence of
> absence.
Under most conditions I would agree with you. In this case we have a pretty
good record of events in Egypt. They never mention any of the events so
prominently written about in the Exodus accounts. At some point such a lack
must be evidence of absence.
The conservative has at least a valid academic right to say the
> _lack_ of archaeological evidence does not disprove anything. There will
> probably never be archaeological evidence for Abraham, Isaac or
> Jacob or many
> other figures in ancient history; but, that does not give anyone
> the academic
> right to say they never lived.
In the case of Abe Isaac and Jake, I agree. We will never have evidence for
their personal existence. But as noted above, we have lots of writings from
Egypt, but no mention of the events of Exodus.
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 17:32:16 EST