RE: Adam never met Eve

From: glenn morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 17:32:41 EST

  • Next message: Vandergraaf, Chuck: "RE: Adam never met Eve"

    > -----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