YEC is physically impossible

[Neogaia777]

You seem to know quite a bit about what it was like for a guy who doesn't really know very much about what it was like. More than some stupid archaeologists who have experience investigating ancient campsites, evidently

I think you are hoping that no evidence will be found. And you're right. Looking for evidence of biblical events is very dangerous for biblical literalists. If evidence of the exodus was discovered, the entire world of Abrahamic faith would rejoice. If evidence of the exodus was found and it revealed that the exodus differed even only slightly from the biblical account then Christians Jews and Muslims would still rejoice but the faith of biblical literalists would be destroyed.

I'm just telling the truth. Sorry you have a problem with that.

And you guys are the ones who are or were saying because there was no evidence of any campsites, then it must not have ever happened, etc, thinking you were disproving it, and you were the ones seeming to be rejoicing in that, etc, and I'm just telling you otherwise, because I do know how evidence of camping or campsites are atypically detected archeologically after this long a period of time, etc.

But nothing that has been discovered today has absolutely proven, or absolutely disproven the Bible evidence-wise, and right now anyway, I'm not going to hold my breath either way until it is either way otherwise, etc.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's because you have a tendency to misrepresent their motivations. Some of those archaeologists are Jews and Christians who would like to find evidence of an exodus--if that's what the science shows them. They just don't care very much about a biblical literalist interpretation of scripture.

If I sponsored a search for the Loch Ness Monster, and I overheard one of the searchers say they're going out to hunt for "this myth," I'd request his removal from the team.

First you make it sound like archaeologists are out there shedding blood, sweat, and tears in search of two million Israelites in the Sinai Peninsula; then you make it sound like they're out there looking for anything and everything, and if they happen to stumble upon something MADE IN HEBREW, they'll consider some Jews may have been around.

I'd venture to say that, if they found a site with all sorts of Jewish paraphernalia, they'd just conclude it was probably a small band of Jews on an outing or something.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm just telling the truth. Sorry you have a problem with that.

No, you were making stuff up about the archaeology of ancient desert campsites and paraphrasing the biblical account of the exodus in an inaccurate fashion. Way too much "wudda cudda" for anybody to take you seriously

And you guys are the ones who are or were saying because there was no evidence of any campsites, then it must not have ever happened, etc, thinking you were disproving it, and you were the ones seeming to be rejoicing in that, etc, and I'm just telling you otherwise, because I do know how evidence of camping or campsites are atypically detected archeologically after this long a period of time, etc.

Now you're making stuff up about people in this discussion. Of course, I wouldn't rejoice if biblical literalism got trashed by some archaeological discovery, but I can't say I wouldn't be a little relieved, because I think biblical literalism is harmful to Christianity in the long run.

But nothing that has been discovered today has absolutely proven, or absolutely disproven the Bible evidence-wise, and right now anyway, I'm not going to hold my breath either way until it is either way otherwise, etc.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

BCP, when was the last time you ever heard a shrewdness of scientists say the words, "Just like the Bible said," re a discovery?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you're making stuff up about people in this discussion. Of course, I wouldn't rejoice if biblical literalism got trashed by some archaeological discovery, but I can't say I wouldn't be a little relieved, because I think biblical literalism is harmful to Christianity in the long run.

I'd venture to say that if archaeologists found Jewish stuff all over the Sinai Peninsula, they'd still deny the Exodus.

Probably by claiming they weren't in Egypt in the first place.

As long as they can keep it out of the Bible -- mission accomplished.

 

[BCP1928]

If I sponsored a search for the Loch Ness Monster, and I overheard one of the searchers say they're going out to hunt for "this myth," I'd request his removal from the team.

Then you would have entirely misjudged the individual. Scientists look for evidence of events which have given rise to myths all the time.

First you make it sound like archaeologists are out there shedding blood, sweat, and tears in search of two million Israelites in the Sinai Peninsula; then you make it sound like they're out there looking for anything and everything, and if they happen to stumble upon something MADE IN HEBREW, they'll consider some Jews may have been around.

I'd venture to say that, if they found a site with all sorts of Jewish paraphernalia, they'd just conclude it was probably a small band of Jews on an outing or something.

And you would have entirely misjudged the situation.

 

[BCP1928]

I'd venture to say that if archaeologists found Jewish stuff all over the Sinai Peninsula, they'd still deny the Exodus.

Probably by claiming they weren't in Egypt in the first place.

As long as they can keep it out of the Bible -- mission accomplished.

Wow. Is that ever self-serving. Do you really think that scientists care all that much about the way an eccentric minority Christian sect interprets an ancient holy book?

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, who owns this peninsula in the first place?

Archaeologists: We're here to look for evidence of the Exodus as delineated in the Bible.

Owner: Sure thing. Just help yourself. Come on in and dig up the place. And if anyone complains you're digging on their property, just tell them I gave you carte blanche privileges.

Ya -- right.

 

[Neogaia777]

No, you were making stuff up about the archaeology of ancient desert campsites and paraphrasing the biblical account of the exodus in an inaccurate fashion. Way too much "wudda cudda" for anybody to take you seriously

Yeah, I'd like you to go back and specifically quote me when and where I was ever specifically doing that specifically, etc.

Until then, your just making things up now because your upset, etc.

Now you're making stuff up about people in this discussion. Of course, I wouldn't rejoice if biblical literalism got trashed by some archaeological discovery, but I can't say I wouldn't be a little relieved, because I think biblical literalism is harmful to Christianity in the long run.

It wasn't you specifically, and I apologize if I threw you into a camp where you don't belong, but it was not you specifically who was doing that, as far as I know, etc.

And I understand what you mean about "classic or traditional bible literalism", etc, and how it has been used to all but almost flat out deny almost any proven facts both in the past, and up to now literally, etc.

But, have you heard the way that I think the Bible can be pretty much true literally lately, etc?

It does not deny evolution, or age of the earth, or the universe, or anything like that, etc.

Anyway, have you heard of it lately?

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you would have entirely misjudged the individual. Scientists look for evidence of events which have given rise to myths all the time.

Nice try changing my "look for the Loch Ness Monster" to "look for evidence".

I don't want evidence.

I want the Loch Ness Monster.

Evidence is a dime a dozen, with 9¢ change.

It can be fabricated, mislabeled, and mishandled.

And you would have entirely misjudged the situation.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[BCP1928]

By the way, who owns this peninsula in the first place?

Archaeologists: We're here to look for evidence of the Exodus as delineated in the Bible.

If they ask for permission like that then they are not real archaeologists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. Is that ever self-serving. Do you really think that scientists care all that much about the way an eccentric minority Christian sect interprets an ancient holy book?

Not ... one ... bit.

Yet, according to posters here, they went out looking for evidence of the Flood, the Exodus, and who knows what all else and ... of course ... concluded they found nothing.

It used to be, when I first started posting here, people were saying there wasn't any evidence for this, that, and a host of other things.

Then, when I started replying with "keep looking," they changed their tune from NO EVIDENCE to WE HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

 

[BCP1928]

Not ... one ... bit.

Yet, according to posters here, they went out looking for evidence of the Flood, the Exodus, and who knows what all else and ... of course ... concluded they found nothing.

It used to be, when I first started posting here, people were saying there wasn't any evidence for this, that, and a host of other things.

Then, when I started replying with "keep looking," they changed their tune from NO EVIDENCE to WE HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

Did they have?

 

[AV1611VET]

If they ask for permission like that then they are not real archaeologists.

I've referred to paleoarchaeologists in the past here as "grave robbers."

 

[AV1611VET]

Did they have?

Did they have what?

 

[BCP1928]

Did they have what?

Evidence to the contrary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence to the contrary.

No.

Since it really happened, how could they?

The only scenario that I can come up with that would show confusion is something like this:

Say Indians attacked my fort, and I documented it.

Later, bandits attack my fort, and I don't document it.

A hundred years later, archaeologists find evidence bandits attacked my fort, but no evidence that Indians had.

(Other than my documentation, that is.)

In that case, archaeologists would [incorrectly] conclude no Indians attacked my fort.

 

[dlamberth]

Your statement about their being no archeological evidence of any campsites being the reason for the exodus never happening is pretty thin, etc, because they were nomads who moved daily and never set up a permanent camp ever anywhere, and who also took everything with them when they did move, which was daily, etc. Anyway, that evidence or line of reasoning for disproving the exodus is pretty thin, etc.

I have no bone to pick in this subject. I'm stopping by only to point out that nomadic tribes do not move daily.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have no bone to pick in this subject. I'm stopping by only to point out that nomadic tribes do not move daily.

Well, I think these ones did daily, but no, not all of them do, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Estrid]

That's because you have a tendency to misrepresent their motivations. Some of those archaeologists are Jews and Christians who would like to find evidence of an exodus--if that's what the science shows them. They just don't care very much about a biblical literalist interpretation of scripture.

What makes you think that they are speifically
looking for "exodus" evidence?

Its absurd.

Anyone with any sense can recognize that
no biblical "flood" ever took place.
Any archaeologist / geologist who went
out to search for flood- sign ( or for
charioi wheels in the Red Sea) would return
empty handed as many times as he set forth.
Doing senseless and 100% unproductive
work is a poor professional move.

Archaeologists do know their work, as you noted.
They are aware that, like " flood" the only pro -flood
evidence consists only if a miracle - story.
Matrrial evidence is all contrary to those
climed miracles.

Sure, people do srchaeology in Sinai.

its a lot like fossil huntim. You pick an area and
go around looking at the ground.

You dont say, "i will find a complete T rex, i will ignore
all else."

Same for exodus sign. If you can find some, terrif


Meanwhile take what you can gre if you expect to
have a job when you get home.


Oh, and its said that god gives no overt proof
of his existence. Going abou the desert looking
for it is bonkers.