Evidence for God from Science

[quote="PaulSacramento
No BUT it also means that just because we don't have any archaeological evidence to show that Exodus happened that way we think it did, means that it never happened at all.[/quote]


True, it is not like the flood story, that way, There may well have bern a mass migration
out of Egypt, however litte a participant might recognize it in the retelling.

Here Is an example:
Archaeologists thought that King david never existed because there was no evidence for him, until they found the Tel Dan Stela, a basalt stone dating from the 9th century B.C. bearing David’s name and identifying him as king of Israel.
In 1868, a stone tablet was discovered in Jordan. It was written by a Moabite king named Mesha, an enemy of Israel.

The stone dates to around 840 BC, less than 200 years after David and it provides the first known reference to the "House of David" outside the Bible.


The thing about any science is that the most it can claim is there is no evidence CURRENTLY for something but it can never make an explicit statement.
Archaeology is in the same boat. While archaeologists can state there has not been found any evidence for the exodus as such, they can not state that it never happened because, as we have seen over na dover through out history, just because we don't know about something NOW, doesn't mean we won't know about it tomorrow.

Audie wrote:[quote="PaulSacramento
No BUT it also means that just because we don't have any archaeological evidence to show that Exodus happened that way we think it did, means that it never happened at all.

True, it is not like the flood story, that way, There may well have bern a mass migration
out of Egypt, however litte a participant might recognize it in the retelling.[/quote]

There are some historical views that do lend themselves to the exodus and you should know that most scholars don't really look at the number of people written in Exodus to be accurate.

There IS evidence for the Exodus, though indirect - which given an ancient, vast area and era of stone, warfare, destruction, rubble, rebuilding, etc., this should be unsurprising, and as much in cities, even more difficult in remote areas. Historical references, if not in stone or engravings, would not exist. Certainly, the Egyptian leaders, then and later, would not have their power questioned as the plagues preceding the Exodus were each tied to humiliating belief in specific, non-existent deities. So, any potential records of an Exodus of former slaves, of an epic humiliation, would have been totally sanitized, not just by history and time, but deliberately, by those in power at the time.

Here is wonderful overview of the INDIRECT and circumstantial evidences for the Exodus, from Biblicalarchaeology.org:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article

Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olkmi6knlmo

Read thie

http://biblicalremains.com/another-brok ... -evidence/

I don't understand the fuss really.
Never did when doing a little historical criticism and the passing comments some made.
What kind of evidence should we expect is a better question going back those 1000s of years?

It seems to me the historical writings themselves, putting any religious element aside, are often unfairly treated.
The mere fact these writings form the Christian "Bible" and Jewish Tanakh, that they form religious canon, now these historical writings must in all areas prove themselves innocent rather than being treated as innocent until proven guilty?

If we had historical writings preserved from Chinese culture, Greek and what-have-you, there wouldn't be and isn't the same high level of scrutiny and non-acceptance. Yes, you might shave obvious embellishments off here and there -- but it's unreasonable to say its all wrong especially when in many cases there's nothing to the contrary except critical speculation.

There is extremism on both sides. Those who say everything is entirely true, spick and span. And those who say, nope, "the Bible" is untrue - it has been proven false (composition fallacy). Well, what about digging in and exploring. More often then not, you walk away with everything not tied down, but and matters of it is probably or not likely... but rarely, if ever, is knowledge of truth air-tight.

There is extremism on both sides. Those who say everything is entirely true, spick and span. And those who say, nope, "the Bible" is untrue - it has been proven false (composition fallacy). Well, what about digging in and exploring. More often then not, you walk away with everything not tied down, but and matters of it is probably or not likely... but rarely, if ever, is knowledge of truth air-tight.

thank you K, words of wisdom ... let's, today, be extremists of prayer and faith and let past history fend for itself. it will all come out in the wash and, in the end, have very little to do with our love of Christ, our Lord.

Kurieuo wrote:I don't understand the fuss really.
Never did when doing a little historical criticism and the passing comments some made.
What kind of evidence should we expect is a better question going back those 1000s of years?

It seems to me the historical writings themselves, putting any religious element aside, are often unfairly treated.
The mere fact these writings form the Christian "Bible" and Jewish Tanakh, that they form religious canon, now these historical writings must in all areas prove themselves innocent rather than being treated as innocent until proven guilty?

If we had historical writings preserved from Chinese culture, Greek and what-have-you, there wouldn't be and isn't the same high level of scrutiny and non-acceptance. Yes, you might shave obvious embellishments off here and there -- but it's unreasonable to say its all wrong especially when in many cases there's nothing to the contrary except critical speculation.

There is extremism on both sides. Those who say everything is entirely true, spick and span. And those who say, nope, "the Bible" is untrue - it has been proven false (composition fallacy). Well, what about digging in and exploring. More often then not, you walk away with everything not tied down, but and matters of it is probably or not likely... but rarely, if ever, is knowledge of truth air-tight.

It is senseless to speak of the Bible being "true" or, "false". If someone needs that explained, it may not be worth explaining. it to them.

Now as to whether or not there is a seed crystal of reality in the exodus story, probably is. How much it has been fluffed up is hard to tell from this remove. I am guessing it is mostly fluff.

The people who keep going out and finding noahs ark, or chariot wheels in the Red Sea may enjoy some
publicity, paid vacations to the middle east and so forth, but the ones we've seen so far are contributing nothing but to themselves, and the fog of confusion about what may or may not be historical events.

Now as to whether or not there is a seed crystal of reality in the exodus story, probably is. How much it has been fluffed up is hard to tell from this remove.

I am guessing it is mostly fluff.

Yes, you ARE guessing.

Philip wrote:

Now as to whether or not there is a seed crystal of reality in the exodus story, probably is. How much it has been fluffed up is hard to tell from this remove.

I am guessing it is mostly fluff.

Yes, you ARE guessing.

Guessing?
More like hoping.

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

Now as to whether or not there is a seed crystal of reality in the exodus story, probably is. How much it has been fluffed up is hard to tell from this remove.

I am guessing it is mostly fluff.

Yes, you ARE guessing.

Guessing?
More like hoping.

No, RD, its not "hoping". That is so far off that its not, as they say, even wrong.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

Now as to whether or not there is a seed crystal of reality in the exodus story, probably is. How much it has been fluffed up is hard to tell from this remove.

I am guessing it is mostly fluff.

Yes, you ARE guessing.

Guessing?
More like hoping.

No, RD, its not "hoping". That is so far off that its not, as they say, even wrong.

That's good to hear Audie.

Any time, RD. I wonder tho why you'd ever even think such a thing?

Audie wrote:Any time, RD. I wonder tho why you'd ever even think such a thing?

I was just posting it that way, hoping you'd respond.

I like to think you're one of the more reasonable agnostics here.