RE: Adam never met Eve

From: glenn morton (
Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 17:32:41 EST

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

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []
    > 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.


    for lots of creation/evolution information


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 17:32:16 EST