Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
Those discoveries, as you put it, are comforting to believers. But they are not convincing to neutral observers.
Chiasmus--comforting to believers, unconvincing to neutral observers.
|
you could say that about anything that ever could be found. You can't use history to back up any religious beliefs or miracles from the Bible either. There are plenty of skeptics, atheists and agnostics willing to back me up on that statement. It will always come back to faith. Maybe you can show some of the places mentioned in the Bible existed, but not much more than that. And you can't even show that for many or most of them. Heck, there is no mention of Moses anywhere in Egypt. Seems a little odd you can't prove the central character in all of Jewish history even existed, much less was actually ever in the vicinity of the location where the central event for that major ancient religion and culture was established (Sinai and the giving of the Law). So whatever does come out in Arabia or on this continent, how would you really ever be able to prove anything about the BofM anyway? You can't even prove the Bible by the standard the skeptics want.