Evidence for the Biblical Record

We don't need to examine all the minute details, when there is an elephant in the room.And that elephant is the story of a global flood, which biblical scholars place at about 4,350 years ago.The evidence to support such a flood is nil, while the evidence which contradicts that flood is enormous.Believe what you want, but that flood story is a myth.And that is one major problem for those who believe the bible is inerrant. Of course, they refuse to see or accept any evidence to the contrary, so...

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Buz, I'm a professional archaeologist.I don't do much of anything from photographs. I want to see the evidence first-hand, and to see what it really is.You can do mundane identifications from drawings and photographs--things we have thousands of in the collections. That is not a problem.But what you are doing is presenting flimsy evidence for major questions. That just doesn't fly. The larger or more unusual the claim, the more the evidence needs to match.You can "prove" you have an arrowhead from a drawing or a photograph. But "proving" you have a chariot wheel of a particular type and age requires some more detailed analyses. And "proving" that is the exact one mentioned in the bible requires even more detailed analyses and documentation.Can't you see that? Just because you might agree with something does not obviate the need for proper documentation.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.

​

L. Sprague de Camp

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.