> Only a minority of archaologists will even consider religious
> texts as a guide, let alone hard evidence. Hard evidence would
> either mean something physical or an official record.
Again. Hard evidence from that time?.....of course there is not.
And it is absolutly against science to demand answers before investigation. Scienc`assignment is to find out...from scratch.
If Biblical stories (whitch are actually historical scripts) are fearytales, as you suggest, I would like to see the hard evidence for that opinion?
Where is it written?...what contemporaries has delt wih it?.....who has been researching the stuff and found the hard evidence that for example Ezekiels vision is fearytale? .....
Or is it so that these stories are impossible because, they are impossible.
Do you have the answers before the questions?
In other word...prejudiced ?