"The first thing to note is that when you start out with a premise (e.g., the Exodus as described in the OT was a historical event as described) and then start looking for "evidence" to support your pre-conceived notion, that's not science, that's religion.

Ummm ... no, that's science. The preconceived notion is called the theorum, and looking for evidence (pro or con) is what science is all about. It is only when one rules out evidence on one side of the equation that you get something other than science. For example, given the preconceived notion that acceleration of a body is proportional to its mass and net external forces, one then looks for examples (or conducts tests) to confirm or invalidate the premise. This is what Issac Newton did.

BTW, I notice that you said nothing about the "REED SEA" translation discrepancy correction. I found that explanation/clarification quite interesting. As to the plagues, my curiosity as to early concession possibility effects by the pharoah on later plagues remains.



"So, as you may have surmised, I remain unconvinced."


Which is fine. It was not my intent to convince anyone; and besides, debate is prohibited in this particular forum. I was merely sharing in the thread my impression of the program and the effect it had on persuading me to the possibility that the basic story line may be true even if the biblical account might not fit well with historical records. (I was however working with the notion that most religous scholars do not consider the so-called "bible" to be recorded history. Thus considerable leeway must be allowed when considering any biblical account for historical correlation. I feel the program did a reasonably good job in attempting this).

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us!" (POGO)