Why haven't they found the graves and bones?

Question

of enough males in Egypt who died on (or around) the same night corresponding to the era described in Exodus?

Answer 1

How much research have you really done on this to say they haven't.

So, basically you haven't done any research?

Also when you do research you look at both sides until one side cannot refute the other.

Answer 2

They have found several credible sources for evidenc eof the exodus.

1. a hieroglyphic tablet with mention of the hebrew exodus...but through the REED sea, not the RED sea.

The reed dea is , as it sounds a marshy area and if lets say a tsuami came in after the crossing...it might in deed foil an army.

2. The Volvanic Eruption of Thera (santorini) coressponds to the estimated 1600 BC event. It also explains the plagues.

For an elaborate defense of the exodus look at shows like naked archealogist on the History Channel.

Science tried to deny Troy existed, until they found it.

The archealogical profession is in need of restructuring..they barely follow any scientific method or burden of proof.

Answer 3

tomb raiders- egypt was a major country of anthropological excavations where some took the remained of artifacts that they could find, some do takes bones.

& at that time there are no specific burial sites and or records, it may have lost from time, unmarked tombstones and maybe its buried long deep on the earth. i also think they've burned it away to ashes-cremation.

Answer 4

Good question.  I want to know why they haven't found the remains of an entire army drowned in the Red Sea.

Answer 5

This may be of interest:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Ancient_...

Do a search using words Red Sea Bible archaeology to find more or Exodus Bible archaeology.

Answer 6

This is a good question that reveals a few very good points about how archaeology is done.

1. Sexing skeletons is an inexact technique, especially if you have incomplete skeletons. If this group of buried males was all uncovered, and all we found were the skulls, or the ulnas, or if enough pelvic bones were missing, you'd never know what you found.

2. Is there any evidence at all that all of these males would have all been buried in the same place, or places we would be able to link together to a single event? These males would all have likely been different age groups, different social groups, etc. If they all weren't dumped in the same pit (or put in the same cemetery), your job gets infinitely more difficult. The only real things you'd have to link them would be the date, which brings us to number 3.

3. Open up your Bible. If you don't have one, or haven't read the account thoroughly, why the h**l do you think you have the right to ask anyone about this? As an archaeologist, it would be a pretty big waste of my time to answer a poorly researched question. Anyway, give me the date of the final plague, and I'll have a good idea of the target. Of, that's not in there? Not even if you extrapolate dates from the genealogies and then work forward, you don't get very close? Oh wait, there were other plagues right before that that likely killed bunches of people too? Oh darn.

Now let's turn to an example. Today, if you asked where the ancient city of Troy was, you'd get an answer. If you asked that same question 100 years ago, you'd get laughed out of the room. What's the difference? Well it's quite simple actually. Troy had been found and excavated since then. Before that happened, many people believed that it did not exist.

This is, of course, the heart of your question. As an archaeologist, questions like this bug me. You assume even before you ask it that such things haven't been found, and never will. That makes a poor scientist, and a poor scientist tends to ask useless questions about the world.

This is a mostly useless question, partially because it has an immediately available answer: Those bones haven't been found yet. Prove me wrong. Debate over, have a nice day.

Lost of things haven't been found yet. Doesn't mean they will be, doesn't mean they won't be. The simple fact that something has not been found certainly doesn't prove or disprove its existence. Please don't insult my profession by making assumptions like this.