I was wondering why apparently none of the 45 essays reflected a more traditional view. They say there is no Egyptian evidence for the Exodus, and I would say that there is only no Egyptian evidence for the Exodus if one ignores the evidence that does exist. In Ages in Chaos Immanual Velikovsky discusses this evidence which includes an Egypian papyrus (in a museum in Leyden, I think) that essentially describes the same plagues as the Biblical version does.
They also say there is no or little archeological evidence for the Bible, and imply that there is contradictory evidence. It's too bad they don't explain this at all. I have a book on my shelf entitled Understanding the Bible through History and Archeology that I thought mostly confirmed Biblical accounts. Maybe I didn't read it closely enough?
"Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." "We couldn't come to a formulation that we could all be comfortable with," the rabbi said. Translation: We are here reinventing the Bible in our own image. We could flim-flam our way through almost everything but it would be so obvious that we were frauds if we condoned homosexuality.
It's "uncomfortable" for a thief not to steal. The Bible is not about what is comfortable. If doing what we each felt was comfortable we wouldn't need any Laws at all.
ML/NJ
The treatment of Exodus is a prime example. The biblical date for Exodus is 1461 B.C. The archologists say the assumed date is 1200; they then say there is no evidence for occupation of Israel in 1200; no evidence of a destruction of Jericho in 1200; and no evidence of the Israelites in Egypt or leaving Egypt in that time frame; therefore no Exodus.
If you back the event up to the biblical date on the other hand, first thing you find is a destruction of Jericho in which the walls fall outward at the end of the 15th Century B.C. You find capitive second nation labor in Egypt in the early 15th Century and late 16th Century; and you find writing of plagues that look like the biblical description at the middle of the 15th Century exactly where the bible says you should find them. The real archological evidence is there on and in the ground--the problem is that the archologists are antigonistic to the Bible and to God and do not want to find it.