Chat with a creationist

[Abishalom]

...

http://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-po...gests.html
http://digitaljournal.com/article/285265
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...091035.htm

I'm not very knowledgable in matters of archeology and manuscripts, but my first impression is how does a little fragment of some verses that somewhat matches verses in the Bible, prove any of the OT scriptures existed back then in their final form? I think the most popularly excepted theory of scholars is that the OT was composed from many different earlier sources. What if this fragment is just another one of the early sources?

Basically the logic I'm hearing is:

Fragment found,
Therefore, Bible was developed the way it says it was developed.

No I think your logic might be a tad bit off. Maybe you can point out where you read that at.

Let's examine the facts...

Scholars widely believed that the Bible could not have been written earlier than 6th century BC.
Archaeologists find Hebrew artifact with a message consistent with several bible verses that was dated 10th century BC.

So in spite of this discovery are you trying to insist (perhaps desiring) that the bible still could not have been written prior 6th century BC? What conclusion should we draw if we find a 3,000 year old artifact with a Hebrew inscription consistent with several bible verses? The logical conclusion seems to be that it is plausible that the Hebrew scriptures were already around AT LEAST since the 10th century BC.