Chat with a creationist

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

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.

Firstly, I'm not "insisting" or "desiring" anything. Even if I was, that's irrelevant. You have to defeat my arguments, not my motives. Motives don't affect the validity of my argument.

Look, again, I'm not knowledgeable in this field, I'm just finding the arguments in the pop science articles you linked to very lacking. You said the inscription is consistent with several Bible passages. It doesn't match identically with any of them. This seems to me to be assuming that if you find something consistent with something out of a few books of the OT, then those OT books must have come first. From what I understand, if any sort of Hebrew scripture was around then, we cannot say just yet that it was the same scriptures we have today.