Chat with a creationist

[Abishalom]

---

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.

Well I was just asking because it seemed to be that way. So I apologize if that's not the case. Anyway, you're right, it's irrelevant to my main point.

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.

Well I'm not knowledgeable in this field either but I do not see what that has to do with the FACT that Archaeologist (the experts) find a Hebrew artifact dated to the 10th century BC. I think you're confusing something being "consistent" with something being "identical". I said it is consistent with the OT.

Here's the translation...

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

The message present here is consistent throughout the bible. Here are a few verses corroborating this theme...

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/poor.htm

This is not exhaustive as it focuses mainly on the poor. But this should be sufficient enough to support my point.

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.

First of all I made no such statement that "the exact scripture we have now were the exact ones around then" (for some reason you keep trying to keep this assertion into the discussion). Especially if you consider the fact that the OT could not have been completed until the 2nd century BC at the latest (since the Septuagint was complete by then). We found a Hebrew artifact with a similar message found in the OT that was dated 10th century BC (earlier than generally accept among scholars). Please explain to me how we "cannot say just yet" that the scriptures were not around yet. I am not saying the scriptures were complete 10th century BC (because they were not) but they must have been already in circulation by that time. Are you insisting that this is not a plausible explanation?