RE: Chat with a creationist
May 4, 2012 at 9:53 pm
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm by Abishalom.)
(May 4, 2012 at 9:13 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: No, I'm not confusing the two. I made it quite clear that I distinguished between consistent and identical. Just because the message might be consistent (not identical) does not prove that it came from any OT books as we know it today, and that those OT books that it's consistent with must then predate that 10th century pottery. What if both the OT books and the pottery have another older source or sources in common?Well then you must be misunderstanding the argument. I never said the artifact inscription must have came from the OT we have today. I said that there must have been scripture already in circulation since AT LEAST 10th century BC. Like I previously said the OT was completed by at least 2nd century BC (when the Septuagint was completed). But the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original Hebrew, so there was obviously scripture already available at the time.
As I've said before, I'm not knowledgable in this field, and I could very well be wrong. It's just that saying that a fragment proves the existence of some books of the Bible being from the 10th century BC seems like a huge leap to me.
It may be 'just a fragment". But it's a fragment (of something larger obviously) written in Hebrew FOUND IN ISRAEL that contained themes not present in neighboring cultures (ie. protect the widow, orphan, stranger poor and oppressed etc) and was dated to the 10th century BC. These themes just so happen to be in the bible we know today. Obviously these concepts have been around for a while. That's not a huge leap...well maybe it is for you. But let's just say it is a "huge leap", then what would be more plausible other than "we don't know" (more like we don't want to know)?
