Chat with a creationist

[Jaysyn]

You are unbelievable. You were looking for a discussion and you got one that you personally could not refute. So rather than seriously consider what was being said, your plea is for one of your peers to supply you with a come back so you can continue with an argument that has exceeded your abilities.

Yeah, don't you just hate theists who keep digging into a problem to get to the truth?

ProTip: Applied to ANY OTHER EFFORT, what he did would be considered resourceful.

We can easily see how far from the light of reason you have strayed.

[Minimalist]

So where is that Hebrew fucking Bible of yours?

I figured by now that you'd have the tablets of the 10 fucking commandments.

I am always disappointed by religious shits who can't deliver on their promises.

[Gooders1002]

well thank-you for the constructive criticism. Look like I have more to learn before I can truly debate/destroy there argument.

[Abishalom]

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

[Abishalom]

[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.

[Aegrus]

Perhaps this is a nit-pick, but they used carbon dating to date the ancient hebrew texts. Surely fundies aren't saying that we should TRUST carbon dating now?

Anyway, it seems that the religious side has actually been correct about the date of the hebrew texts. I'll need to re-read the rest of this thread to see what the significance of that is, however. . .

---

Right. I re-read the thread, and. . . there doesn't seem to be much significance to the date of the texts. Some of the stories in the bible are very old, yes. It now seems likely that some were in hebrew before Greek. That doesn't prove that they're valid. They're still just very old stories.

Will someone explain to me why this is a major argument?

[Abishalom]

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]