# How does this fit in with Creationist arguments **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127 "2010-01-15T21:44:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/1 "2010-01-15T21:44:13Z")
(mods, feel free to move if this is the wrong place) [Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests](http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100115/sc_livescience/biblepossiblywrittencenturiesearliertextsuggests) > [@](#): > > Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing - an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David’s reign. > > The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible’s Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.) > > Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month. What implications, if any, does this have for those who argue divine creation? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/2 "2010-01-15T21:51:07Z")
, posting just to subscribe… ---
**Author:** ![pan1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pan1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pan1)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/3 "2010-01-15T21:53:16Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > (mods, feel free to move if this is the wrong place) > > [Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests](http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100115/sc_livescience/biblepossiblywrittencenturiesearliertextsuggests) > > What implications, if any, does this have for those who argue divine creation? I don’t see a connection between finding older old testaments and the divine creation. The date of creation is based on correlating the events of the bible to actual known history and extrapolating using bad archeology. Just finding texts 400 years older doesn’t change any of that. ---
**Author:** ![Lanzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/74df32/32.png) [@Lanzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lanzy)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/4 "2010-01-15T21:54:44Z")
What facts of any kind have ever mattered to those that believe in devine creation? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/5 "2010-01-15T21:59:42Z")
Since this is a religious rather than a factual issue, I’m going to move this from GQ to GD. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/6 "2010-01-15T22:00:35Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > I don’t see a connection between finding older old testaments and the divine creation. Maybe my question was less than clear. There are many organizations that purport to offer “science” to justify the Bible’s literalness as proof of how the world was created in 7 days, evolution is not real, etc. It is a mini-industry really 🙂 So I wonder how those most familiar with the details of the approaches of those organizations would react to this news. Would they simply deny the news to keep their prior 'theories"? Doe this new data not really conflict with with the “theories” anyway? Would they try to modify the “theories” that, as I understand it, are divinely created, and hence unchangeable because they arose from the “literal” interpretation" of the Bible? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/7 "2010-01-15T22:05:12Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > So I wonder how those most familiar with the details of the approaches of those organizations would react to this news. Would they simply deny the news to keep their prior 'theories"? My guess would be this. They’ll likely either ignore it, or claim it to be a fraud. Created by evil-utionists or Satan to fool them; or by God to test their faith. You can’t convince people with facts who think in religious fanatic/conspiracy theorist mode. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/8 "2010-01-15T22:11:36Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > ou can’t convince people with facts who think in religious fanatic/conspiracy theorist mode. Sure, but you can anticipate their behavior and re-direct it for your own benefit… ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/9 "2010-01-15T22:21:28Z")
As far as I’ve seen, the Young Earth Creationists take their timeline from the _contents_ of the Bible, not from any physical evidence. IIRC, they count up the generations listed in the Bible and figure backwards from Jesus’s birth. I don’t remember the details of how many years per generation. I do recall that the years per generation changes, because people lived longer before the Flood y’know. So this information isn’t really going to affect anything. It’s either within the timeframe that they claim and doesn’t really matter, or it’s outside that timeframe and they’ll ignore it just like they do all the other evidence. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/10 "2010-01-15T22:32:56Z")
It only pushes back by a few 100 years the date for which portions of the Bible might have been written down. The only thing I can see this really doing is possibly confirming/debunking some historical facts in the Bible. But unless you get close to the point of creation (thousands of years earlier, according even to YECs), then it really doesn’t affect creationism one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/11 "2010-01-15T23:16:25Z")
I should think they’d be perfectly happy. Isn’t the very latest date for creation over 4000 years BC? Actual written Hebrew from the date of King David would be thrilling. Assuming it doesn’t say something like “I just rewrote the entire book of Genesis, ahahahahah, signed Yusuf the scribe” it will be great news. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/12 "2010-01-15T23:56:34Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > IIRC, they count up the generations listed in the Bible and figure backwards from Jesus’s birth. I don’t remember the details of how many years per generation. I do recall that the years per generation changes, because people lived longer before the Flood y’know. Jesus’ birth has not been fixed (it’s estimated between 7 and 3 BC, which is actually fairly conservative) , and would not be used. And it’s not like all Creationists are Christian, or have you not heard of the [Jewish Calendar](http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm) and [anno mundi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_mundi)? Figuring out what even they used to fixed the calendar seems to be beyond me, but I do know that the generations in the Bible actually list how many years each person lived before they gave birth to the next. Well, they do in Genesis proper, at least. From what I gather, a fairly representative calculation can be made from using the Jewish year (which will be 5771 near the vernal equinox), add in the discrepancy between when it and secular sources date the fall of the first (Solomon’s) temple ([165 years\*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Years_(Hebrew_calendar))). Taking into account that Adam was created in 2 AM for some reason, that says it has been 5,931 years since Creation. Finding writing from only 3,000 years ago isn’t going to change anything. If anything, it will give them legitimacy, as specific parts of the Bible were supposed to have been written during the time of David. \*I actually knew this from an end-times prophecy book my mom got from some Jewish friends. In it, the idea is that, since 1000 years is to the Lord but a day, the 6000th year corresponds to the year when God rested, and thus the end of the world will start. It made more sense in the book.) ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/13 "2010-01-16T00:16:34Z")
It’s not the Bible, it’s just Hebrew, and indicates that at least one literate Hebrew speaker, or his boss, was already concerned about the welfare of widows, orphans, slaves, and the poor. It proves that the age of the oldest biblical writings is not limited to 500 BCE by the development of Hebrew as a language, but not that those writings are any older than previously believed. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/14 "2010-01-16T17:13:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It only pushes back by a few 100 years the date for which portions of the Bible might have been written down. The only thing I can see this really doing is possibly confirming/debunking some historical facts in the Bible. But unless you get close to the point of creation (thousands of years earlier, according even to YECs), then it really doesn’t affect creationism one way or the other. That is exactly right. This find suggests that certain Biblical documents were written at an earlier date than what was originally expected. This would have positive implications for the reliability of the Biblical texts, but it ultimately has no bearing (whether positive or negative) on creationism. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/15 "2010-01-16T17:57:38Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Maybe my question was less than clear. > > There are many organizations that purport to offer “science” to justify the Bible’s literalness as proof of how the world was created in 7 days, evolution is not real, etc. It is a mini-industry really 🙂 > > So I wonder how those most familiar with the details of the approaches of those organizations would react to this news. Would they simply deny the news to keep their prior 'theories"? Doe this new data not really conflict with with the “theories” anyway? Would they try to modify the “theories” that, as I understand it, are divinely created, and hence unchangeable because they arose from the “literal” interpretation" of the Bible? Can you spell out more explicitly why you think the discovery of biblical texts written in 1000BC would be evidence against creationism? I don’t see the connection. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/16 "2010-01-16T18:31:15Z")
There is none. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/17 "2010-01-17T08:29:01Z")
I agree with **JThunder** - I don’t see any relationship to creationist anything. I thought there was more reason to think the Bible was brought together at this time than just the existence of Hebrew - clues inside the text, for instance. The combining of incompatible stories argues strongly, I think, that parts of the Bible long predated this period - if not, there wouldn’t be much of a reason to include them, would there? Plus, parts of Genesis seem to indicate a very different view of God than seen in the Prophetic writings closer to the date the Bible was collected. This is just an opinion, but I’d be very surprised if parts did not predate this period by hundreds of years. After all, the epic of Gilgamesh, from which the Flood story came, seems to have been around in 2,000 BCE. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-this-fit-in-with-creationist-arguments/525127/18 "2010-01-24T01:13:05Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > What implications, if any, does this have for those who argue divine creation? Not much. It just moves the early bits of the Bible back to being the myths of David’s generation or even Joshua’s, rather than something confected during the reign of Josiah &/or the Babylonian Exile. [reads more of thread] Oh! Yeah, I don’t think hardcore Biblical literalists have ever taken seriously scholarly ideas of when the Bible was really written.