[_ Old Earth _] The creation of light

[VaultZero4Me]

Though I won't be putting my 2 cents in here because I know very little of the Ebla Tablets, I am following your posts.

Thanks for those few words of encouragement! Part 3 follows:

The Ebla Tablets (Continued)

An important point to make is that the source for most of the evidence on the Ebla tablets that the sites that argue the tablets as confirming evidence for the Bible appears to be the same: reports and lectures in 1976 by the University of Rome’s archaeological team’s then epigrapher Professor Giovanni Pettinato on his work on translating the tablets and, to a lesser extent, remarks attributed to the head of the team, Professor Paolo Matthiae.....*edited short to condense my reply

In your research, did you find anyone making claims of biblical support from the Ebla tablets based on new findings, or are all of the claims still based on the early information which your sources seem to suggest were found erroneous?

 

[BobRyan]

....my argument is that given the debunking of the just-say-nay claims against the Bible as seen in archaeology -- and that you seem to have no interest at all in researching - there is an amazing similarity to your approach and the one we see all atheists making on this same topic!

I am happy to research specific claims that you wish to support with examples

Thanks. We will get to those ... for now I am just happy to see you continuing to admit that being aware of these sources -- you have no initiative -- no motivation - no interest in looking into the Bible confirmation that they provide.

This goes to your "motive" your clearly biased approach to the text --

Your tactics are amazingly identical to those of our atheist friends on the same point.

I am just curious as to your excuse for it since I "think" you claim that you are neither atheist or agnostic.

My how things have "turned out".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

In your research, did you find anyone making claims of biblical support from the Ebla tablets based on new findings, or are all of the claims still based on the early information which your sources seem to suggest were found erroneous?

The short answer is no. As far as I can determine all such sites that I looked at that referenced the Ebla tablets depend on the Ebla team's 1976 lectures and press releases. It is possible that some use may also have been made of articles and books written by Professor Pettinato in 1977, 1981 and 1991, but in the absence of citations and references there is no way of knowing this; however, insofar as the sites make virtually the same claims as each other and those claims coincide pretty much with the material in the 1976 press releases and lectures, it seems unlikely. It is clearly the case that more detailed research and work subsequent to 1976 has largely overturned the early conclusions of the University of Rome team; nothing I have been able to find online suggests otherwise.

 

[lordkalvan]

My how things have "turned out".

Do you have a point to make? You suggested I look at the Ebla tablets in the context of your unsupported assertions that they validated biblical text that unspecified 'nay-sayers' had claimed was lacking in historical support and thus of doubtful validity. This I did, in the course of which you directed a certain amount of abuse in my direction as I failed to carry out my analysis according to your wishes. Unfortunately for your argument, the evidence available from the current state of scholarly research and understanding about the Ebla tablets is that they do not do what you claim they do, i.e. they do not validate biblical text in any significant way. What am I supposed to do about this? Ignore the research and accept the claims based on the early work at Ebla simply because this sits more comfortably with you and your prejudices and assumptions? Is it my fault if you took the assertions about the Ebla tablets at their face value and made no effort at further research on the subject? If all you are looking for is doctrinal compliance by all and sundry with your preferred view of the Bible, I don't really know why you are posting in a forum that is supposedly concerned with science and Christianity; you certainly seem to have no interest at all in this case of following where the data leads (now where have I heard that phrase before?).

 

[lordkalvan]

I have continued trying to unearth more up-to-date references to Ebla on the Web and came across an Australian radio interview on 22 August 2004 with Professor Gary Rendsburg, Blanche & Irving Laurie Professor of Jewish History at Rutgers University, with special interest in literary approaches to the Bible, the history of ancient Israel, and the literature and culture of ancient Egypt.

The interview dealt with a number of aspects of the Ebla research, touching on matters related to the Bible a few times. The interviewer, Rachael Kohn, asked Professor Rendsburg if anything like the epic of Gilgamesh had been found. Rendsburg replied that nothing like this had been found, indeed

.....nothing of great literature per se... We’re really looking mainly at these kind of administrative texts which record the economy of the city.....

Rachael Kohn subsequently asked Professor Rendsburg if there was anything about the life of Ebla that showed a connection to descriptions of life in the Bible. Rendsburg's reply was discouraging:

No direct connections. ....the Bible’s attested from a much later period, so we’re talking about a time which is 1,000 years or so before Abraham, depending when one dates Abraham, certainly about 1200 years before Moses, and of course later Biblical figures like David and Solomon would be even later down the chronological record. So nothing of direct consequence.

The last reference of interest came when Rachael Kohn questioned Professor Rendsburg about whether any codes of law similar to Hammurabi’s Code and the code of law in the Torah had been found at Ebla. Rendsburg's reply was unequivocal:

....no great legal texts. There’s no collections of laws.

We can piece together certain legal practices perhaps based on these texts, but I should mention that these texts are not easy to read, and so we’re just beginning to piece some of those things together, and trying to figure out what a particular word might mean in such a context.

This interview reinforces the findings I have referenced in my previous post that show the shift in the scholarly understanding of the Ebla tablets that has taken place in the last thirty years and that indicates initial claims that the tablets validated certain parts of biblical text were misplaced.

All quotations from: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/ark/stories/s1177799.htm

 

[Orion]

............*cough*........... :smt069

 

[Gabe]

Thanks Lk for taking time out to research the ebla tablets. It may not seem like it at times but it is appreciated even by some of us Christians

God bless

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Yes excellent work.

I think it highlights a great point that everyone can agree on.

Sometimes, people can be so eager in their research on an idea, that they let bias cloud their judgement.

This is something that affects any research, from medicine, to decent theory, and even down to our choice of friends and significant others.

The test though, is willingness to abandon your conclusions once enough contradictory evidence is shown.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thanks Lk for taking time out to research the ebla tablets. It may not seem like it at times but it is appreciated even by some of us Christians

Thanks, GA, your appreciation is welcomed.

 

[Orion]

Yes, very interesting stuff, lordKalvan. And I agree that often people jump on "a bandwagon" when the "bandwagon" doesn't even have wheels on it.

I DO feel for those who get caught up in whatever hype they find themselves in, though. Not just this, but anything that can't stand up to critizism and ultimately leads to disappointment. I would never gloat over such a person, and I'm sure no one else on this thread would either. A bunch of great people here!!

 

[BobRyan]

At this link the wild claims of L.K that the just-say-nay groups were NOT questioning the fact that writing existed at the time of Moses -- was totally debunked.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=150#p396889

Good point for L.K to ignore if he wants to continue to make his point.

And yet in this response below he unwittingly admits to the very data in Ebla that so consistently debunks that just-say-nay-to-the-Bible argument documented above - for the date of the writing of Ebla fully establishes and agrees with the fact that writing existed at the time of Moses.

Hint Moses is writing around 1500 B.C.

The interview dealt with a number of aspects of the Ebla research, touching on matters related to the Bible a few times. The interviewer, Rachael Kohn, asked Professor Rendsburg if anything like the epic of Gilgamesh had been found. Rendsburg replied that nothing like this had been found, indeed

.....nothing of great literature per se... We’re really looking mainly at these kind of administrative texts which record the economy of the city.....

Rachael Kohn subsequently asked Professor Rendsburg if there was anything about the life of Ebla that showed a connection to descriptions of life in the Bible. Rendsburg's reply was discouraging:

[quote:1vvq5pyt]No direct connections. ....the Bible’s attested from a much later period, so we’re talking about a time which is 1,000 years or so before Abraham, depending when one dates Abraham, certainly about 1200 years before Moses, and of course later Biblical figures like David and Solomon would be even later down the chronological record. So nothing of direct consequence.

[/quote:1vvq5pyt]

 

[BobRyan]

I have reflected on Bob's remarks on the Ebla Tablets and begun to look at their history and origins.

What a refreshing turn in motive and initiative. It will be interesting to see how your approach to the evidence differs from an Atheist.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p396489

I would argue that it is still "interesting" to see just how L.K's always-just-say-nay solution differs from the atheist's.

How facinating that like our atheist friends you completely ignore the evidence about Sodom and Gomorrah about the kings about the ancient city of Jerusalem and dozens of other "Bible confirming facts" only useful in "ignoring them entirely" when our atheist friends look at those same facts. The just-say-nay groups see them only as "problems to be solved".

notice also that this is a pagan city -- and the Chrisitan POV is never in the form of atheist claims that "Pagans are more reliable than the Bible".

Just pointing out the obvious here.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p396570

Which brings us "back to the point" the one where we look at the areas where Ebla and other Bibl archaeology finds have confirmed the Bible against hte background of "just-say-nay" arguments from atheists and agnostics -- and those who unwittingly follow them.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

At this link we found a wonderful "fact to be ignored" by L.K as once again just-say-nay arguments fell in the dust when exposed to "the light of discovery".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p396573

==================================================================================

From your own site reference -- never quoted in your "just-say-nay" arguments--

Well, the discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. During the excavations of the palace in 1975, the excavators found a large library (royal archive room), filled with tablets dating from 2400 -2300 BC.

Nearly 15,000 tablets and fragments were found, but when joined together they will constitute about 2,500 tablets. These tablets demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. For years, critics said that the name 'Canaan' was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible, that the term was never used at this time in history, proving that it was a late insertion and that the earliest books were not written in the times that are described. But in the Ebla tablets, the word “Canaan†does appear, contrary to the critics claim. The tablets proved that the term was actually used in ancient Syria during the time in which the Old Testament was written.

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/T ... ologically

Another Bible confirming detail -- taken from your OWN site but never referenced by you in your just-say-nay arguments that followed --

In addition, critics also claimed that the word 'Tehom' ('the deep' in Genesis 1:2) was also a late addition demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. But 'Tehom' was part of the vocabulary at Ebla as well, in use some 800 years before Moses! In fact, there is a creation record in the Ebla Tablets that is remarkably similar to the Genesis account! In addition this, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (once thought to be pure fiction) are also identified in the Ebla tablets, as well as the city of Haran. This latter city is described in Genesis as the city of Abram’s father, Terah. Prior to this discovery, ‘scholars’ doubted the presence of the ancient city.

And yes... there is much more!!

==============================================================

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

While trying to "solve the problem of Sodom" and Gomorrah -- L.K is diligent not to present any scholarship at all on the subject showing that they did not exist.

On the contrary those who favor trust in the Word of God -- find this discovery in 1975 to be "of interest" rather than "a problem to be solved".

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a007.html

Note from the Wiki article on this topic

William Shea points out in 1983 that on the 'Eblaite Geographical Atlas' [TM.75.G.2231], ad-mu-ut and sa-dam are good readings by Pettinato and correspond to Admah and Sodom, and they are contained in a list of cities that traces a route along the shores of, or quite possibly within the Dead Sea, whose position may have since shifted along its fault.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_ ... ite_note-9

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, if your last posts bore any relevance to the points I made in my discussion of the Ebla tablets I would respond to them, but as they don't there seems to be little point in discussing the matter with you. I am sorry you are so unhappy with the fact that your argument that the Ebla tablets refute Bible nay-sayers has been shown to be out-dated and quite simply wrong, but until you can demonstrate in some way that the current understanding of the Ebla tablets is at fault I guess you will just have to live with it.

ETA: And, Bob, just to stress the irrelevance of your recent posts, the whole point of this discussion was to determine the accuracy of your claim that the Ebla tablets refute biblical nay-sayers - a claim clearly demonstrated to be hollow and poorly researched - not 'to "solve the problem of Sodom" and Gomorrah', whatever you mean by this non sequitur. Unless you failed to notice the sentences preceding and following your Wiki reference, by the way, here is the relevant paragraph in full (my bolding):

In 1976 Giovanni Pettinato claimed that a cuneiform tablet that had been found in the newly discovered library at Ebla contained the names of all five of the Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela), listed in the same order as in Genesis. The names si-da-mu [TM.76.G.524] and ì-ma-ar [TM.75.G.1570 and TM.75.G.2233] were identified as representing Sodom and Gomorrah, which gained some acceptance at the time. However, Alfonso Archi states that, judging from the surrounding city names in the cuneiform list, si-da-mu lies in northern Syria and not near the Dead Sea, and ì-ma-ar is a variant of ì-mar, known to represent Emar, an ancient city located near Ebla. William Shea points out in 1983 that on the 'Eblaite Geographical Atlas' [TM.75.G.2231], ad-mu-ut and sa-dam are good readings by Pettinato and correspond to Admah and Sodom, and they are contained in a list of cities that traces a route along the shores of, or quite possibly within the Dead Sea, whose position may have since shifted along its fault. Today, the scientific consensus is reported as being that "Ebla has no bearing on ... Sodom and Gomorra".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

 

[lordkalvan]

As it has been 14 days since I made my last post in respect of the Ebla tablets following Bob's half-hearted attack on my conclusions (what price Richard Dawkins' 11 second 'flummox' in relation to this period of elapsed time?), I think it reasonable to summarize the conclusions I drew from the online material I looked at.

Following a certain amount of goading by Bob in which he asserted that 'They [whoever 'They' may be - LK] have been working on them since the 1970's and many "just-say-nay" claims about the Bible have been and are being debunked in the process' and that my failure to look at 'the Ebla tablets is an example that exposes the lack of genuine due diligence in your argument', I decided to spend some time researching the subject as best I could from online resources.

• In the first instance it became clear that the context of the Ebla tablets - c. 2400-2240 BC - the dating of the building in which they were discovered - c. 2500-2000 BC - and the date of the original settlement at Ebla - perhaps as early as c. 3500 BC and certainly before c. 3000 BC - put into serious doubt a short YEC chronology for the history of humanity (at c. 6000 years) and rendered wholly untenable the only dates I have seen Bob put forward for the Noachian Flood, i.e. about 4500 and about 4620 years ago. The population estimated for the Kingdom of Ebla at the time to which the tablets are dated - over 250,000 persons - and the fact that Ebla was but one of many kingdoms and empires known to exist in the Near and Middle East and other parts of the world at this time makes population growth figures based on the eight Flood survivors alone wholly incredible in the timescale available. Indeed, dating evidence from Ebla - none of which I have seen contested by those sites which acclaim the Ebla tablets for the fact that the very antiquity of the information they allegedly contain supports Old Testament details which have otherwise been regarded skeptically - indicates that Ebla passed through the time of the Noachian Flood without being affected by it at all.

• Secondly, it became equally clear that those sites that I looked at that acclaimed the Ebla tablets for their Bible-confirming facts based that acclaim on early results made public by the Ebla archaeological team in and around 1976, and possibly on material published later by the team's then epigrapher, Professor Giovanni Pettinato (though none of the sites reviewed cited Professor Pettinato's published work at all, so this is a wholly unsupported assumption). None of the sites made any reference to the further research and study undertaken since the mid-1970s that have determined that the earlier findings were premature and based on mistranslations and misinterpretations of the tablets, to the extent that the scholarly consensus on the subject now is that the Ebla tablets have no bearing at all on the text of the Old Testament.

• It was also the case that even relatively minor claims on behalf of the Ebla tablets, such as their disproving unnamed critics who doubted the existence of writing or law codes at the time of Moses, were shown to be ill-founded as overwhelming evidence for both writing and law codes existing in the Near and Middle East long before the time of Moses was well known long before the Ebla tablets ever came to light.

Therefore, from the evidence available it is reasonable to conclude that the claims Bob made in respect of the Ebla tablets were poorly researched and entirely misleading. The Ebla tablets are an important historical archive and it is not impossible that further research and study may discover some connections between the information they contain and the Old Testament. At present, however, the connections claimed are based on out-dated information and the sites making claims about the Ebla tablets apparently using as their principle source only the 1976 reports would be well-advised to revise and up-date those claims.

 

[Gabe]

: Bob, the ways in which you choose to crop and present quotes in your posts are very "instructive"

 

[BobRyan]

First of all one can not help but be impressed by the harmony that Gabriel Ali and L.K find in their efforts to redicule and attack the Bible.

Meanwhile -- there are those readers on this board who actually have objective interest in truth.

What information are THEY interested in? Well let's see if we can find some -

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan†was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deepâ€Â) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom†was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom†(Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness†nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Sadly for our bible-denying friends -- this information is merely a "problem to be solved".

Let's see how long it takes them to come up with a story.

The most documented Biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood.


Ancient tablet listing the Sumerian kings
[More information]The Sumerian King List for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed.

The Story of Adapa tells of a test for immortality involving food, similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language as we have in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). There was a golden age when all mankind spoke the same language. Speech was then confused by the god Enki, lord of wisdom. The Babylonians had a similar account in which the gods destroyed a temple tower and “scattered them abroad and made strange their speech.â€Â

More examples of extra-Biblical confirmation of Biblical events
Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.

Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.

Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.
Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.

Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.
Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.

Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.

Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.

Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.

Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html

So far we have ONE person on this thread recently willing to lift a finger to see what is already in plain sight confirming the text of the Word of God.

Sad that those who seek to disparage the text should find such quick agreement in their methods and tactics.

But let us ask this question of them "what if you are wrong?".

Bob

 

[Gabe]

Bob, I have never attacked or ridiculed the Holy Bible on this or any other forum so I would appreciate it if you would stop making such silly claims, and I cannot speak for L.K but I am not aware of him doing such a thing either. Being critical of something and ridiculing something is not the same thing.

I was a Muslim for 21 years and have now been a Christian for the last few. I have never doubted the historical existence of Jesus or that he was and is the Christ, the difference now being that I also believe in his deity.

Just because someone does not always agree with your views or with the way in which you choose to present them does not always mean that they have an Atheist agenda.

 

[lordkalvan]

First of all one can not help but be impressed by the harmony that Gabriel Ali and L.K find in their efforts to redicule and attack the Bible.

Is it a conspiracy, Bob? Why is it that anyone who dares disagree with your assertions and ill-founded claims is accused of attacking and ridiculing the Bible?

Meanwhile -- there are those readers on this board who actually have objective interest in truth.

But quite demonstrably not yourself.

What information are THEY interested in? Well let's see if we can find some -

Much more interesting than actually responding to the arguments I made based on the information I uncovered after actually doing something that you clearly never have, i.e. researching the current state of knowledge and understanding of the Ebla tablets. But then that would mean you would have to confront the fact that your claims about the Ebla tablets were ill-founded and entirely outdated.

You quoted this:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan†was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deepâ€Â) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom†was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

Which leads me to ask, what part of

However, much of the initial media excitement about supposed Eblaite connections with the Bible, based on preliminary guesses and speculations by Pettinato and others, is now widely deplored as "exceptional and unsubstantiated claims" and "great amounts of disinformation that leaked to the public". Contrary to many earlier claims, the present consensus is that "Ebla has no bearing on the Minor Prophets, the historical accuracy of the biblical Patriarchs, Yahweh worship, or Sodom and Gomorra". In Ebla studies, the focus has shifted away from comparisons with the Bible, and Ebla is now studied above all as an incipient civilization in its own right.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla

do you not understand? Making the same old assertion about the Ebla tablets that has already been unequivocally refuted is supposed to demonstrate what exactly?

I have snipped the remainder of your quotation as it bears no direct relevance to the subject under discussion, i.e. the extent to which the Ebla tablets support the Old Testament text. I am sure you wish to divert attention from the Ebla tablets as quickly as possible, but it would be a courtesy if you attempted to deal with the points I raised about the Ebla tablets or at least had the honesty to admit that your assertion about them was quite simply wrong.

Sadly for our bible-denying friends -- this information is merely a "problem to be solved".

As opposed to swallowing anything that supposedly supports the Bible wholly uncritically? What service is that to anyone? How does that enhance our understanding of the Bible except to demonstrate a nascent terror of anything that disturbs our cosy preconceptions and assumptions?

Again I am not responding to your additional material at this stage because it is clearly posted as a diversion from the subject under discussion - the Ebla tablets.

So far we have ONE person on this thread recently willing to lift a finger to see what is already in plain sight confirming the text of the Word of God.

Would that be you, Bob? It's a pity that you're unable to bring the same level of penetrating criticism to material that supposedly supports your arguments that you bring to material that you find less appealing to your beliefs.

Sad that those who seek to disparage the text should find such quick agreement in their methods and tactics.

More mud-slinging substituting for reasoned argument. That others can see the weaknesses in your arguments, the paucity of some of your claims, and the lack of evidence to support many of your assertions does not mean that their faith is any less commendable than your own. Are you incapable of facing up to criticism of your arguments without forever falling back on wholly unsupported accusations about the motivations of those making the criticisms? Your implication that anyone who finds fault with your opinions must be conspiring against you in some way and attacking Christianity from an atheistic perspective is puerile, ungracious and insulting.

But let us ask this question of them "what if you are wrong?".

I am always willing to admit the possibility of error and to discuss reasonably alternative points of view and lines of evidence. It seems to be the case that this is something you are both unable and unwilling to do yourself. Deal with the specific issues arising from my analysis of the Ebla tablets or stop making your baseless assertions about their significance for the text of the Old Testament.