The last year of it. The very next year — 601BC — is considered 7th Cent. BC.
So you admit I was correct when I said it was 6th C BC.
The latest study of the scrolls produced a date of "immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE. According to a leading expert, the study should "settle any controversy over [the date of] these inscriptions".
And that was just for the copy!
You said this before, but you have still to explain how we know the scroll is a copy and not the original.
Besides, you stated “all the evidence suggests a date around 5th-6th C BC.” That is wrong.
In which case you will be able to present evidence that shows it was written earlier.
“Bears similarity”? It’s word for word.
No it isn't. The text is incomplete so no such assertion can be made. It is described as having "Biblical parallels".
This is really the only valid point here.
Indeed. And one you have still failed to demonstrate.
Never heard that excuse before. You are stretching.
I asked you how you know it is a copy and not an original, given that it is the oldest known text of its kind.
I see you can't provide an answer. Interesting...
It depends on the person relating the experience….
No it doesn't. It depends on the claim and the evidence to support it.
For an extraordinary statement coming from an anonymous source — like you or I sitting behind a computer screen — or one who is a known substance abuser — No way.
But for highly respected people to even admit to such “extraordinary claims” — claims that could seriously damage that respect — their claims carry more weight.
Throughout the centuries, there have been too many, to arbitrarily discount.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
It is irrelevant how many people claim to have seen ghosts. There has never been any evidence to support those claims and every attempt to demonstrate them has failed.
Sometimes, if you can't find what you are looking for, it's because it isn't there.
