[Fyron]

When you are talking about centuries to millennia of time difference, a few years (even decades) do not matter.

Don't be so literal. Would you prefer if I used the term "composed" instead of "written"? I was not necessarily refering to the actual act of writing them down, but when they were created.

It seems this is so only because you have already decided that this is so. If you believe that accurate prediction is impossible, then we're already done here. But not on the basis that we have reason to doubt what happened a few thousand years ago, but because you have a world view that excludes the possibility that the writers were not lying.

They were not necessarily lying, so much as distorting the facts just enough to get their message across.

I have seen 0 evidence that the stories were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) before the events took place, and plenty of evidence that they were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) after they took place.

But why do you believe this? If it's because of an expert opinion, please, for your own sake, check your source(s). If you have some good sources (or if you're a historian yourself) then please, share and enlighten us all!! If it's because you believe that anything supernatural is impossible, then it really isn't about the authorship at all.

As I already said, I am not a historian, and I do not have any history books at present. So, I can not at present cite you sources that will prove what I am saying about when these things occured. I am certain that if I spent the time to find them, I could find more of them than you ever wanted to see.

I know this because I have learned enough about ancient history to be able to place things in a relative timeline, and the (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) of the stories/books of the Bible happened well after the events that Rags posted in the original thread that the Bible supposedly predicted.

quote:

---

You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there.

Nope guess not. But not much to argue against you either as you have no hard evidence to show me. You claim you have, just as I have claimed. But claims alone are not enough.

---

The difference is that if I wanted to, I could find enough hard evidence to support my statements from reliable sources, as they are factual. You, on the other hand, would not be able to because your claims are not factual. I am sure you could find sources that make the same claims you have, but you could find sources making just about any claim you can think of.

But now that this is over. At least for me... I notice you took your rating system off.

If you want to stop the debate, stop posting things that require responses.

Only one person that gave me a 1 rating fessed up to it. The other people have remained silent. If they are too cowardly to come forth, then there is no point in giving them the satisfaction of seeing my rating drop. Actually, it would probably be best if the rating system was disabled entirely. It serves no real purpose, except as a cheap shot for petty people that don't like people disagreeing with them.