The Hebrew Scriptures are scientifically inaccurate

I hope it is interesting. I have identified a few contentions you presented in your opening arguments: 1) Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (Torah) 2) It seems that Moses did not exist 3) Noah's flood did not occur and was probably taken from earlier traditions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh I will address these three in that order. 1) Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (Torah). This comes from Jewish (mostly Orthodox) tradition. It is not a scientific fact of the Hebrew scriptures, and thus has no place in this debate. Even as one who practices Judaism, I recognize that Moses could not have been the author of the Pentateuch. After all, it records his death in the past tense. Not only do I hold that Moses is not the author of the Torah, but I hold that multiple authors wrote the Torah. . http://www.haaretz.com... It is likely that the Torah was added to over time. The scientific accuracy of the Torah is not dependent on who wrote it, and to some extent, when it was written. I find it interesting that the majority of your argument focused on a point that we completely agree on. 2) It seems that Moses did not exist It is true that there is little archaeological evidence for the historical figure of Moses. The fact that no direct evidence exists is circumstantial evidence. The French Expert on Egypt, Nicolas Grimal, provides circumstantial evidence from Egyptian recorded history. . http://www.biblicalchronologist.org... The professor emeritus of Anthropology at the University of California, Brian Fagan, wrote about the existence of Moses controversy in his book The Seventy Great Mysteries of the Ancient World . http://www.barnesandnoble.com... "There is little evidence for the conquest of the promised and as related int he books of Joshua and Judges, but there is evidence for the establishment of small farming villages in those hills for the first time. They date to between the 13th and 11th centuries BC, at the same time as the lands bordering the east Mediterranean were under attack by migrants from the Aegean world. Refugees from the disruption on the coastal plain made new lives for themselves in the villages in the hill country inland, where they met up with Israelites coming from the east. There are many signs of technological innovations in the agricultural communities that they established together. One interesting fact is that, in contrast to the conteporaneous coastal settlements, there is no evidence of pig bones among the animal remains from the majority of these villages. This may well indicate not on the presence of Israelites in the hill villages, but also the fact that it was their religious beliefs that governed these communities. There is one other piece of evidence that constitutes conclusive proof for the presence of Israel in Canaan by the late 12th and 11th centuries BC. In 1219 the pharaoh Merneptah campaigned through the area in the hope of re-establishing Egyptian control. In the commemorative monument he later setup at Karank listing his conquests, he noted that among others in Canaan he had utterly destroyed the people of Israel. It is ironic that the first extra-biblical note of the existence of Israel also lays claim to its total destruction. So although direct proof for Moses and the Exodus is lacking, there is a considerable body of circumstantial evidence that is hard to ignore. " 3) Noah's flood did not occur and was probably taken from earlier traditions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh It is interesting you bring this up. I am currently winning an open debate on whether or not Noah's flood was local or global by presenting the scientific evidence for the flood. . http://www.debate.org... I do not have the space to go into full detail as I did in the listed debate, but I will summarize my arguments. First, I establish that the interpretation of the Hebrew as being a local flood is logically consistent. The Hebrew word translated "earth" is transliterated eretz. Of the 2504 times it is used in the Tanahk (Old Testament), it is translated as "earth" or "world" only 28% of the time in KJV. It is translated as "land" or "ground" 65% of the time in KJV. . https://www.blueletterbible.org... Not only is that the normal, but there are plenty of reasons to argue that it should have been translated as land or ground instead of earth or world in the account of Noah's flood. . http://www.godandscience.org... . http://spectrummagazine.org... Not only is it likely that the Hebrew text indicates a local flood, but a local flood is consistent with modern geology. The National Center for Science Education (Defending the teaching of evolution and climate science) is an anti-Christian source which admits the strong evidence for Noah's flood. The evidence they review includes the geological evidence for a large scale flood. Carbon 14 dating dates Noah's flood at about the same time as Christian scholars do using Biblical sources. It is shown that floods were uncommon in that time in that area. And it explains a cause that could very likely generate such a large scale flood. . http://ncse.com... So in summary. We agree Moses didn't write the Torah, but that isn't a scientific claim of the Tanahk. Although the existence of Moses cannot be proven by archaeology, there is a large degree of circumstantial evidence that he could have. Given that you cannot prove that he did not, and experts which I cited can show that it is well within the scope of possibility, you have not proven it more likely than not that the Hebrew scriptures are inaccurate on this account. I was able to show that scientific evidence agrees with the Genesis account of Noah's flood. You focused most your arguments on the Hebrew scriptures being historically inaccurate. History is hard to prove, and it gets harder the further back you go. Although you alleged several things, you stated no positive evidence that any of those things were true. That makes for a very weak argument. I will re-iterate here that I cannot prove the Hebrew scriptures to be accurate in any amount of space. The BoP rests on you to show concrete evidence that they make a scientifically inaccurate claim. For example, "If the Bible Creation Story was Truth, we would burn up trying to land on the moon as according to Genesis 1, the Moon is a light source like the Sun. " That was one of your comments on the following debate: . http://www.debate.org... You also said, "Again, anybody can challenge moi on any points they dislike in my comments! " which is why I challenged you to this debate. :) Looking forward to your next round.