Summations Only

Yeah. Sumerian cuneiform predates the books of Moses. Secondly, if I write a novel and claim the characters lived 10,000 years ago, does that necessarily indicate its accuracy?If not, then you point is moot. It says nothing of the sort. Please substantiate your assertion if you feel otherwise.

Neolithic writing was found on tortoise shells in China dating back to 8,600 years, which is almost 1,500 years before what you believe is the earliest known writing.But even if writing dated back only 6,000 years ago, what exactly is the significance in that? That's not true at all. In the Enuma Elish, the king's list go 20,000 years before the name of Adam. The implication of that is not only were those names listed long before Adam's name was, but it claims to be far older than Adam. Now, just because the claim says it goes back that far doesn't make it so... but the same goes for Adam. Over and over again in the opening sequence of the Genesis account, the author goes out of his way to spell out lunar days, i.e. "it was day, it was night... the first day... the second day... the third day... etc.This is merely your own invention based on scientific data after the fact. Nowhere in Genesis does it give a timeline for the universe or the earth. That's pure conjecture on your part.

What is known today as Mt. Ararat might be named after the mountainous region in Turkey and surrounding countries, not necessarily a specific mountain. For instance, "The Rockies" is the name of a cluster of mountains, not the name of any single mountain.But honestly, what's your point?

So debunk it. I didn't say it was written in modern Chinese (lots of dialects, btw) I said it was found in China. Whatever the case, it completely debunks your claim. Either illustrate why it's false or concede. Factually evidenced historical landmarks mean what exactly? How is that relevant to the point where indisputable evidence exists of documents with names that predate Adam? Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true. It alludes to nothing of the such. It flat out gives literal days. You are making the assumption based on what you have luxury of knowing -- that the universe is in fact billions of years old. But the bible is at odds with that fact.

But who cares? Why does it matter? If the Enuma Elish talks about Ur and Babylon (places known to exist) does that mean it's version of the Flood story is therefore necessarily accurate because of it?No, it doesn't. So please explain to me again the relevance, cuz I'm not seeing it.

No, absolutely not. It's a fact that a big flood occured in that region, sure. That doesn't mean, however, there was a guy named Noah who built a wooden aircraft carrier full of every known species of animal on the planet, nor does it mean that only 7 people survived and then re-populated the earth.

What factual stats?

What makes the flood a fact is empirical evidence. As for Noah, that's 4,000 year old hearsay from a single source. You might as well believe in Tiamat because it's found in the Enuma Elish by your rationale.

Nonsense, and I've proven otherwise. The Enuma Elish predates ANY book of the bible, and it lists names (pronouns) that exceed the time given to Adam. That completely shatters your myth about Adam being the first name ever listed in writing. It doesn't need landmarks to prove that it's:1. Writing
2. Oldest known writingYour litmus test is completely and irrevocably skewed. I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous and irrelevant point you're making. I shouldn't even entertain it, but for your edification I will proceed.You do understand that this was translated in to English, which doesn't change the fact that they were speaking about the first day. Whether you say Day 1 or the first day, IN ENGLISH, does NOT change the context whatsoever.Secondly, the point you seem to be dodging is that Moses goes out of his way to explain a 24-hour day for the creation narrative. If these Days were representative of long epochs, why did he go out of his way to detail a calendar day? He uses the terms "night" and "day." Why, if what you allege is true?

In English, does saying Day 1 and the first day change the context whatsoever? No, it doesn't. Therefore the point he is making is entirely moot and semantical. It's immaterial. Precisely my point. He's describing literal days. Even if one were to grant that the first day described in Genesis was a slight modification, nowehere in there does it describe the earth to millions or billions of years old. That's the contention. He was saying that Genesis describes the earth as being billions of years old. No such description exists anywhere in the bible. That's conjecture based on what we know NOW of the universe.In essence, it's a fabrication of his.