Well, funk, lets just start with some general observations.
The text is full of catch-phrase statements -- things like 'so-called geological column.' This basic denial of evidence doesn't fill me with confidence. Read through it with a mind for finding the jabs at science.
Then there is the conspiracy-theory angle -- "Do they have any scientific basis for their doubts? Not really. Doubting criticism started on a large scale with G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who taught that religion, like the rest of civilization, developed gradually." Read carefully. There is nothing to back up the initial statement-- that there is no scientific basis for doubt-- but instead the author just picks on Hegel. It doesn't matter who started the criticism. What matters is the issue of the scientific basis for doubt.
There are weird non sequitors like : "There is no real technical basis for not believing the Bible as it was written. Nowhere does the Biblical text mention anything that implies evolution, nor is there any Biblical incident that’s been proven definitely wrong."
Then utterly idiotic observations like this one. "The Mari archives contained actual names used in the BiblePeleg, Terah, Abram, Jacob, Laban, and others. These cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters, but they do show that these names were in use in those early days." Surely you see the comedy in this line of reasoning? You could find millions of references to my name and have none of them point to me. Yet this is evidence? This is the kind of trick you see in court room dramas on TV. A lawyer will draw a conclusion that favors his client. The other lawyer objects that the claim is baseless. The claim gets stricken from the record, but it cannot be stricken from the jurors' memories.
And, except for the one book mentioned that the article seems intended to promote, there isn't one real citation for the 'archealogical evidence' they make such a fuss about.
Now....
The real argument of the article is that the early books of the Bible were written on clay tablets by people who witnessed the events first hand. These tablets were latter compiled into the books as they now stand.
1) There are no clay tablets. The authors criticise the documentary hypothesis because "there has never been any trace of the documents they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly)..." I level the same criticism. Also remember that the JEDP hypothesis doesn't require that there be actual documents. The hypothesis is that there were several traditions, not texts. So this criticism is a bit misleading. Whereas the clay tablets MUST have existed, and there is no evidence of them at all.
2) What eye-witness wrote Gen. 1? The authors claim that God dictated it to Adam or that God wrote it with his own fingers. This is evidence?
3) Another issue is language. Assuming a creation date of nearly 6000 years ago, and assuming the Isrealites were writing on clay tablets from the get go as they must have been, why is the earliest writing, from around 5500 bce, 1) not Hebrew and 2) in the Indus valley? It doesn't add up. Also consider, why does the earliest Hebrew script appear to be derived from Phoenician? The Hebrew should be the original.
4) Look at what the authors call tablet 3-- Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:9, supposedly written by Noah who according to the theory was an eye-witness of the events described. Isn't it then peculiar that Noah was not born until verse 5:29 and so could not have been an eye-witness of 29 verses?
5) None of these eye-witness accounts read in the first person as one would expect, or even give any internal indication that they are eye-witness accounts.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2