> By the reaction of the relevant parties you can see who accepts humility and science. Guilty as charged...so take my bias with a grain of salt...but this art

> By the reaction of the relevant parties you can see who accepts humility and science. Guilty as charged...so take my bias with a grain of salt...but this article really doesn't present any science to support the title or claim. It basically makes a bunch of assumptions about literacy levels and some how makes a massive leap to when the bible was actually written down in it's present form. The lack of evidence has never been proof of something not existing. The author writes... One of the longstanding arguments for why the main body of biblical literature was not written down in anything like its present form until after the destruction and exile of 586 B.C. is that before then there was not enough literacy or enough scribes to support such a huge undertaking. It's hardly science, and I wonder if your bias is also prevalent in your post.