> So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. This article is interesting specifically because of the ev

> So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. This article is interesting specifically because of the evidence it presents about when the original texts of the bible were written. The historic value of the BoM is only linked to this article if it has a similarly distant origin. If the BoM is only 200 years old (i.e. the 600 BC origin is incorrect), then it's irrelevant to the discussion. It is only with personal belief that the BoM is 2600 years old that there is an interesting link between the article and the BoM.