You don't read-- I said the dates were ALL OVER THE PLACE, ranging from A to B.<quoted text>funny, i remember you saying this a few posts back;
"Wiki is hardly definitive"
yet your source is wiki.
so i am wondering who is the hypocrite?
now you also know or perhaps you really didn't comprehend it that i never claimed a date of 400 bce. what i posted was much shorter. but then facts are not really important to you.
now if we look at your wiki link we find a table of 14c results from Zurich (Z), Tucson (T) and Libby (L, amazingly only one manuscript (Wadi-Daliyeh deed) fits your date description and it didn't even come from the caves.
"The Great Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa has been tested three times, once by Libby, once at Zurich and once at Tucson. The results from the latter two were almost identical, which is a good indicator of the basic accuracy of this dating method. 1QS (#15), tested at Zurich, and 4QSamc (#8), tested at Tucson, provide overlapping date ranges, which is to be expected when both texts are attributed to the same scribe. When 4Q258 (#24) was tested at Tucson its result was so anomalous (129-255 or 303-318 CE) that the laboratory was asked to retest another sample from the same document. The second test (#21) yielded a result (50 BCE-130 CE) that was deemed more satisfactory."
so perhaps you might try to find something that agrees with you because i will read your sites.
In short? I ignored the individual dates, and looked for the oldest and the newest, and that's what I mentioned.
I used a SUMMARY-- but YOU?
YOU LIED OUTRIGHT-- YOU DID NOT EVEN MENTION THAT IT WAS A DATE-RANGE AT ALL!
Your lying post implied that EVERY DATE was old-- without ANY range to it!
Lying is how you roll.