Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

ONE OTHER.....



And thanks for ignoring my question. Helps my case tremendously.

Yours on the other hand...

So I believe in a life that is unique.......deal with it.

 

[ScuzManiac]

So I believe in a life that is unique.......deal with it.

Unique how?

Because there are over 2 billion other people that believe the same thing?

That doesn't sound very unique to me at all....

And I don't have to deal with it.

But I can sit back and find amusement in it.

 

[Thief]

Unique how?

Because there are over 2 billion other people that believe the same thing?

That doesn't sound very unique to me at all....

And I don't have to deal with it.

But I can sit back and find amusement in it.

God was not born of woman.

 

[greentwiga]

This is an explanation from complete ignorance. because you do no understand the source mythology in Mesopotamia.


To make a statement like yours one has to throw out all of the story as written anyway.


Your doing mental gymnastics to try and force history where it does not go.

It is obvious you do not understand the history of the people you wish to debate.

I am willing to guess that I have studied the history of Sumer and the pre sumerian cultures (Samarran, Ubiad, etc) and the mythology of Sumer and other sources of the ancient religious worship much more than you. Instead of generic dismisals, how about a specific challenge. I don't force history anywhere. I go where anthropologists and historians say it went. I do throw out traditional interpretations of the Bible where they choose on point of interpretation and then force the rest of the Bible to follow that one interpretation.

 

[ScuzManiac]

God was not born of woman.

That's because, according to Christianity, God wasn't born at all.

And you've yet to give me something BESIDES God...

That doesn't have a beginning, end, or both.

Why? Because it doesn't exist.

 

[outhouse]

I am willing to guess that I have studied the history of Sumer and the pre sumerian cultures (Samarran, Ubiad, etc) and the mythology of Sumer and other sources of the ancient religious worship much more than you. Instead of generic dismisals, how about a specific challenge. I don't force history anywhere. I go where anthropologists and historians say it went. I do throw out traditional interpretations of the Bible where they choose on point of interpretation and then force the rest of the Bible to follow that one interpretation.

You follow pseudo history, and try to create your own pseudo history.


You are no where near anything credible in anthropology or archeology, and pervert findings to follow your own personal agenda.

You have yet to refute a single word I have stated yet.

 

[ScuzManiac]

I am willing to guess that I have studied the history of Sumer and the pre sumerian cultures (Samarran, Ubiad, etc) and the mythology of Sumer and other sources of the ancient religious worship much more than you. Instead of generic dismisals, how about a specific challenge. I don't force history anywhere. I go where anthropologists and historians say it went. I do throw out traditional interpretations of the Bible where they choose on point of interpretation and then force the rest of the Bible to follow that one interpretation.

It's not good to force things...

:no:

 

[greentwiga]

You follow pseudo history, and try to create your own pseudo history.


You are no where near anything credible in anthropology or archeology, and pervert findings to follow your own personal agenda.

You have yet to refute a single word I have stated yet.

What have I perverted? If asked, I would Talk of of the Archaeology of Cayonu. I could talk of the DNA analysis of wheat, lentils, chickpeas, and add in the evidence of domestication, such as seed size and brittle rachis. I could refer to the scientists such as Heun so you could check the papers. All this to show that the most likely place and time of domestication was Karacadag just after the end of the Younger Dryas, around 9,000 BC. I fit the account of the garden in at that point and location. what science have I twisted?

 

[ScuzManiac]

What have I perverted? If asked, I would Talk of of the Archaeology of Cayonu. I could talk of the DNA analysis of wheat, lentils, chickpeas, and add in the evidence of domestication, such as seed size and brittle rachis. I could refer to the scientists such as Heun so you could check the papers. All this to show that the most likely place and time of domestication was Karacadag just after the end of the Younger Dryas, around 9,000 BC. I fit the account of the garden in at that point and location. what science have I twisted?

What garden? The one that has no evidence it even existed?

That's not science. That's called "mythology."

 

[Thief]

That's because, according to Christianity, God wasn't born at all.

And you've yet to give me something BESIDES God...

That doesn't have a beginning, end, or both.

Why? Because it doesn't exist.

And what could you desire more than God?

 

[ScuzManiac]

And what could you desire more than God?

As you duck the question once again...

And I never said I desired anything.

I just simply asked if you could name something that...

Doesn't have a beginning, end, or both....

BESIDES GOD.

If you can't do it then just say no. If you can, do it.

Not sure why you're running around the question? No harm done.

 

[Thief]

As you duck the question once again...

And I never said I desired anything.

I just simply asked if you could name something that...

Doesn't have a beginning, end, or both....

BESIDES GOD.

If you can't do it then just say no. If you can, do it.

Not sure why you're running around the question? No harm done.

Something besides God?......

So...you can't get your head around Something Unique?

 

[ScuzManiac]

Something besides God?......

So...you can't get your head around Something Unique?

Maybe I can't get my head around something that cannot be proven.

But you can't seem to answer a simple question.

Hm....

 

[Thief]

Maybe I can't get my head around something that cannot be proven.

But you can't seem to answer a simple question.

Hm....

Asking the wrong question is not the path to wisdom.

Step up.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Asking the wrong question is not the path to wisdom.

Step up.

What's the right question then?

I didn't realize there was such a thing as a "wrong question" in a debate section.



I also didn't know the best thing to do in a debate section was to ignore questions?

I'm sure you'll have an answer for this one though...

 

[outhouse]

What's the right question then?

I didn't realize there was such a thing as a "wrong question" in a debate section.



I also didn't know the best thing to do in a debate section was to ignore questions?

I'm sure you'll have an answer for this one though...

He does not have a clue what wisdom actaully is.

Perverting history into his own pseudohistory is not wisdom. Its perversion.

There is a reason why he is on ignore. Reason is futile.

 

[sojourner]

So many things don't add up in Genesis. Like the Sun and stars, not only were they created after the Earth, but created after plants? But then, I was wondering; Adam gets kicked out of Eden and has to till the soil? This is based on Gen 4:23 and 4:2 where Adam is sent out to "cultivate" the ground and his son Cain was a "tiller" of the ground. What did they till it with? Did God make them a plow and a hoe or something? And then Abel, why was he keeping flocks? Weren't they vegetarians? Was it for wool? Did God make Eve a loom and Abel some shears?

I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians, and I guess some Jews, see it as literal. Ken Ham on his TV show Answers in Genesis, insists that it must be taken literal, that it is foundational, without it the whole of the Bible falls. What do you think.

I think the theology presented in Genesis is foundational for that of the rest of the texts. That theology does not arise out of a literalistic interpretation, however. The accounts are allegorical, not literalistic.

 

[Thief]

I think the theology presented in Genesis is foundational for that of the rest of the texts. That theology does not arise out of a literalistic interpretation, however. The accounts are allegorical, not literalistic.

I agree except that Job is the oldest book....and it pivots on the fulcrum.

 

[Thief]

What's the right question then?

I didn't realize there was such a thing as a "wrong question" in a debate section.



I also didn't know the best thing to do in a debate section was to ignore questions?

I'm sure you'll have an answer for this one though...

You could ask a question in an attempt to lead the discussion.
I do so quite often.

But many people do so hoping to corner the opponent (as in debate)
That would be intellectual dishonesty.

When I lead with a question I do so knowing the answer in advance....
and knowing the answer will be more to point.

For example.....which came first Spirit or substance?
The answer leads to consequence, which I hold as firm.

Creation?....with Spirit first?....of course.
Man as creation?......yeah.
Man as an altered creature, taken from the rest of the animal kingdom?.....yeah.

We ARE that creature wanting to know.....even as death is pending.

 

[greentwiga]

What garden? The one that has no evidence it even existed?

That's not science. That's called "mythology."

Still, it is interesting that the Bible preserves the exact location of the domestication of most of the founder crops exactly where scientists say they were domesticated.