Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Shad]

and El in canaanite means the same at God in Hebrew... i know and i get that.

But outhouse is claiming that this means the Hebrews are actually canaanites.

El was an actual God, the Supreme God in Canaanite polytheism as was Yahweh, his son. It is not just language for a title but a names of two different Gods. The Hebrews follow two different Gods until the Babylonian Catpivity. The Yahwehist won out over those that followed El upon return to Canaan and rewrote the Bible to reflect this. Yahweh and El were combined into the God of the OT, NT and Quran we have in the present.

They were Canaanites. The Exodus and Conquest theory has no evidence and has been dismissed in archeology. The local emergence theory is the accept one at this time. They were Canaanites which changed over time. Hebrews in the Hinterlands. Philistines and Phoenicians in the West. Moah, Ammon and Aram-Damascus in the East. Each followed a patron deity which was once part of the greater Canaanite religion. Yahweh and El were part of this older religion.

 

[outhouse]

El was an actual God, the Supreme God in Canaanite polytheism as was Yahweh, his son. It is not just language for a title but a names of two different Gods. The Hebrews follow two different Gods until the Babylonian Catpivity. The Yahwehist won out over those that followed El upon return to Canaan and rewrote the Bible to reflect this. Yahweh and El were combined into the God of the OT, NT and Quran we have in the present.

They were Canaanites. The Exodus and Conquest theory has no evidence and has been dismissed in archeology. The local emergence theory is the accept one at this time. They were Canaanites which changed over time. Hebrews in the Hinterlands. Philistines and Phoenicians in the West. Moah, Ammon and Aram-Damascus in the East. Each followed a patron deity which was once part of the greater Canaanite religion. Yahweh and El were part of this older religion.

You wont get through to her with logic and reason, she has been told this many many times in the past and has seen the facts and credible sources.

Try evolution and you will run into the same mental road blocks refusing credible education

 

[Thief]

I like Genesis.

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
I believe that man is called Adam.

just saying the Genesis narrative works soooooooooooooooo well!

 

[RichardParker]

just saying the Genesis narrative works soooooooooooooooo well!

Well... as an internal, circular piece of fiction, sure.
"According to genesis somebody had to first walk with god, and genesis tells me that this somebody was Adam. See, it works!"

Frankly, I'm not impressed.

"The Silmarillion tells us that one race had to be in the world before the elves. And the Silmarillion tells us, that the dwarfs were created in this world before the elves. See. It works!"

 

[Pegg]

El was an actual God /QUOTE]

and my name actually means salty water... but that doesnt mean i am salty water does it?

No of course not. And the canaanite god by the name El does not mean it was Yahwah the Hebrew El.

 

[Thief]

Well... as an internal, circular piece of fiction, sure.
"According to genesis somebody had to first walk with god, and genesis tells me that this somebody was Adam. See, it works!"

Frankly, I'm not impressed.

"The Silmarillion tells us that one race had to be in the world before the elves. And the Silmarillion tells us, that the dwarfs were created in this world before the elves. See. It works!"

You don't have to be impressed.

and you are willing to say no one has EVER walked with God?

 

[RichardParker]

You don't have to be impressed.

and you are willing to say no one has EVER walked with God?

Did I say that?
No.
But so far I don't believe that anybody has ever walked with a god, because nobody has ever presented any evidence that there even is such a thing as a god.

 

[Thief]

Did I say that?
No.
But so far I don't believe that anybody has ever walked with a god, because nobody has ever presented any evidence that there even is such a thing as a god.

And no one will do so.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

All you can do is think about it.

(it's a discipline)

 

[outhouse]

And the canaanite god by the name El does not mean it was Yahwah the Hebrew El.

Sure it does.

We know they put the two traditions together.

Its part of the reason why there are two different creation mythologies, and two different flood mythology legends.

Things got compiled.

 

[RichardParker]

And no one will do so.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

All you can do is think about it.

(it's a discipline)

Well, I did think about it.
But my thoughts are not in a vacuum. My thoughts DO revolve around things like evidence!
So, if you say that there is no demonstrable evidence for him, there is absolutly nothing I have to or even can think about.

So, just to get that right:
You admit that there is no evidence for your god?

 

[Thief]

Well, I did think about it.
But my thoughts are not in a vacuum. My thoughts DO revolve around things like evidence!
So, if you say that there is no demonstrable evidence for him, there is absolutly nothing I have to or even can think about.

So, just to get that right:
You admit that there is no evidence for your god?

See Webster's....

As for evidence....look all around you.
A creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

 

[RichardParker]

See Webster's....

As for evidence....look all around you.
A creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

And reality is reflection of a realter?
Come on now...
How are you justified in calling it "creation"? This is just a silly word-game.

Also: "See Webster's..."
In reagards to WHAT?
Can you for once try to answer in a full sentence, that actually means something?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And reality is reflection of a realter?
Come on now...
How are you justified in calling it "creation"? This is just a silly word-game.

Also: "See Webster's..."
In reagards to WHAT?
Can you for once try to answer in a full sentence, that actually means something?

He's been clear, at least in this thread, that his faith requires no evidence.....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3956774-post795.html

"I believe someone had to be first to walk with God.
Faith requires no proving."

 

[Ouroboros]

And reality is reflection of a realter?
Come on now...
How are you justified in calling it "creation"? This is just a silly word-game.

Also: "See Webster's..."
In reagards to WHAT?
Can you for once try to answer in a full sentence, that actually means something?

He won't...... he can't.....

Words stringed into sentences......

Makes it sound mysterious.........

....And maybe someone.... might think he has something smart to say...... ..... !..... ..... :no: ....... Easy, it is, Yoda, speaking with periods. Yoda smart was...... after all.....

 

[RichardParker]

He won't...... he can't.....

Words stringed into sentences......

Makes it sound mysterious.........

....And maybe someone.... might think he has something smart to say...... ..... !..... ..... :no: ....... Easy, it is, Yoda, speaking with periods. Yoda smart was...... after all.....

*lol*
Made my day!

But you seem to be spot-on.
But who knows, I won't deny him the chance to explain himself... even though chances are low that he will.

 

[outhouse]

*lol*
Made my day!

But you seem to be spot-on.
But who knows, I won't deny him the chance to explain himself... even though chances are low that he will.

Ignore function is your best bet.

The lack of willingness to communicate honestly, is an instant ticket to my list.

 

[Shad]

El was an actual God /QUOTE]

and my name actually means salty water... but that doesnt mean i am salty water does it?

No of course not. And the canaanite god by the name El does not mean it was Yahwah the Hebrew El.

It actually does since there are statues found around shrines and the second temple of Yahweh's consort. Read Frank Cross, Chris Rollston and/or Mark Smit's work. This is further back by Dever, Siblerman and Finkelstein's own work. There is also Yahweh's battles against other Gods such as Chemosh. How does "the only true" God fight battles against "fake Gods" and lose to them. Is it like shadow boxing but I lose to my shadow?

 

[outhouse]

It actually does since there are statues found around shrines and the second temple of Yahweh's consort. Read Frank Cross, Chris Rollston and/or Mark Smit's work. This is further back by Dever, Siblerman and Finkelstein's own work. There is also Yahweh's battles against other Gods such as Chemosh. How does "the only true" God fight battles against "fake Gods" and lose to them. Is it like shadow boxing but I lose to my shadow?

Recent work has surfaced since then revealing more of the Canaanite mythology that places it into context, there is no debate here at all as you understand .



We will never remove the fanaticism for some faithful who refuse credible knowledge to the point of being ludicrous

Like its not in dispute at all

 

[gnostic]

Someone had to be first to walk with God.....that man would be Adam.

So...striking all of lineage for evidence......
Someone had to be first to walk with God.

Could you be inclined to call him?....Adam.

yeah,yeah.....

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
Care to leave a name?

Not real good at question/answer games......are you?
You're not the only one at this forum, who baulks as the question will lead, where you won't follow.

Someone had to be first....in mind and heart.
I call Him God.

In regression.....someone had to be the first Man.
I call him Adam.

I like Genesis.

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
I believe that man is called Adam.

You don't have to be impressed.

and you are willing to say no one has EVER walked with God?

Oh, that just dandy...

First it was this "Spirit, first, before substance" or variations of this thief's axiom, repeated in other threads to the point of ad nauseam...

...and now he has another pattern for his "FIRST", in which he will draw to the point of ad nauseam.

What is this obsession with "first" as if it is a magic bullet that will answer all questions?

This peverted axiom or motto with the irritating patterns of the "first" is pointless circular reasoning and when he dodge questions about "evidence", and saying stupid evasive thing like...

And no one will do so.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

All you can do is think about it.

(it's a discipline)

...well, it make my fingers are just itchy to put him in the ignore list...and he would be the first in this list.

 

[outhouse]

the ignore list...and he would be the first in this list.

Its not a bad thing. If you viewed mine the combined IQ of 13 people might not get over 1000.

A few have moved on. Again for me it is honesty, I flat refuse to debate with dishonest people.



I actually unckeck them now and again to give them a second chance, sadly it does not last long usually