Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

Actually, if the Israelites arose purely out of Canaanite stock, they would have mostly J1 Haplotype.

Stop it. Your ignorance is outstanding. You don't have a clue what your talking about.


Israelites were factually multi cultural, and diverse.


You have no clue what their Haplotypes were at that time.

Their Canaanite heritage is not up for debate.

 

[outhouse]

Try looking for the truth, not your belief.




Factually, man did not start from that geographic location.

Nor was it the first community, or first place man lived in the area.


And YOU have always failed to make a connection between prehistory, and how Israelites obtained this knowledge.

 

[Muffled]

Your only assuming what people call mythology, is real.

I don't call what God says mythology. That is not assumption but experience.

 

[Muffled]

No credibility in a single word.

I have debated the man who created the karsag garbage.

It is only describes as such using more imagination then required.

And it ignores what Israelites did not know when these books were compiled and finished.


The whole notion is pathetic at best, and displays the ignorance of the imagination.

I believe this is what I have been saying about Archeology all along.

 

[Muffled]

The bible is full of fallacies and wasn't even written by jesus or god.....

I suppose I should believe this because you are all knowing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I suppose I should believe this because you are all knowing.

No...You should believe your bible is full of fallacies because it's been proven to be so scientifically, mathematically and historically....

 

[outhouse]

I believe this is what I have been saying about Archeology all along.

That is only ignorance speaking.

Appealing to ignorance is not how we study the bible.

 

[outhouse]

I don't call what God says mythology. That is not assumption but experience.

God has not said or wrote a word ever.

Only man has.

 

[greentwiga]

Try looking for the truth, not your belief.




Factually, man did not start from that geographic location.

Nor was it the first community, or first place man lived in the area.


And YOU have always failed to make a connection between prehistory, and how Israelites obtained this knowledge.

You maintain as facts your beliefs. You also argue against what you have heard, not what I said. You haven't addressed what I said. I have debated others who did a good job of debating. I prefer to not continue this.

 

[outhouse]

I prefer to not continue this.

You cannot continue.

Its not a matter of want.


#1. Factually, man did not start from that geographic location.

#2. Nor was it the first community, or first place man lived in the area.


#3, And YOU have always failed to make a connection between prehistory, and how Israelites obtained this knowledge

 

[Thief]

Well yes, clearly they would know nothing about biology, and the bible reflects that utter lack of knowledge perfectly. As to the rest of your post, it is word salad yet again.

And yet the scenario could be played as written.

(not my word salad btw...I didn't write Genesis)

 

[Omtita]

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.

The only problem I can see with Genesis is that it has been misrepresented by apostate Christianity and therefore misunderstood by skeptic and believer alike. For example, the stars were not created before plants or the Earth, for that matter.

Nor does the Bible state that the Earth is flat, or was created in 144 hours etc.
See my website Pathway Machine | Skeptic's Study Bible: Genesis 1 for details on Genesis chapter 1 which I would be happy to discuss here.

 

[outhouse]

for details on Genesis chapter 1 which I would be happy to discuss here.

You mean for a pathetic apologetic attempt to fit mythology into reality, ignoring every credible historical account and all of science, by a special perverted interpretation of scripture??


OK so I am actually glad your trying to address the severe Christian apologetics of YEC, so my hats off there.


But you are ignoring every credible historian on the topic, with no knowledge of how the book was actualy created and the cultural anthropology of how thi smythology had evolved over hundreds of years.

If you would like to actually learn the real truth behind the book, I would be glad to help.

 

[outhouse]

The only problem I can see with Genesis is that it has been misrepresented by apostate Christianity and therefore misunderstood by skeptic and believer alike. .

The perversion of text by apologetics that range from insane methodology to a gentle perversion, has nothing to do with how sketpics look at the book.

Reality and apologetics of any kind, have no place in interpretating history here.

 

[Omtita]

You mean for a pathetic apologetic attempt to fit mythology into reality, ignoring every credible historical account and all of science, by a special perverted interpretation of scripture??


OK so I am actually glad your trying to address the severe Christian apologetics of YEC, so my hats off there.


But you are ignoring every credible historian on the topic, with no knowledge of how the book was actualy created and the cultural anthropology of how thi smythology had evolved over hundreds of years.

If you would like to actually learn the real truth behind the book, I would be glad to help.

What I'm hearing from you so far is a profoundly biased and uninformed opinion. Conjectural and unsupported. Perhaps you could back your position up with facts?

 

[Omtita]

The perversion of text by apologetics that range from insane methodology to a gentle perversion, has nothing to do with how sketpics look at the book.

Reality and apologetics of any kind, have no place in interpretating history here.

I think you grossly overestimate the significance of secular history with it's own inaccuracies, methodology, mythology and biased propaganda. Secular histories don't even compare to the integrity of the Bible. Even the so called 'father of science' Sir Isaac Newton who was also the leading expert on ancient texts in his own time, could attest to that. I have encountered some pretty informed history scholars who were atheists but wouldn't for a minute question the value of the Bible as an important historical text. In makes me think you are passionate but not terribly informed on the subject of history.

Really? Read this article I wrote on Bible Chronology and Secular History.

 

[outhouse]

What I'm hearing from you so far is a profoundly biased and uninformed opinion. Conjectural and unsupported. Perhaps you could back your position up with facts?

That will be said of you bud. Uninformed? No, you just may not have ran across someone with a real education on the books.


These books are mythology that evolved over hundreds of years, there is no real history here of anything.

It factually is pseudohistory, written is a prose of rhetoric and allegory and metaphor, song and poems, compiled and redacted collections of previous scripture and mythologies.

 

[outhouse]

Bible Chronology and Secular History.

Im sorry if this hurts your feelings.

But stop posting that trash. It is not historical, or credible. It shows a severe lack of biblical knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

I think you grossly overestimate the significance of secular history .

Here is where your sevre ignorance is getting you in trouble.

There is no such thing as secular history.


There is real history taught in every university world wide as higher knowledge, by professors. No amatuer hacks perverting their own apologetic bias due to severe ignorance.

 

[outhouse]

I have encountered some pretty informed history scholars who were atheists but wouldn't for a minute question the value of the Bible as an important historical text.


.

You misunderstand from ignorance yet again.

The bible has important history in it. But it is NOT a history book, and should never be used as such.


Things you need to know. These are facts by the way.

Abraham, Noah, Moses, Exodus, Adam, Eve, have no historicity as ever existing in real life.

Their pseudohistory is mythology ment to teach the importance of the lessons within the allegory and metaphor.


Israelites factually evolved from displace Canaanites and other Semitic peoples after the bronze age collapse of major civilizations.

They factually used Canaanite mythology, deities, pottery, and alphabet.