Genesis 2

[outhouse]

The Wikipedia nor the opinions of a group of persons from many nations doesn't alter the facts presented in the Scriptures.

The bible is not factual history. You dont get to claim it as a credible source without real evidence.

Wiki has provided real facts.


I see your still in denial of facts

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago


What apart of 68 nations don't you understand. Many of those are Christian nations

 

[Thief]

The bible is not factual history. You dont get to claim it as a credible source without real evidence.

Wiki has provided real facts.


I see your still in denial of facts

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago


What apart of 68 nations don't you understand. Many of those are Christian nations

Credible sources......
Such as Moses?.....Jesus?....Muhammad?....

Credibility is not a matter of record.
If your train of thought is flawed the rest of us might see it.
Historical account as 'absolute'?........I think not.

 

[outhouse]

Credible sources......
Such as Moses?.....Jesus?....Muhammad?....

Moses may not have ever existed, he probably did not, and he doesn't have a single bit of historicity as ever existing. So no he is factually not a credible source.



Jesus, probably a illiterate peasant from Galilee, also never wrote a word. Only a different culture writing hundreds of miles away 40 years after his death by people that were far removed from any actual event. wrote words YOU attribute to Jesus. Jesus is not factually a credible source either, despite him probably existing.

Credibility is not a matter of record

Nonsense

It is a matter of education, knowledge and study.

.
If your train of thought is flawed the rest of us might see it.

If your train of thought is apologetic, it is not accurate historically. It is biased.

Historical account as 'absolute'?........I think not

Im surprised you said something correct for once.


It is based on probability.

.

 

[Thief]

Moses may not have ever existed, he probably did not, and he doesn't have a single bit of historicity as ever existing. So no he is factually not a credible source.



Jesus, probably a illiterate peasant from Galilee, also never wrote a word. Only a different culture writing hundreds of miles away 40 years after his death by people that were far removed from any actual event. wrote words YOU attribute to Jesus. Jesus is not factually a credible source either, despite him probably existing.








Nonsense

It is a matter of education, knowledge and study.





If your train of thought is apologetic, it is not accurate historically. It is biased.





Im surprised you said something correct for once.


It is based on probability.

.

It seems the wisdom and testimony of those held in high regard means nothing to you.

oh well.

And having admitted your history is based on probablity (rather than certainty)
Shall you then stop using the word...'fact'...?

 

[outhouse]

It seems the wisdom and testimony of those held in high regard means nothing to you.

oh well.

And having admitted your history is based on probablity (rather than certainty)
Shall you then stop using the word...'fact'...?

WRONG.

According to historians the mythology is held in high regard.


What I stated stands as fact. So no, I will not.


Yes it is based on 99.9% probability instead of willful ignorance.


Moses never penned a word, thus he is not a credible source, your author describes his own death in detail, he factually cannot be a credible source.


It is also factual Moses has no historicity, as well as Abraham.


Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

That mean ZERO historicity


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".[7]


That mean ZERO historicity

And that is a fact.

 

[Thief]

WRONG.

According to historians the mythology is held in high regard.


What I stated stands as fact. So no, I will not.


Yes it is based on 99.9% probability instead of willful ignorance.


Moses never penned a word, thus he is not a credible source, your author describes his own death in detail, he factually cannot be a credible source.


It is also factual Moses has no historicity, as well as Abraham.


Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

That mean ZERO historicity


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".[7]


That mean ZERO historicity

And that is a fact.

ok...so you're not convinced.

If your name never enters history.....I suppose your non-existence will come to pass.

Do you really think it matters how much you write?
Could you be forgotten inspite of your many words?

And we remember Moses for his writings?.....no, of course not.

 

[outhouse]

ok...so you're not convinced.

If your name never enters history.....I suppose your non-existence will come to pass.

Do you really think it matters how much you write?
Could you be forgotten inspite of your many words?

And we remember Moses for his writings?.....no, of course not.

Most historians claim him as a literary creation. The Exodus did not happen as described, the first 5 books were written by many people and compiled over hundreds of years.


If Moses existed, maybe you could describe his life briefly. Since Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites and have no real ties with Egypt as a whole, where does Moses fit in?

You mistake a possible historical core attributed to a man later named Moses in literature, and Historicity. Because he has no historicity, does not mean a man may not have escaped and brought a few people from egypt. It just means it did not happen as written.

 

[outhouse]

ok...so you're not convinced.

.

Facts are facts.

Israel Finkelstein Claims it is factual Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites, as we have factual evidence villages started to appear slowly after 1200 BC.


Its not a matter of being concvinced due to bias and required faith. Its about education and knowledge.

 

[Thief]

Most historians claim him as a literary creation. The Exodus did not happen as described, the first 5 books were written by many people and compiled over hundreds of years.


If Moses existed, maybe you could describe his life briefly. Since Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites and have no real ties with Egypt as a whole, where does Moses fit in?

You mistake a possible historical core attributed to a man later named Moses in literature, and Historicity. Because he has no historicity, does not mean a man may not have escaped and brought a few people from egypt. It just means it did not happen as written.

A great many things were not written down at the time of the event.

Your posting technique indicates you won't believe......
unless someone was immediately there....taking notes.

I think that is a shallow requirement.
And very unrealistic.

 

[outhouse]

A great many things were not written down at the time of the event.

Your posting technique indicates you won't believe......
unless someone was immediately there....taking notes.

I think that is a shallow requirement.
And very unrealistic.

I know you cant do better then that, but that is a low refutation, even by your standards.

The only thing shallow is your understanding of what is And what is not historical because of your personal bias.


NO I will not believe fiction or mythology belongs in a historical reality, when all the evidence, every last bit of the FACTS point to reality and not towards mythology.


Historians can see exactly what is and what is not historical, you choose a shallow path of only accepting what you believe based on faith and dogma, not education, knowledge and fact based evidence.

 

[Thief]

I know you cant do better then that, but that is a low refutation, even by your standards.

The only thing shallow is your understanding of what is And what is not historical because of your personal bias.


NO I will not believe fiction or mythology belongs in a historical reality, when all the evidence, every last bit of the FACTS point to reality and not towards mythology.


Historians can see exactly what is and what is not historical, you choose a shallow path of only accepting what you believe based on faith and dogma, not education, knowledge and fact based evidence.

I have no dogmatic faith.
I believe in God because of science.

And I believe science trumps history.

Historically, Man has believed a lot of myth.

Your assumption of me is incorrect.

 

[outhouse]

I have no dogmatic faith.
I believe in God because of science.

And I believe science trumps history.

Historically, Man has believed a lot of myth.

Your assumption of me is incorrect.

God does not exist scientifically, as there is nothing to test for.


Here is your science denouncing a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago

Saying science trumps history is a ignorant statement, science is used to determine historicity.

 

[Thief]

God does not exist scientifically, as there is nothing to test for.


Here is your science denouncing a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago

Saying science trumps history is a ignorant statement, science is used to determine historicity.

Not my science.
Science has cause and effect in place.
The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.
That's my take on it.

Science to prove your history books?
That's not the actual scheme of things.

Science has enough to do without following history myths.

 

[metis]

Not my science.
Science has cause and effect in place.
The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

That's not science-- it's an assumption-- and scientists try to avoid making these.

 

[gnostic]

Not my science.
Science has cause and effect in place.
The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.
That's my take on it.

Science to prove your history books?
That's not the actual scheme of things.

Science has enough to do without following history myths.

Science required a lot more than just cause-and-effect. It required hard evidence...and that's a lot of hard evidences.

What you call "cause-and-effect" is nothing more than YOUR belief, YOUR unsubstantiated opinion, and like métis said - YOUR assumption...and I would amended it slightly, to say your BASELESS ASSUMPTION.

You're simply throwing "cause-and-effect" word around, with no context to science.

In order for science agree with your BELIEF that god is the cause for creation of the universe, you would need -

1. evidences for god's existence...which you don't have,
2. and evidences that linked the universe to god...which, again, you don't have.

Your "cause-and-effect" is nothing more than based on your circular reasoning, which has nothing to do with science.

If you truly think god is the CAUSE - scientifically - then you are required to provide evidences before reaching such conclusion.

In science, evidences are required before reaching conclusion.

Your perverted "cause-and-effect" only required conclusion based on your belief alone with zero evidence.

 

[Thief]

Hard evidence?......like banging your head on the wall until it bleeds?

No circular logic on my part.

Spirit First....then the creation.....then Man.....

a linear existence.

 

[outhouse]

Spirit First....then the creation.....then Man.....

a linear existence.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[Thief]

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

Non-historical retort....void of substance.

 

[gnostic]

Hard evidence?......like banging your head on the wall until it bleeds?

No circular logic on my part.

Spirit First....then the creation.....then Man.....

a linear existence.

That's based on your belief, not science.

Science uses evidences to attain the conclusion, not on unsubstantiated belief or assumption.

Do you not understand?

First you need evidences for this "spirit", then you will need evidences for the "creation". But that's not all, because then you will evidences that spirit was the cause of creation.

This repeated motto of yours "spirit first, then substances" is nothing more than belief and perverted logic of "cause-and-effect".

Science does use "cause-and-effect", but you would required evidences for "cause" and evidences for "effect", and then you would still more evidences to test your hypothetical "cause" to be responsible for the "effect". If you don't have evidences then it is not scientific.

Science has number of process or steps to be taken, before any hypothesis become scientific valid; it's called Scientific Method. Look it up.

 

[outhouse]

Non-historical retort....void of substance.

Which is exactly what your spirit first nonsense is.