Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[Subduction Zone]

I am unclear what you are saying. If God did not write Genesis how can God be held accountable for anything that is in it?
Or do you believe that God was responsible for what the writers wrote, that God inspired them?

For the sake of argument let's say that Genesis was inspired by God, so what Genesis says that God said is actually from God....
In that case what did God lie about?

You are not listening. People that read Genesis literally are calling God a liar. Those people believe that Genesis came from God. The problem is that all of the evidence tells us that Genesis never happened as written in the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not interested on your study about "myth"... it's a superfluos content I don't need to prove my initial point. I write in simple words for general public, and I try to make my topics understandable to ordinary people who do not need so much erudition.

Again: re-read my initial post.

Your initial post is the problem when you tried to make a point that the stories of the Bible are best described as legends and not myths that are becoming authenticated, but legends are defined as unauthenticated. Yes, most of the Pentateuch is unauthenticated and did not exist in any form until after 600 BCE and contains myths Also myths are defined as containing supernatural beings and events, Therefore much of the Bible is mythology.

 

[Trailblazer]

Huh? You don't think that human beings can compose myths that teach values? I love the moral lessons from Star Trek -- no need for the stories to be "planted" by God.

@Subduction Zone said: I will point out that due to all of the evidence confirming that they are myths for them to be true it would mean that God had to go back and plant false evidence. That is a form of lying. In other words creationists are claiming that their own God is a liar.

I replied. That would only be true if God had planted the Genesis story.

I meant that if God did not write Genesis how could God plant false evidence in it?

Yes, I think that human beings can compose myths that teach values, and I think that much of the Bible is mythical, but many Christians are claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, and the things in the stories actually happened.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are not listening. People that read Genesis literally are calling God a liar. Those people believe that Genesis came from God. The problem is that all of the evidence tells us that Genesis never happened as written in the Bible.

I am listening but I am confused.
Some Christians interpret Genesis literally. Those people believe that Genesis came from God.
They are not calling God a liar because they believe Genesis happened as written in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am listening but I am confused.
Some Christians interpret Genesis literally. Those people believe that Genesis came from God.
They are not calling God a liar because they believe Genesis happened as written in the Bible.

Yes they are. Do you understand that all of the evidence tells us that the various stories of Genesis never happened?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I meant that if God did not write Genesis how could God plant false evidence in it?

Got it. Thanks

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes they are. Do you understand that all of the evidence tells us that the various stories of Genesis never happened?

Of course I know that all of the evidence tells us that the various stories of Genesis never happened.
Christians are not calling God a liar because they believe that the various stories of Genesis happened.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am listening but I am confused.
Some Christians interpret Genesis literally. Those people believe that Genesis came from God.
They are not calling God a liar because they believe Genesis happened as written in the Bible.

Most do not think the compilers, authors and believers at the time and culture were liars. The believed literally what was in the text.

Is God a liar? No, because God Created our physical existence billions of years old and the evolved life over the past~3,5 million years, but it is a problem if Genesis is literally true and conflicts with all we know about science and history today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I know that all of the evidence tells us that the various stories of Genesis never happened.
Christians are not calling God a liar because they believe that the various stories of Genesis happened.

You should remember from all of your other losses that bold print does not help you.

I have pointed out many times that creationists do not know that they are calling God a liar.

You pretty much admitted that they are doing that when you said that all of the evidence tells us that it did not happen.

Just answer questions. Understanding will come easier.

Could an all powerful God do what it says in Genesis and then have used his omnipotence to hide that fact? Could he have made it look as if the Earth never had a worldwide flood if that happened. Could he keep doing God magic restoring diversity to the genome of almost all species (not cheetahs for example) to cover up that he killed almost everything of. Though that would take quite a few generations of God magic?

It is all just one yes or no answer.

 

[Heyo]

You should remember from all of your other losses that bold print does not help you.

I have pointed out many times that creationists do not know that they are calling God a liar.

You pretty much admitted that they are doing that when you said that all of the evidence tells us that it did not happen.

Just answer questions. Understanding will come easier.

Could an all powerful God do what it says in Genesis and then have used his omnipotence to hide that fact? Could he have made it look as if the Earth never had a worldwide flood if that happened. Could he keep doing God magic restoring diversity to the genome of almost all species (not cheetahs for example) to cover up that he killed almost everything of. Though that would take quite a few generations of God magic?

It is all just one yes or no answer.

I think this time it is you who doesn't understand.

Your claim was that bible literalists are calling god a liar. That would include that they know that the Genesis stories are contradicted by all evidence. It doesn't matter that you, I and @Trailblazer know that. If the literalists don't know, they don't claim their god to be lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think this time it is you who doesn't understand.

Your claim was that bible literalists are calling god a liar. That would include that they know that the Genesis stories are contradicted by all evidence. It doesn't matter that you, I and @Trailblazer know that. If the literalists don't know, they don't claim their god to be lying.

No. They do not have to know that. In fact it works better if they do not. As I have to point out they are calling God a liar, though they do not know that they are doing that.

For fun let's pretend that the Flood actually happened. Yet in the world that we live in we can clearly see that all of the evidence, from DNA on up tells us that there was no flood. Now an omnipotent God could take the time and cover up all of his evil deeds. An omnipotent God could put false evidence into the Earth that we see to make it look much holder and of course remove any damage that the flood had done. An omnipotent God could even alter the DNA in almost all life for generations until it looked as if there was never a massive population bottleneck. But all of this would be introducing false evidence. That is a form of lying. If the flood actually happened God would have to have been a liar and creationists are claiming that the flood actually happened. That is calling God a liar.

 

[Heyo]

No. They do not have to know that. In fact it works better if they do not. As I have to point out they are calling God a liar, though they do not know that they are doing that.

For fun let's pretend that the Flood actually happened. Yet in the world that we live in we can clearly see that all of the evidence, from DNA on up tells us that there was no flood. Now an omnipotent God could take the time and cover up all of his evil deeds. An omnipotent God could put false evidence into the Earth that we see to make it look much holder and of course remove any damage that the flood had done. An omnipotent God could even alter the DNA in almost all life for generations until it looked as if there was never a massive population bottleneck. But all of this would be introducing false evidence. That is a form of lying. If the flood actually happened God would have to have been a liar and creationists are claiming that the flood actually happened. That is calling God a liar.

"Lying implies intention. God didn't intended to deceive. There is no evidence that the flood didn't happen, thus god didn't plant false evidence, thus god isn't lying.
You are lying, or at least you are deceived (by the devil), when you claim that there is evidence. You're a victim of an illusion.
The Bible is the ultimate source of Truth™ and the Bible doesn't say that god is deceitful." - the view you need to ponder

 

[Trailblazer]

Could an all powerful God do what it says in Genesis and then have used his omnipotence to hide that fact? Could he have made it look as if the Earth never had a worldwide flood if that happened. Could he keep doing God magic restoring diversity to the genome of almost all species (not cheetahs for example) to cover up that he killed almost everything of. Though that would take quite a few generations of God magic?

It is all just one yes or no answer.

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Lying implies intention. God didn't intended to deceive. There is no evidence that the flood didn't happen, thus god didn't plant false evidence, thus god isn't lying.
You are lying, or at least you are deceived (by the devil), when you claim that there is evidence. You're a victim of an illusion.
The Bible is the ultimate source of Truth™ and the Bible doesn't say that god is deceitful." - the view you need to ponder

Gpd is supposedly omnipotent. He would have to know how his changes made it look as if there was no flood. He would have been aware of his deception. That would make it a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

Now it looks as if you do not know what the word "omnipotent" means.

 

[Heyo]

Now it looks as if you do not know what the word "omnipotent" means.

I guess you don't know what "omnipotent" means. If god was omnipotent and wanted to change history, it would have been changed in a way we could never detect.

 

[YoursTrue]

By the evidence of your post history you seriously debate the "Witness of Jehovah" perspective concerning your rejection of the sciences of abiogenes/evolution, and other subjects of the Bible.

simply not true. I'm not going into detail now but you really need to get more education about this. Take care and have a good night. bye for now. Nothing proves abiogenesis at all in the least no matter what weak arguments you might bring up, and it is sad that you actually think it happened from -- nothing and/or magic and/or that's what started evolution. Simply sad. Which actually shows that you have no basis for your criticism. Along with the very obviously concocted scientific views about this.

 

[YoursTrue]

. . . because it is radically in contradiction of the known evidence of science and archaeology if remotely true. It represents the illogical beliefs of some that God Created the evidence to support the scientific view of the nature of our physical existence and the history of humanity,.

No, it doesn't.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not listening. People that read Genesis literally are calling God a liar. Those people believe that Genesis came from God. The problem is that all of the evidence tells us that Genesis never happened as written in the Bible.

And you know, of course, that the ideas and statements in Genesis did not come from God, is that right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Now it looks as if you do not know what the word "omnipotent" means.

It means All-Powerful.