Yes, Genesis is the foundation of the Gospel. That does not mean that it is a 100% accurate history.
A Challenge or Stripe - Can you defend one aspect of Creation Science of your choice?
- Thread starter CabinetMaker
- Start date
- Status
Aside form the fact that is yet another violation of the terms for this discussion, these are rabit trails of your creation.
I stated that one of the ways we study history is through multiple accounts of the same event.
You stated that there are multiple accounts but that Genesis was far and away the best. Since you said these other events are historical accounts, we need to determine how you arrived at the conclusion that Genesis is the best. We need to know if you actually consider the other creation accounts as actual history or if you see them as legends.
Please explain to us if these other creation accounts are historical or not. Please explain to us how you determined that Genesis is the best account.
These are the statements that get you into trouble. You made a declarative statement without any offer of support and expect it to be accepted as universal truth. The trouble is, it is anything but obvious. Take Barnenez, France. It was started in 4850BC. In France. That makes it roughly 6960 years old, about a thousand years older than a 6000 year old Earth allows for. If we allow even a little flexibility in the 6000 year creation timeline, at best, it would mean that while Adam and Eve were walking in the Garden of Eden, somebody was in France building this thing.
6days
New member
I don't expect everyone to accept God's Word as absolute truth. Sadly, many Christians prefer mans opinions, rather than God's Word.Cabinetmaker said:
Rather than accept the clear history set out in God's Word, you accept secular reasoning. For example, if you trust the C14 date of 6850 at Barnenez, do you also trust the C14 date of 28,000 years on soft dino tissue? These C14 dates are consistent with expectations when you trust the Biblical flood model and the disruption to C14 / C12 ratios.Cabinetmaker said:
Trust the history God has given us Cabinetmaker, and you won't get into trouble.
I trust the history God has left for us to find.
One of the troubles with trusting Genesis blindly is that it makes God a liar. It means that He intentionally created a world specifically designed to look much older than it really is. Why would God do that?
Its not whats right that's problematic, its what may be wrong that is being offered as fact that's problematic.
6days
New member
You absolutely don't! You reject the written history He provided for us. And you trust secular opinions which reject both God and His Word....and the evidence from His creation.Cabinetmaker said:
Cabinetmaker said:
You reject God's Word..... you reject the evidence from His creation....and then you call Him a liar.
Cabinetmaker..... how old was Eve when God introduced her to Adam? Do you think Adam called God a liar saying 'she sure looks more than 2 minutes old'. Or, did Adam gaze at Eve's navel calling God a liar for giving her a belly button? That is exactly what you are doing..... you are looking at things like distant starlight, radiometric dating etc; then calling God a liar. The world around us does not look old.
And... sorry for butting in on your thread. I will now bow out.
Then nothing in the Bible is true.
I said I trust the evidence He left for us to find.
You misrepresent what I said and neglect to address the point I raise. Your response is completely non-responsive.
I think Adam looked at Eve and gave thanks to God for creating Him a wonderful helper. I do not honestly think that Adam and Eve cared one iota for geology. fossils, or how far away the stars are. They cared for each other and for the garden. We could learn much from their example.
Please, hang around. If Stripe is true to form, he is pretty much done with this thread.And... sorry for butting in on your thread. I will now bow out.
Why would you think that? I don't. But then, everything in the Bible is not intended to be taken literally. For instance, do you hate hate your wife, mother, father, brothers and sisters?
[h=1]Luke 14:26-27New International Version (NIV)[/h] 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Nope.
The question posed to you was: Is Genesis an account of history?
You have to attribute to me ideas I have actually endorsed, not make things up.
Nope.
This is what happens when people challenge your irrational nonsense; you double down on your errors and pretend the other guy has failed. Meanwhile, the topic gets ignored.
Is the account of Joseph accurate?
Nope. You insisted that there needs to be more than one account for something to be studied.
Nope.
You're just desperate to avoid a rational conversation.
Is the account of Joseph accurate?
This statement is utterly untrue. It's like you just invent rules so you can demand sources and evidence when the poor saps you engage with call you on it.
You got called on this statement. This statement needed to be retracted, then your entire line of argumentation is rendered irrelevant, because correcting your falsehoods can be dispensed with and perhaps we can get on topic.
I'm desperate to avoid conversation!? I have asked you defend your statement and all say is nope, nope, nope. How can you say I'm avoiding conversation when you won't answer a simple question?
Why is the statement "utterly untrue"? How do you think history is investigated? By consensus? By decree? Yes, you called my on this and no, I do not need to retract my statement. You called me and I explained my reasoning. You don't seem to agree with me but you will not answer how you think history should be conducted.
Here red is your original statement regarding creation accounts.
If not, how did you determine that Genesis is the best?
If none of these other accounts are historical, then can you honestly say we have multiple histories of creation to compare and examine?
Are all of these accounts accurate historical accounts of creation?
If not, how did you determine that Genesis is the best?
If none of these other accounts are historical, then can you honestly say we have multiple histories of creation to compare and examine?
Nope.
Once again, you need to respond to what I do say, not something you've invented.
Easy. I didn't accuse you of avoiding conversation. That would be silly. You've put out enough conversation to sink a ship.
Is the account of Joseph accurate?
How about you tell us why we need more than one account to discuss the historical value of a document, or point to an expert who has said this. :up:
It's not up to me to show reasons that something you've invented is not true.
Nope. This was to explain how useless your objection to my "History" post was. What you need to do is retract your nonsense assertion that there needs to be more than one account — there doesn't need to be, and your invention is useless because there is more than one — and then get with the program:
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? |
Your move. :up:
Then let me remind you of exactly what you did say:
Looks like you DID say I am desperate to avoid rational conversation.
You've asked this question several times so here is a direct answer. You will not like the answer, but here it is.
As a matter of personal faith, yes.
As a matter of documented and verified history, no.
Answer these questions, that you ignored previously (once again violating the terms you agreed to abide by), and you will have a better understanding of why we try so hard to verify history through archaeology and other methods.
Is it important to you to verify that the history recorded in books is supported by artifacts?
Actually, it is. When you make a positive, declaritive statement the burden of proof lies with you to support your claim. Simply saying, "You're wrong!" is nothing more than an emotional and irrational statement.. Saying, "You're wrong because of ..." and then listing your supporting points would form a rational argument.
As soon as you give me a rational reason for retracting my statement, I will.
You have a lot of unsupported assertions and questions that you have not answered up to this point. It is pointless to introduce new points until you have addressed what is already before you.
Yep. :up:
Is the Joseph account accurate?
:AMR:
Do you just use long words for filler without considering meaning? How on Earth is the documentation of Joseph's story not "documented"?
And I'm not asking for it to be "verified," that you think it is inaccurate is enough. We have advanced the conversation. :thumb:
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: No. |
Why do you think it is not accurate?
Great. So provide evidence that your "positive, declarative statement" is justified. :up:
You "positively declared" that "If it were to be an [academic] historical discussion, then we would need more than one account" of creation. It is your job to provide evidence, not latch on to a challenge to your assertion and then demand evidence from your opponent.
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: No. S: Why do you think it is not accurate? |
Do try to keep up. I said that it is not a document and verified event in history. There is nothing in Egyptian writings that supports that Joseph was in Egypt. There is speculation that he might have been Imhotep, but that is nothing more than speculation at this time.
So as a matter of HISTORY, I cannot conclude that it is an accurate account.
{quote]Do you just use long words for filler without considering meaning? How on Earth is the documentation of Joseph's story not "documented"?[/quote]You have a single account that is not supported by anything else. The Egyptians did record events from this period yet there is nothing in that historical account that supports the story of Joseph. That is why I say it is unverified. I amend my statement to say that there is only a single document that contains the story of Joseph to which you refer.
You should be because your chosen subject is history. History is a subject that requires verification to be offered ans settled fact. So far, you have not provided any supporting evidence for your assertion that Genesis is an accurate history. That is why Genesis is not taught in schools as a history of the world. If you can provide some evidence that Genesis is indeed an history of the world then I would imagine that schools would have to change their curriculum to adjust for that. Are you up to that task?
- Status