Genesis, a historical book?

1- you present assertions dealing with Mesopotamia not Egypt.
2-not evidence.

give me something i can read online or go to a decent university library and read. i see no evidence that the egyptians in 1200 bc had any idea of heliocentricism or the spherical nature of the earth. all the evidence points to spherical nature discovered in 400bc by the greeks and the heliocentric nature discovered in europe in the 1500's.

just listing journals is not bibliography.
give me something i can use, what you say is contradictory to what i have learned.

but i am open to learning, just give me something to read.

If you go to a university they have journals, look up the ones I presented.
The time span I gave you was 2000 B.C. to 1400 B.C. The time of Abraham (Babylonian era) to the time of Moses (Egyptian era).

GodSaves - you are really suggesting that rather than you actually tell us which issues of these journals these articles are in, we should look through every edition for the last n decades?

I don't think the articles supporting your assertions exist, quite frankly. I think they are a figment of someone's imagination - yours, or whoever told you these journals contained this information.

Prove me wrong. Cite. Or retract.

GodSaves said:

Vance, is the interpretation of Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior, Son of God, crucified and ressurected, ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father, the only right interpretation?

This the Bible clearly teaches, as does the Bible clearly teach God created the heavens and the earth, and not that God had the heavens and the earth evolve. You think this is my interpretation, yet I can back this interpretation up with scripture. Can you back up the belief of evolution with scripture?

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, no, the two are not equally "clear". Not by a long shot. And, no, you can not "back up" your interpretation with Scripture, you can only point to Scripture and say "this means what I say it means". And I would point to that same Scripture and say "no, I don't believe it means that at all." Again, your entire position revolves around your belief that your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 are correct.

There are no Scripture which describes evolutionary processes any more than there are verses describing photosynthesis, or how rainbows are formed or how gravity works. There are no verses that describe that the earth revolves around the Sun. The Bible is not a science book and is not meant to be read that way.

You can point to Scripture to argue for a six day special creation process exactly the same way geocentrists have pointed to Scripture to argue that the sun must literally revolve around the earth.

Micaiah said:

While on the subject, I'd be interested to read some of the legends that were doing the rounds at the time Genesis was written, and also some of the genealogies that include references to the gods of that time. If you believe the TE tales, they sound just like the accounts given in Genesis. I'd like to see the original language, and the interpretation. I take it these have all been carefully studied by the TE's who make these claims. So lets see them.

Click to expand...

You can start with the Epic of Gilgamesh, for one. The Red Branch Cycle in Celtic literature is another. Any decent book about Caesar will contain his claims to descent from Venus.

Also, you might try reading Herodotus for a number of useful things. First, when he was in Egypt, he had a discussion with the priests there and they discussed how many generations their cultures had going back before they got to the gods. Also, he very often will recreate entire dialogue that he never heard based on what he believed was probably said, given the circumstances. And this was considered entirely valid "history" at the time.

Vance, there are no scriptures that even assert God had everything evolve. Yet there are many scriptures that show that if God speaks it happens, not 2 billion years later, but that instant. There is a verse that states when God thinks it has already come to pass. When ever I give you scriptures without explanation you and others say I have interpretated them, and yet I have given no explanation of some of them.

Geocentrists, this is something you must hold onto, but yet cannot understand. Where in the Bible is it specific and says that the sun revolves around the earth?? Where Vance, present the verse that specifically says this. Don't give verses with your or any ones interpretation, but give the verses on their own that state the sun revolves around the earth, period.

You want not interpretation, and a specific statement by Moses about the creation, which I am sure you will deny:

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I will give you no explanation, and the verse will speak clearly to how long God took to create the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. It is your choice on how badly you want to believe evolution instead of God's clear teachings.

It does not matter how many verses teach about creationism, those who are firm in wanting to believe evolution will deny all scriptures that teach differently them man. This is the beginning of the greatest mistake you will make. When you choose to take man's theories over God's Word. It is not just interpretation, but also the clear teaching of God's Word without interpretation.
You are not willing to be corrected by scripture. For if you were you would take to heart these scriptures that clearly, without interpretation, teach that God created everything and did not take some ingredients, mix them, and toss them so they can evolve. This is man's perversion, to believe man and to not trust God.

Which one of you was there during creation? Which one of you saw God create an ape and then watch it evolve into a man? Which one of you saw God pluck this man and then put Him into the Garden of Eden? Which one of you saw all this? Tell me if you know.

God was there, and not man. And yet you trust man for the accounts of the beginning and not God. Then you say, oh I trust God because I have theistic in my category name. Yeah, and the Israelites believed in the Holy God, and yet worshiped golden calves.

Have you not learned anything from the Bible? That the wisdom of the world, the greatest wisdom of the world, is foolishness. Wisdom is not from this world, or about this world, it is from God about God.

Since, evolution cannot provide any proof for its claim (show me where in the species of animals that a reptile turned into a bird, an ape into a man, how a chemical reaction produces life and not a chemical reaction, how we have so much hydrogen in the atomsphere yet we are billions of years old) and yet expects man to believe it, then I expect you to search through all the journals I listed. You offer no proof for your belief, not in science and not the Bible, and yet you claim it is the truth. This is the wisdom God referred to as foolishness.

GodSaves said:

Since, evolution cannot provide any proof for its claim (show me where in the species of animals that a reptile turned into a bird, an ape into a man, how a chemical reaction produces life and not a chemical reaction, how we have so much hydrogen in the atomsphere yet we are billions of years old) and yet expects man to believe it, then I expect you to search through all the journals I listed. You offer no proof for your belief, not in science and not the Bible, and yet you claim it is the truth. This is the wisdom God referred to as foolishness.

Click to expand...

Which one of those journals referenced any 'pre flood' cities? If they did, where they referencing a local or global flood? I think you just added the 'pre flood' yourself. I find it highly unlikely that any of those journals referenced anything as a 'pre-flood' city.

Your post about journals is another examlple of creationists accepting evidence they want while ignoring the rest. If you accept the pieces of the journal content that you use in the argument, you must also accept that that same archeology (by these same journals) has shown that the flood was not world wide and that the sediment below these 'pre flood' cities was not laid down by a global flood. How do they find in tact 'pre-flood' cities and yet we find no evidence of any large flooding in these 'pre-flood' cities?

If you accept the journals conclusions, then you must accept the premise and evidence that led them to those conclusions. There was not a world wide flood (and I'm guessing that any of the journals you mentioned would support that conclusion).

“Vance, there are no scriptures that even assert God had everything evolve. Yet there are many scriptures that show that if God speaks it happens, not 2 billion years later, but that instant. There is a verse that states when God thinks it has already come to pass.”

Yes, but Genesis 1 and 2, even if taken literally, do not state that He created Man in an instant, but that He used a process (using mud and his breath of life), and He had the “earth” bring forth. So, even though we ALL agree that God could have just waved His hand and it all would have appeared, He chose not to do it this way. Even under a literal reading, He did it over a series of “days”, something He did not need to do. So, this is not a matter of questioning God’s ability, but questioning exactly what process He used and how long He took to do it.

“When ever I give you scriptures without explanation you and others say I have interpretated them, and yet I have given no explanation of some of them.”

But you present it for a particular proposition, which is even worse, since you are presenting it with the assumption that it be obvious that it supports your proposition without explaining why it can not mean something else.

“Geocentrists, this is something you must hold onto, but yet cannot understand. Where in the Bible is it specific and says that the sun revolves around the earth?? Where Vance, present the verse that specifically says this. Don't give verses with your or any ones interpretation, but give the verses on their own that state the sun revolves around the earth, period.”

I have already given you all of these. All you have to do is go to the “Dejavu all over again” thread and follow the link to the site of the modern geocentrists. This sets out all those verses which people for centuries (and some obviously, still today) believe indicate that the Scripture presents a geocentric solar system (and even universe!). There is no need for me to cut and paste those verses here. But you are right, it is NOT correct to say that those Scriptures teach geocentrism, it is only the over-literal reading of those Scriptures that causes that result. Just like with a young earth.

“You want not interpretation, and a specific statement by Moses about the creation, which I am sure you will deny:

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I will give you no explanation, and the verse will speak clearly to how long God took to create the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. It is your choice on how badly you want to believe evolution instead of God's clear teachings.

It does not matter how many verses teach about creationism, those who are firm in wanting to believe evolution will deny all scriptures that teach differently them man. This is the beginning of the greatest mistake you will make. When you choose to take man's theories over God's Word. It is not just interpretation, but also the clear teaching of God's Word without interpretation.”

But you forget that I believed that this verse must be taken non-literally BEFORE I accepted evolution. You would like to have every interpretation which differs from yours be based on a desire to conform Scripture to science. This is simply not the case.

“You are not willing to be corrected by scripture.”

Sure, I am, just not your interpretation of it.

“For if you were you would take to heart these scriptures that clearly, without interpretation, teach that God created everything and did not take some ingredients, mix them, and toss them so they can evolve. This is man's perversion, to believe man and to not trust God.”

But there is no reading of Scripture without interpretation. And the rest of your polemic is just wrong. I trust God every bit as much as you do. This is just more of the slanderous “you must not really be as good of a Christian as the rest of us” junk. I have just as much Faith, revere the Scripture just as highly, as you do. You just can not accept this fact.

“Which one of you was there during creation? Which one of you saw God create an ape and then watch it evolve into a man? Which one of you saw God pluck this man and then put Him into the Garden of Eden? Which one of you saw all this? Tell me if you know.”

Just as you were not there to see whether God actually created over six 24 hour days, 6,000 years ago. Your interpretation is JUST as speculative as ours. The question is which interpretation is most likely to be correct?

“God was there, and not man. And yet you trust man for the accounts of the beginning and not God. Then you say, oh I trust God because I have theistic in my category name. Yeah, and the Israelites believed in the Holy God, and yet worshiped golden calves.”

Ah, so now we are getting down to it. You really do see Christians who accept evolution as no better than apostates and heretics. You call us liars when we say we trust God and believe His Holy Word is Truth. I knew you would fess up eventually.

“Have you not learned anything from the Bible? That the wisdom of the world, the greatest wisdom of the world, is foolishness. Wisdom is not from this world, or about this world, it is from God about God.”

Yes, the whole salvation message seems as foolishness to Man. As does the concept of loving your enemy. It is all foolishness and contrary to human nature. But God does not want us to be ignorant about His Creation, either. He was not talking about the foolishness of scientific discovery at all.

“Since, evolution cannot provide any proof for its claim (show me where in the species of animals that a reptile turned into a bird, an ape into a man, how a chemical reaction produces life and not a chemical reaction, how we have so much hydrogen in the atomsphere yet we are billions of years old) and yet expects man to believe it, then I expect you to search through all the journals I listed. You offer no proof for your belief, not in science and not the Bible, and yet you claim it is the truth. This is the wisdom God referred to as foolishness.”

Well, TwinCrier, Godsaves just proved my point regarding the relative knowledge of both sides of the issues.

Vance said:

Well, TwinCrier, Godsaves just proved my point regarding the relative knowledge of both sides of the issues.

Click to expand...

Oh, so there is proof. Please tell where the evidence is that shows conclusively that man evolved from an ape. I would like to see the actually transformation. Where is the evidence that shows a reptile changing into a bird? Explain how a chemical reaction that is taught produces a chemical reaction, actually produces life and not the chemical reaction?

If chemicals can create life, then answer me this: Has man made water from just chemicals? Where is the proof and the evidence that shows chemicals can produce life? Please share because I have never read any paper, journal, or report where man has witnessed life being created purely from chemicals.

First of all, we are not talking about abiogenesis, but evolutionary development. My point is that anyone who knows both sides of the issue would never be asking for "proof", since science can almost never provide proof, but only evidence. So, no, we don't have proof, but so much evidence that it is nearly so.

And no, I am not going to set out in massive detail all the evidence in this thread. That would take forever, and we have provided tons of it already, both here and on the Creation and evolution forum. But in short, we have genetic, morphological, and fossil evidence (among others) that different species descended from common ancestors. Added to that we have a biological process that has been shown (yes, actually shown) to create enough change as to develop new species. So, we have the facts of evolution and a process by which it can happen.

Both the big bang and evolution are theories of the beginning of the universe and man apart from God. After all scientists say that cells did descend from a chemical reaction. Where is the evidence for a chemical reaction producing life and not a chemical reaction?

You do realize that neither the Big Bang nor evolution discuss the beginnings of life on earth?

Abiogenesis is what you are talking about, and it is a very different question altogether from either the Big Bang or evolutionary development. There is very little evidence for abiogenesis, but TONS for evolution.

Also, did you know that the Big Bang was first posited by a Christian scientist? Were you aware that at first, there were some militant atheists who were hostile to the theory because it seemed to conform to an initial creative act like we see in Genesis? It became accepted regardless of this religious overtone because it is a very strong and well-founded scientific theory.

It is odd sometimes. Over in the Creation and evolution forum recently, there were two threads started by YEC's going at the same time. One was basically "hey, you atheist, how can you believe in the Big Bang and NOT believe in God!? The Big Bang is proof of God's Creation!" while the other was "hey, you atheists, how can you believe that Big Bang nonsense?"

But, no, neither the Big Bang nor evolution are theories "apart from God". Like photosynthesis or gravity, they are simply explanations of how things happen (or happened). Are you shocked when you read a science book about gravity and find no reference to God?

With any scientific explanation of how things work, you either believe God created the natural process or you do not. You believe God created the natural processes which result in rainbows, but you fully accept that science can explain rainbows without reference to God. In fact, they can believe rainbows occur without believing in God. But you do not disbelieve the scientific explanation of rainbows simply because it a process not tied directly to God in the least by secular scientists. Why not?

BTW, is the rainbow any less of a miracle because it happens due to refracted light? Is it any less of a promise from God? When God placed the rainbow in the sky as a promise, don't you think He used the natural process of refracted light to create it?

GodSaves said:

Oh, so there is proof. Please tell where the evidence is that shows conclusively that man evolved from an ape. I would like to see the actually transformation.

Click to expand...

We've presented this before. I'm willing to do the work one more time, if, and only if, you agree to review it and either actually demonstrate why it is wrong, or accept that we did, indeed, evolved from an ape. Otherwise there's no point, is there?

Where is the evidence that shows a reptile changing into a bird?

Click to expand...

The same.

Explain how a chemical reaction that is taught produces a chemical reaction, actually produces life and not the chemical reaction?

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Life is a series of chemical reactions.

If chemicals can create life, then answer me this: Has man made water from just chemicals?

Click to expand...

Yes. Just burn hydrogen. But you didn't mean to ask that, did you?

Where is the proof and the evidence that shows chemicals can produce life?

Click to expand...

Digestion creates living tissues from chemicals. What's the problem?

Please share because I have never read any paper, journal, or report where man has witnessed life being created purely from chemicals.

Click to expand...

Define exactly what you want. I've just shown that digestion fits the requirements as you state them. I think it's something else you want, but you're going to need to define it.

Please tell where the evidence is that shows conclusively that man evolved from an ape.

Click to expand...

this is getting boring. Humanity did not evolve from apes. Humanity evolved from a common ancestor to the apes.

As for the evidence, it's in lots of museums and universities around the world. It's called fossils. Go and look at it. Same with the reptile/bird thing.

I would like to see the actually transformation.

Click to expand...

What do you mean, the actual transformation? It's not like the morphing into a wolf scene from "An American Werewolf in London," you know.

Evolution depends upon the fact that organisms reproduce "after their kind". If dogs gave birth to cats it wouldn't work.

Except for the "let the earth produce", which I would suggest is a hint.

You're wasting your time Karl. Anything involving subtlety and nuance goes way above the YEC's head. Your average YEC wouldn't spot a metaphor if it had metaphor written through it like a stick of Blackpool Rock and shouted "I'm a metaphor" at the top of its voice. They probably are the last people on earth who think that poetry has to rhyme.