If creationism is divinely inspired...

[mark kennedy]

Contrary to what academians say, the creation narrative was not written by the Israelites.

Do what?

 

[Colter]

Genesis represents an attempt by ruling priest class to create a story of origins of the Jewish people in order to establish a traditional concept of their origin and destiny.


RELATIVITY OF CONCEPT FRAMES

"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true. God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man's highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place." UB 1955

 

[AV1611VET]

Do what?

I believe Adam wrote Genesis 1-3.

Genesis 5:1a This is the book of the generations of Adam.

Genesis is called "The First Book of Moses," not because he wrote it (he wasn't alive at the time), but because he translated it into Hebrew.

And I seriously doubt Moses changed anything Adam wrote.

 

[TheBear]

I believe Adam wrote Genesis 1-3.

Genesis 5:1a This is the book of the generations of Adam.

Genesis is called "The First Book of Moses," not because he wrote it (he wasn't alive at the time), but because he translated it into Hebrew.

And I seriously doubt Moses changed anything Adam wrote.

There's so much wrong with that. Please cite where Adam wrote Gen 1-3. And "This is the book of the generations of Adam." doesn't cut it. As you should know, it could be a biography that someone else wrote about Adam.

Also, Moses writes about his own death.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe Adam wrote Genesis 1-3.

Genesis 5:1a This is the book of the generations of Adam.

Genesis is called "The First Book of Moses," not because he wrote it (he wasn't alive at the time), but because he translated it into Hebrew.

And I seriously doubt Moses changed anything Adam wrote.

Come to think of it I've heard that before. Henry Morris thought it was carved on tablets along with the genealogies. I still dont see how anyone could get the creation without direct revelation. And oral tradition is nore accurate then written records, but I see where your coming from there

 

[AV1611VET]

Come to think of it I've heard that before.

I think it's a form of the Wiseman Hypothesis, aka the Tablet Theory.

Henry Morris thought it was carved on tablets along with the genealogies.

Ya ... Genesis is actually several books in one; with the genealogies serving as the title page.

I still dont see how anyone could get the creation without direct revelation.

That's how I think Adam got it: God took him on a tour of His creation, as well as gave him the information he needed to write everything down.

And oral tradition is nore accurate then written records, but I see where your coming from there

Imagine hiring a secretary to write your autobiography.

You tell her what to write, and the order to write it in, then you check her work for accuracy.

After that, you preserve that writing as a template for future readers.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think it's a form of the Wiseman Hypothesis, aka the Tablet Theory.Ya ... Genesis is actually several books in one; with the genealogies serving as the title page.That's how I think Adam got it: God took him on a tour of His creation, as well as gave him the information he needed to write everything down.Imagine hiring a secretary to write your autobiography.

You tell her what to write, and the order to write it in, then you check her work for accuracy.

After that, you preserve that writing as a template for future readers.

It wasnt nessacary to write it down, oral tradition is still the nost accurate way to preserve something like that. I thibk God revealed the content of nost of Genesis to Noses at Sinai. The Levutes had sole responsibilitu for keeping the Law and other Scriptures, Moses was just the chief scribe being from the tribe of Levi, thus a Levite himself.

I pursed that tablets theory for some time, a friend on here sent stuff on it all the time. In the end its like the Q document or the Shroud of Turin, all vrey interesting nut not a lot to hang your hat on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually creation is essential doctrine.

Yes, I know - that's what I said.
Your particular version of your religion requires you to believe this without question, like a dogma. Nevermind the evidence. You are required to believe it as some kind of religious duty.

That is the only reason that you believe it.
Not because it's actually true, not because of evidence in support of it (because there isn't any, hence why you need "faith"), not because it is sensible.... no. Just simply because it's part of your religion and you are religiously required / forced to believe it.

If God isnt believed to have created life, whats that say about eternal life.

I don't know, but certainly not something relevant to the actual facts concerning the origins of life.

Its amazing how much you guys never learn about the religious convictions you trample under foot.

You think so ha?
I'm well aware of the various religious beliefs.
I'm also aware how evidence and empirical reality always, always, trumps religious beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that when a belief (religious or otherwise) says A, while the evidence of reality says B - then A is never the way to go. At least not, if you care about holding justified and true beliefs.

How would you know

Because I'm honest about the evidence.

its been years since the Darwinians on hear showed the slightest interest in actual eviden, even when confronted with it.

lol

Maybe it's time for you to read up a bit on the work biologists have done the past 200 years....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Also, Moses writes about his own death.

"God is mysterious".


So, glad that's settled.

 

[Colter]

There's so much wrong with that. Please cite where Adam wrote Gen 1-3. And "This is the book of the generations of Adam." doesn't cut it. As you should know, it could be a biography that someone else wrote about Adam.

Also, Moses writes about his own death.

AV provides a teachable moment, he's "speculating" because he doesn't really know. That's what the Old Testament is, religious men speculating. One group in Mesopotamia appropriating ancient lore while exaggerating their own place in the world.

Cain feared people out in the world because there really were already people out in the world that had already fallen.


While the God concept of the Old Testament does improve throughout, it's largely a God who acts and behaves much like the men who wrote it. Its a religious, political, nationalist propaganda book wherein the authors elevated themselves high above their Semitic cousins in the region who still resent them today!

Jesus revealed the true Father in his life as well as the true brotherhood of all mankind. That was unacceptable to the Jews. So they tried to kill him and were finally un-chosen.


Even though Jesus warned them not to, the Christians made compromises in order to try to bring the Jews, they put the new wine into the old wineskins.

 

[AV1611VET]

"God is mysterious".

We believe Joshua wrote of Moses' death.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, I know - that's what I said.
Your particular version of your religion requires you to believe this without question, like a dogma. Nevermind the evidence. You are required to believe it as some kind of religious duty.

No, religious conviction has its own criteria, but it doesnt dismiss evidence. There are whats known as hermenutic principles, the Scriptures are evidence.

That is the only reason that you believe it.
Not because it's actually true, not because of evidence in support of it (because there isn't any, hence why you need "faith"), not because it is sensible.... no. Just simply because it's part of your religion and you are religiously required / forced to believe it.

I have no such compulsion and unlike you I have sppent a great deal of time exploring the evidence, internal, external, bibliographical and empirical. I've read extensively on the subject of genomics and paleontology and you obviously dont have the slightest interest.

I don't know, but certainly not something relevant to the actual facts concerning the origins of life.

A lot of sweeping generalities about the facts but no actual facts, typical.

You think so ha?
I'm well aware of the various religious beliefs.
I'm also aware how evidence and empirical reality always, always, trumps religious beliefs.

I see no indication of that.

The fact of the matter is that when a belief (religious or otherwise) says A, while the evidence of reality says B - then A is never the way to go. At least not, if you care about holding justified and true beliefs.



Because I'm honest about the evidence.



lol

Maybe it's time for you to read up a bit on the work biologists have done the past 200 years....

I have done the background reading. Darwinians never do.

 

[Colter]

We believe Joshua wrote of Moses' death.

The gaff was so obvious they had to invent Joshua writing the part about Moses’s funeral. You know, it’s common for dead authors to allow others to write the last few pages of their books when the presumptive author dies while writing.

Similarly, when authors rewrite their own history, if they can’t trace their lineage on Ansestry.com, they take liberties when includeing a flood.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, religious conviction has its own criteria, but it doesnt dismiss evidence.

Apparantly, it does.

There are whats known as hermenutic principles, the Scriptures are evidence.

No, the scriptures are the claims.
Any evidence you might come up with, must necessarily be scripture independent. Else it's just circular reasoning.

I have no such compulsion and unlike you I have sppent a great deal of time exploring the evidence, internal, external, bibliographical and empirical.

"unlike you" ha?
Then why is it that after all this time, your posts on the subject still are just a repeat of the same old creationist PRATTs?

I've read extensively on the subject of genomics and paleontology and you obviously dont have the slightest interest.

LOL!
So, where did you read about it?
Answers in Genesis? The discovery institute? "Creation science"?
Or did you read "reviews" of the actual works authored by people affiliated with any of the above or similar?

Because it's kind of hard to believe that you studied from proper science sources and still manage to get it all wrong....

A lot of sweeping generalities about the facts but no actual facts, typical.

Just pointing out that the religious implications of empirical facts (whatever they may be in your particular religion of choice), are irrelevant to the actual empirical facts.

The empirical facts of biological evolution also makes cows not holy and rather just an animal like any other. Hinduism believes otherwise. Well, too bad, but what Hindu scriptures have to say about cows is completely irrelevant to the biological empirical reality of what a cow is.

The same goes for the religious implications of "eternal life" in your particular religion.

If reality contradicts a certain a priori belief, then it's not reality that is incorrect........

I see no indication of that.

Maybe that is because you are rather selective in what you want to see....
It would certainly also explain how you can "study" from proper scientific sources and still end up with preaching creationist PRATTs.

I have done the background reading. Darwinians never do.

I see no indication of that. ;-)

 

[TheBear]

We believe Joshua wrote of Moses' death.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

 

[Speedwell]

. And oral tradition is nore accurate then written records, but I see where your coming from there

It depends on what kind of information is to be preserved and transmitted. Oral tradition is excellent for preserving broad themes and concepts, not so good for hard factual data.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends on what kind of information is to be preserved and transmitted. Oral tradition is excellent for preserving broad themes and concepts, not so good for hard factual data.

Shannon entropy can ruin a true story.

 

[lesliedellow]

View attachment 241440
MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
May I remind you that flaming and personal attacks,
due to their lovelessness,
demonstrate their lack of divine inspiration.
Please refrain from further such uninspired behaviour.
MOD HAT OFF​

Only an Anglican could think that anything which comes out of my mouth is inspired.