Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Was Jacob aware of the Genesis Creation story?And what specific "ancient middle-eastern tribe" are you referring to?
He was probably aware of what would later be recorded in Genesis as the account of God's Creation, but for the obvious reason that it wasn't yet in existence he would not have known the actual Genesis account.Was Jacob aware of the Genesis Creation story?
Was Jacob aware of the Genesis Creation story?
He was probably aware of what would later be recorded in Genesis as the account of God's Creation, but for the obvious reason that it wasn't yet in existence he would not have known the actual Genesis account.
But Jacob lived before Genesis was actually written.I have no doubt whatsoever he was.
I'm sure he carried his Bible with him at all times.
That describes the book. It doesn't mean that the book was written while Adam was still alive. Moses wrote Genesis.What was this then?
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
But Jacob lived before Genesis was actually written.
That describes the book. It doesn't mean that the book was written while Adam was still alive. Moses wrote Genesis.
I haven't heard of the Wiseman hypothesis. I would say only that Jesus referred to the Old Testament as "Moses and the prophets." For example:I subscribe to the Wiseman Hypothesis:
The Wiseman hypothesis, sometimes called the tablet theory, is a theory of the authorship and composition of the Book of Genesis which suggests that Moses compiled Genesis from tablets handed down through Abraham and the other patriarchs.
Wiseman hypothesis
Terminology is important. One reason for this is the common propensity of many to try to win their argument or position largely by redefining terms--to suit their arguing points. David Hume is a great example of this concerning the topic of miracles.I do not make a habit of siding with atheists, but when they are right one has little choice, doesn't one?
You will have to do a lot better than quibble over terminology to win any converts to YEC.
Yep...another one(and far more frequent in discussions with atheists today) is the way supernatural is defined(or perhaps more accurately, not defined)Terminology is important. One reason for this is the common propensity of many to try to win their argument or position largely by redefining terms--to suit their arguing points. David Hume is a great example of this concerning the topic of miracles.
Here's a groovy video I found that talks about Noah's Ark, which happens to be my minor forté.
So I though I'd post it and then pick it apart over time; but not necessarily in chronological order.
The first thing I would like to point out is that Noah's Ark is not a boat, it is an ark.
A containment vessel.
Calling it a boat or a ship shows a disrespect for its true identity.
More later.
The global Flood is supported by geological evidence, such as continent-spanning sedimentary layers and marine fossils on mountains. Ancient flood myths found worldwide--from Mesopotamia to the Americas--serve to corroborate Genesis as a real event, not just a myth.Yes, the flood story was part of the ancient Hebrew mythos.
Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that there never was a worldwide flood. There was a very severe local flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys that may have started the flood story, but at not point was mankind threatened by such a flood:
Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | NCSE
Ancient flood myths found worldwide--from Mesopotamia to the Americas--serve to corroborate Genesis as a real event, not just a myth.
Of course your analogy fails because it conflates universal flood accounts [(which align with geological evidence like continent-spanning sedimentary layers and marine fossils on mountains (Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist)] with disparate mythological tropes. Flood narratives (e.g., Mesopotamian, Native American) share specific details with Genesis (global deluge, survival via vessel, and divine judgment), unlike dragon or sun myths, which lack such consistency and empirical corroboration. As William Craig notes in his work, A Reasonable Response, the Flood's geological and cross-cultural evidence meets historiographical criteria for establishing reliability. In contrast, isolated myths do not. The Flood's unique convergence of literary and scientific evidence distinguishes it from the arbitrary folklore that you have referenced.Ancient dragon myths found worldwide - from Mesopotamia to the Americas- serve to corroborate Beowulf as a real event, not just a myth.
Ancient tiny people myths found worldwide - from Australia to Ireland - server to corroborate Gulliver's Travels as a real event, not just a story.
Ancient sun myths found worldwide - from Egypt to Mesoamerica - serve to corroborate that Unkulunkulu is a star being and the ancestor and creator of the Zulu people.
Of course your analogy fails because it conflates universal flood accounts [(which align with geological evidence like continent-spanning sedimentary layers and marine fossils on mountains (Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist)] with disparate mythological tropes. Flood narratives (e.g., Mesopotamian, Native American) share specific details with Genesis (global deluge, survival via vessel, and divine judgment), unlike dragon or sun myths, which lack such consistency and empirical corroboration. As William Craig notes in his work, A Reasonable Response, the Flood's geological and cross-cultural evidence meets historiographical criteria for establishing reliability.
In contrast, isolated myths do not. The Flood's unique convergence of literary and scientific evidence distinguishes it from the arbitrary folklore that you have referenced.
Nope. None of that is true at all, including the Genesis account. Everything you brought up is explained by the geology and movement of the Earth over long periods of time. The Earth tells the story very clearly that there is no evidence of a a Biblical flood.The global Flood is supported by geological evidence, such as continent-spanning sedimentary layers and marine fossils on mountains. Ancient flood myths found worldwide--from Mesopotamia to the Americas--serve to corroborate Genesis as a real event, not just a myth.
One of the major issues with Creation "science" is that it puts the cart before the horse by starting with a theory and then trying to fit the evidence to that theory, rather than engaging in the recursive process that science involves. Nye's critique is misguided not because any sort of missed evidence, but because he doesn't deal with the principal issue of the procedural malfeasance that is involved in this approach. It's one thing to believe the literal account of the Bible as a faith-based belief and disregard the academic approach to science, another thing entirely to engage in the sort of duplicitous cherry picking that plagues Creation "science".Nye’s critique of the biblical Flood account is flawed due to the fact that it dismisses both divine intervention and sound research by creationists. The fossil layers in the Grand Canyon comport with hydrodynamic sorting during a global flood (Snelling, 2009), not with slow sedimentation. Many young-earth creationist scientists believe in a post-flood ice age as part of their geological and climatic model. Nye's objection about kangaroo migration ignores that a post-flood Ice Age could have created temporary land bridges that are now submerged (Oard, 2004). Also, ancient shipbuilding techniques (like the sewn boats of Kerala) and God's design (Genesis 6:14-16) make Noah’s Ark feasible, unlike the ill-fated Wyoming, which lacked God’s guidance (Woodmorappe, 1996). And of course Nye’s naturalistic assumptions contribute to his deficient evaluation of the biblical model.
References:
Snelling, A. A. (2009). Earth’s Catastrophic Past. Institute for Creation Research.
Oard, M. J. (2004). The Frozen Record. ICR.
Woodmorappe, J. (1996). Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study. ICR.
The Earth tells the story very clearly that there is no evidence of a a Biblical flood.
According to the earth, what happened to that evidence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?