Christianity is Dead, Long live the rEvolution!

[Bow Before Zeus]

1. Answer this simple question: who wrote Genesis and when? Once you answer that, explain how that person(s) knew the information and how they knew (not thought) what they were writing was a literal account of the history of the universe. If you can't give me a thorough explanation of what it is we are talking about, then there is no sense going on...because you don't know what you are talking about. 

Ok, I have to tell you that at this stage I am quite disappointed. I put my case forward with references to scholarly articles supporting my point of view. All you can come back with is questions expecting me to do your work for you.

This is what you need to do. Now that I have made my case, you need to make yours. If you have a point to make by asking the questions above (and the others for points 2 & 3) then you need to state your case. I am not going to state it for you.

So, tell me who wrote Genesis and what relevance it has to our discussion.

[SteveII]

1. Answer this simple question: who wrote Genesis and when? Once you answer that, explain how that person(s) knew the information and how they knew (not thought) what they were writing was a literal account of the history of the universe. If you can't give me a thorough explanation of what it is we are talking about, then there is no sense going on...because you don't know what you are talking about. 

Ok, I have to tell you that at this stage I am quite disappointed. I put my case forward with references to scholarly articles supporting my point of view. All you can come back with is questions expecting me to do your work for you.

This is what you need to do. Now that I have made my case, you need to make yours. If you have a point to make by asking the questions above (and the others for points 2 & 3) then you need to state your case. I am not going to state it for you.

So, tell me who wrote Genesis and what relevance it has to our discussion.

The point is that you claim that Genesis 1-3 was supposed to be taken literal. To support your claim, you must be able to tell us who wrote it and when. Otherwise it is called an assertion. Because you found someone to make the same assertion does not make it any less of an assertion. 

Assertions don't need to be defeated--only pointed out.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok, I have to tell you that at this stage I am quite disappointed. I put my case forward with references to scholarly articles supporting my point of view. All you can come back with is questions expecting me to do your work for you.

This is what you need to do. Now that I have made my case, you need to make yours. If you have a point to make by asking the questions above (and the others for points 2 & 3) then you need to state your case. I am not going to state it for you.

So, tell me who wrote Genesis and what relevance it has to our discussion.

The point is that you claim that Genesis 1-3 was supposed to be taken literal. To support your claim, you must be able to tell us who wrote it and when. Otherwise it is called an assertion. Because you found someone to make the same assertion does not make it any less of an assertion. 

Assertions don't need to be defeated--only pointed out.

Ok then, I point out that the entire bible is an assertion.
And so I disregard it in its entirety.

[Bow Before Zeus]

The point is that you claim that Genesis 1-3 was supposed to be taken literal. To support your claim, you must be able to tell us who wrote it and when. Otherwise it is called an assertion. Because you found someone to make the same assertion does not make it any less of an assertion. 

Assertions don't need to be defeated--only pointed out.

Ok then, I point out that the entire bible is an assertion.
And so I disregard it in its entirety.

+1

[SteveII]

The point is that you claim that Genesis 1-3 was supposed to be taken literal. To support your claim, you must be able to tell us who wrote it and when. Otherwise it is called an assertion. Because you found someone to make the same assertion does not make it any less of an assertion. 

Assertions don't need to be defeated--only pointed out.

Ok then, I point out that the entire bible is an assertion.
And so I disregard it in its entirety.

That's a stupid statement for two reasons. 

1. Your statement is not connected in any way to BBZ's very strong claim that Genesis was intended to be literal (and it is telling that he thinks it is) and 
2. By your simplistic reasoning, all historical documents are assertions, and so should be disregarded in their entirety.

Good job undermining all of history!

[downbeatplumb]

Ok then, I point out that the entire bible is an assertion.
And so I disregard it in its entirety.

That's a stupid statement for two reasons. 

1. Your statement is not connected in any way to BBZ's very strong claim that Genesis was intended to be literal (and it is telling that he thinks it is) and 
2. By your simplistic reasoning, all historical documents are assertions, and so should be disregarded in their entirety.

Good job undermining all of history!

1: Some people DO take genesis literally so it can't be that obvious.
What are the guides to what is true and what is not in the bible? Is it clear?

I imagine, and this is just me, that the parts that science has totally disproved, well the bible didn't actually mean that, even though for thousands of years that is what people were told that the bible meant. 

2: Historical documents are always to be taken with a pinch of salt, the people who used to write histories were prone to exaggeration, lies and just being wrong, so a lot of supporting evidence is needed to give a true picture of the past. Another thing that historians used to do was attribute their chosen person with magic, lots of emperors and kings were supposed to have healing powers but these sorts of claims can be discounted straight away as just propaganda.

So if history is "just an assertion" then it should be not believed but scrutinised carefully and all magical claims discounted.

You have a very childlike view of the world Steve.

[SteveII]

That's a stupid statement for two reasons. 

1. Your statement is not connected in any way to BBZ's very strong claim that Genesis was intended to be literal (and it is telling that he thinks it is) and 
2. By your simplistic reasoning, all historical documents are assertions, and so should be disregarded in their entirety.

Good job undermining all of history!

1: Some people DO take genesis literally so it can't be that obvious.
What are the guides to what is true and what is not in the bible? Is it clear?

I imagine, and this is just me, that the parts that science has totally disproved, well the bible didn't actually mean that, even though for thousands of years that is what people were told that the bible meant.

Except you are wrong. 1600 years ago, Augustine (one of the first theologians) did not believe in a literal 6-day creation. YEC is a recent phenomenon. The OT is important because if provides basics and context so "points" are not going to be scored against Christianity by bringing up ancient histories or what was written down into books centuries later. What is important to be accurate is the NT. 

2: Historical documents are always to be taken with a pinch of salt, the people who used to write histories were prone to exaggeration, lies and just being wrong, so a lot of supporting evidence is needed to give a true picture of the past. Another thing that historians used to do was attribute their chosen person with magic, lots of emperors and kings were supposed to have healing powers but these sorts of claims can be discounted straight away as just propaganda.

So if history is "just an assertion" then it should be not believed but scrutinised carefully and all magical claims discounted.

You have a very childlike view of the world Steve.

Now you are back peddling. I thought all histories were assertions. Now it's only those that contain the supernatural? That is question begging on a grand scale. Congrats.

[downbeatplumb]

1: Some people DO take genesis literally so it can't be that obvious.
What are the guides to what is true and what is not in the bible? Is it clear?

I imagine, and this is just me, that the parts that science has totally disproved, well the bible didn't actually mean that, even though for thousands of years that is what people were told that the bible meant.

Except you are wrong. 1600 years ago, Augustine (one of the first theologians) did not believe in a literal 6-day creation. YEC is a recent phenomenon. The OT is important because if provides basics and context so "points" are not going to be scored against Christianity by bringing up ancient histories or what was written down into books centuries later. What is important to be accurate is the NT. 

Not all people believed in a young earth but young earh creationism was the default positon until at least the 1800s when people noticed that features in the landscape pointed to an old earth.

Indeed people used the bible to date the earth to 6000 years old.

The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers, including John Calvin[31][32] and Martin Luther,[33] and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view.[34]
An Earth that was thousands of years old remained the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era, including William Shakespeare:
...The poor world is almost 6,000 years old.[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

2: Historical documents are always to be taken with a pinch of salt, the people who used to write histories were prone to exaggeration, lies and just being wrong, so a lot of supporting evidence is needed to give a true picture of the past. Another thing that historians used to do was attribute their chosen person with magic, lots of emperors and kings were supposed to have healing powers but these sorts of claims can be discounted straight away as just propaganda.

So if history is "just an assertion" then it should be not believed but scrutinised carefully and all magical claims discounted.

You have a very childlike view of the world Steve.

Now you are back peddling. I thought all histories were assertions. Now it's only those that contain the supernatural? That is question begging on a grand scale. Congrats.

I said that the bible is all assertion not histories. Although histories do need revisiting as it is one of the fields of science that is most open to interpretation and bias.

If you look at the bible it is a laughable attempt to impose some strange views on the world, chucking in the occasional real place and thing that happened to get some sort of credibility.
It is a fiction and not a very good one.