Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
This scholar (Norman Geisler) who has written 60 books thinks Moses wrote it for some of the following reasons:
...There are several lines of evidence to indicate that Moses, the
great lawgiver and deliverer of Israel who wrote the other four books of the
law, was the author of Genesis. (1) The earliest and continual tradition of
'the Jewish people, as recorded in the Talmud, attributes this book to
Moses. (2) Moses is the only person we know of from this early time peri
od who had the ability to write this book. The rest of the Israelites were a
nation of uneducated slaves, whereas Moses was a highly educated son
of the king (Acts 7:22). (3) Moses was the only one who had both the in
terest and information to write Genesis. Being Jewish Moses would have
had access to the family records of his ancestors (cf. Gen. 5:1; 10:1;
25:19; etc.) which were no doubt brought down to Egypt by Jacob (Gen.
46). Since Moses was bent on delivering his people from Egypt, it is nat
ural to assume that he was familiar with the promises of God passed down
by his forefathers that God would indeed deliver them (cf. Gen. 46:3–4;
Exod. 2:24). (4) Citations from Genesis show that the rest of the Old Test
ament regards it as part of the Law of Moses (Deut. 1:8; II Kings 13:23; I
Chron. 1:1ff.). Since Moses was the author of the other "books of Moses,"
as we will see later, it is reasonable to attribute the first book of Moses to
him as well...
IN THE BEGINNING GOD
By Dr. Hal Harless
http://ffgreenville.org/notes/books/gen_2013/2013-01-27-gen-001-001.pdf
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
And he knows it all because the Bible says so...
Great.
Great.
It also says this:
The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of twelve tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC, and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.
ETA
and
This first combined epic, known as the "Old Babylonian" version, dates to the 18th century BC and is titled after its incipit, Shūtur eli sharrī ("Surpassing All Other Kings"). Only a few fragments of it have survived. The later "Standard Babylonian" version dates from the 13th to the 10th centuries BC and bears the incipit Sha naqba īmuru ("He who Saw the Deep"). Fragments of approximately two thirds of this longer, twelve-tablet version {added: the one edited by Sin-liqe-unninn} have been recovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
Last edited:
InkBlotTest
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 78
DOC
I'll ask again. How do you explain 85 million year old rocks on a 6000 year old planet or are you saying that the rocks aren't 85 million years old?
I'll ask again. How do you explain 85 million year old rocks on a 6000 year old planet or are you saying that the rocks aren't 85 million years old?
You don't have to explain it if you are an Old Earth Creationist like a Norman Geilser or Dr. Hugh Ross.
You would have to ask that question to a Young Earth Creationist.
I'm mostly a New Testament man and really haven't done enough research on both Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism. I'm more concerned with the NT. The bible is not a science book, a very small portion of it deals with Creation, and I believe that portion was geared to primitive uneducated people. The purpose of this thread is to just put information out there and people can make their own decisions, thus the title: Biblical Flood?...
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
DOC, do you now acknowledge that you deliberately changed the text to add the word "carbon" in front of dating? And that you continued to do it despite being corrected on it numerous times? And that as late as today you were still arguing against carbon dating which nobody but you brought up to begin with?
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
DOC, this is one of the most telling statement you have ever made.
I completely agree.
If the old testament was for "primitive uneducated people", why would the NT be any different?
yes, you have presented information demonstrating that the biblical flood never happened.
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Then you admit what myself and others have deduced from your posts: That you've never actually put any thought into your beliefs regarding the flood.
You created a thread to "put information out there" about a flood which you believe happened, but can't be bothered to actually think about the details of what you claim to believe.
You have ignored the explanations given to you of why the fossils in Lebanon, Peru and other locations have nothing to do with the flood of Genesis. Instead, you deliberately misrepresented what other posters said and proceeded to attack that misrepresentation (this is called a "straw-man" fallacy DOC) instead of the actual arguments made.
You have obfuscated and twisted and refused to give any sort of coherent narrative for your believe while at the same time trying to convince us of it's veracity. You have avoided desperately being pinned down to any specific claim. This is probably because you didn't think this thread through, and now realize how precarious your position is. Thus the fall-back of "putting information out there", which you hope will allow you to avoid
- admitting error
- being shown to be wrong
- being held responsible for the quality information your repeat
- admitting that you created this thread with no intention of having an honest discussion
And in spite of all of this, you have the audacity to wonder why we call you dishonest.
Feel like you're being attacked? That's because you are.
Don't know why? That's because you need to step back, read this thread dispassionately, and accept your mistakes and lack of knowledge.
Want it to stop? Then write out what it is your arguing for. What, where, when, how big.
Otherwise, the explanation that you created this thread without any thought into your position and no intention of an intellectually honest discussion stands.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
But it's true. You are the only one to claim 14C dating was used on these fossils, and then proceded to attack the utility of radiocarbon dating for this purpose. That's a straw man argument, and you were corrected often. You continued to do it enough that some of us are left to conclude that you were dishonest.
14C dating is not used to date things millions of years old!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps DOC doesn't understand that there is a difference between radiocarbon dating (limit: up to 60,000y) and radiometric dating (limit: the age of the earth - 4.5by)
DOC, Gawdzilla said "dating". You added "{Carbon}" and proceeded to argue against carbon dating. By doing so you engaged in a classic example of the strawman argument, since nobody had suggested that carbon dating would ever be used to date 85 million year old fossils. Most people on this thread are fully aware of the limitations of carbon dating, and are all baffled as to why you brought up carbon dating in the first place.
What Mojo did is demonstrate to you the dishonesty of your position, by adding a strawman in curly brackets to your post. You introduced something that wasn't under discussion, and proceeded to argue against it. You see it as "hurting the credibility of sceptics", but you seem to be blind to the fact that you did this exact damage to "believers" by introducing the strawman of carbon dating in the first place.
I really have no idea of what you are trying to argue for in this thread. First you introduce 85 million year old fossils as some kind of evidence of a 6,000 year old legend, and when pressed you suggest that the fossils could be older than the surrounding material, which would be an entertaining trick if it were true. Then you discuss continents rushing about like freight trains, in clear opposition to the evidence we have of sea floor spreading. Are you trying to argue for a Biblical flood or not?
This is not an "attack the messenger" post, other than to point out the strawman in adding {Carbon} to a post. Nobody did that but you. It's that addition that is being attacked. Your specious justification for making that addition is unconvincing at best, downright dishonest at best.
Your message, whatever it is, can only be addressed if you have a coherent argument. At the moment you leap from tangent to tangent, avoiding laying out clearly whether you are arguing for a global or local flood, avoiding admitting to either a YEC or OEC position, avoiding the questions posed so many times by several posters about what you believe about the timescale of the formation and splitting of Pangaea, and even avoiding explaining why you connect 85 million year old fossils in Peru with a 6000 year old flood in the Middle East.
Perhaps if you laid out a coherent argument instead of "putting {Completely incoherent} information out there", you'd have a thread in which people addressed your argument. As it is, we have no coherent argument to address.
What Mojo did is demonstrate to you the dishonesty of your position, by adding a strawman in curly brackets to your post. You introduced something that wasn't under discussion, and proceeded to argue against it. You see it as "hurting the credibility of sceptics", but you seem to be blind to the fact that you did this exact damage to "believers" by introducing the strawman of carbon dating in the first place.
I really have no idea of what you are trying to argue for in this thread. First you introduce 85 million year old fossils as some kind of evidence of a 6,000 year old legend, and when pressed you suggest that the fossils could be older than the surrounding material, which would be an entertaining trick if it were true. Then you discuss continents rushing about like freight trains, in clear opposition to the evidence we have of sea floor spreading. Are you trying to argue for a Biblical flood or not?
This is not an "attack the messenger" post, other than to point out the strawman in adding {Carbon} to a post. Nobody did that but you. It's that addition that is being attacked. Your specious justification for making that addition is unconvincing at best, downright dishonest at best.
Your message, whatever it is, can only be addressed if you have a coherent argument. At the moment you leap from tangent to tangent, avoiding laying out clearly whether you are arguing for a global or local flood, avoiding admitting to either a YEC or OEC position, avoiding the questions posed so many times by several posters about what you believe about the timescale of the formation and splitting of Pangaea, and even avoiding explaining why you connect 85 million year old fossils in Peru with a 6000 year old flood in the Middle East.
Perhaps if you laid out a coherent argument instead of "putting {Completely incoherent} information out there", you'd have a thread in which people addressed your argument. As it is, we have no coherent argument to address.
