Re: Question for biblical creationists


Ray Martinez wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 6 Apr 2006 20:31:19 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

So you agree to the rule that a single correct, verifiable fact
reported in a document validates the other claims of that document. So
does that mean you believe that supernatural beings came down from
Olympus and did battle on the windy plains of Ilion?

I know of no one who believes Greek mythology to be taken as literal
history.

In the 1800s, many people considered the Greek flood myth of Deucaleon
to be a historical event. These people -- good creationist Christians
all -- only debated whether the flood he survived came before or after
Noah's flood. Greek mythology and Bible stories are of the same
cloth. Once Hebrew mythology is admitted as possible history, there
is not the slightest reason to treat Greek mythology, or any other
mythology, differently.


But we know Biblical version of ancient history ***CLAIMS*** to be
literal history. God's protected version of events, insulated from the
embellishments the others suffer from.

Not sure where you find this claim. Is there anyplace in the Bible that
makes an explicit claim to its being history that is any stronger than
claims in the Koran, the Ramayana, or the Iliad, for that matter? God
may have spoken directly to you and told you that the Bible is history,
but he did not place such an explicit claim in the Bible.



Historians know this including atheist historians. (This is why they
attempt to disprove: the need to validate their personal anti-religious
worldview. Atheists and the Bible = outcome predetermined).

In response, you have deliberately ASSUMED myth (all ancient texts) and
conflated undisputed myth (Greek mythology) with Biblical version of
history.

On what grounds do you claim that the Hebrew myths are any less myths
than the Greek ones? Certainly not on the basis of anything included in
either the Greek or Hebrew ancient texts.

Also, on what grounds do you claim that ALL ancient texts are certainly
myths. Both Herodotus and Thucydides make the very explicit claim that
they are writing history. Indeed they claim so way more explicitly than
anything in the Bible. Are you willing to accept as true everything
that they wrote because there are correct statements about geography in
their books. In my view, they were probably right about some things and
wrong about others.


Why ?

I would venture the obvious logical observation: Mark Isaak is a
Darwinist. There is ***nothing*** in ancient texts to benefit his
schismatic/Darwinian/atheistic worldview since all ancient texts assume
the existence of Deity. Yet Mark has no problem asserting things that
are 100s of millions years old to be fact, unlike ancient history,
which is single digit thousands of years old.

Lurkers:

Darwinists MUST assume all ancient texts are myth. This is mandatory
since all the evidence from these sources prove Bible history in some
form or another. Imagine that...Darwinists....people who ***CLAIM*** to
be loyal to evidence dismissing ALL of antiquity as myths ? = the
brazen fraud of atheism in action.

Darwinists (and other reasonable folks) certainly do not assert that
all ancient texts are myths. It is possible to believe that Homer was
right that there was a city of Troy without believing in the Trojan
horse, or believing that Athena came down and joined the war. It is
possible to believe that there was an ancient kingdom of Israel without
believing that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.



Darwinists are strangely insulting; appearance of design = illusion.
Imagine that; TELLING people (pontificating like the Medieval Bishops
they claim to have conquered with reason) that what they see is an
illusion. This opens the door for one to subjectively assert that their
perception is an illusion. Round and round this Dawkinsesque argument
can go. Persons with God-sense know appearance of design corresponds
with Desgner and not the atheist perception of reality. The atheist
perception is not an illusion either. Both perceptions are legit, yet
atheists must assert only theirs = modern day fascism ("elite few who
THINK they know whats best for the rest" - Dr. Scott).

Darwinists agree with you that there is a strong appearance of design.
To call something an illusion is not to insult the person who
experiences the illusion. I see (illusory) shimmering water on hot
highways all the time. I do not feel insulted when someone explains to
me how that illusion arises.


My point is: whether ancient history or what you see with your eyes;
Darwinists must special plead and say it does not mean what it appears
(design = Designer) (Genesis = metaphor) or ancient history = myth
(everyone lied) and lucky us that we have modern day atheists, *with no
axe to grind*, to have exposed the conspiracy of lies the ancients
tried to fool us with. Nevermind the fact that no modern communication
abilities existed in antquity; the ancients with all their common
denominators just lucked out.

It is possible to believe that Genesis is not true without believing
that the author was a liar.



My how lucky we are that atheists have saved us from people who
believed in Deity, and have mindlessly asserted the massive evidence of
a great flood in all ancient literature is the work of confused and
bored morons. Please overlook the fact that Darwinists MUST reject this
evidence lest a major Biblical claim is seen as true - a miracle. Then
if this miracle is true (Great Flood) just maybe the sudden special
creation of Adam is true; then
their apes morphing into men miracle is the real myth.

Actually, few scientists have a problem with the idea that there was a
large flood in the ancient near East. It's the idea that the flood
covered the entire earth for a year, that the only surviving animals
were carried round on a little boat and that the present day
distribution of species can best be explained by a spread of all
existing species from Mt Ararat beginning a few thousand years ago that
causes us to have a few misgivings about the Biblical flood story. But
that the Biblical flood story, like other flood stories, was inspired
by some real event, no problem.



Stay tuned for my paper (due this month): "Darwin"ism Refuted.

I will prove the arguments of Darwinists, in fact, prove the Bible and
falsify their interpretations of scientific evidence. I will prove,
beyond any shadow of a doubt that the ***Bible is absolutey true*** and
the ***Creationist interpretation of evidence is the only correct
one.***

I predict Talk Origins will treat my paper like the plague; they will
not link to my work.

I predict that Talk Origins will be more than happy to provide a link
to your paper. They already provide links to all sorts of creationist
sites.


Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, life-long student of
Dr. Gene Scott

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionist says you cant build a large wooden ship
    ... then the flood is purely mythical anyway. ... have grown into a bigger myth. ... Geoffrey of Monmouth purveyed the myth as history, ... good a tale as "the face that launched a thousand ships". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ancient brewing, trial by sprint
    ... Denial of all oral traditions is dogma not history. ... form of the Flood myth is an absorption of many of these historical ... must know the history of the myth, when it has been changed and what ... The events under discussion here, the Ogygian Deluge, Noah's Flood, the Food of Manu Vaivasvata and the flood of Xisuthrus king of the Medes are NOT STORIES you ignorant imbecile! ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Ancient brewing, trial by sprint
    ... > Denial of all oral traditions is dogma not history. ... form of the Flood myth is an absorption of many of these historical ... must know the history of the myth, when it has been changed and what ... historical event. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Piltdown Textbook
    ... Atlas of the Bible, John Rogerson, Facts on File: ... Atlas of the Bible and Christianity, Tim Dowley, ... Archeology and Bible History, Free and Vos, Zondervan:1992. ... Administration in the Ancient Near East, Hans Nissen / Peter Damerow / ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Piltdown Textbook
    ... Atlas of the Bible, John Rogerson, Facts on File: ... Atlas of the Bible and Christianity, Tim Dowley, ... Archeology and Bible History, Free and Vos, Zondervan:1992. ... Administration in the Ancient Near East, Hans Nissen / Peter Damerow / ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading