Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy

[JoeMama]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

[Difflugia]

Genesis is factually wrong because of science? Where there were no scientist on that time to observe, analyze, study and conclude base on actual evidence which you admitted incomplete.

That's probably why it ended up factually wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

I don't believe that is contradictory.
It mentions of the same day of creation, first the animals and then Adam.
In Gen 2:19 it mentions of out of the ground animals were created just like Adam.
And in verse 18 I believe you are confused of what God is going to make.
May I quote commentary from Adam Clark;

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[It is not good that the man should be alone]
; only himself, I will make him a help meet for him;
, "a help, a counterpart of himself," one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man possessing neither inferiority nor superiority but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

But that doesn't even address the matter of contradiction in Genesis. Contradiction within Genesis in fact not being the problem, but being contradicted by science. We seem to have a strawman argument or a misdirection presented by you as the actual argument when it is that Genesis is factually wrong, not contradictory of itself.

Genesis is factually wrong because of science? Where there were no scientist on that time to observe, analyze, study and conclude base on actual evidence which you admitted incomplete.

Not only were there no scientists there at the time, there wasn't anybody. Who saw what happened before Adam was made? If God told Moses what happened, why on earth not tell him what was true (according to science) instead of telling him nonsense about the daylight before the sun or the wrong order of Creation?

Smart money again; it is not about how much denial you can do but the more probable explanation, and the more probable one is that it was written later by men who had no idea what had happened so they made stuff up (or rather borrowed it from Babylonian sources) and God had nothing to do with it.

I read that the origin stories (Genesis and Exodus) show a 6th c BC origin in typology. Take ir leave it, I am aware of more and yet more hints as Babylonian origins of this material. The Sumerian Ark and Flood story, the Babylonian separation of waters and the flat circular earth with a dome over it Sargon of Akkad in the bulrushes and I am pretty convinced now the Hyksos 'shepherd kings' interpreted (see Josephus) as Moses leading the hebrews out of Egypt, not Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out.

Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[Wiki] I note that some claim a 13th c BC core to Exodus, but that is arguable, on typology in a 6th c BC -written document.

What arguments (not excuses and denial) can you post to make Genesis (and or Exodus) credible as records rather than tall tales made up by writers who knew nothing themselves but just guessed?

[Capbook]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

I don't believe that is contradictory.
It mentions of the same day of creation, first the animals and then Adam.
In Gen 2:19 it mentions of out of the ground animals were created just like Adam.
And in verse 18 I believe you are confused of what God is going to make.
May I quote commentary from Adam Clark;

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[It is not good that the man should be alone]
; only himself, I will make him a help meet for him;
, "a help, a counterpart of himself," one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man possessing neither inferiority nor superiority but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

But that doesn't even address the matter of contradiction in Genesis. Contradiction within Genesis in fact not being the problem, but being contradicted by science. We seem to have a strawman argument or a misdirection presented by you as the actual argument when it is that Genesis is factually wrong, not contradictory of itself.

Genesis is factually wrong because of science? Where there were no scientist on that time to observe, analyze, study and conclude base on actual evidence which you admitted incomplete.

Not only were there no scientists there at the time, there wasn't anybody. Who saw what happened before Adam was made? If God told Moses what happened, why on earth not tell him what was true (according to science) instead of telling him nonsense about the daylight before the sun or the wrong order of Creation?

Smart money again; it is not about how much denial you can do but the more probable explanation, and the more probable one is that it was written later by men who had no idea what had happened so they made stuff up (or rather borrowed it from Babylonian sources) and God had nothing to do with it.

I read that the origin stories (Genesis and Exodus) show a 6th c BC origin in typology. Take ir leave it, I am aware of more and yet more hints as Babylonian origins of this material. The Sumerian Ark and Flood story, the Babylonian separation of waters and the flat circular earth with a dome over it Sargon of Akkad in the bulrushes and I am pretty convinced now the Hyksos 'shepherd kings' interpreted (see Josephus) as Moses leading the hebrews out of Egypt, not Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out.

Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[Wiki] I note that some claim a 13th c BC core to Exodus, but that is arguable, on typology in a 6th c BC -written document.

What arguments (not excuses and denial) can you post to make Genesis (and or Exodus) credible as records rather than tall tales made up by writers who knew nothing themselves but just guessed?

Creation according to science? Darwin's evolution only tells you what happens once you have life. So where did that something that's alive come from? Darwin never really addressed it. Darwin uttered his famous statement
"Natura non facit saltum" which was debunk by Lee Strobel.

We Christians believed that Bible authors were inspired by God and leave the writing construction to men.

[TRANSPONDER]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

I don't believe that is contradictory.
It mentions of the same day of creation, first the animals and then Adam.
In Gen 2:19 it mentions of out of the ground animals were created just like Adam.
And in verse 18 I believe you are confused of what God is going to make.
May I quote commentary from Adam Clark;

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[It is not good that the man should be alone]
; only himself, I will make him a help meet for him;
, "a help, a counterpart of himself," one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man possessing neither inferiority nor superiority but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

But that doesn't even address the matter of contradiction in Genesis. Contradiction within Genesis in fact not being the problem, but being contradicted by science. We seem to have a strawman argument or a misdirection presented by you as the actual argument when it is that Genesis is factually wrong, not contradictory of itself.

Genesis is factually wrong because of science? Where there were no scientist on that time to observe, analyze, study and conclude base on actual evidence which you admitted incomplete.

Not only were there no scientists there at the time, there wasn't anybody. Who saw what happened before Adam was made? If God told Moses what happened, why on earth not tell him what was true (according to science) instead of telling him nonsense about the daylight before the sun or the wrong order of Creation?

Smart money again; it is not about how much denial you can do but the more probable explanation, and the more probable one is that it was written later by men who had no idea what had happened so they made stuff up (or rather borrowed it from Babylonian sources) and God had nothing to do with it.

I read that the origin stories (Genesis and Exodus) show a 6th c BC origin in typology. Take ir leave it, I am aware of more and yet more hints as Babylonian origins of this material. The Sumerian Ark and Flood story, the Babylonian separation of waters and the flat circular earth with a dome over it Sargon of Akkad in the bulrushes and I am pretty convinced now the Hyksos 'shepherd kings' interpreted (see Josephus) as Moses leading the hebrews out of Egypt, not Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out.

Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[Wiki] I note that some claim a 13th c BC core to Exodus, but that is arguable, on typology in a 6th c BC -written document.

What arguments (not excuses and denial) can you post to make Genesis (and or Exodus) credible as records rather than tall tales made up by writers who knew nothing themselves but just guessed?

Creation according to science? Darwin's evolution only tells you what happens once you have life. So where did that something that's alive come from? Darwin never really addressed it. Darwin uttered his famous statement
"Natura non facit saltum" which was debunk by Lee Strobel.

We Christians believed that Bible authors were inspired by God and leave the writing construction to men.

Well, yes, I guess. Evolution -theory only says how life -forms developed and has the evidence to back it up. Do you accept that?If you do,you deny Genesis.

If you don't you are in science -denial and howeverLife started is utterly irrelevant.


But if you want to talk about Life, even ignoring that science has a hypothetical mechanism and Creation only has a claim of some kind of magic, even if one was to credit an intelligent creator, that would not tell us which one.

That argument (despite it being the last -ditch theist favorite (along with Cosmic origins) actually gets the Bible - aplogists nowhere at all.

The Christians only think it wins for them because the irrationally think that Biblegod is the only hypothesis on the table.

Christian/Bible apologetics are irrational and illogical from the start, even before we get to science -denial. And because of Blind Faith, they can never see it.

This is why they keep pulling these daft and useless apologetics like origins of Life "If you can't prove now it started naturally then Biblegod must be the only answer" is Wrong. Dead wrong.Wrongo. And because of blind faith they can never see it.

[Capbook]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

I don't believe that is contradictory.
It mentions of the same day of creation, first the animals and then Adam.
In Gen 2:19 it mentions of out of the ground animals were created just like Adam.
And in verse 18 I believe you are confused of what God is going to make.
May I quote commentary from Adam Clark;

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[It is not good that the man should be alone]
; only himself, I will make him a help meet for him;
, "a help, a counterpart of himself," one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man possessing neither inferiority nor superiority but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

But that doesn't even address the matter of contradiction in Genesis. Contradiction within Genesis in fact not being the problem, but being contradicted by science. We seem to have a strawman argument or a misdirection presented by you as the actual argument when it is that Genesis is factually wrong, not contradictory of itself.

Genesis is factually wrong because of science? Where there were no scientist on that time to observe, analyze, study and conclude base on actual evidence which you admitted incomplete.

Not only were there no scientists there at the time, there wasn't anybody. Who saw what happened before Adam was made? If God told Moses what happened, why on earth not tell him what was true (according to science) instead of telling him nonsense about the daylight before the sun or the wrong order of Creation?

Smart money again; it is not about how much denial you can do but the more probable explanation, and the more probable one is that it was written later by men who had no idea what had happened so they made stuff up (or rather borrowed it from Babylonian sources) and God had nothing to do with it.

I read that the origin stories (Genesis and Exodus) show a 6th c BC origin in typology. Take ir leave it, I am aware of more and yet more hints as Babylonian origins of this material. The Sumerian Ark and Flood story, the Babylonian separation of waters and the flat circular earth with a dome over it Sargon of Akkad in the bulrushes and I am pretty convinced now the Hyksos 'shepherd kings' interpreted (see Josephus) as Moses leading the hebrews out of Egypt, not Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out.

Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[Wiki] I note that some claim a 13th c BC core to Exodus, but that is arguable, on typology in a 6th c BC -written document.

What arguments (not excuses and denial) can you post to make Genesis (and or Exodus) credible as records rather than tall tales made up by writers who knew nothing themselves but just guessed?

Creation according to science? Darwin's evolution only tells you what happens once you have life. So where did that something that's alive come from? Darwin never really addressed it. Darwin uttered his famous statement
"Natura non facit saltum" which was debunk by Lee Strobel.

We Christians believed that Bible authors were inspired by God and leave the writing construction to men.

Well, yes, I guess. Evolution -theory only says how life -forms developed and has the evidence to back it up. Do you accept that?If you do,you deny Genesis.

If you don't you are in science -denial and howeverLife started is utterly irrelevant.


But if you want to talk about Life, even ignoring that science has a hypothetical mechanism and Creation only has a claim of some kind of magic, even if one was to credit an intelligent creator, that would not tell us which one.

That argument (despite it being the last -ditch theist favorite (along with Cosmic origins) actually gets the Bible - aplogists nowhere at all.

The Christians only think it wins for them because the irrationally think that Biblegod is the only hypothesis on the table.

Christian/Bible apologetics are irrational and illogical from the start, even before we get to science -denial. And because of Blind Faith, they can never see it.

This is why they keep pulling these daft and useless apologetics like origins of Life "If you can't prove now it started naturally then Biblegod must be the only answer" is Wrong. Dead wrong.Wrongo. And because of blind faith they can never see it.

I don't believe in evolution as it is already debunk by Lee Strobel.

I deny science that contradict the Bible.
First, some scientists believe that science is the only source of truth, but it's not even a scientific idea.

The pioneers of science knows which God created the universe.

Cosmic origin explains by famous scientist circular reasoning?

Only hypothesis? Because Bible God exist even before Feb 15, 1564, and even before the famous scientist Hawking.

We see the faults of scientists. That disordered things of science.

If the Bible is wrong, so the circular reasoning is the only answer?

[TRANSPONDER]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

I don't believe that is contradictory.
It mentions of the same day of creation, first the animals and then Adam.
In Gen 2:19 it mentions of out of the ground animals were created just like Adam.
And in verse 18 I believe you are confused of what God is going to make.
May I quote commentary from Adam Clark;

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[It is not good that the man should be alone]
; only himself, I will make him a help meet for him;
, "a help, a counterpart of himself," one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man possessing neither inferiority nor superiority but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

But that doesn't even address the matter of contradiction in Genesis. Contradiction within Genesis in fact not being the problem, but being contradicted by science. We seem to have a strawman argument or a misdirection presented by you as the actual argument when it is that Genesis is factually wrong, not contradictory of itself.

Genesis is factually wrong because of science? Where there were no scientist on that time to observe, analyze, study and conclude base on actual evidence which you admitted incomplete.

Not only were there no scientists there at the time, there wasn't anybody. Who saw what happened before Adam was made? If God told Moses what happened, why on earth not tell him what was true (according to science) instead of telling him nonsense about the daylight before the sun or the wrong order of Creation?

Smart money again; it is not about how much denial you can do but the more probable explanation, and the more probable one is that it was written later by men who had no idea what had happened so they made stuff up (or rather borrowed it from Babylonian sources) and God had nothing to do with it.

I read that the origin stories (Genesis and Exodus) show a 6th c BC origin in typology. Take ir leave it, I am aware of more and yet more hints as Babylonian origins of this material. The Sumerian Ark and Flood story, the Babylonian separation of waters and the flat circular earth with a dome over it Sargon of Akkad in the bulrushes and I am pretty convinced now the Hyksos 'shepherd kings' interpreted (see Josephus) as Moses leading the hebrews out of Egypt, not Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out.

Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[Wiki] I note that some claim a 13th c BC core to Exodus, but that is arguable, on typology in a 6th c BC -written document.

What arguments (not excuses and denial) can you post to make Genesis (and or Exodus) credible as records rather than tall tales made up by writers who knew nothing themselves but just guessed?

Creation according to science? Darwin's evolution only tells you what happens once you have life. So where did that something that's alive come from? Darwin never really addressed it. Darwin uttered his famous statement
"Natura non facit saltum" which was debunk by Lee Strobel.

We Christians believed that Bible authors were inspired by God and leave the writing construction to men.

Well, yes, I guess. Evolution -theory only says how life -forms developed and has the evidence to back it up. Do you accept that?If you do,you deny Genesis.

If you don't you are in science -denial and howeverLife started is utterly irrelevant.


But if you want to talk about Life, even ignoring that science has a hypothetical mechanism and Creation only has a claim of some kind of magic, even if one was to credit an intelligent creator, that would not tell us which one.

That argument (despite it being the last -ditch theist favorite (along with Cosmic origins) actually gets the Bible - aplogists nowhere at all.

The Christians only think it wins for them because the irrationally think that Biblegod is the only hypothesis on the table.

Christian/Bible apologetics are irrational and illogical from the start, even before we get to science -denial. And because of Blind Faith, they can never see it.

This is why they keep pulling these daft and useless apologetics like origins of Life "If you can't prove now it started naturally then Biblegod must be the only answer" is Wrong. Dead wrong.Wrongo. And because of blind faith they can never see it.

I don't believe in evolution as it is already debunk by Lee Strobel.

I deny science that contradict the Bible.
First, some scientists believe that science is the only source of truth, but it's not even a scientific idea.

The pioneers of science knows which God created the universe.

Cosmic origin explains by famous scientist circular reasoning?

Only hypothesis? Because Bible God exist even before Feb 15, 1564, and even before the famous scientist Hawking.

We see the faults of scientists. That disordered things of science.

If the Bible is wrong, so the circular reasoning is the only answer?

Terrible arguments, but that is where we end up. Lee Strobel debunks only himself. I mean in his resurrection argument which is garbage and of dubious honesty. I should love to discuss his objections to evolution of course, but I have heard them all up to now. Creationists show they do not understand evolution and do not want to.They pick a few holes in the theory, some valid, most not, but these are just a few Questions about an established science process. Not debunks.

Notably the appeal to origins, as you appeal to Cosmic origins is an Unknown, it no more unseats evolution than and established Creation (Genesis -literal or just ID) any more than Goddunnit cosmic origins unseats astronomy and takes us back to the Babylonian snow - dome cosmos if Genesis.

You are floundering (did I say that before?) with appealing to the old scientists who were god -believers. Sure they were, but their science work came to explain how stuff worked without a god being necessary. The very science made a god (name your own) un-necessary.

It is a daft argument that god -belief existed before Hawking.The geocentric system of Ptolemy existed before the geocentric system of Copernicus, but that only makes the later explanation better.

Cosmic origins again circular reasoning or not does not validate a god, but is an Unknown question. It does not even tell us which god. You are flogging a dead horse here.

Faults of science?'disordered things'?I guess you are using the 'science is always changing its' mid' argument. Didn't I explain that moving on to better explanation when more evidence turns up makes science stronger, while religions lose ground because they deny - as you do - science when it contradicts the religion. It is Religions claims that are failing and no less because they end up fighting science - selectively. When if contradicts scripture, otherwise ok. I have even seen religious apologists misuse science to support scripture, and keep repeating the misuse. Just take the anti evolution argument from inter -species breeding producing null offspring. Sure, but that is not how evolution theory works. True, we don't here this objection so much, but at one time is was a staple of creationism.

Thing is, it is like cosmic origins, abiogenesis or consciousness (the Big Three apologetics, which is to to say, the only ones with any case at all) the lesser and failed ones like evolution -theory, morality and ID, even if they were right, it would only get you to a god, not to a particular religion.

So essentially your argument seems to be that in the past scientists believed in a god, and creation, and some scientists still do (though from what I saw of the Ken Miller talk the reasons were very poor ones..just Faith, really) though the great majority do not believe in a religion or even a god, and you are surely doing the most invalid (if not actually circular) argument in claiming that science is wrong or invalid because a few scientists still cling to Godfaith.

[TRANSPONDER]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

I don't believe that is contradictory.
It mentions of the same day of creation, first the animals and then Adam.
In Gen 2:19 it mentions of out of the ground animals were created just like Adam.
And in verse 18 I believe you are confused of what God is going to make.
May I quote commentary from Adam Clark;

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[It is not good that the man should be alone]
; only himself, I will make him a help meet for him;
, "a help, a counterpart of himself," one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man possessing neither inferiority nor superiority but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

But that doesn't even address the matter of contradiction in Genesis. Contradiction within Genesis in fact not being the problem, but being contradicted by science. We seem to have a strawman argument or a misdirection presented by you as the actual argument when it is that Genesis is factually wrong, not contradictory of itself.

Genesis is factually wrong because of science? Where there were no scientist on that time to observe, analyze, study and conclude base on actual evidence which you admitted incomplete.

Not only were there no scientists there at the time, there wasn't anybody. Who saw what happened before Adam was made? If God told Moses what happened, why on earth not tell him what was true (according to science) instead of telling him nonsense about the daylight before the sun or the wrong order of Creation?

Smart money again; it is not about how much denial you can do but the more probable explanation, and the more probable one is that it was written later by men who had no idea what had happened so they made stuff up (or rather borrowed it from Babylonian sources) and God had nothing to do with it.

I read that the origin stories (Genesis and Exodus) show a 6th c BC origin in typology. Take ir leave it, I am aware of more and yet more hints as Babylonian origins of this material. The Sumerian Ark and Flood story, the Babylonian separation of waters and the flat circular earth with a dome over it Sargon of Akkad in the bulrushes and I am pretty convinced now the Hyksos 'shepherd kings' interpreted (see Josephus) as Moses leading the hebrews out of Egypt, not Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out.

Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[Wiki] I note that some claim a 13th c BC core to Exodus, but that is arguable, on typology in a 6th c BC -written document.

What arguments (not excuses and denial) can you post to make Genesis (and or Exodus) credible as records rather than tall tales made up by writers who knew nothing themselves but just guessed?

Creation according to science? Darwin's evolution only tells you what happens once you have life. So where did that something that's alive come from? Darwin never really addressed it. Darwin uttered his famous statement
"Natura non facit saltum" which was debunk by Lee Strobel.

We Christians believed that Bible authors were inspired by God and leave the writing construction to men.

Well, yes, I guess. Evolution -theory only says how life -forms developed and has the evidence to back it up. Do you accept that?If you do,you deny Genesis.

If you don't you are in science -denial and howeverLife started is utterly irrelevant.


But if you want to talk about Life, even ignoring that science has a hypothetical mechanism and Creation only has a claim of some kind of magic, even if one was to credit an intelligent creator, that would not tell us which one.

That argument (despite it being the last -ditch theist favorite (along with Cosmic origins) actually gets the Bible - aplogists nowhere at all.

The Christians only think it wins for them because the irrationally think that Biblegod is the only hypothesis on the table.

Christian/Bible apologetics are irrational and illogical from the start, even before we get to science -denial. And because of Blind Faith, they can never see it.

This is why they keep pulling these daft and useless apologetics like origins of Life "If you can't prove now it started naturally then Biblegod must be the only answer" is Wrong. Dead wrong.Wrongo. And because of blind faith they can never see it.

I don't believe in evolution as it is already debunk by Lee Strobel.

I deny science that contradict the Bible.
First, some scientists believe that science is the only source of truth, but it's not even a scientific idea.

The pioneers of science knows which God created the universe.

Cosmic origin explains by famous scientist circular reasoning?

Only hypothesis? Because Bible God exist even before Feb 15, 1564, and even before the famous scientist Hawking.

We see the faults of scientists. That disordered things of science.

If the Bible is wrong, so the circular reasoning is the only answer?

Terrible arguments, but that is where we end up. Lee Strobel debunks only himself. I mean in his resurrection argument which is garbage and of dubious honesty. I should love to discuss his objections to evolution of course, but I have heard them all up to now. Creationists show they do not understand evolution and do not want to.They pick a few holes in the theory, some valid, most not, but these are just a few Questions about an established science process. Not debunks.

Notably the appeal to origins, as you appeal to Cosmic origins is an Unknown, it no more unseats evolution and establishes Creation (Genesis -literal or just ID) any more than Goddunnit cosmic origins unseats astronomy and takes us back to the Babylonian snow - dome cosmos if Genesis.

You are floundering (did I say that before?) with appealing to the old scientists who were god - believers. Sure they were, but their science work came to explain how stuff worked without a god being necessary. The very science made a god (name your own) un-necessary.

It is a daft argument that god -belief existed before Hawking.The geocentric system of Ptolemy existed before the geocentric system of Copernicus, but that only makes the later explanation better.

Cosmic origins again, circular reasoning or not does not validate a god, but is an Unknown question. It does not even tell us which god. You are flogging a dead horse here.

Faults of science?'disordered things'?I guess you are using the 'science is always changing its' mind' argument. Didn't I explain that moving on to better explanation when more evidence turns up makes science stronger, while religions lose ground because they deny - as you do - science when it contradicts the religion. It is Religions claims that are failing and no less because they end up fighting science - selectively. When if contradicts scripture, otherwise ok. I have even seen religious apologists misuse science to support scripture, and keep repeating the misuse. Just take the anti evolution argument from inter -species breeding producing null offspring. Sure, but that is not how evolution theory works. True, we don't here this objection so much, but at one time is was a staple of creationism.

Thing is, it is like cosmic origins, abiogenesis or consciousness (the Big Three apologetics, which is to to say, the only ones with any case at all) the lesser and failed ones like anti evolution, appeal to morality and ID, even if they were right, it would only get you to some sorta god, not to a particular religion.

So essentially your argument seems to be that in the past scientists believed in a god, and creation, and some scientists still do (though from what I saw of the Ken Miller talk the reasons were very poor ones..just Faith, really) though the great majority do not believe in a religion or even a god, and you are surely doing the most invalid (if not actually circular) argument in claiming that science is wrong or invalid because a few scientists still cling to Godfaith.

p.s. I had a look at a 6 point summary of Lee Strobel's argument. I already addressed the Origins arguments, and the 6th - DNA is debunked as it is not information encoded so as to amount to a message from anybody. Wherever you get your creationist case from, you won't get one that stands up from Lee Strobel.