I've been reading some of Jesse's back-and-forths with feo and in them are found similar semantic games as are commonly played by Dan. Jesse handles feo expertly, but like Dan and the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail, feo fails to recognize when he's been reduced to just a stump.
But it brought to my mind a recent favorite of Dan's in referring to "sin" by the definition of the word in the ancient languages in which it appears, and given I've time to kill, I thought I'd put virtual pen to virtual paper on the issue.
"Sin", in the ancient languages, is defined at least in part as "missing the mark". Loosely explained, it refers mainly to archery. The bullseye would be the mark, and the arrow hitting anything else (or nothing at all) would be "sin", or the missing of the mark, as it missed the bullseye, which is the mark. That's all well and good, but it demands this is the only definition of the word or the only manner in which it was meant to be used, or the only manner it which it was ever applied. Dan never offers any evidence or support that the word can only mean this specific thing, but let's run with it for a bit:
So "the mark" is something specific at which one aims one's arrow. In practice or competition, it might be the typical target which commonly comes to mind (think "The Adventures of Robin Hood", starring Errol Flynn). Once again, I refer to the bullseye as being the mark one intends to hit. In both scenarios, we have different degrees consequence. In practice, to miss the bull is pretty much absent of consequence beyond the miss itself. It means nothing more except that more practice shots are required to eventually hit the bull and to hit it consistently. Such consequence is no true big deal beyond that.
But in competition, to miss the bull can mean losing the competition and failing to win any prize offered by proving one's self superior to the rest of the archers. That's a greater consequence, as it also includes the practice time having been for nought, if no intention to compete ever again exists. OR, it means MORE practice...and more intensive practice...must be put in if one intends to compete again, or simply if one intends to improve as an archer.
At this point, the consequences are relatively minor. But what is archery but skill with the bow...which is a weapon...and for what purpose? To kill, either in hunting or in war. Miss the mark while hunting, and the consequence is to go hungry. Miss the mark in war, and the consequence can be the enemy not missing his...which is you.
Dan uses the term as if it's referring to a mistake...a big "Whoopsie!"...as if there was no intention to sin, or worse, that if we simply say, "Saahhh-reee!", all's well because...you know...grace or something.
Now, to be sure, the High Priests would indeed offer blood sacrifices to God on behalf of the people for the atonement of their having "missed the mark", including when they did so unknowingly, which is truly to sin "unintentionally". This penal substitutionary atonement for their sins was the consequence of having "missed the mark", and as imperfect a sacrifice of an even "without blemish" animal was, God's graceful forgiveness was bestowed as a result of that consequence, which was death.
What then, is the "mark"? Obedience to God. God's Will. However one chooses to put it, it is God. God's "mark" is defined by Him for our benefit in Leviticus 19:2, wherein He tells His chosen (and by extension, Christians, too) "Be Holy, because I, the Lord your God, am Holy".
That's the mark. And strive as we might, we will fail plenty to be holy constantly. But to sincerely seek to hit the mark always, we are forgiven our "misses" by our faith in Christ Who gave Himself as the Perfect Penal Substitutionary Atonement of ours "missing the mark" by virtue of having offered up Himself as the Perfect Lamb of God.
Let's move on. What of those who ignore the target, or those who alter its size or in some other way choose the terms for what counts as hitting the mark or even if we need worry about taking up the bow in the first place? This is what Dan defends. Not merely sincerity in attempting to obey God's commands or to be holy. Oh sure, he mentions such. Constantly complaining that we're speaking of perfection only, and that eternal punishment is the consequence of merely being imperfect (as if compared to God's perfection, that's insignificant). But that's diversion from the reality of his defending willful disregard for the target. He's choosing to make the striving for obedience optional, or worse, assuming the authority to inflate the size of the target so as to make missing it impossible.
And here's where Dan's notion of "missing the mark" fails so obviously. It's when he's defending the two most egregious examples of disregard for the Mark: LGBTQ++++ ideology and infanticide (AKA, "abortion"). In these two examples, we see a clear and unmistakable disregard for the Will of God, as there is no arguing there exists a context where either can be perpetrated and not be in starkly in contradiction to His Will. Yet, Dan will "admit" that he "might be mistaken" and won't be held accountable by "a just, loving and merciful God" for merely being mistaken. What is plain here, however, is that Dan isn't "missing" any "mark". He's not even aiming at it. OR, he has erected his own target of his own choosing and of his own design and dares call it "God", so that he can continue to falsely proclaim himself "Christian".
Of course, it must also be said that intention means everything when considering the written word. How a word is defined is often a matter of its most common usage. The question becomes, what did the ancient Biblical authors mean when it chose a word used in archery to describe disobedience to or rebellion against the Will of God? Does this choice of words mitigate the incredible seriousness of disobedience and rebellion, or are we to truly believe that God isn't serious about encouraging us to "be holy"? If "holy" is His perfection, and it is the "mark" to which we're to aim, our imperfection is a serious matter about which no one, including those like Dan and his craven ilk, should be so glibly dismissive. What does God want and how can we know? His Will revealed to us in Scripture is not cryptic on matters of human behavior, particularly these vile behaviors Dan defends and enables. When Dan makes his "case" with regard "missing the mark", he is doing what he always does regarding God's Will and that's to pretend there's some mystery or ambiguity to it which allows for him to believe what no honest human being, Christian or not, could ever agree is true. This attempt by him misses that mark entirely.
Thursday, January 01, 2026
Mark Missing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
194 comments:
It's telling (about you) that you are trying to defend your theories about "sin" by making it about a competition or war, as if God's idea of grace is some kind of game or war, with prizes to win and victims to be killed.
But setting that aside, some clarifications.
Marshal:
Dan uses the term as if it's referring to a mistake...a big "Whoopsie!"...as if there was no intention to sin, or worse
I'm noting the reality of the word and its usage in the original context. It literally means missing the mark and, as I understand it, can be best understood as missing the mark or losing one's way. I can cite Hebrew and other scholars for you if it helps.
Also, contextually, the missing of the mark/losing of one's way can be as in the case of actually shooting for the target/actually trying to go the right way and simply missing/getting lost. OR it can be to intentionally MISS the mark (shooting away from the target, for instance) or intentionally going a wrong way.
That is, it can be mere human imperfection or it can be more deliberate. That is how the metaphor of "sin" has been used textually and contextually. Again, I can cite the scholars, but I suspect you may be able to agree with that point.
Continuing:
that if we simply say, "Saahhh-reee!", all's well because...you know...grace or something.
Well, yes, I DO believe in God's grace and in grace and forgiveness. I DO believe that we are imperfect humans and asking for forgiveness (from God, from others) when we fail to live up to our better ideals... to God's Way... is a vital part of God's Way and just decent humanity. AND, when the parent, the friend, the neighbor, the stranger... when God is asked for forgiveness, the good and decent thing to do for fellow humans is what God does, which is grant forgiveness and accept the apology.
Because what kind of creep doesn't do that? Especially when we're talking about the typical failings of humanity (that, as opposed to actual human rights abuses and atrocities like rape, killing innocents, etc). But those are the exceptions to our misdeeds, not the rule.
Marshal:
What of those who ignore the target, or those who alter its size or in some other way choose the terms for what counts as hitting the mark or even if we need worry about taking up the bow in the first place? This is what Dan defends.
It literally is not. OF COURSE, I advocate for hitting the target, of staying on the right path. The right path/target being love, welcome, acceptance, inclusion, forgiveness... the beloved community. I advocate for that target/Way all the time.
Now, it IS true that I disagree with your imperfect human opinions about LGBTQ matters or women's health issues like abortion and other things. But that I dare disagree with your imperfect human opinion is not the same thing as "ignoring the target..." It's disagreeing with your mortal opinion.
Now, the difference is: I recognize your personal human opinion on such theories AS a human opinion. You, on the other hand, seem to think that YOU are the one speaking for God on these matters. I sincerely disagree and think that YOU are the one advocating for a shooting at the wrong target (your human opinion) or for taking the wrong Way, and doing so deliberately.
And the other difference is that I allow that you are advocating this ugly, awful path, this wrong target in good faith... you sincerely think YOUR opinion IS God's opinion. You on the other hand, make it up in your mind that I'm knowingly and deliberately advocating for a wrong way. That is simply false, even if your imperfect human mind can't understand that.
Your imperfect human mind and harmful advocacy of a less-loving Way are WHY we need grace and forgiveness. I pray that, in this new year, your eyes are opened to the harm and pain your human "way" - your missed target - is causing and that you humbly repent and join back on the right Way.
It can be done. I've done it and I'm the least of the saints.
May you have a better new year. May we all.
A couple of modern rabbis on the term:
"The Jewish concept of sin differs radically from the common understanding of this fraught term. The English word sin comes from the Latin word sons, which means guilty or criminal. Whereas the Hebrew word for sin, chet, means something akin to a missed opportunity, like an arrow missing its mark.1
Many people believe that sin leaves an indelible blemish on a person’s soul—as if a person’s actions can affect their essential state of being.
Inevitably, this approach to the consequences of immoral behavior will induce not only feelings of guilt for the action itself but feelings of shame as well, which conflate the sinner with their sin.
According to Jewish thought, sin doesn’t mean that one’s soul has become tainted or corroded, it merely means one acted in conflict with their essence, which is eternally pure and incorruptible...
Sin is, therefore, a foolish investment in an empty and worthless behavior; it does not, however, ultimately define us.
For the innermost core of our soul is always pure4 and holy; it is just a matter of whether we respect and reflect that innate state of being, or whether we devalue and desecrate it..."
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5808547/jewish/Sin-Chet.htm
And another Rabbi:
"Our larger understanding of sin is colored by a Christian sensibility, which associates sin with evil. Because of this understanding, it follows that someone who sins must, by definition, be “bad.”
But that is not the Torah’s understanding.
In Torah, the Hebrew word often translated “sin” does not mean “sin” at all. Chet appears most often in reference to a slingshot that has “missed its target.” That is, chet is something, or someone, who has gone astray, who has missed the mark. Rather than suggesting evil, chet is a matter of straying from the correct path. Like an arrow that misses the bull’s eye, there is nothing “wrong” with the arrow; it has simply not arrived where it is optimally desired.
It is important to note that it is the intent for the arrow to hit the mark. But sometimes, whether by faulty aim, gravity, an unanticipated wind gusts, etc. it does not. Likewise, when we err it is not because we maliciously or consciously do wrong. No, it is rather that we have “misfired,” we have fallen short of the ideal we aim to hit. We want to hit the bull’s eye but something in our stance, in our posture, in our midot has altered our path...
That is why, in the parasha, even though we do not intentionally sin we must still bring a sacrifice. Not because we are bad, but because at some point we inadvertently began to go astray; we did not pay attention, we have fallen asleep at the wheel, and we must wake up! Therefore, we ask forgiveness not for the unintentional sin, but rather for what is going on inside, for the distraction that began the process that resulted in our going astray..."
https://outorah.org/p/119544/
When you look for a Hebrew understanding of sin (as would have been understood in the OT, as would have been understood by that Jew, Jesus, and most of his followers), we find a different understanding than the more modern conservative christian traditions and theories of many imperfect humans... their ideas, NOT something from the original context.
Perhaps it's the case that those humans have missed the mark of understanding aright human nature and the concept of "sin"... perhaps they are the ones who have lost their Way?
For my part, in trying to walk the right Way, the way of love, grace, justice and forgiveness... the Way of welcome and just decent humanity, I just don't think your human traditions measure up to the Way taught by Jesus. And here's a hint:
IF your "way" is cruel, causes harm, imagines a limited and unforgiving "god" and involves keeping people OUT rather than welcoming people IN, maybe that's not the Way of Love and grace... maybe that's not the Way Jesus taught.
One more, this from a "Torah-observant Christian..."
"Sometimes, we think of sin as a big, scary word. But in the Torah, it’s often described simply as missing that perfect shot. This doesn’t mean we’re bad people; it means we’re human. We try our best, but sometimes we miss. What’s important is that we keep trying, keep aiming, and learn from where our shots go astray...
Our understanding of “missing the mark” in the Bible is incomplete without discussing the role of the Torah and our Savior in the new testament. The Torah gives us the guidelines, the ‘target,’ for how to live a life that pleases God. It’s our manual for aiming true."
https://twentyfoursixlife.com/missing-the-mark-in-the-bible-a-parents-perspective/
Answering some of Marshal's questions:
The question becomes, what did the ancient Biblical authors mean when it chose a word used in archery to describe disobedience to or rebellion against the Will of God?
I've cited the literal definition AND how it was commonly used in my answers above. I've cited Hebrew scholars talking to how Jews now and then would have considered "sin," and it's nothing like more modern conservative religious traditions treat it.
Does this choice of words mitigate the incredible seriousness of disobedience and rebellion, or are we to truly believe that God isn't serious about encouraging us to "be holy"?
Well, yes, of course. Words and context and intent matter. Are your misdeeds and misunderstandings, SIN - great rebellious intentionally evil spitting in the eye of God? OR, are they mere failings of imperfect mortals.
Marshal, how often have you deliberately said, "I don't care what God thinks, I'm going to do THIS because I want to spit in the eye of God!" Has that happened even ONE time in your life? Because, I have to tell you, I don't know anyone who has done that. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I don't know of anyone like that.
IF it's the case that we are mere, imperfect mortals and our "missing the mark/getting off the right Way" experiences have come primarily as a function of being imperfect mortals, then that would require one set of responses - and that response would not involve eternal torture, because THAT would be evil!
Again, IF your children misbehaved and didn't repent in a way you found satisfactory, are you going to lock them in a dungeon and starve them for the rest of their lives? That would be evil, wouldn't it?
If "holy" is His perfection, and it is the "mark" to which we're to aim, our imperfection is a serious matter about which no one, including those like Dan and his craven ilk, should be so glibly dismissive.
What is "dismissive" about noting the huge difference between a perfect almighty God and human mortals who are NOT perfect and, as a result, do not behave perfectly all the time or even most of the time? Is that NOT just the reality of it all?
What seems dismissive to me is for those who imagine that their "god" can't abide even basic human imperfections in any degree. Such people are describing an insufferable pompous monster of a god, NOT a God of love and grace.
What does God want and how can we know?
Well, for those of us who affirm a God whose very nature is Love, Grace, forgiveness and welcome, we can rightly imagine that God wants us to love, be gracious, forgiving and welcoming. Can we "know" that in the sense of objectively proving it? No, not any more than you can objectively "know" that your impatient, angry, prideful, needy god is as you imagine it.
Marshal had asked...
What does God want and how can we know?
And I answered...
Well, for those of us who affirm a God whose very nature is Love, Grace, forgiveness and welcome, we can rightly imagine that God wants us to love, be gracious, forgiving and welcoming.
I should have added...
AND, for those who imagine an angry, irrational god who insists that imperfect humans be perfect and if not, that god wants to punish them for an eternity of torture... for those who imagine a needy god who desires to be worshipped and obeyed - EVEN IF that god is asking someone to commit an atrocity like killing their own child... a god who demands blood sacrifices to "pay" (somehow) for their sin...etc,
If THAT is the kind of god one imagines, well, then that needy god expects blind unthinking loyalty, obedience to a whimsical trickster god and it's not really about love, grace and welcome, at all.
So, it largely depends on how humans imagine a God/godling.
Wow. Seven comments. So much nonsense to which I feel compelled to respond...and I intend to do so in my own good time. And because there is so much from you, and it could take some time, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM SUBMITTING FURTHER COMMENTS UNTIL I GIVE YOU THE "OK" TO DO SO! This means I will delete without reading any new submissions of yours until you're given that "OK", even if you see comments from others until that time arrives. You're special. You have special rules.
January 3, 2026 at 8:46 AM
"It's telling (about you) that you are trying to defend your theories about "sin" by making it about a competition or war, as if God's idea of grace is some kind of game or war, with prizes to win and victims to be killed."
Right from the jump you confirm your sadly pathetic comprehension skills, or just another sad attempt to pervert what was clearly stated. First, I don't deal in "theories"...any more than I do "opinions"...unless I state I'm doing so. If you see no statement that I'm offering either, then you're to regard them as facts you must accept or provide a case disputing them. The accurate presentations of Scripture I provide are not "theories" or "opinions" simply because you don't like them. Everything I state is or already has many times been supported by Scripture in ways for which you've never offered a parallel. And calling your positions "opinion" or writing off mine as such, still requires backing and support of the hardest data available.
As such, nothing in my post suggests I'm making my opposition to your weak defaulting to "missing the mark" as a competition or war. How stupid! No. My references to competition or war was to illustrate the fact of differing degrees of consequences using the "missing the mark" in archery. Different targets. Different contexts. Different consequences. The difference in consequence for little Danny "missing the mark" while practicing his archery with Nerf-tipped arrows is quite different than the consequences of missing an enemy in war, and worse, the consequences of "missing the mark" of God's expectations. If YOU'RE intent on clinging to your "missing the mark" argument, then speaking of the many levels of archery to illustrate sin is appropriate.
I said, "Dan uses the term as if it's referring to a mistake...a big "Whoopsie!"...as if there was no intention to sin, or worse"
"I'm noting the reality of the word and its usage in the original context."
Only half true. It's the usage of the word which is in doubt. More importantly, the consequences of "missing the mark" is ignored and by doing so you and focusing on "missing the mark", you necessarily...intentionally, I insist...mitigate the seriousness of sin, specifically the seriousness of the offense to God.
"It literally means missing the mark and, as I understand it, can be best understood as missing the mark or losing one's way. I can cite Hebrew and other scholars for you if it helps."
Yeah. I simple reading of my post demonstrates the literal meaning is not at all in question, but rather how the word is used to describe transgression against God's Will. And no, the Hebrew and scholars you eventually cite don't help mitigate my point about your error in regard for the seriousness of sin and the degree to which sin offends God.
"...it can be mere human imperfection or it can be more deliberate. That is how the metaphor of "sin" has been used textually and contextually. Again, I can cite the scholars, but I suspect you may be able to agree with that point."
Also unnecessary and arrogant to presume this isn't understood. It's true of our translated version "sin", so it's mere fluff to add it. However, it begins to get to the point. "Unintentional" sin has never been a matter of discussion, except when you pretend "you might be mistaken" on that which is crystal clear. As an extreme example, if somehow you sincerely believed murdering your next-door neighbor wasn't a sin and then immediately died yourself, the question of how this act of murder would be regarded might be in question. But clearly, even one like you who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture couldn't fail to notice its a forbidden behavior. Thus, there's no way to truly pretend you didn't know when you shot the dude.
"that if we simply say, "Saahhh-reee!", all's well because...you know...grace or something."
"Well, yes, I DO believe in God's grace and in grace and forgiveness. " yada yada yada "when God is asked for forgiveness, the good and decent thing to do for fellow humans is what God does, which is grant forgiveness and accept the apology."
First of all, what we're to do is what God encourages, teaches or commands us to do. And to forgive is one of those things. But my comment above was intentionally illustrative of one who is not truly sorry and thus unlikely to be repentant...hence the exaggerated apology. An apology is meaningless without remorse and repentance...which means never sinning again (generally speaking).
"Because what kind of creep doesn't do that?"
We're to forgive, I believe, even if the transgressor in insincere or doesn't even apologize. But a murderer who claims he's sorry will only at best get a reduced sentence/punishment. One is still accountable and a debt must be paid. So those who speak of forgiveness as you do are creepy, and it doesn't matter anyway as we're speaking of transgressing against God, not some dude on the street.
"Especially when we're talking about the typical failings of humanity (that, as opposed to actual human rights abuses and atrocities like rape, killing innocents, etc). But those are the exceptions to our misdeeds, not the rule."
What we're talking about is sin and just how serious it is, even if we prefer the phrase "missing the mark". "Missing the mark" doesn't mitigate the seriousness of having done so and your position absolutely suggests the Mark is insignificant.
January 3, 2026 at 8:53 AM
"OF COURSE, I advocate for hitting the target, of staying on the right path. The right path/target being love, welcome, acceptance, inclusion, forgiveness... the beloved community. I advocate for that target/Way all the time."
That's not the target. That's the target of your choosing. That's you altering the target to your liking...expanding it beyond its "official" size...and bringing it closer to you so that missing is harder to do.
The target is God...His Will...His Law and one sins by not abiding it, by being disobedient, particularly on purpose. What's more, there is no "welcome" for or "inclusion" of the unrepentant.
"Now, it IS true that I disagree with your imperfect human opinions about LGBTQ matters or women's health issues like abortion and other things. But that I dare disagree with your imperfect human opinion is not the same thing as "ignoring the target..." It's disagreeing with your mortal opinion."
What is true is that you write off accurate Scriptural presentation as "imperfect human opinions" when Scripture opposes your earthly preferences. I'm still waiting for you to present Scriptural passages which support your opposition to the truths I've copy/pasted from Scripture or some alternative meaning of those verses I've presented to support (proven, actually) my understanding as true. Again, I don't deal in "opinions" without first stating I'm doing so. I never have on these two issues because Scripture is so crystal clear. You've proven you have no such evidence to the contrary which doesn't require injecting meaning the text itself doesn't suggest or by perverting words to make them mean what the text doesn't imply.
"Now, the difference is: I recognize your personal human opinion on such theories AS a human opinion."
This is a lie...a sin, and you didn't even aim at the mark. You ASSERT the facts and truths I present are opinions. You can't recognize as opinion what is proven fact. You can only hope to find some way to counter that fact with more compelling evidence to that end. You don't even try, which at least allows you the ability to suggest you haven't failed.
"You, on the other hand, seem to think that YOU are the one speaking for God on these matters."
Another lie. I, on the other hand, know that my position is an accurate presentation of Scripture, mostly because I cite word-for-word that which cannot mean anything but what it says plainly. I don't speak for God. I simply repeat what He has clearly said and YOU can't prove He didn't say it or that He didn't mean it or that He changed His mind about it.
"I sincerely disagree and think that YOU are the one advocating for a shooting at the wrong target (your human opinion) or for taking the wrong Way, and doing so deliberately."
You sincerely hope intelligent people buy this crap. But how can they if you can't back your position? "Backing your position" means the listener can't find fault in your "reasoning" (I use the word very loosely when speaking of yours), which absolutely isn't hard to do at all, since your "reasoning" is so nonsensical and intentionally sewn out of whole cloth.
"And the other difference is that I allow that you are advocating this ugly, awful path, this wrong target in good faith... "
And you lie again. I advocate for God's Will as it is clearly, unequivocally, unmistakably and unambiguously revealed to us in Scripture. There's nothing at all "ugly, awful or wrong" about it. That would be YOUR perversions and heresies.
"...you sincerely think YOUR opinion IS God's opinion."
I offer no opinions. You simply and desperately need to project that falsehood upon me, because the truth is anathema to you.
"You on the other hand, make it up in your mind that I'm knowingly and deliberately advocating for a wrong way. That is simply false, even if your imperfect human mind can't understand that."
You compel that conclusion by promoting and advocating for that which is contrary to Christian teaching. Scripture is too clear for you to pretend you're not deliberately advocating in favor of sinful practices. Indeed, there's no doubt about it because there's no way for you to support your heresies. And it's no good saying that your past attempts succeeded in that regard simply because you need them to be accepted as intelligent, honest arguments. They contradict the plain reading of Scripture too starkly for honest people to buy it.
"Your imperfect human mind and harmful advocacy of a less-loving Way are WHY we need grace and forgiveness."
God's Way is NOT "less loving" than your advocacy for sexual perversion and infanticide, as well as your other heresies and corruptions of Scripture.
"I pray that, in this new year, your eyes are opened to the harm and pain your human "way" - your missed target - is causing and that you humbly repent and join back on the right Way."
I doubt God is likely to grant your request that I join you in advocating for sexual perversions, infanticide and your other heresies, but you go ahead and try. Maybe God loves to laugh, too.
It can be done. I've done it and I'm the least of the saints.
"It can be done. I've done it and I'm the least of the saints."
I forgot this nonsense. Whatever was your path during that period when you laughingly claim to have been "conservative", the path you're now on is as far from the true path as any can be. Thus, you've not "done it". You've turned from God to follow the world, making you nothing at all like any saint, but simply a rank heretic exploiting the word "Christian" to advocate for deviancy and murder.
Every single commentary I have read for the past 50 years explains missing the mark as you do, Art.
Dan tries to pretend he is a scholar when he's nothing but a fool.
January 3, 2026 at 9:04 AM
If this is what Jewish orthodoxy looks like, it fails to resolve their own contradictions promoted in this link. Primary of those with regard to this attempt at pushing those who agree as the final word to which I must bow is this:
"Many people believe that sin leaves an indelible blemish on a person’s soul—as if a person’s actions can affect their essential state of being."
Even in the OT can there be found that which speaks to man's sin nature. If our nature is sinful, then that is the essential state of being. The true question is whether or not our actions can erase or alter than state of being. Without acceptance of Jesus as our Savior...and more to the point, His sacrificial death on the cross as the means by which our essential sinful being can be regarded as washed away...that indelible blemish remains.
"Inevitably, this approach to the consequences of immoral behavior will induce not only feelings of guilt for the action itself but feelings of shame as well,"
And this is a problem how, exactly? If one acts immorally, one proves one's character by feeling guilty and if one is guilty, shame is appropriate. After all, God is the offended party and to feel guilt, shame and/or remorse for having done so results in the one...if one is a believer...paying closer attention that actions are consistent with God's Will. A believer who sins is ungrateful to God to one degree or another and one's guilt and shame highlight the ingratitude in acting badly.
"which conflate the sinner with their sin."
Who does this? To acknowledge one has sinned is not the same as accepting that one IS sin. That's really rather moronic. (I wonder if the writers meant "conflate the sinner with being sinful".)
"According to Jewish thought, sin doesn’t mean that one’s soul has become tainted or corroded, it merely means one acted in conflict with their essence, which is eternally pure and incorruptible..."
Once again, this conflicts with OT teachings. The Rabbinic notion of "yetzer hara" (evil inclination) necessarily suggests a sin nature, for how can a good person have evil inclinations? It's starkly contradictory. Regardless of how many Jewish sourced articles I read, the same contradiction is exposed. This site (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2830/jewish/What-Is-Sin.htm), for example, puts it this way: "But Torah also goes beyond them both in recognizing that the soul of man would never willingly and consciously do such a stupid thing." (meaning a sinful behavior) It goes one to speak of this weird crap: "Then the true self of the soul comes to light, revealing that the sin was in fact committed only by the soul's most external, malleable self, while its inner self was never involved in the first place." "Inner and outer soul"??? Sounds like at attempt to dispute the notion of a sin nature, rather than simply accept it.
“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” – Jeremiah 17:9 I believe that's from the OT, even if not from the Torah. But the Torah doesn't really deny it in any way. Thus, we rely on the NT, which is not less authoritative given the Lord Himself, Jesus Christ, is said to have been without sin...that is, without a sin nature. About whom else in Scripture can this be said? About whom else has it been said?
"Sin is, therefore, a foolish investment in an empty and worthless behavior; it does not, however, ultimately define us."
I would hope not. But that's not the same as saying we don't have a sin nature. And again and of course, what need of we for a Savior if not because we're sinful? If our sins are simply uncharacteristic anomalies, we're already good to go.
"For the innermost core of our soul is always pure4 and holy; it is just a matter of whether we respect and reflect that innate state of being, or whether we devalue and desecrate it..."
The authors curiously give no passage or verse which backs this up. They just say it. Other than Jesus, there is no one referred to as "without sin". Definitely no one during the period described in the Torah.
January 3, 2026 at 9:13 AM
"And another Rabbi:
"Our larger understanding of sin is colored by a Christian sensibility, which associates sin with evil. Because of this understanding, it follows that someone who sins must, by definition, be “bad.”"
This is nonsensical. Sin IS evil. That which is not of God is evil. That which departs from His commandments is evil. Sinful acts are those which are contrary to His Will and thus are evil acts. Those who sin, therefore, are "bad".
These various Jewish citations you've provided clearly promote the concept of sin being some innocent misstep, like inadvertantly knocking over one's wine glass. One doesn't lie, steal or assault another accidentally. It isn't lying to state a falsehood while sincerely believing it's a truth. One isn't stealing by taking something one mistakenly believes one is welcome to take. One isn't assaulting someone by unintentionally causing harm to that person. And one doesn't lie, steal or harm without being someone whose nature is sinful.
"It is important to note that it is the intent for the arrow to hit the mark. But sometimes, whether by faulty aim, gravity, an unanticipated wind gusts, etc. it does not. Likewise, when we err it is not because we maliciously or consciously do wrong."
Again, it speaks of "accidents". Sin is not an accident. Even if we inadvertently cause harm, we are yet accountable to the victim and we sin by ignoring or dismissing our responsibility to that victim. I didn't mean to hit that ball through your window, but I'm sinning by not copping to it and paying for its replacement. So breaking the window wasn't a sin here. If by chance one breaks a window unknowingly, the lack of compensation is still a problem for us. But how often does this type of situation happen (it doesn't have to be a broken window, but only causing harm unknowingly) that "missing the mark" only refers to this notion? It's absurd.
"When you look for a Hebrew understanding of sin (as would have been understood in the OT, as would have been understood by that Jew, Jesus, and most of his followers), we find a different understanding than the more modern conservative christian traditions and theories of many imperfect humans... their ideas, NOT something from the original context."
Nonsense. Jesus and His most notable followers (His Apostles) absolutely do not agree with this. What's more, much of Christ's ministry involved refining the understanding of God's Will. Your citations refer to those who rejected Christ's refining to cling to their poor understanding: the disciples of Judaism. What Jesus and His Apostles taught (NT stuff) is what you now refer to and dismiss in your moronically condescending manner as "modern conservative christian traditions and theories of many imperfect humans"..."imperfect humans" such as Paul and John.
"For my part, in trying to walk the right Way, the way of love, grace, justice and forgiveness... the Way of welcome and just decent humanity, I just don't think your human traditions measure up to the Way taught by Jesus."
Of course you don't. But then, you don't truly "think" at all. You scheme in order to advocate for sinful behaviors you find personally acceptable.
"IF your "way" is cruel, causes harm, imagines a limited and unforgiving "god" and involves keeping people OUT rather than welcoming people IN, maybe that's not the Way of Love and grace... maybe that's not the Way Jesus taught."
Fortunately, that's not "my way". My way is the Way of Christ and the Father who assures us not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do God's Will will be "included". It's not God Who is keeping anyone out. It's you who ensures you'll not be allowed entry.
January 3, 2026 at 9:18 AM
This one is just painfully insipid, but it again hopes to convey a parallel between mortal parents and our Heavenly Father which is self-serving, rather than cognitive of the significant differences between the two. Scripture makes clear the wages of sin is death. The wages of not cleaning one's room or for smacking one's annoying sister is not. Indeed, except for murder (and not even always then), there is no transgression one person can commit against another which results in a death penalty. But sin IS a death penalty in and of itself. What this means is that "missing the mark" is not something to regard as a small thing, but something to be avoided at all costs. There is no suffering one can endure by walking the narrow path, by entering the narrow gate, which compares to the suffering one will endure forever for being the lack of forgiveness for one's sins.
January 3, 2026 at 12:06 PM
"I've cited the literal definition AND how it was commonly used in my answers above. I've cited Hebrew scholars talking to how Jews now and then would have considered "sin," and it's nothing like more modern conservative religious traditions treat it."
That's because "modern conservative Christians" follow the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, and not those whose understanding of God, His Laws and sin were corrected by them.
"Well, yes, of course. Words and context and intent matter. Are your misdeeds and misunderstandings, SIN - great rebellious intentionally evil spitting in the eye of God? OR, are they mere failings of imperfect mortals."
We are imperfect due to our sin nature and the decaying effect of sin introduced into the world through Adam. You want to continue pretending it's all about "misdeeds" ("mistakes", I think you mean) and "misunderstandings" and that constitutes the lion's share of humanity's sinful actions. But this, too, is you assuming authority for determining what is worthy of God's wrath rather than deferring to His clearly revealed Will. In YOUR case, it's rank rebellion because you pretend what is clearly revealed is simply "modern conservative religious traditions"...as if that's the same as being wrong about God's Will.
"Marshal, how often have you deliberately said, "I don't care what God thinks, I'm going to do THIS because I want to spit in the eye of God!" Has that happened even ONE time in your life? Because, I have to tell you, I don't know anyone who has done that. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I don't know of anyone like that."
You don't know anyone NOT like that, especially that hopeless reprobate you see in the mirror. Everyone who acts contrary to God's Will does so intentionally, even if they don't know His Will perfectly, thereby "spitting in His face". Certainly you and those you defend do.
"IF it's the case that we are mere, imperfect mortals and our "missing the mark/getting off the right Way" experiences have come primarily as a function of being imperfect mortals, then that would require one set of responses - and that response would not involve eternal torture, because THAT would be evil!"
The consequences aren't at issue here and they don't change the reality of sin being rebellion against God, not merely "Oops! I missed the mark!" But sin isn't a function of those without a sin nature. Only perfect people are without one and only One was ever born without one. It's our sin nature which makes us imperfect.
"Again, IF your children misbehaved and didn't repent in a way you found satisfactory, are you going to lock them in a dungeon and starve them for the rest of their lives? That would be evil, wouldn't it?"
"Evil" is constantly conflating the appropriate punishment for a naughty child with God's appropriate punishment for sinful people who are not saved by Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.
"What is "dismissive" about noting the huge difference between a perfect almighty God and human mortals who are NOT perfect and, as a result, do not behave perfectly all the time or even most of the time? Is that NOT just the reality of it all?"
Why are you responding to something not said. I referred to the seriousness of sin. You dismiss how serious it is...of how offensive it is to God that He would assert the wages for it is death. God doesn't take it as lightly as you do, and that's for sure. Even parents don't take lightly the disobedience of their children.
"What seems dismissive to me is for those who imagine that their "god" can't abide even basic human imperfections in any degree."
You keep saying dumbass shit like this. You didn't mind your kids disobeying you? That was OK with you? Is that the kind of parent you were? It's not a matter of whether or not God can or can't abide sin. It's whether He's required to. How is a loving God loving by providing rules and then doing nothing about those who disobey them? Where's the logic in this?
You're again demonstrating you believe yourself as possessed of the authority to dictate how God must respond to your disobedience. There's nothing in Scripture which supports your self-satisfying fiction.
January 3, 2026 at 3:03 PM
I asked...
"What does God want and how can we know?"
Dan didn't answer these simple and direct questions. Instead, he chose to respond to something he pulled out of his ass:
"Well, for those of us who affirm a God whose very nature is Love, Grace, forgiveness and welcome, we can rightly imagine that God wants us to love, be gracious, forgiving and welcoming."
First, Dan provides a wildly incomplete description of God's "very" nature. His description is thus a fiction...an invention...a fantasy which Dan finds more personally appealing than an actual description of God's actual nature.
But more to the point, I didn't ask what Dan "imagines" God wants. The answer is not difficult. What God wants is clear and unmistakable. And it is found in Scripture...that book you pretend to revere but can't seem to reference in order to answer simple questions like these.
So go ahead and copy/paste your answer so that you can find the Book, Chapter and verse from which you've drawn it.
"I should have added...
AND, for those who imagine an angry, irrational god who insists that imperfect humans be perfect and if not, that god wants to punish them for an eternity of torture... for those who imagine a needy god who desires to be worshipped and obeyed - EVEN IF that god is asking someone to commit an atrocity like killing their own child... a god who demands blood sacrifices to "pay" (somehow) for their sin...etc,
If THAT is the kind of god one imagines, well, then that needy god expects blind unthinking loyalty, obedience to a whimsical trickster god and it's not really about love, grace and welcome, at all."
No, you were much better off not adding this crap you pulled out of your ass where you keep your head. No one here comes close to "imagining" such a being. Nor can you provide a single thing from any comment of mine, Craig's, Glenn's, Jesse's or Bubba's which so much as hints that we might "imagine" the One True God of Scripture to be this way.
More accurately, precisely and factually, this is what YOU accuse the One True God of Scripture of being, because He dares deny you your perversions and heresies.
There's nothing at all "irrational" about God wanting us to be perfect. Why would that be irrational if it's possible? He tells us, "Be holy, for I am holy". Why would He tell us that if there was no way for us to be holy, which is another way of saying "perfect" because HE is perfect? It's not like He didn't provide for us the means to achieve a state by which He would regard us as holy!
God doesn't "want" to punish us. He can't NOT punish us if we fail in becoming holy by the means he provided us for the task. It wouldn't be just and loving. The sentence is clear for the crime you don't think God has any business punishing.
So, it largely depends on how humans imagine a God/godling.
I don't "imagine" a "needy" god. I acknowledge God who expects that we worship Him because He's worthy of such. And we're to obey His commandments.
Your constant tactic of inventing the most absurd situations in order to test the conviction of my accurate understanding doesn't work, because I've no worry about God commanding me to do anything more than He already has as clearly revealed to all in Scripture. Yet I strive to obey all His commands and would obey any additional commands He might choose to make upon me...even if I wouldn't have believed it something He would ask. Unlike you, I would not question it, knowing He has good reason to make such a demand. And in your corruption, you use this to suppose I think it's within His nature to do so because you need to believe my accurate understanding of the clearly revealed Will of God is some kind of interpretation error you can't prove as such. You simply demand it must be because the Truth puts you in a bad place, given your greater desire to please the world over Him.
The entirety of the OT, and the point of the NT...what honest people recognize as "the Good News"...is that the wages of sin being death, blood sacrifices were required throughout the OT and would be required today had Jesus not been born for the express purpose of being the perfect sacrifice for our sins once for all.
And here's "how" it does so: God said so and so it is so.
"So, it largely depends on how humans imagine a God/godling."
What you "imagine" does not answer the question of what God wants from us, what He expects of us, what He commands us to do. The LAST thing one should say when asked is to "imagine" what the answer is given it's spelled out clearly in Scripture. Try reading it some day.
OK, pervert heretic! I've finished responding to your evidence of your fake Christian posturing. Do you think you can actually respond to the post now?
I just went to the queue to see if anyone submitted a comment and what did I see? I saw three submissions from the very guy who was told clearly and unambiguously that he was not to make such an attempt until I gave the OK, as I just did in my most recent comment from January 4, 2026 at 9:17 PM, which as minutes ago. As such, I did exactly what I said I would do if Dan ignored my request and all three submissions were deleted without my having read a one of them. They're gone now. I hope you copy/pasted them!
This is an old chestnut of Dan's. He makes up some bizarre, irrational, description of something that bears no relationship to anything any of us have ever said, couches his made up garbage in "for those". If by "those" he means us, then why not have the courage to actually say that? If "those" means people other than us, then why waste our time?
What's strange is that "those" people who talk about things like sacrifice and atonement, etc (all the icky stuff Dan doesn't like) are the authors of Scripture. Even more strangely Jesus Himself speaks in the terms Dan disparages.
What, oh what, are we to do?
Marshal had asked...
"What does God want and how can we know?"
I directly, clearly answered that question...
Well, for those of us who affirm a God whose very nature is
Love, Grace, forgiveness and welcome,
we can rightly imagine that
God wants us to love, be gracious, forgiving and welcoming."
Marshal responded...
Dan didn't answer these simple and direct questions. Instead, he chose to respond to something he pulled out of his ass...
Then cited my direct, clear answer.
GOD WANTS US TO LOVE, BE GRACIOUS, FORGIVING, WELCOMING.
What part of that is NOT a direct answer?
As to HOW we "know" what God wants, I answered that, too.
"For those of us who affirm a God of love, etc..."
How is that NOT a direct clear answer?
Even if you want to fantasize that God doesn't want these things or is not a God defined by those traits, it STILL is a clear, direct answer.
It's no good, Craig. To point out how Biblical figures speak in the terms Dan rejects is simply due to our erroneous and inferior interpretation, don't you know. It's our "human traditions" when we accurately cite Jesus or the Biblical authors, as if a tradition based on accurate Biblical citation is a bad thing. Far better to use one's "reasoning" to "reason" out a more personally pleasing message, whether it exists in Scripture or not.
January 5, 2026 at 1:32 PM
"What part of that is NOT a direct answer?"
I answered this nonsensical question, but I'll do it again. A "direct" answer requires responding to the question as it was asked, not how it was paraphrased or altered. I asked, "What does God want", not "What do you imagine God wants".
"How is that NOT a direct clear answer?"
This is more moronic than the first. How is what YOU affirm an answer to the question of how can know what God wants? A truly direct, clear answer must at the very least begin with a reference to Scripture, as it's THE source of knowing what God wants. Your "affirmation" is worthless. Producing the passage or verse which presents the "answer" you chose to give...as well as the Book from which it was allegedly drawn...is how one answers "clearly and directly" a question about what God wants.
Thus, what you've provided is not an answer at all of any meritorious truth. It is you promoting your "theology"...such as it is...which isn't much to take as worth a damn.
Marshal...
Dan provides a wildly incomplete description of God's "very" nature. His description is thus a fiction...an invention...a fantasy which Dan finds more personally appealing than an actual description of God's actual nature.
Are you going to argue that your human theory is that God is NOT defined as a God of Love?
Certainly, in the testimony of biblical authors, God is repeatedly referred to as a God of Love, and even, God IS love.
I'm not saying that's an exhaustive list of God's traits/nature, but in traditional Christianity, those are some of the commonly held beliefs. I would add Justice to that list and say THOSE five traits are the primary descriptors found in the biblical testimony and Christian tradition.
Are you theorizing that those five traits are a "wildly incomplete" description of God's nature?? Because that would be a shocking theory even within traditional conservative Christianity circles.
Marshal:
I asked, "What does God want", not "What do you imagine God wants".
Well, the tough reality that you have to face is that neither YOU nor I have any way to PROVE objectively what God wants. SO, for those of us who affirm God as a God of love, we can rightly and reasonably imagine that God wants US to love.
Now, I know that you arrogantly, presumptuously and with NO support probably will say that you DO "know" what God wants and "know" it objectively, and yet, reality says otherwise. IF you could prove objectively what God wants, that would be a sweet little wish, wouldn't it? But you can't.
Do you admit that certain reality?
If not, that is just another one of your arrogant failures as an imperfect human with clearly a lower than average capacity for understanding objective proof.
Marshal:
A truly direct, clear answer must at the very least begin with a reference to Scripture, as it's THE source of knowing what God wants.
This is another of your inane, gradeschool-level bullshit responses.
I. EVEN IF God had told you that "the Bible" is "THE source" of "knowing what God wants"...
II. (and be clear: GOD has not told you that nor has "the Bible" told you that. THAT is your human invention, unsupported by reality)
III. EVEN IF that were so, you still have the problem, "The Bible" (or "Scripture") according to WHOM? YOU read the Bible and reach some theories about what the authors are teaching on some topics and I read the Bible and reach a different or even opposite theory about what the authors are teaching.
IIIa. WHO DECIDES which is objectively right?
IIIb. Based upon what authoritative source or rubric?
As always, your complete and total failure to even TRY to answer those primary questions is why your theories and bullying arrogance are undone. You've tried to make your case based on blather and bullshit and it's all just been flushed away by cold hard reality and adult level reasoning.
Marshal:
A truly direct, clear answer must at the very least begin with a reference to Scripture, as it's THE source of knowing what God wants. Your "affirmation" is worthless. Producing the passage or verse which presents the "answer" you chose to give
Well, one difference between you and I is that I do not use/abuse/misuse the Bible as a rulings book to get authoritatively proven answers. I do and can point to places where Jesus or a biblical author says something to show that Jesus (et al) SAID something, but that isn't objective proof.
For instance, Jesus repeatedly cited how we will be known as followers of God/of him by the way we show love for one another, by the way we welcome, support and love the "least of these," by the way we preach good news to the poor, etc. But you're not ignorant of these passages.
But rather than do that, I went straight to the shared assumptions: That we who believe in God affirm a God of love, grace, forgiveness, welcome and justice. If we share those presumptions, then I don't need to "prove" to you with biblical texts that these are teachings found within the biblical witness (which again is not objective proof of what God thinks that we can objectively know, but we CAN note that they are described and affirmed in the Bible repeatedly).
Do you NOT share those presumptions?
I know it makes no difference to Dan, but to the rest of the world, pointing out the source of this language does carry some wright.
"we can rightly imagine that"
The question was about what YHWH "wants" from us and how we "know" that information.
Dan goes a different direction. He starts by assuming that "rightly" (an objective term) can be magically divined from one's (subjective) imagining. What he's done is to merely kick the can down the road, as he has no objective standard to measure his imagination against to determine if his imagination is "rightly" understood or not.
"GOD WANTS US TO LOVE, BE GRACIOUS, FORGIVING, WELCOMING."
"What part of that is NOT a direct answer?"
While it may be "direct" (or at least as Dan ever gets to "direct"), it's hardly complete.
Further, where does this information come from that leads Dan to imagine that this is all that YHWH expects for His people?
Excellent point. Either Dan is presuming to speak for YHWH, or he is merely imagining what he believes YHWH might want in the absence of any better source of information.
Always keep in mind that the directness of ANY answer, regardless of who, will always be determined by Dan based on what outcome best serves him.
For example, if Dan asks a yes/no question, and I answer with a simple/direct yes/no, Dan complains that my answer is insufficiently direct.
It's always Dan's decision.
I don't know why I'm mistaken going right to Scripture whenever anyone might ask me what God wants or expects or says about a given issue. Even if I began my response with a generalization, I would seeking out the best verses which answer the question best, and likely more than simply one.
Instead, Dan gives us "imaginings".
Indeed. It certainly is at his Blog of Lies and Perversions. I don't know why he thinks everyone should run their blogs by the rules of his...which are just as you've described.
Craig...
While it may be "direct" (or at least as Dan ever gets to "direct"), it's hardly complete.
1. That opinion you offer (that it's hardly complete) IS an unproven human theory, but not a proven certainty.
2. I didn't say it was complete. That is reasonably what we can conclude at least in part IF we affirm a God with those qualities. I'd say there's more, but not to include the "more" you all may believe.
Further, where does this information come from that leads Dan to imagine that this is all that YHWH expects for His people?
Moral reasoning, the biblical witness, the teachings we have from Jesus, God's Word written upon our hearts (for those who affirm that we are created in God's image), God's Spirit encouraging us (for those who affirm that belief.)
For starters. Moral common sense, etc, etc.
January 5, 2026 at 1:56 PM
"Are you going to argue that your human theory is that God is NOT defined as a God of Love?"
There's no "theory" here, Dan. I stated a fact, that you've provided a wildly incomplete description of God's "very" nature, and you did so in preference over answering the question as it was asked.
"Certainly, in the testimony of biblical authors, God is repeatedly referred to as a God of Love, and even, God IS love."
Totally irrelevant to the question I posed.
"I'm not saying that's an exhaustive list of God's traits/nature, but in traditional Christianity, those are some of the commonly held beliefs. I would add Justice to that list and say THOSE five traits are the primary descriptors found in the biblical testimony and Christian tradition."
More irrelevance. It has nothing at all to do with the question I posed.
"Are you theorizing that those five traits are a "wildly incomplete" description of God's nature??"
No. I don't "theorize" without preceding my theory by saying, "this is just a theory of mine, but..."
What I am saying is that you presented a wildly incomplete description of God's "very" nature, and you did so in preference over answering the question as it was asked.
"Because that would be a shocking theory even within traditional conservative Christianity circles."
Proving again how little you know and understand about "traditional conservative Christianity", A.K.A., Christianity.
Marshal...
Proving again how little you know and understand about "traditional conservative Christianity", A.K.A., Christianity.
Come on. Help me out, Glenn and Craig. Tell Marshal that he's just plain mistaken on this point. Tell him that, of course, traditional Christians affirm the notion that
LOVE
GRACE
FORGIVENESS
WELCOME
JUSTICE
are all traditionally commonly accepted as descriptions of God's character and
are NOT a "wildly incomplete" description of God's nature?
If it's "wildly incomplete," what in the name of all that's holy and good is "wildly" missing?!
While I'm at it, in the biblical context,
Holy means simply "set apart" and perfect (as in, be perfect, as God is perfect) means simply, be complete... be whole... as opposed to being without any error. You know how these words were used in context, right?
January 5, 2026 at 2:12 PM
"Well, the tough reality that you have to face is that neither YOU nor I have any way to PROVE objectively what God wants."
That's not reality at all. It's what you need reality to be in order to take license to do what you want. We absolutely can prove what God wants by reading what He wants as clearly revealed to us in Scripture.
"SO, for those of us who affirm God as a God of love, we can rightly and reasonably imagine that God wants US to love."
Totally worthless with no objective proof available to support the premise. On what basis do you affirm anything about God? Without Scripture, you're doing no more than making shit up which pleases you to believe. You don't worship the One True God of Scripture. You worship a god of your own making. You "affirm" that constantly!
"Now, I know that you arrogantly, presumptuously and with NO support probably will say that you DO "know" what God wants and "know" it objectively, and yet, reality says otherwise. IF you could prove objectively what God wants, that would be a sweet little wish, wouldn't it? But you can't."
More fiction you need to believe is true, and all to avoid answering the question "what does God want how can we know?" I prove every claim I make by citing the source which confirms my position. You push your hand way up your ass...squeezing it alongside your head...and pull out whatever turd you think others will regard as an intelligent thought.
"Do you admit that certain reality?"
Your "affirmations" aren't reality. They're wishes. They have no value here, especially lieu of an actual answer to a plainly asked question. It most certainly isn't a "reality" that there is no objective proof for determining the Will of God.
"If not, that is just another one of your arrogant failures as an imperfect human with clearly a lower than average capacity for understanding objective proof."
Since you have your head up your ass, your capacity to pound sand is compromised. I did a whole post on this desperate, cowardly and dishonest deflection you love to employ so much. There's nothing wrong with my understanding of "objective proof". The problem is your dishonesty and moral corruption when you're confronted by it.
"This is another of your inane, gradeschool-level bullshit responses."
It's a statement of fact, which you lack the ability to overcome. What you just said is an example of an inane, grade school-level bullshit response.
"As always, your complete and total failure to even TRY to answer those primary questions is why your theories and bullying arrogance are undone. You've tried to make your case based on blather and bullshit and it's all just been flushed away by cold hard reality and adult level reasoning."
Your deflections don't constitute "adult level reasoning". They denote childish petulance, as you continue to inundate us with these nonsensical demands for "rubrics", while at the same time assuming all authority for demanding what must be regarded as "reality", "reason", "rational" and "adult". Spare me. I'm not impressed or compelled to regard your weaseling as examples of any of those things.
I don't require God to tell me the obvious regarding Scripture being the source of knowledge and understanding about Him and His Will. Your suggestion that He must in order for that to be true is just you lying again so that you can expand the target to your liking and bring it closer so you can hit it and pretend you're doing His Will.
One thing for sure, should there be any question about who is right about what, YOU aren't the person any sensible person would approach for the answer.
I'm not "undone", Nancy. And YOU'VE certainly not capable of "undoing" me. You can't even answer my simple questions.
January 5, 2026 at 2:40 PM
"Well, one difference between you and I is that I do not use/abuse/misuse the Bible..."
That's funny. You do all that to carve out for yourself the liberty to act contrary to God's Will yet still tell yourself everyone will accept that you're an actual Christian.
Got any other good jokes?
"I do and can point to places where Jesus or a biblical author says something to show that Jesus (et al) SAID something, but that isn't objective proof."
So, you can point to places where Jesus said something, but it's worthless because your source isn't a reliable one for determining anything. If Scripture isn't trustworthy...as it clearly isn't for you...nothing you can point to has any weight at all. You follow a fiction, not God, because Scripture tells us who God is, but it's not "objective proof" of anything.
Good luck with that.
"For instance, Jesus repeatedly cited how we will be known as followers of God/of him by the way we show love for one another, by the way we welcome, support and love the "least of these," by the way we preach good news to the poor, etc."
But Scripture isn't "objective proof" He ever said anything like that (assuming He actually said exactly what you're now paraphrasing...which itself is justifiably doubt-worthy)
"But rather than do that, I went straight to the shared assumptions"
I don't have any common ground with you. We don't even worship the same God. Mine is the One True God described in Scripture. Yours is a god of your own making which has only the most superficial of resemblances to the One True God described in Scripture. My God is trustworthy and He inspired all of the Biblical authors to record all things related to Him just as He intended they should in order for us to know Him.
"If we share those presumptions, then I don't need to "prove" to you with biblical texts that these are teachings found within the biblical witness"
This is all irrelevant shit which proves to me that you hold fast to your fictions while I hold fast to His Truth as revealed to us in Scripture. I know what God wants because it's all there within Its pages. And I consider all He wants, and not just that which has personal appeal.
"(which again is not objective proof of what God thinks that we can objectively know, but we CAN note that they are described and affirmed in the Bible repeatedly)"
By your weak "reasoning", it doesn't matter how many times a concept is "affirmed" in the Bible, because it's still not "objective proof" that it's true. Thus, it's all worthless and a schmuck like you pretending to Christian is worth even less.
Marshal:
By your weak "reasoning", it doesn't matter how many times a concept is "affirmed" in the Bible, because it's still not "objective proof" that it's true.
YES. Precisely. UNTIL YOU OBJECTIVELY PROVE
1. your source book has literal rules about how to understand some concepts IS OBJECTIVELY correct; and
2. That YOU are objectively correct in your understanding of these concepts
THEN you do not have objective proof. You have subjective opinions that remain unproven in any objective manner. That isn't "weak" reasoning. That's just reasoning. Period. It's adult literary criticism. It's adult understanding. It's reading for understanding, not cherry picking to support your bigotries and biases.
That you don't understand this is your undoing. You've been exposed as being blindly brainwashed and you don't even understand that.
Thus, it's all worthless and a schmuck
Now, I'M not saying that IF we can't objectively prove "the Bible" - or our opinions about the Bible - that it's worthless. That would be you all. If I'm not mistaken.
But you tell me: IF it's the case that you can't objectively prove your opinions about what the Bible is saying, that your understandings of the Bible are factually right and proven... IF that's the case, do you think the Bible is worthless? Because that sounds very much like what you're saying.
I will remind you of your words:
you can point to places where Jesus said something,
but it's worthless because your source isn't a reliable one
for determining anything.
If Scripture isn't trustworthy...as it clearly isn't for you...
nothing you can point to has any weight at all.
For my part, I DO think the biblical texts, rightly understood, are trustworthy. I just recognize the reality that neither you nor I can objectively prove we are understanding the authors' intentions or God's wants correctly.
But it sure SOUNDS like YOU are saying that IF it turned out to be true that you can't objectively prove your conclusions from biblical texts, THEN the Bible is worthless... that it isn't trustworthy.
You tell me, but you sure seem to be making a strong case for that.
Of course, this all hinges on your obviously unproven theory that you and those who agree with you DO "know objectively" how to factually understand what God is teaching and wants us to know in the pages of the Bible.
And that is where you fail so miserably... and don't even understand that.
Returning to an earlier comment from Marshal:
the consequences of "missing the mark" is ignored and by doing so you and focusing on "missing the mark"
And what ARE the consequences of failing to be perfect, to live up to the ideals we have in our being as children of God?
People like Marshal (and me, once upon a time) theorize that the consequences are that, failing to repent in the right way with the medieval/modernist concept of "penal subsitutionary atonement" as the operating theory, are that God "hates" our "sin" - even the typical failings of an imperfect people - and that, failing the right repentance, God will send us to eternal torment. That is the THEORY of some humans, although not the original Hebrews who conceptualized "sin" and spoke of it as recorded in the OT. It's a more modern theory. And it's not in the words of that Jew, Jesus, who did not promote this theory of later humans. But it IS a theory, to be sure.
On the other hand, people like me say we can largely see and anticipate the consequences of failing to hit the mark -
potential broken relationships, needing to be healed;
the hungry continuing to starve;
lonely people living in loneliness;
guilt and sorrow;
potential family disruptions;
potential failures to aid the poor and marginalized, leading to more anguish, harm and suffering...
These are all observable consequences of sin, of missing the mark. The theory of eternal torture, on the other hand, is not observable or proven, it's just a rather sad little theory that some humans embrace.
Dan's talk about love and inclusion is just cheap grace. He doesn't care about holiness at all.
Dan is not a deep thinker at all. He's just parroting progressive talking points and pretending it’s theology.
I'm living rent free in Feodor's empty head right now.
1. I'm not sure what the "opinion" is that you refer to. If the "opinion" in question is my "hardly complete", then you literally confirm my "opinion" in your #2.
2. Of course not. You just cherry pick a few of YHWH's attributes that fit best with your preconceptions, and ignore the rest. You especially seem uncomfortable stressing YHWH's holiness or His Sovereignty to name a couple you rarely mention. The problem is that we don't "affirm" a God with only or primarily those qualities. But I appreciate you jumping in to deny the some of the attributes of YHWH that we "may believe". It's strange you sort of admit that you get your cherry picked list from Scripture, but if we use the same Scripture to mention other attributes, ours are somehow not as legitimate as yours.
Obviously, Dan always defaults to his subjective "Moral common sense" (what possible reason could their be to capitalize "Moral") before any other possible option. e
While "love" is ONE facet or attribute of YHWH, it is absurd to elevate it above any other attribute of YHWH. If pressed, I would argue that holiness is the core of YHWH's attributes. Although, I cannot see how it is possible to rank or prioritize YHWH's divine attributes because they all seem inexorably connected.
Yes, the few cherry picked "traits" are an "incomplete description of God's nature".
Why would I help you out? I agree with Art to some degree.
I'll note that I am unaware of any scripture that directly and specifically says that "WELCOME" is a divine attribute of YHWH. As Jesus (aligning with the rest of Scripture) makes clear, YHWH does NOT simply "WELCOME" and and all into His Kingdom.
Well, the biggest "missing" aspect is holy. Although you seem to swear by the holiness of something/someone, without acknowledging that holiness is an attribute of YHWH. Oh, good is also missing.
Are you seriously suggesting that YHWH is not "without any error"?
https://www.gotquestions.org/attributes-God.html
" I DO think the biblical texts, rightly understood, are trustworthy. "
Dan thinks that as long as Dan "rightly" understands Scripture, that Scripture (based on Dan's understanding being "right") is trustworthy to Dan. It sounds absurd to determine the trustworthiness of Scripture by applying one's individual, subjective, imperfect "understanding" as the final arbiter of trustworthiness.
Unless, your notion of "trustworthy" extends only to yourself, and not to others.
Dan clearly isn't shy about misrepresenting beliefs that he doesn't hold.
Jesse:
Dan's talk about love and inclusion is just cheap grace. He doesn't care about holiness at all.
Holiness: Being set apart. More specifically, being set apart for God's purposes. And what ARE God's purposes?
Jesus said, "I have come to preach good news for the poor, release for the captive, healing for the blind, the day of Jubilee!"
Jesus said, "what you have NOT done for the least of these (the poor, the hungry, the foreigners, the lonely, etc), you have NOT done for me."
Jesus said, "A new command I give you:
Love one another.
As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples,
if you love one another.”
What ARE the purposes of God that we are to be set apart for (ie, HOW are we to be holy as God is holy?) Loving one another, caring for and allying with the poor and marginalized. For when we love and side with the poor and marginalized, Jesus said, we are loving and allying with GOD.
And that pouring out our lives in love is absolutely not cheap grace. You want to talk about an irrational god who demands a blood sacrifice before they'll forgive? THAT is cheap grace. That is pathetic nothing.
But inviting people into your homes, risking welcoming strangers, perhaps people with mental illnesses, criminal backgrounds, deep needs... THAT is a welcoming, loving, powerful grace... sort of the opposite of cheap grace.
That is being holy, as God is holy, is it not?
Or do you prefer the theory of a god who is unwilling to forgive unless someone's/some thing's literal blood is shed to "pay" for "sins..."? What IS that? What impact on lives does THAT have? How is THAT good news for the poor and marginalized.
Yes, by all means, let's get rid of cheap grace in our lives. Grace that costs us nothing and is meaningless in this world. Let's embrace welcoming, loving, pour-out-our-lives grace, walking in the steps of Jesus, our Lord.
Amen?
Also, empty slander is more of a cheap not-even-grace. Gossip and personal attacks is no kind of grace at all, my man.
Let's be better than that.
As to parroting "progressive talking points," if by that you mean, parroting JESUS' actual teachings, what HE actually said and taught, YES! I am parroting the teachings of Jesus. That, as opposed to the traditions of men.
At least there's plenty of space. Lots of rubbish, though.
Craig strangely asked:
Are you seriously suggesting that YHWH is not "without any error"?
No. You can tell by the way I never said that.
Craig:
It sounds absurd to determine the trustworthiness of Scripture by applying one's individual, subjective, imperfect "understanding" as the final arbiter of trustworthiness.
By all means, answer the question: How do YOU determine the "trustworthiness of Scripture?" How do YOU understand how to interpret Scripture? Do you use your reasoning somehow OR do you just make a guess devoid of reason and support?
Sounds like the latter.
[I offer the rational notion that Love, Grace, Forgiveness, Welcome and Justice are integral, defining aspects of God's nature and you all can't easily agree. Rolls eyes.]
Nice job with your anachronistic treatment of the gospel. I guess my comments were not so baseless after all.
January 6, 2026 at 8:53 AM
You still haven't answered the question, "What does God want and how can we know?"
But this is the last time I address your bullshit "objective proof" dodge which you throw out any time you face truths and facts not to your personal liking. It's just another way you lie, because lying is what you do.
"UNTIL YOU OBJECTIVELY PROVE
1. your source book has literal rules about how to understand some concepts IS OBJECTIVELY correct; and"
Bullshit. I have absolutely no obligation to "prove" Scripture has rules for how to understand any of it. I have all I need, which is honesty, intelligence and better scholars which align with my understanding and confirm it is the correct understanding until you can provide an actual intelligent counter argument backed by the same degree of evidentiary support you demand of us before you delete us anyway. This demand that I must "objectively prove" Scripture has rules for understanding it is YOUR rule, to which I counter that crap with a Trabue-like demand that you provide objective proof that I need objective proof for what you demand I must have objective proof.
Real adults simply expect a good counter argument, not this cowardly, petulantly childish "Nyuh uh! You can't prove it!" even after it's been proven in a way honest people would accept.
"2. That YOU are objectively correct in your understanding of these concepts"
I'm "objectively correct" in my understanding until someone far more intelligent than the likes of you could ever be comes along with an actual compelling counter argument. Such a person would make a logical argument using direct, full and "in context" citations from Scripture to make such a case. You should try that sometime.
"You have subjective opinions that remain unproven in any objective manner. That isn't "weak" reasoning."
Bullshit. That's just what you say when confronted with Biblical truth you find inconvenient for your marxist, world-worshiping narratives. What I express comes directly from Scripture in a wholly unambiguous way. There's no doubt about the truth of what I express because of that. The issue is never a matter of whether or not I've expressed a truth, but that you're unable to refute it, and thus, given your inability and lack of an intelligent alternative which honest people would consider at equally or more likely true than what I've expressed, you default to this crap of demanding "objective proof", which BTW, is a term you throw around as if you have a definition for it.
"That's just reasoning. Period. It's adult literary criticism. It's adult understanding."
Bullshit. Such would be indicated with the presentation of a supported counter argument, not simply your typical "Nyuh uh! That's just your opinion!" You don't even actually "criticize". You just reject. There nothing "adult" about such petulant childishness. Then there's this bit of dishonesty:
"It's reading for understanding, not cherry picking to support your bigotries and biases."
You've never proven I've ever "cherry-picked" anything nor that what I express is base bigotry or bias in the way you intend those words should be interpreted. This is just crap you say in lieu of actually engaging in truly adult discourse.
"That you don't understand this is your undoing."
I understand perfectly. You're tap-dancing, deflecting, obfuscating, equivocating, pulling turds out of your ass and telling us it's candy...lying.
"You've been exposed as being blindly brainwashed and you don't even understand that."
You've exposed nothing but your own incredible absence of character. But we already were aware you have none.
"IF it's the case that you can't objectively prove your opinions about what the Bible is saying, that your understandings of the Bible are factually right and proven... IF that's the case, do you think the Bible is worthless? Because that sounds very much like what you're saying."
But it's NOT the case that I can't prove my positions (not "opinions") on Biblical truths. I do it all the time. That's when you break out this "objective proof" bullshit, because you can't get around the truths I present. I believe all honest people can find Scripture to be the ultimate source of understanding about what God wants, and all honest people do. Only progressives like you who exploit the term "Christian" to further the perversions of your marxist agenda pretend a special decoder ring is required to understand what is not cryptically provided us.
"For my part, I DO think the biblical texts, rightly understood, are trustworthy. I just recognize the reality that neither you nor I can objectively prove we are understanding the authors' intentions or God's wants correctly."
How can it be trustworthy if no one can be sure of one's understanding? This is an absolutely absurd thing to say by someone who pretends he understands what "good faith adult discourse" looks like. If my understanding isn't "rightly understood", prove it or STFU and sit down. I already know the truth is anathema to you.
"But it sure SOUNDS like YOU are saying that IF it turned out to be true that you can't objectively prove your conclusions from biblical texts, THEN the Bible is worthless..."
How could it sound like that when "what it 'sounds like'" to the likes of you doesn't at all match anything I've said? I've only spoken of YOUR imbecility in suggesting Scripture is untrustworthy. This "rightly understood" line is self-serving nonsense. It implies I've not "rightly understood" Scripture and one must accept that simply because you implied it. If I've "not rightly understood" something, prove it or STFU and sit down. (more on this later)
"You tell me, but you sure seem to be making a strong case for that."
Hearing what you want to hear. That's just you lying again. My case is that you're full of shit for trying to tap-dance away from answering a simple question.
"Of course, this all hinges on your obviously unproven theory that you and those who agree with you DO "know objectively" how to factually understand what God is teaching and wants us to know in the pages of the Bible."
Still more bullshit. There's no theory here. There's only the fact that my understanding of Scripture on the issues we discuss is superior to yours if not absolutely accurate (which, actually, is why it's superior to yours). What's to know about how to understand Scripture? It's really plain on these issues between us. You just hate truth.
"And that is where you fail so miserably... and don't even understand that."
That's funny.
January 6, 2026 at 10:45 AM
"People like Marshal.... theorize that the consequences are that, failing to repent in the right way with the medieval/modernist concept of "penal subsitutionary atonement" as the operating theory, are that God "hates" our "sin" - even the typical failings of an imperfect people - and that, failing the right repentance, God will send us to eternal torment. That is the THEORY of some humans..."
That's not "theory". It's Biblical fact, though not revealed to us throughout Scripture from one end to the other in such a condescendingly insulting and disrespectful manner (to God, not to me). It's the truly "right understanding" you reject in favor of your invention.
"That is the THEORY of some humans, although not the original Hebrews who conceptualized "sin" and spoke of it as recorded in the OT."
Not a "theory", but Biblical truth. Your understanding of the original Hebrews is flawed, to say the least. They did not have as dismissive an understanding of sin as you need to believe they did. But neither of us are Hebrews, so it's irrelevant anyway.
"It's a more modern theory."
Not a "theory". It's Biblical fact.
"And it's not in the words of that Jew, Jesus, who did not promote this theory of later humans."
Not a "theory", but a fact Jesus Himself proclaimed as His purpose.
"On the other hand, people like me say we can largely see and anticipate the consequences of failing to hit the mark -"
(self-satisfying drivel)
"These are all observable consequences of sin, of missing the mark."
They are manifested results, but not the truly important consequences of "missing the mark". To put those things over the far more serious reality of your disregard for God. If it came down to devotion to God while ignoring the poor versus devotion to the poor while ignoring God, I'll take devotion to God every time. Love and obedience to God is paramount, and belief in and acceptance as Savior His Only Begotten Son, Jesus, as well as His Holy Spirit comes first above all else in life. Without that, one is lost regardless of how many poor people one feeds.
"The theory of eternal torture, on the other hand, is not observable or proven,"
Not a "theory", but Biblical fact.
Marshal:
If it came down to devotion to God while ignoring the poor versus devotion to the poor while ignoring God, I'll take devotion to God every time.
Jesus:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me,
I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer,
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you,
whatever you did not do for one of the least of these,
you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Marshal:
If it came down to
devotion to God while ignoring the poor versus
devotion to the poor while ignoring God,
I'll take devotion to God every time.
As if you could do the one without the other.
As if you could be devoted to God while ignoring the poor and marginalized.
Jesus literally taught you otherwise.
But let's not take THOSE words literally!
Marshal:
Your understanding of the original Hebrews is flawed, to say the least. They did not have as dismissive an understanding of sin as you need to believe they did. But neither of us are Hebrews, so it's irrelevant anyway.
No, but I cited several actual Jewish scholars telling you what the Jewish thoughts on sin were and are. You are offering nothing but your modern privileged conservative human theories.
And for the record, neither those scholars nor I are talking about a "dismissive" understanding of sin. Just a right-sized understanding.
Marshal:
Not a "theory", but Biblical fact.
Objectively prove it. IF it's a fact, then you should be able to prove it objectively. That's how facts work. And if you CAN'T prove it objectively, admit that it's an unproven opinion.
That you think you can just declare facts into being by your personal insistence that it's realllllllllllly real is part of the delusional dysfunction of the modern conservative movement. You've bought into the diseased religion of trumpism and it will not go well for you.
Your ancestors will rise up and call you accursed. Or at least, daft.
January 7, 2026 at 8:28 AM
Way to miss the point, Lucy. Unless you're trying to pretend that concern for the poor guarantees one believes in God. It certainly isn't true in YOUR case, as you worship a false god who bears superficial resemblance to the One True God in order to better posture as a true believer. That cheap posturing doesn't impress here or among honest people anywhere. Thus, the point wasn't about how one's belief manifests, but if one believes at all, which is of primary importance.
And of course, my choice was in response to your previous cheap posturing in listing those "consequences" as consequences of sin, which isn't nearly so serious as eternal separation from God at best, and eternal physical suffering at worst. As such, you again demonstrate a moronic disregard for the seriousness of sin and a worse disregard for how serious it is to God.
January 7, 2026 at 8:31 AM
"No, but I cited several actual Jewish scholars telling you what the Jewish thoughts on sin were and are."
You cited those who are as dismissive of the seriousness of sin as are you. But there are two problems with your doing so:
1. Scripture is very detailed about sin and its effects, beginning with the polluting of God creation when Adam sinned. All was perfect prior to that, then it all went to shit afterwards because of it. This was followed by God destroying His own creation in the Great Flood because of sin. Then God handed down specifics to Moses, with many transgressions punished by death due to their seriousness.
This all belies the claim that sin is merely "missing the mark", as the "mark" is God's perfection and the consequences of missing are severe, both as regards the capital punishments proscribed as well as the eternal separation from God.
Thus, even if the Jewish tradition regards sin as simply a fact of life, natural given man's imperfection, it still carries with it temporal as well as eternal consequences of great seriousness.
"You are offering nothing but your modern privileged conservative human theories."
What an incredibly dumbass thing to say, as if it means anything. I offer up Biblical truth, backed by the text itself and you continue to say this shit without so much as an attempt to contradict it. Your "Hebrew scholars" ain't getting it done, and like the Pharisees, they're "understanding" was corrected by Christ.
You AND they are both dismissive as regards the seriousness of sin, and you are so in the face of Scripture's clear regard for it as can be seen from the first chapters of the entire Book.
Marshal:
How can it be trustworthy if no one can be sure of one's understanding?
I'm sorry to tell you this, young man, but YOUR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING is not perfect and it never will be. Again, this is the point you continue to not understand: EVEN IF "the Bible" was taken 100% literally (it isn't, nor does anyone suggest it should be), we humans are still left with our human reasoning to sort out the meanings of the stories and texts and figure out it's relevance now, if any. Without your magic rubric - which you clearly don't have - and without an authoritative pope to objective give answers to us, we are using our human reasoning. And thus, to answer this...
This is an absolutely absurd thing to say by someone who pretends he understands what "good faith adult discourse" looks like. If my understanding isn't "rightly understood", prove it or STFU and sit down
I've given you two decades of explanations why I find your human theories about your human interpretations and understandings of various texts to be lacking in reason, morality and biblical consistency, not to mention lacking in Godliness and grace. You disagree with my reasoning as to why I find your theories wanting.
Likewise, you disagree with my explanations for why I find your theories just bad and contrary to Godliness.
We have a good faith disagreement.
The problem is the bad faith on your part, where you fall back to something like, "Dan didn't convince me with his arguments, therefore, his arguments are wrong and I am right. I, MARSHAL, am the one who understands God aright and MY reasoning that I use to get to these conclusions is the right set of human reasoning..."
And yet, you still can't answer "Says who?" with any authority. You always come back to, "Well, because I REALLLLLY believe I'm right and even that I can't be mistaken on this point..." which is, 1. Arrogant and 2. Lacking any authoritative, objective proof. It's your empty, usually childish human opinion, naught else.
This, for instance:
Scripture is very detailed about sin and its effects, beginning with the polluting of God creation when Adam sinned. All was perfect prior to that, then it all went to shit afterwards because of it.
Because you make the human choice to treat text that is overtly mythic in nature as a literal history record, you have formed human opinions like what you mention above. BUT, who's saying that Genesis is a literal history and not myth? Where is the authoritative proof?
You'll say, "It obviously is..." or "that's what people in my tradition have long believed..." or "if it's not literal history, then that means the Bible as a whole is unreliable..." answers like that, none of which are objective, direct answers to the question that is being asked, that is being demanded: SAYS WHO? On WHAT authority?
Your opinion is just so much swamp gas, sir. Without proof, it remains, as always, your irrational subjective, not very astute human opinion.
January 7, 2026 at 8:41 AM
"Objectively prove it. IF it's a fact, then you should be able to prove it objectively."
That's been done repeatedly, comprehensively, completely by me, Craig, Glenn, Bubba, Jesse, Stan, Neil, Eric, and others throughout the years. You've done nothing to show where we go wrong, and every weak attempt has been exposed as such, so you default to this crap about "proving it objectively" regardless of how many times that gets done. Don't waste any further keystrokes with that lame shit, Debbie. Prove I'm wrong beyond my ability to respond...to the point where I'm forced to concede. If you can't do that...and you've not shown any such ability in 17 years...then STFU and sit back down.
"And if you CAN'T prove it objectively..."
Clearly and way beyond your ability to demonstrate otherwise, I have over and over and over again. You're saying I haven't is worthless. It's just more of your routine "Nyuh uh" petulant childishness.
"That you think you can just declare facts into being by your personal insistence that it's realllllllllllly real..."
I not only don't "think" that, I've never done it.
"...is part of the delusional dysfunction of the modern conservative movement"
You demonstrate once again you know nothing of what conservatism...modern or otherwise...looks like. You've never been conservative.
"You've bought into the diseased religion of trumpism and it will not go well for you."
How desperate you are in your defeat! Trump's got nothing to do with this. I've said nothing now I haven't been saying since I first began commenting on blogs and then starting my own. Trump wasn't running then.
The only diseased religion is your fake Christianity, which rejects Christian teachings you don't like in favor of your devotion to perversion, infanticide and other God-hating preferences.
"Your ancestors will rise up and call you accursed. Or at least, daft."
So you so very desperately need to believe.
Marshal stupidly falsely claimed, in spite of reality and stuff:
That's been done repeatedly, comprehensively... You've done nothing to show where we go wrong,
1. That's a false claim, but you can have a chance to prove me wrong.
Prove that it's objectively factual that Adam and Eve were literal people, that their story represents actual history, that Eve was made from a rib, that the world was perfect before they ate the fruit and that, because of them biting that fruit, humanity was "infected" with a "sin nature."
Right here, right now, prove it. AND, that can be as simple as pointing to ANY link/source that objectively proves it. If ANY of that were objectively proven, there would be all kinds of support for it out there.
Or, pick and choose even one aspect of all of that and prove it objectively. PROVE with objectively established data, that "sin" entered the world because of a literal man called Adam. Prove it. Show the source that proves it.
Or PROVE that Genesis 1 and 2 are objectively, demonstrably and authoritatively understood as a literal history record, not a myth.
OBJECTIVELY PROVE JUST ONE THING, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
Failing that, admit that you can't.
2. RE: "You've done nothing to show where we go wrong,"
I've done a great deal. One could reasonably say that I've been writing voluminously over the last 20 years now showing why I believe you're obviously wrong on a wide range of these topics we disagree about. I've also said that, for most of it, we can't objectively prove our positions - not me, not you - when we're talking about unprovable topics. But that doesn't mean I haven't laid out the rational case for why people of good faith disagree with your human opinions on these topics. It's objectively false to say I've done nothing to show where you're wrong. Reality beats stupidly false and unsupported and daft claims, every time.
EVEN IF you disagree with my reasoning, you can't say "nothing" has been done to explain why I think you're wrong. Right?
As to the religion of trumpism, I bring it up not so much about the Felon, but that his empty, vacuous, non-beliefs are a perfect representation of the path you all are going down, the path of a perverted dumb false prophet which isn't the Felon so much, as it is ALL of this "name it and claim it," "if you believe it, speak it into being" Norman Vincent Peale anti-Christ nonsense.
Unlike you, I don't assume that my communication is perfectly clear on every point. Your statement wasn't clear and I asked for clarification. That your clarification doesn't really explain what you DID mean, I guess I'll remain is suspense.
I start from the objective data that we have about Scripture. The accuracy of the transmission, the incredible consistency of the message across an extended period of time and many writers. The confirmation of scripture from extra Biblical sources and archeology. From there I look to the thousands of years of historical record regarding the interpretation of Scripture and to the work of experts and scholars. I certainly don't place myself as the final and ultimate arbiter of the trustworthiness of Scripture based solely on my limited, fallible, fallen, subjective, hunches influenced by my biases and prejudices.
I offer the less than radical notion that "welcome" is not supported by any scriptural evidence, and that your cherry picked list is incomplete at best. I further offer the less than radical notion that your understanding of those virtues is shaped much more by your experiences, biases, prejudices, and political beliefs than by any fidelity to how Scripture presents those things.
That you keep repeating the "can't easily agree" straw man, just makes you look foolish, narcissistic, and arrogant.
And with that,
with your failure to either prove your false and unsupported claims
OR to admit you can't prove your human theories
With your admission/confession of faith that
"If it came down to devotion to God while ignoring the poor versus devotion to the poor while ignoring God, I'll take devotion to God every time."
And, on topic of the post, with your failure to even admit that I've cited actual Hebrew scholars talking about Jewish understanding of "sin," whereas your theories of sin are all based upon more modern conservative religionism, irrational and graceless as they may be...
I think I'm done here. Or rather, you're undone, here.
When holes in arguments and human theories are raised AND they're ignored and pushed against with empty claims that your literally human theories are Facts, not theories, then the person making such claims is no longer having an adult level discussion based on reason and good faith.
Good luck, sir.
Again, an excellent point. If the trustworthiness of the Biblical text is totally dependent on it being "rightly understood", which is highly subjective, the claim is self refuting. The phrase "rightly understood" is an objective claim (as "right/rightly" is the right/wrong binary only offers two options), yet basing an objective claim on a subjective criteria is nonsense. The underlying assertion (that Dan "rightly" understands Scripture) remains unproven by Dan and is based entirely on Dan testifying for himself and demanding that we blindly accept his testimony. Dan's whole construct is based on Dan claiming that Dan is right because Dan believes that he is right based on his vaunted Reason. Which is absurd.
January 7, 2026 at 9:46 AM
"I'm sorry to tell you this, young man, but YOUR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING is not perfect and it never will be."
And yet, you petulant little girl, you continue with this irrelevant nonsense. My understanding of the issues between us is as perfect as it needs to be. My presentation of what Scripture says on the issues between is perfectly accurate unless and until you can prove that it's not. Your white flag of "that's just your human opinion" doesn't get it done. Put on your big boy pants and make an actual case or STFU and sit back down.
"Without your magic rubric - which you clearly don't have - and without an authoritative pope to objective give answers to us, we are using our human reasoning."
Blah, blah, blah. I don't need any "rubric". YOU need to prove I'm wrong. You haven't yet because you can't.
"I've given you two decades of explanations why I find your human theories about your human interpretations and understandings of various texts to be lacking in reason, morality and biblical consistency, not to mention lacking in Godliness and grace."
But you've given no proof that I'm wrong. No evidence to support the claim. No "hard data". Just your "explanations" which themselves lack actual Scriptural support, integrity, intellectual honesty or rigor. Just your preference for how things should be, which isn't worth shit.
"You disagree with my reasoning as to why I find your theories wanting."
I disagree that you are capable of mature, intelligent reasoning. You're certainly not honest if you're going to continue referring to facts I present as "theories". They're facts unless and until you can prove they aren't. You have yet to do that because you can't.
"We have a good faith disagreement."
No we don't. We have me presenting Biblical fact and you rejecting them without factual evidence to the contrary. For example, I've provided multiple verses and passages supporting the fact of PSA and you simply say it's not Biblical, which is weird since all the verses and passages are from the Bible. I provide Lev 18:22 and you, without any Biblical evidence of any kind, pretend it refers to "some forms" of homosexual behavior. It goes on and on like this and you dare suggest you've acted in good faith? Bullshit!
"The problem is the bad faith on your part, where you fall back to something like, "Dan didn't convince me with his arguments, therefore, his arguments are wrong and I am right. I, MARSHAL, am the one who understands God aright and MY reasoning that I use to get to these conclusions is the right set of human reasoning...""
No, Suzie. "Bad faith" is you composing this fiction and then daring to assert it's reality. The reality is far more unambiguous. I state what Scripture says and you fail prove it means something the text doesn't convey. Indeed, my citations rarely need "interpretation" because they're not in any way vague about what they assert. I don't deal in your brand of injecting meaning into verses, as I let them say what they say. It's up to you to prove they say something different and this is where you strike out with superhuman regularity.
"And yet, you still can't answer "Says who?" with any authority."
I don't need to. YOU need to prove I'm wrong. You don't because you can't. So instead you insist I must present the authority who authorized my factual presentation of Scripture. So who gave you the authority to dictate that I need someone's authority? Until you can provide such, I don't need anyone's authority to speak truthfully about what Scripture says.
But, just to be fair, know that I'll never demand you need anyone's authority to go pound sand up your ass.
My problem with Dan and his Google searched "Hebrew scholars" is that he's offering these guys as if they are speaking for all "Hebrew scholars". I've personally studied under a "Hebrew scholar" who would offer a much different view of the seriousness of Sin in the Hebrew scriptures.
If Sin was such a minor problem and of such little concern, why is so much of the Torah focused on atoning for and forgiveness of Sin? Why did YHWH spend so much time laying out a system whereby the Hebrews could deal with Sin and maintain their unique relationship with YHWH? Why is Sin portrayed initially as a weight which is unable to be borne by humans, and later as an unpayable debt? Without giving Dan's "Hebrew scholars" a lot of time and energy, I'd suspect that they are Reformed, and that they are using the Talmud and other later commentaries as their primary sources rather than the Tanach. I can see why Dan would be amenable to the rabbinical traditions (post Tanach) as those focused much more on the reasoning ability of humans than on anything else. Unfortunately this rabbinic tradition is what led to the massive addition of additional laws and the nitpicking "clarifications" to the Law which Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders for. Unfortunately the rabbinic tradition of adding to the Tanach (the Talmud, Mishna, etc) and treating those additions as scripture continued long after Jesus.
That anyone could Google search for a rabbi who would present a contradictory position to Dan's cherry picked rabbis, renders Dan's assertions about the value of his random "Hebrew scholars" less than impressive.
Strangely enough, Dan "still can't answer "Says who?" with any authority. You always come back to, "Well, because I REALLLLLY believe I'm right and even that I can't be mistaken on this point..." which is, 1. Arrogant and 2. Lacking any authoritative, objective proof. It's your empty, usually childish human opinion, naught else." either. Despite his attempts to dress his unproven hunches up as his Reason or rational prowess.
Dan's oft cited "authority" is Dan.
January 7, 2026 at 9:50 AM
"BUT, who's saying that Genesis is a literal history and not myth? Where is the authoritative proof?"
If you don't believe Genesis is literal history, prove it. I don't need anyone's permission to believe the Word of God. I will note, however, that as of this date, January 7, 2025 AD, science has yet to prove anything in Scripture is untrue.
"You'll say, "It obviously is...""
I haven't said that yet.
"... or "that's what people in my tradition have long believed...""
I've never made such an argument.
"...or "if it's not literal history, then that means the Bible as a whole is unreliable...""
I've never made this argument, either.
"... answers like that, none of which are objective, direct answers to the question that is being asked, that is being demanded: SAYS WHO? On WHAT authority?"
Not an honest question. It's a deflection from your obligation to prove me wrong. If you can't prove me wrong...and clearly you can't or you would have by now...then SFTU and sit back down.
"Your opinion is just so much swamp gas, sir."
Says the petulant little girl of a fake Christian whose every word is like a fart.
"Without proof, it remains, as always, your irrational subjective, not very astute human opinion."
So you so very desperately need to tell yourself when you can't think up a good lie to present as proof that I'm wrong...in lieu of actual proof.
Your opinion is just so much swamp gas, sir. Without proof, it remains, as always, your irrational subjective, not very astute human opinion.
Prove objectively that the text in question is "overtly mythic" in nature.
Yes, where is the "authoritative proof" that Genesis is "myth"?
After you provide the "authoritative proof" that Genesis is "myth", the provide "authoritative proof" that the literary style of "myth" is completely incompatible with communication accurate and historical information.
Please provide "authoritative proof" that certain literary stylistic choices cannot be used to accurately communicate historical facts.
To use a more recent example, The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald could be said to have been written in the style of "myth", yet (with a few minor exceptions) the song presents an essentially factual account of the shipwreck.
This notion that a retelling of historical events in a mythical literary style precludes the events recorded from being taken as historical is one more example of something you claim to be True, but haven't proven.
By all means, provide some "authoritative proof" that the events recorded in Genesis are not recorded in a generally accurate manner.
Your problem is that you answer the "SAYS WHO" On WHAT authority?" by answering that it's you and your vaunted Reason that are your authority.
Indeed, Craig. The difference Dan believes is of actual significance is his defaulting to "just my opinion", which he believes absolves him of the obligation to prove our positions are false. He whines that he's spent years explaining his alternative positions, but he hasn't actually disproved the validity of ours. His explanations for his positions are weak and rarely directly tied to any verse, or if tied at all, they're like unlaced sneakers they're so loosely tied!
Craig,
Yours is the point I was trying to get across. This "missing the mark" nonsense is necessarily dismissive of the seriousness of sin. It doesn't matter that the original words mean "missing the mark". What matters is what "missing the mark" means in terms of one's relationship with God and the consequences for so missing it. And as you say, everything in the OT, particularly the Torah, suggests "missing the mark" was always a pretty serious thing not to be taken as lightly as Dan and his Hebrew scholars insinuate the ancient Hebrews believed. "Missing the mark" still required a death...either the mark misser's or his sacrificial animal. They weren't just grillin' up lunch. They were atoning for their sins because their sins cut them off from God, just as they do now.
Well and rightly said!
I will answer this one more question/request, just to show you how rationally-depleted your non-answers are. I had asked you to prove that Genesis 1,2 were intended to be understood as literal history. You responded:
If you don't believe Genesis is literal history, prove it.
1. I have given an extremely solid case for it.
2. Genesis stories come from a time prior to modern history telling, as we've covered over and over.
3. Genesis 1 and 2 READ like myth, not like history AND come from a time of myth-telling (see 2.) not of modern history telling.
If you read a story from any other religion from that time period that read like this, in EVERY case, you would say, "That reads like myth... obviously." It simply is a story told in a mythic manner, using the tropes of myth-telling, indisputably.
4. The world/universe was objectively NOT created in six days.
Etc. I've made the rational case for this over and over. Further...
5. YOU are the one making the outlier, not credible claim. WHEN someone says, "There are no unicorns on the moon..." that's just a given, as there is no evidence for unicorns, and there is no evidence that unicorns exist on the moon. Now, for another person to say, "Yes, yes there ARE unicorns on the moon. It says so in my Holy Texts..." THAT person is making the incredible, outlier claim. They are the one making the strange, outside-of-known-reality claim. The onus is on them to prove the crazy claim, not the person who merely notes "There are no unicorns on the moon." to support their claim.
Again, this should be easy: IF there is objectively proven, authoritative evidence that Genesis was intended to be understood as literal history and, is, indeed, reporting literal history, THEN there would be celebrated books and websites proclaiming this amazing reality. ALL you have to do is point to the proof that someone else has already provided.
You haven't and you won't because it doesn't exist. And understand, I'm not talking about another person like you who's written a book explaining why they REALLLLY think Genesis is literal history. I'm talking about objective proof.
You've just shown, once again, that you have no such proof by your attacks in place of simply showing the amazing proof.
Now, failing you admitting you're wrong (OR, conversely, you actually proving your opinion is objectively factual), we're done. You've lost. You've lost and sadly, you're so rationally blinded, you don't even see it.
Dan doesn't seem to understand that when he dismisses our conclusions as mere "opinion", he's also dismissing his own. The difference is that we offer scripture and experts to bolster our conclusions, while Dan offers Dan. He does tend to treat his vaunted Reason as if it's somehow separate from himself.
January 7, 2026 at 10:05 AM
What follows will include examples of Dan indulging in his patented muddying of the conversation to pretend he's "winning".
"1. That's a false claim, but you can have a chance to prove me wrong."
He says this to a quote he pulled from its context, which was that regarding the issues between us, I've proven my position over and over again beyond his ability to counter. Hardly a "false claim", but more a presentation of the history between us.
"Prove that it's objectively factual that Adam and Eve were literal people, that their story represents actual history, that Eve was made from a rib, that the world was perfect before they ate the fruit and that, because of them biting that fruit, humanity was "infected" with a "sin nature.""
This is another cheap tactic of Dan's. Saying my factual claim of having proved my positions is incomplete without proving something for which I've made no argument of certainty. While I believe Adam and Eve existed and thus the Genesis story is accurate, I've, at best, only cited Genesis for support of a position, such as an explanation for why we have a sin nature. As such, I can confidently state that we do have a sin nature because of the various verses I cite. I'm not obliged to prove every event depicted happened as Scripture presents them in order for a position I hold to have been accurately drawn from it and thus objectively proven.
"Right here, right now, prove it."
Here Dan believes himself possessed of some authority to dictate to me what I must do "right here, right now" at MY blog, when he's failed to prove I'm wrong about that which we've actually debated. The truth of the existence of Adam and Eve ain't one of 'em, though we can refer to recent scientific discoveries which give more credence to the possibility.
"PROVE with objectively established data, that "sin" entered the world because of a literal man called Adam. Prove it."
Dan doesn't believe those lying bastard authors of the various books of the Bible where this is confirmed, such as Paul for example. You see, if we can't prove that someone like Paul was speaking the truth, then Paul must be presumed a liar or a moron and unworthy of being regarded as "objective proof" of a Biblical truth. THAT'S how much Dan reveres Scripture!
"Or PROVE that Genesis 1 and 2 are objectively, demonstrably and authoritatively understood as a literal history record, not a myth."
More of the same Trabue crap with this one, though I did recently recommend a series of documentaries about scientific backing for the Genesis which Dan clearly didn't bother to seek out and study. So, he's really just ignoring and dismissing "objective" proofs as it serves him to do so.
"One could reasonably say that I've been writing voluminously over the last 20 years now showing why I believe you're obviously wrong on a wide range of these topics we disagree about."
One could, perhaps, but no one could say you've proven anything more than that you disagree. No one could say you've proven your position more likely than that with which you disagree, because that's just never been the case. Ever.
"I've also said that, for most of it, we can't objectively prove our positions - not me, not you - when we're talking about unprovable topics."
Yes you have, and it's always been meaningless and pointless for enhancing your position or diminishing ours in any way. Just wasted keystrokes. Indeed, I don't why you think it serves you to continue repeating it, though I've no doubt you'll do so again every time you're faced with truths and facts you don't like. I recommend you don't bother.
"But that doesn't mean I haven't laid out the rational case for why people of good faith disagree with your human opinions on these topics."
It more so doesn't mean you have. You haven't. This suggestion that some unknown "people of good faith" doesn't add any gravitas or credibility to your attempts at a case. They remain incredibly weak and inane and not at all compelling. And if anything amounts to no more than "human opinion", it's your laughable view of Scripture.
"It's objectively false to say I've done nothing to show where you're wrong."
You confuse assertion with proof. You may have presented what you laughingly believed was such a demonstration, but you failed miserably to actually succeed in showing me (or us) wrong.
"As to the religion of trumpism, I bring it up not so much about the Felon, but that his empty, vacuous, non-beliefs are a perfect representation of the path you all are going down, the path of a perverted dumb false prophet which isn't the Felon so much, as it is ALL of this "name it and claim it," "if you believe it, speak it into being" Norman Vincent Peale anti-Christ nonsense."
There's not a hint of proof anywhere in this bullshit, hateful comment. Your president is a far better man than a pervert like you could ever be. And none of us indulge in any "name it and claim it," "if you believe it, speak it into being" behavior with regard to our accurate presentation of the Christian faith. If you were an actual Christian, you'd know that.
I don't think that the language itself is dismissive of the severity of Sin. If for no other reason than that Scripture does use that language. Fortunately for us, Scripture uses other language that more adequately communicates the severity of sin. I noted the weight language as well as the debt language. Both of which convey a burden which cannot be borne by individual humans which demonstrates the need for some form of atonement. Whether it's the scapegoat, or any of the sacrifices YHWH mandated, or Jesus, we see a thread of YHWH providing the means to atone for Sin when we can't.
It's why there is a literal Day of Atonement which is celebrated annually. The problem with at least part of the Jewish concept of sin (seemingly along with Dan's) is the notion of balancing sins with good works in the hopes that the good works will outweigh the sins. As even Dan notes, the "mark" is perfection. So, kind of by definition, missing that mark is serious. Perfection is another either/or notion. You're either perfect or you're not. There aren't degrees of perfection. It's kind of a pass/fail situation, except that we have someone else (Jesus) who takes the metaphorical test in our stead. Or to borrow the OT language He lifts the weight from or pays the debt which we cannot pay.
I think that the difference between our actual position and Dan's caricature or our position is that we place our focus on Jesus and His atonement for our sin instead of being obsessed with counting good works and hoping that we do enough good works to meet the standard. Of course that standard, perfection, cannot be met by our good works. Which raises all sorts of questions about Dan's construct.
Again, Dan has no problem in making fantastical and false claims about the beliefs of others, with absolutely zero actual proof.
Strangely enough, he's the one claiming that good works make you good.
January 7, 2026 at 10:11 AM
"with your failure to either prove your false and unsupported claims
OR to admit you can't prove your human theories"
The false and unsupported claims are yours...such as that I've failed to support the facts I present..., and the failure to prove them true is yours as well, Skippy.
"With your admission/confession of faith that
"If it came down to devotion to God while ignoring the poor versus devotion to the poor while ignoring God, I'll take devotion to God every time.""
Yeah, because there's really something wrong with putting God above everything. I mean, really...who does that??
"And, on topic of the post, with your failure to even admit that I've cited actual Hebrew scholars talking about Jewish understanding of "sin," whereas your theories of sin are all based upon more modern conservative religionism, irrational and graceless as they may be..."
The topic of the post eludes you still, and I never "failed" to admit you cited any scholars. But my understanding of sin is based on Scripture, directly and without any equivocation, as well as on thousands of years of theological scholarship on the subject, as Craig mentioned as well. Finding a few scholars who seem to think as you do doesn't mitigate a thing regarding how any focus on "missing the mark" minimizes the seriousness of sin.
"When holes in arguments and human theories are raised AND they're ignored and pushed against with empty claims that your literally human theories are Facts, not theories, then the person making such claims is no longer having an adult level discussion based on reason and good faith."
And thus the Black Knight believes himself the victor. "Adult" my ass!
"Or PROVE that Genesis 1 and 2 are objectively, demonstrably and authoritatively understood as a literal history record, not a myth."
Let's start with you proving your claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are objectively and demonstrably ahistorical myth.
Or objectively and demonstrably prove which parts of Genesis 1 and 2 (that you bizarrely sever 1 and 2 from the rest of Genesis is another matter entirely) are ahistorical myth and which are not.
That the scribes who wrote down the oral history chose a specific style does not negate the underlying Truth of the oral history. It is completely possible to adapt an accurate historical narrative to various literary styles without sacrificing the historicity of the narrative.
As another example, The Charge of The Light Brigade is clearly written in a "mythic"/poetic literary style, yet the underlying Truth of the narrative survives intact.
This allegedly "extremely strong case" boils down to one thing. Dan personally thinks that Genesis "sounds like" "myth". That's literally the extent of his argument. He makes claims he can't prove, and simply assumes that those claims will be blindly accepted.
In short, Dan has offered zero "objective proof", merely his hunch based on some similarity of writing style.
What his "case" dodges is whether or not the events recorded are related in a reasonably accurate manner.
As far as the Creation narrative, we're left with a few problems that Dan doesn't deal with.
1. The very best of current scientific thought posits a singular creation event.
2. Time + random chance cannot provide an explanation for so many things. The fine tuning of our solar system for life. The massive amount of information contained in DNA. How chaos formed order. The appearance of design. Complex systems in nature. Macro evolution, Instances where mutation resulted in a positive change.
He simply assumes that The Science will magically provide the answers that support his hunches.
I don't think that anyone would deny the quantity of verbiage that Dan has spewed over the years. The doubts come as regards the quality and coherence of his output and the fact that he grounds all of his arguments in himself, rather than any external reference.
The problem is not a lack of offers of "proof", "DATA", or the support of others, the problem is that Dan summarily rejects anything offered without actually demonstration that what has been offered is lacking. When everything except Dan's Reason is excluded out of hand, the deck is stacked against anyone who disagrees with Dan.
January 7, 2026 at 11:04 AM
"1. I have given an extremely solid case for it."
A link to this allegedly "extremely solid" case would have been a good idea. Curious you didn't see fit to provide one.
"2. Genesis stories come from a time prior to modern history telling, as we've covered over and over.
3. Genesis 1 and 2 READ like myth, not like history AND come from a time of myth-telling (see 2.) not of modern history telling."
And my response, given over and over, that the literary style is irrelevant to the truths told is dismissed out of hand. "How it reads" doesn't mitigate the truth of it.
"If you read a story from any other religion from that time period that read like this, in EVERY case, you would say,..."
"Is there any evidence from science or archeology which suggests it's true?" "How it reads" is nowhere near as important.
"4. The world/universe was objectively NOT created in six days."
You have zero proof of this, and the science you think counts as proof is speculative.
"I've made the rational case for this over and over."
So you like to tell yourself.
"5. YOU are the one making the outlier, not credible claim."
I've made no "outlier" claim. I cite Genesis simply to prove the truth of concepts and principles I've presented about a variety of things. But again, I recently encouraged you to seek out and view a documentary series on Creation which you've clearly never expended the slightest effort to review.
"IF there is objectively proven, authoritative evidence that Genesis was intended to be understood as literal history and, is, indeed, reporting literal history, THEN there would be celebrated books and websites proclaiming this amazing reality."
Knowing in advance that you will unjustly assume all authority for presuming to determine what qualifies as "celebrated books and websites", I offer the following to which you won't give the time of day because it ruins you:
https://creation.com/en/videos/why-genesis-is-history-not-myth-or-poetry
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_680.cfm
I'd say the books of the Bible are "celebrated" enough:
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/did-bible-authors-believe-in-a-literal-genesis/
This one argues on whose authority do we accept the account as accurately presented:
https://christoverall.com/article/concise/the-creators-authorized-realistic-account-of-creation-interpretation-of-genesis-1-3-is-neither-literalistic-nor-figurative/
A more basic argument, but well reasoned:
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/genesis_is_literal_hisotry.html
"I'm not talking about another person like you who's written a book explaining why they REALLLLY think Genesis is literal history. I'm talking about objective proof."
This is just you assuming authority you don't have for dictating what constitutes "objective proof"...a term you often use but have never defined in a way that convinces anyone you'd accept it as such if it was provided based on whatever the hell your terms actually are...if there actually are any.
"You've just shown, once again, that you have no such proof by your attacks in place of simply showing the amazing proof."
YOU are the one doing any "attacking" and you do so without evidence in support of your claims. I've now provided yet again. You just whine, make demands you've no right or authority to make and pretend "rubrics", "authority" and "objective proof" is required by us when the fact is you're incapable of finding fault in our positions or in elevating yours to a position of "just as likely" true and factual as ours. Then, like the Black Knight, you simply assert yourself as undefeated as you hop about on stumps.
And so says said Black Knight:
"Now, failing you admitting you're wrong (OR, conversely, you actually proving your opinion is objectively factual), we're done. You've lost. You've lost and sadly, you're so rationally blinded, you don't even see it."
You're funny.
Indeed, while over the years Dan would insist that he's humble enough to admit he might be wrong about something, he's absolutely never actually done so. Thus, the concession that he might be is just cheap self-marketing and false humility. Could I be wrong? Don't ask. Prove.
Because you make the human choice to treat text that is overtly mythic in nature as a literal history record,
Here's the gist of Danny Girl's understanding of Scripture--MYTHIC!
I guess he must be an evolutionist--how else without God's LITERAL creation will he get to his humans with no sin nature?
The text about Adam and Eve is MEANT to be literal. The Jews understood it as literal, and Paul taught Adam as literal, but Danny Girl knows better, and that is how he can decide that God is okay with homosexuality and "transgenderism" and any other sexual perversion.
Since you went to the trouble of citing some (exceptionally weak, lightweight) sources defending a literal Genesis, I'll respond. Your second one has the advantage of being written so I can copy and paste the words, so I'll deal with that one here. I watched the video though, and it was of a similar, lightweight, non-objective sort of drivel from true believers who wanted to affirm other true believers.
First of all, your second source (blueletterbible.org) doesn't even TRY to offer objective proof. It's short and relies heavily on notions such as "Many theologians (who believe as we do) throughout the ages have affirmed that they took Genesis literally..." That is NOT objective proof. It's literally subjective opinion. They further opined that they think that most biblical writings talked in a way as to suggest that those writers believed in Genesis as a literal history. Jesus, for instance, referencing Adam.
On that point:
1. That the biblical writers may have considered Genesis as literal history (in a time prior to thinking of history writing in the way we do) is not objective proof that Genesis is recorded as a literal history (and a reminder: I've been specifically limiting it to Genesis 1/2 - the creation story because, in fact, Genesis is recorded using more than one genre, on the face of it)
Do you understand the point? I'll say it again: That people in the Bible times may have (MAY have) considered Genesis 1/2 as literal history is NOT objective proof that the creation story IS literal history. That many theologians long ago or today may have considered the creation story as literal history is NOT proof that the creation story IS literal history. That's an appeal to numbers fallacy.
2. The only barely serious attempt to find something heftier than "other people thought so..." fallacy is when your source cites a traditionalist OT authority in saying:
"There are 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names and at least 21 identifiable cultural items (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar, brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities, towers) in those opening chapters. The significance of this list may be seen by comparing it, for example, with the paucity of references in the Koran."
Cont'd...
..."There are 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names and at least 21 identifiable cultural items (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar, brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities, towers) in those opening chapters. The significance of this list may be seen by comparing it, for example, with the paucity of references in the Koran."
A. I'm speaking specifically of Genesis 1/2 right now, which ARE written in an apparent mythic style, on the face of it. There are NO place names in Genesis 1 and a few place names (Tigris and Euphrates rivers, for instance) in Genesis 2. But at the same time, the Epic of Gilgamesh which you almost certainly don't take as literal history mentions place names. The Greek and Roman and other legends and myths mention actual places. So this scholar's suggestion that myths don't contain place names is just observably incorrect.
B. The later chapters of Genesis do deal with more actual places and people, some of whom may have actually existed, but again, that's not evidence that the stories are written as literal histories. You don't take Greek myths, the Epic of Gilgamesh and others as literal histories. For what it's worth, I'd say the later chapters of Genesis do NOT read like myth, but more like legend or fanciful histories, but again, ancient peoples did not tell histories the way we tell histories, with a linear focus on objective facts.
But mainly, let me just note that these arguments are NOT objective proofs, authoritatively telling us that Genesis 1/2 are meant to be taken as literal history. They are simply more subjective opinions relying largely on supporting conservative's pre-held opinions.
But again, you can make your case. ALL you have to do is show me WHERE in the blue letter link that the authors provide objective data?
Is it in saying myths don't contain actual place names? But that's objectively not correct.
Is it in saying that many religionists have REALLY believed it should be taken literally? That's a logical fallacy.
Is it in the guess that biblical authors and speakers appeared to take the Genesis story literally? That, too, is not objective proof.
Also, I regularly might refer to Adam and Eve and the story of creation, without any context, just referencing the story. That I mention the story is not proof that I accept it as literal history. Rather, it's that I recognize it as a story in our common culture.
To preempt the inevitable whining, Craig:
The problem is not a lack of offers of "proof", "DATA", or the support of others, the problem is that Dan summarily rejects anything offered without actually demonstration that what has been offered is lacking.
So, look at this case. I've reviewed one of your sources in detail and have listened/reviewed others in part. The one I read simply didn't offer objective proof that the creation story should be taken as literal history. That's NOT "rejecting anything offered without actually demonstration that what has been offered is lacking..." I'm telling you what IS lacking. There IS no objective proof in any of what they said. They offered some fallacies and simply false premises. That "many" people affirm the literal nature of the creation myth is NOT objective proof that it's literal history. That there are place names in the creation myth is NOT proof that it's literal history, as other myths/legends cite actual place names and people.
To support this claim of yours, Craig, you or Marshal would need to point out WHERE in any of that slight, lightweight offering IS the objective proof of a literal creation story?
I WILL add that what Don Stewart does is make the case that, for literalists like him, there is a need to take the creation story literally because your human traditions fall apart or are damaged if they aren't taken literally. But that one's personal theories fall apart without that presumption is NOT evidence that the presumption should be held. Indeed, that may be an argument against taking it literally (if you're just doing it to defend a human tradition.) A reminder of what Stewart said:
First, we must realize that Genesis records many things that are absolutely foundational to the truthfulness of the Bible. The Book of Genesis was written to record for us the beginnings of many events and institutions that are essential to understanding biblical history.
With the clarification that the things HE says are foundational to the truthfulness of the Bible is more correctly understood as foundational to HIS particular human traditions. For Christians like me who love the Bible but don't treat it as a magic rulings book or as a history book, there is no damage done in treating Gen 1/2 as figurative/mythic. It's not Christianity that is undone by a non-literal/ahistoric Genesis, it's his human traditions of Christian religiosity.
As to this source from you, Marshal...
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/genesis_is_literal_hisotry.html
WHERE is the objective proof? Let me point out some of their "arguments..."
The following are nine reasons why we can be certain that the first chapters of Genesis are historical.
Okay, he's clear on what he's trying to accomplish. Then, #1...
The six days of creation were evening and morning days, thus referring to normal 24-hour days
?? What? HOW is that proof. THAT is the question (one of them)! Is it factually correct to consider the days spoken of in Genesis 1 as literal days?
He's merely noting that they are called "morning and night, one day..." Which is NOT objective proof. At all. Can you acknowledge that much? That this is quite literally question begging and circular argument? He continues:
When the word “day” is prefaced with a numerical adjective in the Bible, it always refers to a normal day -- “first day”...
Although the Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom) is used nearly two thousand times in the Old Testament, only in rare cases can it refer to a time period longer than twenty-four hours
???! What? That isn't proof. That's citing, at best, perhaps maybe what the author was thinking/intending at the time, but was the author trying to tell a factual history in the way moderns tell history? That's NOT objective proof.
On and on he goes like that. Here's his number 5 reason...
The first five chapters of the Bible is [sic] written as history; there is nothing in the record to indicate that it is to be interpreted non-literally, as poetry or symbolism.
That there is nothing in the text to indicate it's to be taken non-literally (or, more factually, there is nothing in the text that HE THINKS is indicating it shouldn't be taken literally is NOT objective proof. It's just not.
One more, his eighth "reason..."
If Adam and Eve were not historical figures, the fall is a myth and redemption through the cross of Christ is nonsense
Here, of ALL his "reasons"/"supports" he comes closest to making a factual claim. It is, at the very least, very damaging to the human theories of "the fall of man" and "redemption through the cross..." But that's to defend the first theory (literal creation) to support a second unproven set of theories ("fall" and "atonement...").
But "I need to defend my human theories" is NOT objective proof of his claims. It's just not. Here again, I'd ask: WHERE is the objective data?
Marshal:
This is just you assuming authority you don't have for dictating what constitutes "objective proof"...a term you often use but have never defined in a way that convinces anyone you'd accept it as such if it was provided based on whatever the hell your terms actually are
Objective proof:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
Objective evidence is information that is based on factual data, which can be verified through methods such as analysis, measurement, and observation.
https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/o/objective-evidence
I'm just talking about what can be proven as fact, regardless of philosophy or personal opinions or bigotries.
Objective proof that Genesis' creation myth is NOT a myth but a literal history would be historic, geographic, observable, demonstrable evidence that insists upon a six day creation or the existence of a literal Adam who had no belly button because he wasn't born, but created.
You have none of that.
Objective proof that humanity was perfect before a literal Adam and Eve took a literal bite of fruit that was literally forbidden to them by God, for instance.
You have none of that.
Objective proof that "sin" was not part of human nature until after that fateful bite (which you have no objective proof of) and then, that all of humanity "inherited" a "sinful nature" and thus was "totally depraved" would, again, require some proof of an Man #1 with some proof that he was created "without sin" and that sin "entered humanity" through his "bite" of a "forbidden fruit..."
Again, you have no proof of any of that and again, this story is overtly using the figurative language of myth, not history, not science.
These are unprovable theories (one can't disprove that which doesn't exist... we can only say, "There is no evidence for that...") you have but they are of the same sort of myth telling as a presumed species of lunar unicorns. Not only is there no objective proof of ANY of that, but rational adults have no reason to assume they might be factual.
Your entire support - you and the people you are citing - relies upon the notion that a certain interpretation of biblical texts "reveals" truths which we can count on to speak of certain facts... but it relies upon a specific type of human faith in a text taken a certain way some humans prefer. You have no evidence that the bible is a literal historic record and that everything in it (or some certain parts of it, as determined by you) are objectively proven as facts.
Again, I think you just don't understand your dilemma.
Glenn...
I guess he must be an evolutionist--how else without God's LITERAL creation will he get to his humans with no sin nature?
Well, your "sin nature" theory would be an example of an unproven human theory based upon human traditions, not proven data. But you do appear to be echoing what one of Marshals other sources suggested... that you all need "sin nature" to be true to support your human theories, but your need for something to be factual is not, itself, any kind of objective support. At all.
Dannie Boy,
My source is nothing but the Bible, read as it is suppose to be rather than the way YOU read it to give a pass to ever perverse ideology.
Dan does seem to spend a fair amount of time bragging about his humility and claiming that he'll admit when he's wrong, but I don't recall either an admission of being wrong or many examples of humility.
Because Dan has started his preemptive whining, I'll note a couple of quick things.
1. Dan hasn't actually proven or attempted to disprove any of the resources that have been offered, he's just complained about them.
2. Dan hasn't actually proven or attempted to prove his "case" beyond "It reads like myth to me.".
3. Noting that thousands of experts (or at least those with more expertise than Dan) have agreed for centuries about things might not be the "objective proof" than Dan claims to want, but it is the literal argument for accepting "global warming" theories.
That you have opinions that differ from those with more expertise than you, isn't much of anything.
While awaiting other things in my day to come about, I took time out to re-scan some of the responses Dan presented...which he did so in the very manner I predicted he would, which is not a very Amazing Kreskin-like prediction given his limited ability to respond any other way. But I want to reiterate the challenge he put forth which compelled me to find and post my links:
"IF there is objectively proven, authoritative evidence that Genesis was intended to be understood as literal history and, is, indeed, reporting literal history,..."
As one of the links highlights, it's not a matter of the style in which it seems to have been written, or how it "appears" to be written by those like Dan who seek to minimize the authority of Scripture by intentionally implying it's no more than "myth". It's a matter of what the author intended to convey.
When Dan presents his lengthy, self-serving, self-promoting list of good deeds, who gets to insist what he's trying to convey? Dan or the reader? Does it matter if Dan chooses to do so poetically, or in the style of a fairy tale? No. Dan intends his claims of good deeds be taken as an accurate account of his deeds, which he then uses to base a portion of his subsequent or previous claims or positions.
So Dan's premise in questioning whether or not Genesis should be taken as literal history is fallacious in and of itself. On what basis can he presume to question the intention of the author, widely accepted to be Moses who is written as having had a direct, regular face-to-face relationship with God (at least more "face-to-face" than any other Biblical character since perhaps Adam)? Dan has and provides no basis. The style of writing isn't a basis in and of itself. References to other ancient writings, as if they can be regarded equally with Scripture, isn't at all, as the focus is on supporting or defending Scripture specifically.
So I expect at this point Dan will now pivot toward demanding proof for the history presented in Genesis, rather demanding proof of the author's intention in writing it. He's pretty much conflated to the two distinct questions already.
I'll be getting into his responses in greater detail later. It's Errands Day and I've been procrastinating enough already.
Dan can't offer anything that lives up the the standard he demands of others, therefore his hunches are worthless.
Maybe if Dan spent more time making his case with "objective proof" instead of nitpicking those with more expertise than he has, he might be a tiny bit persuasive.
Craig, missing the point, said:
if Dan spent more time making his case with "objective proof" instead of nitpicking those with more expertise than he has, he might be a tiny bit persuasive.
I'm noting the reality that NONE of us can objectively prove our opinions about what God wants. NONE of us can objectively prove that Genesis 1/2 should be taken as literal history - although, you all are on the side of saying "There ARE unicorns on the moon" whereas I'm on the side of saying, "There simply is no data to support that claim..." Which is pretty close to objectively proving it. I'm noting that, given what we do objectively know, we have no reason to guess that the Creation myth is better understood as literal history, where
a. there WAS a literal Adam
b. who was literally created from the dust of the earth
c. or there WAS a literal Eve
d. who was created literally using a rib from Adam
e. who both were literally tricked into biting a "fruit" from the "tree of knowledge"
f. which then introduced a mythical "sin nature" into all of humans, because of that ding dang fruit!
g. ALL of which happened in six days roughly 6,000 years ago!
There simply IS NO OBJECTIVE DATA to prove ANY of that and, again, ALL of that is an outlier view, lying outside of known reality, and thus, much more akin to claims of unicorns living on the moon than anything like reality. And AS the outlier, "weird," if you will, theory, IF you all want to prove any step of that, the onus is on YOU to prove it, not rational people to disprove it.
We're merely noting the reality that there is no objective data to support those mythical stories as literal history or reality.
Do you understand the point you appear to be missing?
Do you understand that those who advocate literal adams, eves, "fruits of knowledge," "devils," ribs and dust and "sin natures... that THOSE are the outlier, unsupported by known reality and frankly weird theories?
Craig, as the more rational one of the three of y'all, do you agree that each of those points, a-g, are NOT a proven reality, that they are outlier human theories, unproven in any objective manner? Maybe if you state that clearly, you can sway Glenn and Marshal into agreement and we'll have had found some common ground.
Marshal:
When Dan presents his lengthy, self-serving, self-promoting list of good deeds, who gets to insist what he's trying to convey? Dan or the reader? Does it matter if Dan chooses to do so poetically, or in the style of a fairy tale? No. Dan intends his claims of good deeds be taken as an accurate account of his deeds,
If I understand you correctly, this is actually a helpful analogy (if you're trying to create an analogy here). Dan, INDEED, is the best person to tell you what the meaning of Dan's writings were intended to be BY Dan. Which is helpful, because Dan is still around and you can just ask him.
In the case of Genesis, however...
1. We do NOT objectively know WHO the author(s) were;
2 OR if there were multiple authors and editors (the most rational conclusion);
3. OR, what the SOURCE for the "histories" told in the chapters of Genesis
4. OR, what the authors' intents were/how they understood it to be representing
5. OR, if they were claiming "This is a historical record, factually detailing literal facts as they literally happened..."
etc.
We have NONE of that and we have NO WAY of proving any of that.
"The Bible" does not "tell" us who authored Genesis.
Genesis does not tell us who authored Genesis.
Genesis does not tell us what the source for the "history" was OR if it was intended to be history in a literally factual manner as we tell history today (most of us... not the maga movement, of course, but rational people...)
Some questions:
I. Do you acknowledge that you do NOT know WHO wrote Genesis?
II. Do you acknowledge that you do not know how many people wrote and edited the stories in Genesis?
III. Do you acknowledge that you do NOT know the intent of the authors of Genesis?
IV. OR the source the authors used to get their data?
V. OR whether that source was intended to be taken literally?
You literally do not know ANY of that, objectively so. Given that, do you see the advantage to being able to ask Dan what Dan meant in a text vs the complete inability to know even who the authors of Genesis were? And the vast difference between a modern text with recent access to the author's intent vs ancient texts where we don't even KNOW the author/s?
As a final aside, IF you want to claim (hopefully not) that you DO "know" and even "objectively know" that MOSES was the author of Genesis - or even "most" of Genesis, do you realize how untethered from reality that is? How very unsupported by any data that is?
And if you DO think you "know" that, groovy. Where's the data? Where is ANYTHING like proof for that wild human theory?
NOTE: "Many people have REALLY thought that Moses was the author" is not proof.
The objective data is the Bible, which is the Word of God. DANNY GIRL has an OPINON that it is just a myth. Which, again, is why he supports every perversion possible, supports the lawlessness of illegal aliens and supports Islam (calling them friendly.)
Danny claims it isn't objective because he wants a god after his own image so his OPINION will never allow it to be real and literal.
January 7, 2026 at 4:11 PM
"Since you went to the trouble of citing some (exceptionally weak, lightweight) sources defending a literal Genesis, I'll respond."
Oh, goody! And having given your subjective opinion of them as being "exceptionally weak, lightweight" for no other legitimate and logical reason than they advocate for Genesis being recorded history, we'll see nothing one can regard as intelligent, evidence-supported refutation of any of it. Rather, as usual, we'll see nothing more than out-of-hand dismissiveness. Because that's how Dan rolls when confronted with that which disturbs his perverse heretical narrative.
"First of all, your second source (blueletterbible.org) doesn't even TRY to offer objective proof."
First of all, you need to remember your own challenge, which is regarding Genesis as actual history. It's not a matter so much of proving the facts provided within it, but a matter of it being a hisorical record. In secular matters, certain historical "facts" are later found to less than true and sometimes abjectly false. But that's a different challenge here and to pivot from demanding proof for how to regard Genesis to demanding proof for any specific event within it is deceptive and indicative of your well known low character willingness to so pivot when the discussion exposes your falseness or error on whatever is at issue in the moment.
Thus, my links are provided to address the question of whether or not Genesis should be and is intended to be regarded as historical record. In that, they are far from "weak or lightweight" at all. The arguments are direct and compelling unless one is obsessed with and married to the opposing proposition, for which no evidence of any kind has been given by you.
As always, the notion of "objective proof" is subjectively determined by you, not an honest, "objective" application of the definitions you yourself have provided. Clearly, the proof is all that which appears in Scripture in its entirety with regard to the Genesis narrative, particularly references to Genesis and its author (Moses) by Jesus and His Apostles in their epistles.
"It's short and relies heavily on notions such as "Many theologians (who believe as we do) throughout the ages have affirmed that they took Genesis literally..." "
Actually, it relies chiefly, if not entirely, on the text itself and why it suggests to honest people it is intended to be regarded as historical record. As brief as it is, it's a good summary of why it should be. The "objective proof" is the testimony of Scripture itself, just as described by the author. Keep in mind we're talking about 66 individual books by multiple author further recording historical events, including testimonies referencing those Genesis events as if they actually happened. Thus, you now must attack the credibility of the other authors or the that of those on whom they report.
"1. That the biblical writers may have considered Genesis as literal history....is not objective proof that Genesis is recorded as a literal history."
This is not a counter argument. It's just your typical "Nyuh uh". Until you can provide anything which disabuses honest people from regarding the testimonies of Biblical writers as believable, their writings stand as evidence of Genesis being historical record. You're just dimissing it as you dismiss everything which conflicts with your preferred, self-written narrative. Then you pivot again:
"I'll say it again: That people in the Bible times may have (MAY have) considered Genesis 1/2 as literal history is NOT objective proof that the creation story IS literal history."
Pick a lane and stay in it. Are you arguing against Genesis being written to present history or are you arguing against what is written being accurate history? In any case, the testimony of Scripture argues in defense of both and as such stands as "objective" evidence in support of both.
"2. The only barely serious attempt to find something heftier than "other people thought so..." fallacy is when your source cites a traditionalist OT authority..."
"Barely" serious?? As compared to your weak opposition to the historicity of Genesis? Just in terms of your "missing the mark" narrative, you've done no more than present a couple of Rabbis who simply express the opinion you parrot as if it has any significance to the subject and serious nature of sin. The Kaiser quote presents the reality that what is presented in Gen 1-11 provides the possibility of proving the veracity of the Book and the history for which it gives an account. Many things thought to by myth or fiction now are understood as fact and support for the historical record as presented in Genesis:
https://bulletpointchristian.com/archaeological-discoveries-relating-to-genesis/
https://www.icr.org/content/modern-archaeology-and-genesis
(note: this last one has a disclaimer at the end of the article. But that doesn't mitigate the discoveries attesting to stories found in Genesis as well. As the naysayers are fond of saying, "What about Gilgamesh or Hammurabi?" These are offered to disabuse anyone who would look upon Scripture as testimony for the One True God, when they can just as easily be regarded as support for the Genesis story, written by others outside the "community" of Genesis characters. It's not which came first, but which was written first and can we assert the events were not recorded accurately by Moses, but copied by him. I say that until such people can bring their own "objective proofs and evidence", there's way too much which argues for Moses than can be dismissed by the Dan types.)
https://sciencesensei.com/genesis-uncovered-archeologists-discovered-40-artifacts-that-confirm-noahs-flood/
https://biblicalarchaeology.org.uk/bible_genesis.php#gsc.tab=0
The above provides a list of links to scientific research regarding ancient artifacts and digs, which should suggest to honest people the likelihood of Genesis being an accurate accounting regardless of the "style" in which it it written.
https://colombiaone.com/2025/04/27/biblical-locations-turned-out-real/
As archaelogy discovers more and more things about our past, it becomes harder and harder to question the veracity of ANY story of the Bible, including anything in Genesis, including Dan's purposeful narrowing down to its first two chapters.
We don't need to have the level of proof Dan demands (but will only reject regardless of its quality) as more and more discoveries point to the Genesis being spot on. For example, my third link suggests "confirmation" of Noah's Flood. Can that word be used? I wouldn't say that. But discoveries point to it being true and additional discoveries in the future will make the story that much harder to dismiss as "myth".
Craig falsely claimed (most likely apparently entirely missing the point. Again.):
Dan hasn't actually proven or attempted to disprove any of the resources that have been offered, he's just complained about them.
I've noted the reality that they have not even TRIED to offer objective proof. That isn't a criticism, it's just noting reality. THEY did not claim to be offering objective proof of anything and, as anyone can see who reads it, they did NOT offer anything like objective proof that Genesis 1/2 is rightly understood as literal history, objectively proven.
I'll ask again:
DO YOU FELLAS think THAT THEY'VE TRIED TO OFFER OBJECTIVE PROOF OF ANYTHING?
IF SO, WHERE???
The "resources they offered" were only attempts to say, "We think that the authors of these texts considered them literally factual..." That is, they have suggested that THEY THINK the authors thought that these were literally true stories.
They didn't PROVE that they were literal stories. They didn't even prove that the authors thought so. They made a case using their unproven reasoning that people like them thought that these authors thought they were speaking of literal history.
That is NOT proof of literally factual history.
But you all don't understand the point I'm making - the reality I'm pointing to, do you?
January 7, 2026 at 4:12 PM
"A. I'm speaking specifically of Genesis 1/2 right now, which ARE written in an apparent mythic style, on the face of it."
Of course you are. You believe narrowing the scope to only the first two chapters strengthens your non-argument against the veracity of the Book. And no, they aren't written in "an apparent mythic style". They're written in a simple style with the focus on the essential facts. I don't think Moses had satisfying the likes of you in mind when he wrote the history of Creation.
"So this scholar's suggestion that myths don't contain place names is just observably incorrect."
Except that he wasn't suggesting that. He was pointing out how rich in such details Genesis is, and the value of having such information provided. Having done so results in so much more which can be researched for confirmation.
"B. The later chapters of Genesis do deal with more actual places and people, some of whom may have actually existed, but again, that's not evidence that the stories are written as literal histories. You don't take Greek myths, the Epic of Gilgamesh and others as literal histories."
As my previous comment lists in a sampling of what's available, actual places confirmed to one degree or another by archaeological discovery IS evidence Genesis is actual history, even if the growing body of evidence from such discoveries remains inconclusive. But it's certainly far closer than you've ever made an effort to study to find out. Indeed, you avoid making any such effort because you don't WANT Scripture to be true.
"You don't take Greek myths, the Epic of Gilgamesh and others as literal histories."
Nothing else comes within a universe of the body of evidence in support of the truth claims of Scripture. Your constant comparison of Scripture to these other "religions" and belief systems screams how much you regard them as just as likely true as Scripture. Not surprising coming from a fake Christian like you.
"...ancient peoples did not tell histories the way we tell histories..."
It doesn't matter how they told it. It matters if what they told is true or intended to be taken as true. More than ever before, evidence from archaeological research supports the truth and historical record of Scripture, and just as you intend that your constant self-promoting lists of good deeds are to be taken as true and an accurate history of "Dan", so too should you accept the Moses intended Genesis to be taken as a true and accurate history of those times. What would be the point of making shit up, especially with Almighty God there to guide him? Your position makes no sense.
"But mainly, let me just note that these arguments are NOT objective proofs, authoritatively telling us that Genesis 1/2 are meant to be taken as literal history."
No "proof" is needed regarding Moses' intention. But these links provide objective evidence confirming Genesis is actual history. The only way to get around it is...
1. Provide evidence it isn't, or
2. Explain how it doesn't make the entire 66 books of the Bible and those presented in it, including God the Father and Son, and His disciples as liars or really stupid.
"Also, I regularly might refer to Adam and Eve and the story of creation, without any context, just referencing the story. That I mention the story is not proof that I accept it as literal history. Rather, it's that I recognize it as a story in our common culture."
But you're an inveterate liar and fake Christian, so it's of no value to speak of any reference you might make to anything in Scripture.
DAN!!!
Stop piling on your lies and deflections until I've caught up with the lies and deflections to which I've not yet addressed. Don't respond to any comments at all regardless of who submitted them. As before, I will give you the OK when you can again submit more lies and deflections. As of this writing, I will delete without reading any comment submitted by you until I give you that OK. In the meantime, work on making your lies and deflections more compelling.
You should have stopped with the obvious statement that you can't "objectively prove" your hunches. Then reconsidered how you express your hunches and claims that your hunches represent "reality".
"There simply IS NO OBJECTIVE DATA to prove ANY of that"
By all means, please prove this claim using "OBJECTIVE DATA".
Hell, define what "OBJECTIVE DATA" you could possibly accept.
Dan considers historic Christian theology formulated by thousands of experts (at least more expert than Dan) over thousands of years, to be the "outlier human theories.
The problem is, as always, in the different views about YHWH and the limits of His interaction with His Creation and His Kingdom. I choose not to attempt to impose limits on YHWH or to force Him to operate in ways that Dan will accept.
Dan's critique of Genesis boils down to "It sounds like myth to me". That's literally the extent of his "case".
I wrote elsewhere about a good explanation of why Genesis "sounds" like myth. Dan didn't engage with that at all. But given that I got this from an OT professor (again more of an expert than Dan), I took at fairly seriously.
The problem seems to be Dan's insistence (at least implied) that history told in certain literary styles somehow minimizes the accurate telling of history. Dan also seems to believe that written "history" is somehow more valid or accurate than oral history. So he places a high value on "who wrote" Genesis. and less value on whether or not the oral history was accurately written down.
In short, Dan offers little beyond his hunches and demands much more than he offers. It's a game with the playing field slanted to favor Dan, and where Dan's rules change when he thinks he needs them to.
The one thing that Scripture and science seem to agree on is that there was a singular Creation event. Now Science can't offer an explanation for this event. Scripture can.
IF, a God is powerful enough to cause a singular creation event, then why quibble about relatively minor details?
Dan's is obsessed with "6 days", and "6000 years" and poking holes in those, while not interested at all in how life came from non life, order came from chaos, and massive amounts of information was encoded into the building blocks of life. Cosmic fine tuning for life, who cares, when bitching about "6 days"? Formation of irreducibly complex systems in human and animal bodies, who cares when "6000 years" is such an easy target.
I, personally, have no problem with a God powerful enough to create instantly. I, personally (although not without support) would argue that the Creation narrative is about much more than a simple recitation of information. I suspect that Genesis is as much about giving us some fundamental information about the nature of YHWH and His relationship with His Creation. Given that Truth seems to be one of YHWH's immutable attributes, I cannot see a way that a God who IS Truth, gains from failing to communicate Truthfully.
No, my summary wasn't inaccurate or false at all.
You making claims about the intent or motivation of others isn't proof of anything.
The problem is that I do understand the point you are struggling to make, and that your feeble attempts at offering some version of "Because it sounds like this to me.", isn't persuasive.
You keep using the term "rightly understood", are you suggesting that you understand Genesis 1&2 "rightly"? Are you suggesting that we do not understand Genesis 1&2 "rightly"? Are you insisting that there is only one way to understand Genesis 1&2 "rightly"? Are you insisting that your arbitrary division of Genesis 1&2 from the rest of the Pentateuch is the only way to "rightly" understand?
The "point you're making" is irrelevant as you haven't provided
"objective proof" that your "point" is objectively factual. It's just your hunch based on yourself and your vaunted Reason. If you want to demonstrate that we are wrong, simply making that assertion is not enough.
"I'm speaking specifically of Genesis 1/2 right now, which ARE written in an apparent mythic style, on the face of it.""
There is at least one reasonable explanation for the choice of literary style of Genesis which doesn't nullify the historicity of the events recorded.
You know that he won't do what you ask. It's one of his strategies. He'll pile multiple short, often out of context, comments one after another. Then he'll get his panties in a wad when you don't immediately answer them As he's proven by his refusal to abide by one simple, reasonable, respectful, request on my part it's unlikely he has the self control to stop now.
In all seriousness, two options to give you control and not Dan.
1. Simply abort every comment he makes until you are ready to deal with new comments.
2. Copy/paste quotes from his comments and respond to them while they are still in moderation. I know it might fill up your moderation folder, but it can help in responding to each comment individually.
I had chosen option 1 before you suggested it. If he missed the memo, that's his problem. I did see he submitted a comment after I posted my request on January 8, 2026 at 11:11 PM. I've no idea what it said.
Dan believes the style in which it is written is sufficient for him to reject the truth of it. He's proven how much he values ambiguity, and "mythic style" means the text is ambiguous enough to question its veracity with regard to the events described therein. To accept Scripture as written puts Dan in a world of hurt given his self-serving corruption of it. It simply can't be a factual history. The immorality he embraces won't allow it.
I'm going to put an end to this nonsense, because it's occurred to me that this whole thing is ass-backwards...perverted by our resident pervert, Dan Trabue. There's nothing WE need to be proving. It's he who has made the accusations! The defendant here is Scripture/God/the Biblical authors, however one wishes to put it. It's not the defendant who must prove it/his self innocent. It's Dan who is obliged to prove Scripture/God/the Biblical authors are guilty.
Dan's charge is that Genesis is unreliable as a historical record, that the author doesn't intend his record be taken as written. Dan offers no evidence to support his charge. He simply demands the defendant must provide evidence to prove the record is reliable and should be taken as written.
So we, as counsel for the defendant, have offered evidence for why Genesis was meant to be taken as written...that the author intended his work to be taken as written...that later figures in Scripture appear to refer to OT books as true history on which their teachings are based. That evidence from just the four or five links I've provided, are far more than any evidence Dan has brought forth as a counter...which is to say that Dan's brought forth nothing but "that's not good enough". My evidence was not conclusive or comprehensive, but what would be the point of providing more, as Dan has not provided what constitutes "good enough" beyond the hope he might at some point concede our position. And when the hell has that ever happened?
Dan asserts that we can prove his autobiography is accurate by interviewing select people from his life. But that's not the point. The point is that as a Christian, I believe Scripture until someone can provide evidence to alter my belief. I read Scripture and assume the authors intend that what is presented is accurate and true. In Dan's case, he has a history of lies and perversions, so even his "witnesses" would be suspect. I've no reason to doubt the veracity and truthfulness of any of the Biblical authors, and certainly not of God the Father or Son as their words, commands and expectations are related to us in Scripture.
But no! says Dan. I question your "interpretation". No, Dan. You question Scripture because we cite Scripture as it is written and you consistently fail to provide a legitimate compelling reason why your injected meaning is more accurate...more likely to be the meaning intended by the author where the actual text is not ambiguous.
But no! says Dan. I admit neither of us can know objectively what the truth is! We're both trying to understand it aright, blah, blah, blah. But Dan. You still need to have evidence and a compelling argument for denying what the text clearly says in favor of whatever the hell you think suggests it's metaphor or figurative or "myth" or whatever.
In short, it's not a matter of proof, for we can't know. But your secular alternatives for creation are bereft of evidence which proves them to be true, yet you dare cite them as fact against the creation story of Genesis!
What it all comes down to is this: Moses (and I do believe he is the author and there's evidence to support that as well) relates creation just as it happened. Given his close, pretty much face-to-face relationship with God, I can think of no reason why how he wrote it means anything other than that's how it went down. If you think he's wrong (intentionally or otherwise), it's not for us to prove he's innocent of misleading. It's up to you to prove that charge, which indeed is what your whining is all about.
Seemingly with every passing year, more discoveries lend credence to the Genesis story, as well as the rest of Scripture, as being absolutely accurate. Nothing your science gods have brought forth has ever proven any part of Scripture wrong or in error.
As Craig said, I don't have any problem believing God's capable of creating all things just as Scripture described. Perhaps one day, for example, it can be proved the six days of Creation were not six twenty-four hour periods. Until enough evidence results in that conclusion, six days it is.
I will also add that citing other pagan religions, as well as similarities between them and Scripture, does nothing to mitigate the veracity of Scripture. Indeed, I would say they enhance it by affirming events depicted in Scripture actually happened. NOT, as some atheists and fake Christian suggest, that what Scripture says was stolen or copied from pagan religions. That's a cheap angle to play.
BTW, Dan. You may submit your weak attempts now.
No. By all means, Marshal. Go ahead and start answering all the unanswered questions I've asked. Address all the holes in your arguments ("arguments").
I'll wait.
January 10, 2026 at 11:06 AM
There are no holes in my positions, nor have you identified any.
In the meantime, I've addressed you falsehoods regarding the links I provided which addressed your challenge regarding whether or not one should regard Genesis as actual history. Much evidence and logic was provided in just those five links alone. You've completely failed to expose any problems with those explanations at all, but simply insist they fail your fluid standards for what constitutes either proof or evidence, which you assert without the slightest effort to prove YOUR claims in any way.
For example, as I stated, citing Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Zeus or islam is without relevance to the truths of the Bible and whether or not we should accept them as such.
Another example is your choosing to describe the style of Genesis as "mythic" in order to suppose that, too, mitigates the veracity and reliability of the text. It doesn't matter how one says "God created all in six days". All which matters is whether or not He did, and you've got nothing which proves He didn't. All you have is evidence which suggests He didn't, and that evidence is contradicted by other scientists and researchers you dismiss simply because they're not on board with the secular majority you regard as more worthy of your worship, praise and devotion than is God and His revealed Word in Scripture.
I'll also add that while you put so much weight and importance on the "missing the mark" definition of the ancient word translated as "sin", you ignore that their word for "day" as it appears in the Creation story, refers to the commonly understood 24 hr period in the context of the Creation story and most other contexts in which it appears. It is stated quite clearly that it has a different meaning in different contexts in those rare moments when those contexts appear in Scripture.
In any case, my links do indeed provide "objective" evidence for accepting that Genesis was intended to be regarded as actual history regarding the Creation of all things. The only way you can oppose this fact is by rejecting even more of Scripture, which of course you are well known for doing.
You have no authority to ask questions until you answer questions put to you. You haven't answered the question regarding your "missing the mark" angle, nor have you answered the question regarding what God wants and how we can know it.
Marshal:
You have no authority to ask questions until you answer questions put to you.
I was answering your questions and addressing your false claims when you told me quite rudely, "STOP asking/answering questions until I say so!" So, I waited. Now, while I'm waiting for you to answer still-unanswered questions, you're telling me I have no right to respectfully ask reasonable questions?
Do you see why you're difficult to have a rational conversation with?
Marshal:
You haven't answered the question regarding your "missing the mark" angle, nor have you answered the question regarding what God wants and how we can know it.
WHAT "missing the mark" angle question haven't I answered?
As to the latter, I did directly and clearly answer the question about "knowing what God wants and how..." Multiple, endless times.
I've been quite clear that it depends on what you mean by "know..." IF you mean how do we objectively know what God wants, the answer is easy: We can't objectively know, not without asking God and getting a direct answer. That's just the reality and that IS the only rational answer to that question.
I further responded that, however, IF we affirm a good, loving, gracious, forgiving, welcoming and just God, THEN we can REASONABLY assume that this is what God wants of us, we, who were created in God's image, we who were taught by Jesus so that we can follow in his steps.
That isn't objectively provable, but it is exceeding rational and common sense.
Now some people might wildly guess, "Yes, God is good, loving, blah, blah, blah... BUT, this "god" does NOT want us to follow in their steps..." But no rational person would make that guess and I don't think even you are. But you tell me.
Now, if you want to tell me what questions I have NOT answered (ie, actually not answered, as opposed to not answered in a way that you like), by all means, present them.
Marshal, with no support, said:
my links do indeed provide "objective" evidence for accepting that Genesis was intended to be regarded as actual history regarding the Creation of all things.
Where? WHERE did anyone in any of your sources purport to have magically discovered "objective evidence" that objectively proves that the various authors/speakers in the Bible intended for us to take Gen 1/2 as literal history, scientifically accurate and proven?
I've read and listened to your stuff. I don't see ANYONE making that claim.
Further, that's only half of your problem (the lighter weight half, at that). EVEN IF the authors REALLLLLY thought that Gen 1/2 were literal history, scientifically accurate (an unproven claim) you STILL have the problem of "Well, what if those boys were mistaken in their guess about the literal reality of Gen 1/2? Where is the objective proof that the story in Gen 1/2 WAS literally accurate?
Marshal:
as I stated, citing Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Zeus or islam is without relevance to the truths of the Bible and whether or not we should accept them as such
I know that "you stated" that was the case, but who the hell are you? Your mere affirmation and wishful thinking these are not relevant is meaningless outside your head. Your statement does not make it an objective fact.
One conclusion we can reach by reading other ancient texts is that we have no reason to assume that they were even TRYING to tell literal history and, even if they were, that doesn't make it factually correct and it certainly doesn't prove it objectively. THAT literature comparison IS actual data and information that we can use to form opinions, regardless of your claim that it's not relevant.
As always, say who?
Marshal...
The only way you can oppose this fact is by rejecting even more of Scripture,
Of course, this is observably, objectively a false claim for these reasons...
1. Disagreeing on genre identification is NOT rejecting the Bible. People who love the Bible disagree on genre interpretation regularly. That doesn't mean either party is rejecting the Bible. It's just a disagreement on often unprovoked matters.
2. You disagree with me on genre identification on Gen 1,2... does that mean YOU are rejecting scripture?
3. The "fact" you refer to is not a proven fact. It is a set of unproven opinions.
4. Disagreeing with your collective opinions is not rejecting Scripture. It's disagreeing with your opinions.
For starters. There was at least one more but it's slipped my mind.
Marshal...
while you put so much weight and importance on the "missing the mark" definition of the ancient word translated as "sin", you ignore that their word for "day" as it appears in the Creation story, refers to the commonly understood 24 hr period
Ignore it? That's precisely part of the point. The mythical story IS referring to literal 24 hour days. Which, of course, are not factually possible, given the best known scientific data in MUTIPLE fields and disciplines. That's one of the strong arguments for creation story-as-myth.
Ignoring it? You read and fail to understand. Not that I've addressed that in this thread, I don't think, but in other conversations.
Also, since you seem to be staking the claim that Moses (objectively?) "wrote" Genesis as a fact, I wonder why you think that, since it's not in the Bible?
Presumably, you think it happened something like this:
* Moses (who came thousands of years after the creation and thus, was not around to observe it) was told about the creation by God; (of course, the Bible doesn't tell us this). As a reminder:
Creation story timeline: ~4000 BCE,
Moses "hearing" the story: 1440 BCE,
Genesis being written down: ~ 300-200 BCE
* Moses didn't write it down because people weren't doing that back then. Rather, Moses began repeating the stories that he "heard from God" who were then faithfully repeated to other Israelites, down the line for hundreds/thousands of years more; (of course, the Bible doesn't tell us this)
* Then, when the Genesis stories WERE finally recorded in writing, thousands of years past the creation "event" and hundreds of years past Moses, those writers faithfully, perfectly recorded Moses' stories. (of course, the Bible doesn't tell us this)
Is that roughly what your theory is, these extrabiblical guesses about how Gen 1/2 were recorded? If so, why? Based upon what? Also, do you think it's an objective fact, proven and settled? Or are you willing to allow that maybe it didn't happen that way and that there is no objective proof for any of that?
Marshal:
The defendant here is Scripture/God/the Biblical authors, however one wishes to put it
Question begging fallacy. Of course. Do you need me to explain why this is fallacious question begging or do you get it?
Briefly, when the question is: With this particular text, should it be considered literal history (or universal rule or whatever)?
Then that IS the question. You can't merely PRESUME that your human opinions and interpretations are objectively correct and all who disagree with your humans have to prove you're mistaken. The question IS, "is Genesis 1/2 recording literal history, a literal Adam, dust, rib, Eve, sin nature, six day creation, etc?" The answer then is NOT "We must assume our human traditions are objectively right until someone proves them wrong!" That IS the question.
You're question begging and I think you don't get that. But you tell me.
Marshal:
You believe narrowing the scope to only the first two chapters strengthens your non-argument against the veracity of the Book
and:
Dan's charge is that Genesis is unreliable as a historical record
And other such false charges.
I'm NOT saying that Genesis (or any of the Bible) is "unreliable," or even "Unreliable as a historical record." I'm NOT questioning "the veracity of the book." I'm saying there is no proof that it should be taken the way that humans like you have traditionally chosen to believe it should be and a great deal of solid rational and biblical reasons NOT to take them that way.
FYI.
"Moses didn't write it down because people weren't doing that back then. Rather, Moses began repeating the stories that he "heard from God" who were then faithfully repeated to other Israelites, down the line for hundreds/thousands of years more; (of course, the Bible doesn't tell us this)"
The above quote says so much about Dan and his preconceptions.
He's correct that Moses did not "write down" the events recorded, because he lived in a culture which highly valued oral transmission of history.
His use of "heard from God", tells us what Dan's problem really is. It's a disbelief that YHWH had the relationship with Moses that Scripture describes. It's "impossible" in Dan's limited worldview that YHWH would have communicated with any human in the manner recorded, therefore Moses just "made it up".
The second telling aspect of this quote is Dan's seeming disparagement of oral transmission of history. The notion that (apparently) humans are incapable of accurately transmitting historical events orally, seems embedded in Dan's worldview.
There is no reason to think that those who wrote the Pentateuch down did so inaccurately or frivolously. Let's consider the motivation for the writing down of the Hebrew Scriptures. As the Israelites were sent into exile, there was a need to give the exiles a record of their history that didn't depend on oral transmission. Because they/YHWH knew that those who could transmit their history orally would likely be eradicated by their conquerors as a way to force their assimilation into Babylonian (or other) cultures. In short, when Israel was a nation, they didn't need the written scriptures. When they were conquered and exiled, they did.
Strangely enough, Dan disparages what he calls our "extrabibilical guesses" , while pretending that his "extrabiblical guesses" somehow contain some bizarre authority.
Strangely enough, Jesus didn't seem to have Dan's skeptical attitude toward the Hebrew Scriptures. Once again, I'll go with Jesus' attitude over Dans'.
Craig, stupidly, falsely told this false claim(s):
His use of "heard from God", tells us what Dan's problem really is. It's a disbelief that YHWH had the relationship with Moses that Scripture describes. It's "impossible" in Dan's limited worldview that YHWH would have communicated with any human in the manner recorded, therefore Moses just "made it up".
I don't disbelieve anything. An omnipotent God CAN do ANYTHING.
Let me repeat that so you won't fail to understand (although you WILL, given past history): AN OMNIPOTENT GOD CAN DO ANYTHING.
What I'm saying, contrary to your false guess, is that we we have NO EVIDENCE, NO DATA, NO SUPPORT for a claim that God dictated to Moses the stories told in Genesis and told Moses to write them down, pass them on, to repeat those stories OR that God magically gave Moses the ability to be able to do all of that, in spite of his mortal fallible frame.
Do you understand the distinction:
THE BIBLE doesn't say God told Moses the Genesis stories and told Moses to repeat them.
GOD has not told you that God told Moses the Genesis stories and told Moses to repeat them.
MOSES has not told you that God told Moses the Genesis stories and told Moses to repeat them.
These are objective, observably provable claims. THIS much we know... that NONE of that is recorded anywhere as having happened.
Do you understand your mistake, now?
IF so, by all means, acknowledge your mistake and apologize for the mistake, to demonstrate good faith adult conversational norms.
Noting that we have no data to support in any authoritative, objective manner, that God told Moses the Genesis stories and asked him to record them is NOT to say that "Moses made them up..."
And do you understand why?
Because MOSES made no claims to have authored Genesis.
Period.
What's wrong with your reasoning and reading comprehension?
I suspect it's a serious dose of partisanship (not necessarily political partisanship, to be clear) and allegiance to your human traditions make it difficult for you all to read with an objective mind if it appears to you that someone is disagreeing with your human traditions. Your allegiance to your fallible human traditions is SO blinding that you can't read for accurate understanding.
Which doesn't speak well of your ability to do a fair reading of biblical texts.
January 7, 2026 at 4:33 PM
"I've reviewed one of your sources in detail and have listened/reviewed others in part. The one I read simply didn't offer objective proof that the creation story should be taken as literal history."
Once again, we see Dan conflating "proof" with "evidence". No one here would suggest there exists the definitive proof Dan demands for anything related to Scripture, God's existence or His Will. Dan's constant demanding for proof is his favorite ploy in his agenda defending unChristian behaviors and other lies and perversions. Anything not proven beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt can be rejected as "opinion" or "human tradition"...neither of which he's obliged to abide if either contradicts his preferred pro-perversion heresies.
What's important is "evidence" for whatever the hell it is Dan thinks needs to be proven before he'll concede to the truth. The links I've provided presents evidence which supports that for which Dan demands absolute proof. The problem is, as always, Dan's ever rising bar of acceptability. Here, how much evidence is acceptable to concede to our position that Genesis was intended to be taken as actual history? He gives no number, nor does he give a hard explanation for what constitutes "objective evidence" that goes beyond the definitions he provided, which the evidence of my links more than satisfies. Dan give no legitimate reason to reject them as insufficient. He only asserts they are. Dan's word never has authority, especially at this blog.
"That's NOT "rejecting anything offered without actually demonstration that what has been offered is lacking..." I'm telling you what IS lacking."
This is reminiscent of a Paul Reiser bit where he says, "I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'." Here, Dan says it's lacking because he says it's lacking. Nothing more compelling than that.
"There IS no objective proof in any of what they said."
Again conflating "proof" with "evidence", of which there is more than enough in the links I provided which supports the notion the Genesis author intended Genesis to be taken as actual history.
"They offered some fallacies and simply false premises."
From this, Dan will then go on to prove his dishonesty.
"That "many" people affirm the literal nature of the creation myth is NOT objective proof that it's literal history. That there are place names in the creation myth is NOT proof that it's literal history, as other myths/legends cite actual place names and people."
The arguments presented in the links do not seek to prove that Genesis actually happened as written. They provide evidence which supports the premise the author intended Genesis to be an actual record of historical events.
This was Dan's challenge I answered with the links I provided: Genesis WAS intended to be taken as actual history.
"To support this claim of yours, Craig, you or Marshal would need to point out WHERE in any of that slight, lightweight offering IS the objective proof of a literal creation story?"
This could explain Dan's pivot to proof of a literal creation story. The links are meant to provide evidence for what the Genesis author intended. It's not an attempt to prove creation occurred as described in Genesis, and thus can't be disparaged as "slight" or "lightweight" in "proving" what it wasn't seeking to prove. Dan lies again.
"I WILL add that what Don Stewart does is make the case that, for literalists like him, there is a need to take the creation story literally because your human traditions fall apart or are damaged if they aren't taken literally."
More grace embracing nonsense. Dan uses the word "literalist" as a negative disparagement, then follows that up with his standard "human traditions" bullshit. Given how many references to Genesis there are in later sections of Scripture, to pretend truths can be reduced to some kind of unfounded, baseless tradition is absurd. Indeed, Dan's position REQUIRES rejecting Genesis altogether in order to get around so much of what comes later in Scripture. His heresies demand it.
"A reminder of what Stewart said:
First, we must realize that Genesis records many things that are absolutely foundational to the truthfulness of the Bible. The Book of Genesis was written to record for us the beginnings of many events and institutions that are essential to understanding biblical history."
Which is absolutely true.
"With the clarification that the things HE says are foundational to the truthfulness of the Bible is more correctly understood as foundational to HIS particular human traditions."
This isn't "clarification" of Stewart's position. It's Dan's standard "Nyuh uh" response for that which he finds inconvenient to his heresies. There's far too much in Scripture which affirms Stewart's position for a heretic like Dan to so cavalierly dismiss the claim Stewart made without Dan providing the slightest evidentiary support for his objection. Indeed, Dan doesn't even both to try.
"For Christians like me who love the Bible but don't treat it as a magic rulings book or as a history book, there is no damage done in treating Gen 1/2 as figurative/mythic."
First of all, you're not a "Christian". You're a poser...a fraud who exploits the word in an attempt to legitimize your heresies and perversions.
Second, Scripture most definitely is, among other things, both a "rulings" book as well as record of history, affirmed as such more than ever before by archaeology. And as Stewart rightly points out, Genesis provides the foundational truths by which all other Christian truths make logical sense. Without that being the case, fake Christians like Dan simply assert some things are true without any other basis than that they choose to believe it, making Scripture more mythical fantasy and subjective than Dan already pretends it is anywhere within its covers.
"It's not Christianity that is undone by a non-literal/ahistoric Genesis, it's his human traditions of Christian religiosity."
This is just your unsupported, evidence-free claim that Genesis is "non-literal/ahistoric" and as such has absolutely no value whatsoever.
January 7, 2026 at 4:49 PM
"As to this source from you, Marshal...
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/genesis_is_literal_hisotry.html
WHERE is the objective proof? Let me point out some of their "arguments...""
Once again, as always, Dan confuses "proof" and "evidence". I've been providing evidence for a specific claim of Dan's, which is that the author of Genesis did not mean for Genesis to be taken as actual history.
"#1..."
"The six days of creation were evening and morning days, thus referring to normal 24-hour days"
"HOW is that proof. THAT is the question (one of them)! Is it factually correct to consider the days spoken of in Genesis 1 as literal days?"
Now Dan confuses "premise" with "proof".
"He's merely noting that they are called "morning and night, one day..." Which is NOT objective proof. At all. Can you acknowledge that much? That this is quite literally question begging and circular argument?"
No. He's still establishing the premise for which he'll give supportive evidence.
"He continues:"
"When the word “day” is prefaced with a numerical adjective in the Bible, it always refers to a normal day -- “first day”...
Although the Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom) is used nearly two thousand times in the Old Testament, only in rare cases can it refer to a time period longer than twenty-four hours"
"That isn't proof."
Correct. It's evidence in support of the premise that Genesis was intended to be regarded as accurate history.
"That's citing, at best, perhaps maybe what the author was thinking/intending at the time,"
Which was exactly your challenge and for what this and my other links provide evidence in the attempt to prove or support: what did the author intend?
"...but was the author trying to tell a factual history in the way moderns tell history? That's NOT objective proof."
He provided objective evidence for why the author of Genesis intended it be taken as actual history.
"On and on he goes like that. Here's his number 5 reason..."
"The first five chapters of the Bible is [sic] written as history; there is nothing in the record to indicate that it is to be interpreted non-literally, as poetry or symbolism."
"That there is nothing in the text to indicate it's to be taken non-literally (or, more factually, there is nothing in the text that HE THINKS is indicating it shouldn't be taken literally is NOT objective proof. It's just not."
While not compelling in and of itself, this "absence of evidence" that Genesis should be interpreted non-literally, as poetry or symbolism does, however, constitute evidence it's intended to be interpreted as actual history when accompanied by all other pieces of evidence.
If there IS evidence Genesis should be taken non-literally, this is where you should have provided it. You didn't. You can't. There isn't any.
"One more, his eighth "reason...""
"If Adam and Eve were not historical figures, the fall is a myth and redemption through the cross of Christ is nonsense"
"Here, of ALL his "reasons"/"supports" he comes closest to making a factual claim. It is, at the very least, very damaging to the human theories of "the fall of man" and "redemption through the cross..." But that's to defend the first theory (literal creation) to support a second unproven set of theories ("fall" and "atonement...")."
This is the conclusion justly reached by an objective reading of the entirety of Scripture, with Genesis as a part of it. As later passages speak of sin and atonement and the reason Christ was born, it all points back at the historical record of Genesis as providing that reason. But then, you regard Christ's death on the cross as just an unfortunate injustice He suffered for no reason...that God was gonna forgive us all anyway...that sin has no connection to death despite Biblical evidence which proves otherwise.
"But "I need to defend my human theories" is NOT objective proof of his claims. It's just not. Here again, I'd ask: WHERE is the objective data?"
It's not defending "human theories" but Biblical truth which conflicts with your human perversions and heresies for which you have no evidence of any kind, much less proof. The objective data these several links which just kicked you where a set of testicles should be.
Notable in your focusing on this wayoflife.org link is your leaping over the christoveral.com link, which addresses the arguments supporting the unsubstantiated notion Genesis is non-literal, figurative, poetry or myth, while supporting the position is was intended by its author to be taken as actual history. I have to say that while they are still incredibly subjective and speculative, those arguments are far better than your "Nyuh uh" objections. You'd do well to see how arguments are constructed before daring to criticize others for failing to meet your measure of "adult/good faith" discourse.
January 7, 2026 at 5:21 PM
"Objective proof:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
Objective evidence is information that is based on factual data, which can be verified through methods such as analysis, measurement, and observation.
https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/o/objective-evidence"
All my links satisfy these definitions. It also satisfies the Wiki definition of "objective proof"...
Objective proof refers to evidence that is based on observable and measurable facts, independent of personal opinions or biases.
...in the sense that in many cases what is considered "proved/proven" is the result of accepting the body of evidence which compels such a judgement without any comparable body of evidence which prevents that conclusion. That which I present as fact, truth, Biblical or the like remains proven until you can present something which overwhelms all evidence and logical arguments I've presented. That's never happened, so....
"I'm just talking about what can be proven as fact, regardless of philosophy or personal opinions or bigotries."
This implies our positions are compelled initially by personal opinion or bigotries rather than available facts and evidences. It's certainly your go-to counter argument in lieu of facts and evidence of your own.
"Objective proof that Genesis' creation myth is NOT a myth but a literal history would be historic, geographic, observable, demonstrable evidence that insists upon a six day creation or the existence of a literal Adam who had no belly button because he wasn't born, but created.
You have none of that."
Given that proving the accuracy of the Genesis account wasn't the challenge, but rather the challenge was the intention of the author, I don't need any of that. However, should we choose to debate that later, I can provide plenty of evidence from science which supports the notion.
"Objective proof that humanity was perfect before a literal Adam and Eve took a literal bite of fruit that was literally forbidden to them by God, for instance."
You have no "objective proof" to the contrary, while we indeed have objective evidence in support of that. Scripture is that evidence, both in the Genesis stories as well in the confirmation of or references to those stories by Biblical characters (including Christ) later in Scripture.
"Objective proof that "sin" was not part of human nature until after that fateful bite (which you have no objective proof of) and then, that all of humanity "inherited" a "sinful nature" and thus was "totally depraved" would, again, require some proof of an Man #1 with some proof that he was created "without sin" and that sin "entered humanity" through his "bite" of a "forbidden fruit...""
The objective evidence is in the Genesis story. If you want proof one way or the other, there's no Mr. Peabody who can provide you with a WayBack Machine to find out for certain. But adult debate doesn't demand such proofs for that which Scripture teaches, and only the infantile insists absolute proof for everything must be provided in order to abide the clear teaching of Scripture.
"Again, you have no proof of any of that and again, this story is overtly using the figurative language of myth, not history, not science."
That's rank subjective opinion absent any actual evidence, much less proof...which is the debate on the table so long as you don't pivot away from your initial challenge yet again.
"These are unprovable theories (one can't disprove that which doesn't exist... we can only say, "There is no evidence for that...") you have but they are of the same sort of myth telling as a presumed species of lunar unicorns. Not only is there no objective proof of ANY of that, but rational adults have no reason to assume they might be factual."
Again, demanding proof because the evidence is too compelling, and then stooping to comparing that which evidence suggests is akin to "lunar unicorns" is not only not the clever rejoinder you need to believe it is, but disparaging to the evidence of Scripture.
"Your entire support... relies upon the notion that a certain interpretation of biblical texts "reveals" truths which we can count on to speak of certain facts... but it relies upon a specific type of human faith in a text taken a certain way some humans prefer."
Not at all, Skippy. It relies on a plain reading of the text and all subsequent passages related to it to count as actual, objective evidence that the author of Genesis intended his account to be taken as actual history.
"You have no evidence that the bible is a literal historic record and that everything in it (or some certain parts of it, as determined by you) are objectively proven as facts."
Not true, given the wealth of archaeological discoveries which have lent credence to the veracity and reliability of Scripture as historical record...which also necessarily supports the logical position that the authors intended it to be.
"Again, I think you just don't understand your dilemma."
No dilemma, Black Knight. You're bleeding out.
Bullshit. The principle of total depravity is based on Scripture itself, though you provide no other legitimate evidence-based argument for another understanding of those verses and passages which refer to man's sin nature. None. It's not that "we need" sin nature to be true...who would want to believe we're sinners by nature?..., it's that Scripture teaches the principle clearly and thus we accept this teaching as true because we don't regard Scripture as "myth" when it exposes who and what we are in relation to God.
January 8, 2026 at 4:13 PM
"I'm noting the reality that NONE of us can objectively prove our opinions about what God wants."
Here Dan belies his claim of "loving" Scripture. Scripture provides us with the answer to the question of what God wants...what He expects of us. There are quite a few verses and passages which answer the question, all of which are variations on the same theme. Thus, since Dan can't answer my original question directly, he's unwittingly demonstrated his low opinion of Scripture by his quoted "notation of reality" above.
"NONE of us can objectively prove that Genesis 1/2 should be taken as literal history"
You can't prove that shouldn't be, but the weight of objective evidence that it should be is more than you're capable of overcoming. You don't even try, relying on your "Nyuh uh" as if it negates all the evidence brought to bear against you.
" - although, you all are on the side of saying "There ARE unicorns on the moon" whereas I'm on the side of saying, "There simply is no data to support that claim..." Which is pretty close to objectively proving it."
That's just stupid. Not only are you the only one referencing unicorns, you're the only one vile enough to equate such a moronic imagining to the claims of Scripture and attribute such bullshit to those of us who regard Scripture as something holy, unique and without equal...and worthy of better even from the likes of you.
"I'm noting that, given what we do objectively know, we have no reason to guess that the Creation myth is better understood as literal history"
Now you're pivoting again. We're still talking about whether or not it was intended to be regarded as actual history.
"There simply IS NO OBJECTIVE DATA to prove ANY of that"
Nor does there need to be in a discussion about the intention of the Genesis author, though there is objective evidence supporting all of it. We're just not dealing with that stuff now, no matter how badly you need to deflect to it.
"IF you all want to prove any step of that, the onus is on YOU to prove it, not rational people to disprove it."
You're welcome to invite to the conversation anyone you can prove is rational to help you argue your own objections without going off on tangents, but you're not in any way an example of rationality. You think God would bless those who indulge in homosexuality without any Biblical evidence. For you to posture as "rational" is as false as you posturing as "Christian". Don't waste you time with such.
"We're merely noting the reality that there is no objective data to support those mythical stories as literal history or reality."
First, if we were arguing that, there most certainly is "objective data" which supports the truth of Genesis. But we're not doing that here, so cut the crap.
Secondly, you haven't proven anything with regard to Genesis being "mythical" or "non-literal", so it's not "good faith" discourse to speak in that way about the book as if it's a given. Again, cut the crap.
Thirdly, anything you claim is reality requires hard data to back it up. And yes, if you're going to make the claim that Genesis is "mythical", it is most absolutely YOUR responsibility to prove it. In the meantime, you've done absolutely nothing beyond "Nyuh uh" to rebut my links and I fully doubt you'll be capable of presenting anything which wasn't addressed with in them.
"Do you understand that those who advocate literal adams, eves, "fruits of knowledge," "devils," ribs and dust and "sin natures... that THOSE are the outlier, unsupported by known reality and frankly weird theories?"
I understand that you're wholly incapable and lacking the education to dismiss any of those claims of Scripture, and you certainly aren't accredited to pass judgement on what constitutes "known reality" on the subject or
January 8, 2026 at 4:28 PM
"If I understand you correctly, this is actually a helpful analogy (if you're trying to create an analogy here). Dan, INDEED, is the best person to tell you what the meaning of Dan's writings were intended to be BY Dan. Which is helpful, because Dan is still around and you can just ask him."
This is objective evidence of your insane stupidity and shows you don't understand me correctly at all. First, it is an analogy and you're well served to save it as an example of what an actual analogy looks like, given how crappy your analogies always are.
Secondly, I'm not likely to wager that if asked, you'd say, "No. I didn't intend for anyone to regard my autobiographies as true."
Thirdly, given point #2, it's unlikely that anyone needs to suspect a writer of history intends anything other than that the reader should regard what's written as actual history. Thus, I don't need to ask you if you intended that your autobiographical self-promotion should be taken as actual history.
"In the case of Genesis, however...
1. We do NOT objectively know WHO the author(s) were;
2 OR if there were multiple authors and editors (the most rational conclusion);
3. OR, what the SOURCE for the "histories" told in the chapters of Genesis
4. OR, what the authors' intents were/how they understood it to be representing
5. OR, if they were claiming "This is a historical record, factually detailing literal facts as they literally happened...""
This is a mix of things which are well supported with objective evidence, particularly the intention of the Genesis author. I have that which supports Moses as the author, but I haven't decided if I'm going to pursue that totally separate and unrelated, off topic issue in this thread.
"We have NONE of that and we have NO WAY of proving any of that."
Not conclusively, but that's not how these things work. However, your kind banks on such things NEVER being conclusively and completely proven because of how such proof puts you in a moral dilemma. Your allegiance to the Will of God will have at the same time proven as false as all of have come to take for granted.
""The Bible" does not "tell" us who authored Genesis.
Genesis does not tell us who authored Genesis.
Genesis does not tell us what the source for the "history" was OR if it was intended to be history in a literally factual manner as we tell history today "
Yeah...it kinda does. There are around 29 Biblical writers who attest to Moses being an actual person who wrote the Law of God. There are, at the same time, absolutely NO references of other or additional authors of the Torah anywhere within the covers of the entire Bible.
"I. Do you acknowledge that you do NOT know WHO wrote Genesis?"
No. I can only say I can't prove it conclusively. I do acknowledge that there is no evidence for multiple authors or for authors other than Moses.
"II. Do you acknowledge that you do not know how many people wrote and edited the stories in Genesis?"
No. I do acknowledge you can't produce evidence that more than one person wrote or "edited" Genesis, and thus there's no reason to suppose that more likely than one man having been the author.
"III. Do you acknowledge that you do NOT know the intent of the authors of Genesis?"
Absolutely no. Without any evidence of any kind whatsoever presented by your or anyone you could think of citing, there's nothing which compels anyone to suppose the intent of the author was anything less than recording actual history.
"IV. OR the source the authors used to get their data?"
No. You can't use the plural "authors" without providing evidence there was more than one...evidence which overwhelms evidence of Moses being the author. I acknowledge that you can't provide evidence there's a source from another culture or that the source wasn't God Himself.
"V. OR whether that source was intended to be taken literally?"
Typical of your dishonest penchant for padding your lists, you said this one in point III.
"do you see the advantage to being able to ask Dan what Dan meant in a text vs the complete inability to know even who the authors of Genesis were?"
No, because despite your history of being a liar and thus being an untrustworthy compiler of your good deeds, I would not even consider suggesting you didn't intend that your compilation be taken as anything less than actual history of your "good deeds", and as such there's no need or reason why I would ask. Again, you writes history without intending readers are to regard it as actual history? Are you suggesting that it's a legitimate suspicion by anyone that you lie about your good deeds? Is that it?
"And the vast difference between a modern text with recent access to the author's intent vs ancient texts where we don't even KNOW the author/s?"
Only if one is so stupid to presume the history writer intends that people don't believe what he wrote.
"IF you want to claim (hopefully not) that you DO "know" and even "objectively know" that MOSES was the author of Genesis - or even "most" of Genesis, do you realize how untethered from reality that is? How very unsupported by any data that is?"
But it isn't regardless of my own person position on the subject. You simply insist it must be, for the more ambiguity surrounds Scripture, the easier it is for you to promote your heresies and perversions, which are truly that which is untethered from reality.
"Where is ANYTHING like proof for that wild human theory?"
Where's your proof that it's a "wild human theory"? You aren't refuting any claims by merely asserting they haven't met YOUR standard for evidences and proofs. You can't insist there's some other possibility other than what is presented as most likely by merely crapping on that which is so presented. Bring your own evidence for your alternative positions or STFU and sit back down.
"NOTE: "Many people have REALLY thought that Moses was the author" is not proof."
NOTE: That argument has not been put forth as proof, but as evidence for making the claim. What's important is that among those saying so are Jesus and His Apostles, as well as other Biblical figures. And to presume they only "thought" Moses wrote the Torah is a truth claim in and of itself.
One thing at a time. First, a huge achievement, perhaps. Marshal, it SOUNDS to me like you're finally saying (albeit less-than-clearly):
"NO, none of us can objectively prove these ideas.
None of us, for instance, can objectively prove
that Moses "wrote" Genesis.
None of us can objectively prove that the earth/universe was created in six literal days,
that there was a literal Adam and Eve,
or that, literally through Adam/Eve's biting of the "fruit"
that they caused "sin" to be entered into humanity,
thereby introducing a "sin nature" to all humankind."
NONE of that can you objectively prove nor can I objectively disprove. Is that what you're clearly willing to state?
Because that's a huge advance and an important starting point for actual conversation.
IF you're affirming that, we can then move forward with why we think our opinions/theories are the most reasonable, given the known evidence (evidence, not objective proof - bits of data that may or may not support our theories).
Help me and tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.
Well played, Dan. Turning a distinction without a difference into some sort of proof of your hunch is impressive.
Because thousands of years of uninterrupted, consistent, accurate oral history along with thousands of experts (at least more expert than Dan) have all agreed that the Torah was from Moses means nothing to Dan.
I'll simply note that in no other human endeavor is "proof" defined as Dan demands here. Strangely enough we accept "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" in our legal system. Dan seems perfectly content to accept "consensus" among some scientists as "proof" of "global warning". Dan seems to accept his personal Reason as some degree of "proof" that he's "rightly understood" Scripture. Yet he demands, of us, a standard of proof that he is demanded in virtually no other endeavor.
January 10, 2026 at 2:14 PM
"I was answering your questions and addressing your false claims when you told me quite rudely, "STOP asking/answering questions until I say so!""
"Rude" is one who falsely characterizes the facts. Rude is offering a totally false paraphrase for what I actually said, which was,
"Stop piling on your lies and deflections until I've caught up with the lies and deflections to which I've not yet addressed."
"So, I waited. Now, while I'm waiting for you to answer still-unanswered questions, you're telling me I have no right to respectfully ask reasonable questions?"
I'm telling you that piling on tons of comments while I'm still in the process of responding comprehensively to your already posted comments is bad form. Stop doing it.
"Do you see why you're difficult to have a rational conversation with?"
Piling on tons of additional comments while I'm in the process of comprehensively responding to already posted comments of yours is you being difficult and muddying the conversation. This is especially true when you comments are rife with errors, falsehoods, avoidance and deflections. Those must be cleared up and resolved first and you don't get to dictate how I choose oversee and regulate discourse on my blog. Trust me...you'll have plenty of opportunity to puke out more stupidity and lies.
"WHAT "missing the mark" angle question haven't I answered?"
What possible significance is constantly referencing this definition? How does conceding this definition impact the seriousness of the lawlessness of sin and how God does or should respond to it? You clearly seem to think mentioning this definition is meaningful.
"As to the latter, I did directly and clearly answer the question about "knowing what God wants and how..." Multiple, endless times."
No, you did not. You gave a convoluted weasel answer which never cited a specific verse or passage from Scripture, which then would've answered the second part of the question regarding how we know what God wants. Fortunately for us, those crap "answers" weren't literally "endless". What God wants can be found in Scripture. It's pretty much a primary purpose of Scripture and no other source can provide that answer.
"I've been quite clear that it depends on what you mean by "know...""
Hence the "weasel".
Now, if you want to tell me what questions I have NOT answered (ie, actually not answered, as opposed to not answered in a way that you like), by all means, present them.
"IF you mean how do we objectively know what God wants, the answer is easy: We can't objectively know, not without asking God and getting a direct answer. That's just the reality and that IS the only rational answer to that question."
Bullshit. This is just you carving out the liberty to do what you want regardless of what God wants. We don't have to "ask God", as He's told us in Scripture in a variety of ways in a variety of places within Its pages. You know this and you purposely avoid it because it reveals that which you don't like.
"I further responded that, however, IF we affirm a good, loving, gracious, forgiving, welcoming and just God, THEN we can REASONABLY assume that this is what God wants of us, we, who were created in God's image, we who were taught by Jesus so that we can follow in his steps."
This is more weasel words. We don't need to "assume" anything about what God wants as His Will is clearly revealed to us in Scripture. What YOU affirm is what YOU want.
"That isn't objectively provable, but it is exceeding rational and common sense."
"Rational and common sense" is to seek His Will as revealed in Scripture, not to "affirm" and "assume" what sounds "Christian" to a fake Christian like you.
"Now some people might wildly guess, "Yes, God is good, loving, blah, blah, blah... BUT, this "god" does NOT want us to follow in their steps..." But no rational person would make that guess and I don't think even you are. But you tell me."
No rational person would type that paragraph. How incredibly inane!
January 10, 2026 at 2:21 PM
"Marshal, with no support, said:"
"my links do indeed provide "objective" evidence for accepting that Genesis was intended to be regarded as actual history regarding the Creation of all things."
"Where? WHERE did anyone in any of your sources purport to have magically discovered "objective evidence" that objectively proves that the various authors/speakers in the Bible intended for us to take Gen 1/2 as literal history, scientifically accurate and proven?"
Once again we see Dan demanding "proof" for "proofs" provided, "evidence " for "evidence" provided, "support" to support the support provided. It never ends with this guy. No amount of evidence/proof/support (whatever word he'll prefer to use interchangeably) which can possibly meet his purposely undefined standard.
"I've read and listened to your stuff. I don't see ANYONE making that claim."
Dan again says, "Nyuh uh". My sources provided evidence which supports the obvious: the author of Genesis intended it be taken as actual history. Dan does nothing beyond "Nyuh uh" to "prove" they didn't. But this isn't Dan's Blog of Lies and Perversions. Actual arguments with evidence of his own must be provided to assert he won the day.
"Further, that's only half of your problem (the lighter weight half, at that). EVEN IF the authors REALLLLLY thought that Gen 1/2 were literal history, scientifically accurate (an unproven claim) you STILL have the problem of "Well, what if those boys were mistaken in their guess about the literal reality of Gen 1/2? Where is the objective proof that the story in Gen 1/2 WAS literally accurate?"
Whether the creation story occurred as described in Genesis is irrelevant to how it was intended to understood. Changing the subject doesn't negate the reality of the author's intention. We're not moving on from this until you concede that it is logical to assume a writer of history intends his work is to be taken as written. It's not even a stretch of an assumption. It's truly the only logical possibility. If you disagree (and clearly you do), then you must focus on explaining why he wouldn't have that intention, and why he's write as history that which isn't true.
"I know that "you stated" that was the case, but who the hell are you?"
I'm the guy who doesn't tolerate your failed attempts to make your shit smell sweet. You provided no explanation for how citing those things are relevant to the issue on the table. I'm not concerned about the intentions who wrote the Code of Hammurabi or anything else. We're talking about Scripture.
"Your mere affirmation and wishful thinking these are not relevant is meaningless outside your head. Your statement does not make it an objective fact."
Your insistence that they have any relevance at all to discussions about the truth claims of Scripture is unsupportable, as evidenced by the fact that you haven't even tried to support it. It is objective fact that they are irrelevant to this discussion. Provide evidence to the contrary or STFU and sit back down.
"One conclusion we can reach by reading other ancient texts is that we have no reason to assume that they were even TRYING to tell literal history and, even if they were, that doesn't make it factually correct and it certainly doesn't prove it objectively."
It doesn't matter in the slightest what the writers of other ancient texts were. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST, and you're incapable of explaining what relevance it has beyond your demand that it must be.
"THAT literature comparison IS actual data and information that we can use to form opinions, regardless of your claim that it's not relevant."
How f**king absurd! Because they're ancient, too, that means comparing them is legitimate? In what world is that true? That they're all from ancient times is the ONLY similarity between them, and that's so insignificant as to be totally worthless. It's a desperate attempt to deny the truth and reliability of Scripture and an incredibly shameful one at that.
"As always, say who?"
Says honest people not desperate to legitimize perversions and heresies like you are.
While waiting for Marshal to answer my last question, I'll reply to this and see if it fits his theory of being an appropriate question/comment:
Once again we see Dan demanding "proof" for "proofs" provided, "evidence " for "evidence" provided, "support" to support the support provided. It never ends with this guy. No amount of evidence/proof/support (whatever word he'll prefer to use interchangeably) which can possibly meet his purposely undefined standard.
I've defined my standard: OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE evidence to OBJECTIVELY PROVE your human theories.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that Moses was the author of Genesis.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that the Genesis story of a six day creation is factually correct.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that there were a literal Adam and Eve.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that "sin" "entered" human nature through "Adam's sin."
That, or simply admitting, "No, of course, I can't objectively prove that!"
You know, objective proof - proof that can be shown to anyone to authoritatively, clearly prove to ALL observers that, of course, that must be true. Even if those observers did not believe that to be the case prior to the evidence. NOT merely SOME "evidence," but actually objective proof that clearly proves your various claims are objective facts.
Do you truly think that my request for objective proof for fact claims is unreasonable and undefined? How so?
Also:
Because they're ancient, too, that means comparing them is legitimate?
Yes.
In what world is that true?
In a world where there are NO known instances of literal history telling in the manner that has happened (more or less) since beginning about the time of Herodotus ("the father of modern history") in about 500 BCE - as opposed to the theoretical Moses' history in ~1300-1500 BCE. Comparing the common writing styles of cultures and time periods is a common practice for rational, scholarly (or even casual!) literary students. Read about it.
January 10, 2026 at 2:50 PM
"The only way you can oppose this fact is by rejecting even more of Scripture,"
"Of course, this is observably, objectively a false claim for these reasons..."
This is not only not "observably, objectively a false claim", what follows doesn't even rise to a poor attempt to confirm it.
"1. Disagreeing on genre identification is NOT rejecting the Bible. People who love the Bible disagree on genre interpretation regularly. That doesn't mean either party is rejecting the Bible. It's just a disagreement on often unprovoked matters."
It isn't a matter of "genre" identification. It's a matter of whether or not the book should be taken as actual history. You have to ignore all examples later references to Genesis in order to pretend it...regardless of the "genre"...was not meant to be taken as actual history, since later figures referred to it to support their teachings.
"2. You disagree with me on genre identification on Gen 1,2... does that mean YOU are rejecting scripture?"
I don't give a flying rat's ass how you "identify the genre" of Genesis. It wouldn't matter to the intent of the author if he chose to write it in Haiku verse. This issue of "genre" is a non-issue you're desperately attempting to elevate into something of significance, in order to rationalize your rejection of what it means regarding sin and the means to salvation.
"3. The "fact" you refer to is not a proven fact. It is a set of unproven opinions."
The fact to which I referred regards the intention of the author of Genesis that he was presenting actual history. This fact is supported by the five links I presented alone, as loaded as they are with supporting OBJECTIVE evidence. You haven't offered jack shit beyond your "Nyuh uh" to suppose any reason why one shouldn't so regard the author's intention. If you want to pretend it's an intelligent qualifier ("we can't know"), you'll need to present a reason why this particular author might not have intended his work to be understood to be actual history. Do you suppose you'll ever get around to providing even one piece of evidence in support of that ludicrous notion?
"4. Disagreeing with your collective opinions is not rejecting Scripture. It's disagreeing with your opinions."
There's been plenty provided by multiple visitors and bloggers which support the widely held position that you reject much of Scripture at the very least. At this point, for all of us who've dealt with you for the last 17 years, it's not even a question any more.
January 10, 2026 at 2:55 PM
"Ignore it? That's precisely part of the point. The mythical story IS referring to literal 24 hour days. Which, of course, are not factually possible, given the best known scientific data in MUTIPLE fields and disciplines. That's one of the strong arguments for creation story-as-myth."
More evidence of your fraudulence in identifying as Christian. You assert Genesis is myth based on how it is written and the speculation of your "experts" in the sciences. Absolutely no faith in God's power, or in His ability to convey the details of His creative work accurately to whomever authored Genesis. Being a fraud, you reject the concept of the miraculous, mostly when it's convenient for you to do so. Your "worship" of God is based on merely human rules you've been taught. You think God must operate according the "science" of the universe He created. God on Dan's terms.
January 10, 2026 at 3:11 PM
"Also, since you seem to be staking the claim that Moses (objectively?) "wrote" Genesis as a fact, I wonder why you think that, since it's not in the Bible?"
I'm going to address this only to demonstrate what it looks like to provide evidence in support of a premise or claim. You presume that Moses was NOT the author of Genesis for reasons which aren't backed by anything substantive than that it serves you (or those like you) to believe so. Your timeline makes assumptions which conflict with archaeological discovery.
I'm going to provide several links and I insist you read them intently as one seeking truth, with a mind wide open to consider that which conflicts with your preconceived notions. The first three are from the same dude, Robert Clifton Robinson, who is quite prolific in his studies of the issue:
https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/proving-the-exodus-happened-and-moses-wrote-the-pentateuch/
https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2022/03/01/proving-moses-wrote-genesis-exodus-leviticus-numbers-and-deuteronomy-from-historical-evidence/
https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2025/01/04/if-moses-didnt-write-the-first-five-books-of-the-bible-the-bible-is-not-the-word-of-god/
The following provides some archaeological considerations as well as answers to objections by those like you:
https://evidenceunseen.com/authorship-of-the-pentateuch
The following includes evidence of Hebrew alphabet from a time which would justify naming Moses as author of the Torah due to his education in Egypt. Said another way, he was more than capable of reading and writing and had the means to record everything just as it appears in the Torah. As such, there's no reason to believe the Torah had to have remained an oral tradition until a much later time:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/evidence-mosaic-authorship-of-torah/
The following is a review of newer discoveries. And while it admits it is inconclusive, it remains evidence. It must be pointed out that unlike you, these several links do not confuse or conflate the words "proof" and "evidence". Proof is the accumulated evidence which compels a conclusion. What all my links demonstrate is how large the body of evidence exists which supports the positions I defend. I don't have to know as God knows in order to be convinced of and convicted in my positions and beliefs. But I do need more than "Nyuh uh" to disabuse me of any of them:
https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/scientists-found-evidence-for-the-existence-of-moses-is-the-exodus-confirmed
Thus, what you presume is what you need to believe in order to protect your heretical and moral corruptions. What I believe is supported by actual evidence as has been presented here and in previous links. Your constant demand that I support my support is just petulance and dishonest disregard without counter evidence of your own.
So again, do not suppose this presentation is an invitation for you to further go off on tangents. It's merely "OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE" which does more to "prove" my position than anything you've yet brought to bear (which amounts to no better than "Nyuh uh").
January 10, 2026 at 3:16 PM
"The defendant here is Scripture/God/the Biblical authors, however one wishes to put it"
"Question begging fallacy."
Not at all.
"Do you need me to explain why this is fallacious question begging or do you get it?"
I get that you're playing games again.
"Briefly, when the question is: With this particular text, should it be considered literal history (or universal rule or whatever)?"
...you're accusing the text as being something other than literal history. More precisely, you're accusing it of being something other than what it states. Genesis is stating a history of events. You're objecting to that and criticizing it as not being an actual history. Basically you're accusing Genesis of lying and you do nothing to support that charge.
In the meantime, I've brought quite a bit of evidence why we can be confident the author intended Genesis to represent an actual record of the events of Creation.
"Then that IS the question."
No. The question is why should anyone doubt what it says is inaccurate.
"You can't merely PRESUME that your human opinions and interpretations are objectively correct and all who disagree with your humans have to prove you're mistaken."
But you feel justified in presuming Genesis isn't actual history and do so for no other reason than your faith is in secular humanism and not God or Scripture.
"The question IS, "is Genesis 1/2 recording literal history, a literal Adam, dust, rib, Eve, sin nature, six day creation, etc?"
You're pivoting again. We're still dealing with whether or not the author intends Genesis to be regarded as actual history. Whether or not it is actual history is a different debate. You're pivoting from one to the other as your atheism fails and you're doing so without the slightest evidence for a counter argument.
"The answer then is NOT "We must assume our human traditions are objectively right until someone proves them wrong!" That IS the question."
Bullshit. When a disagreement exists, it's the side with the evidence who gets deference. You are required and obliged to support your objections with a similarly sized body of evidence of similar quality in order to presume you can dictate one way or the other. "Nyuh uh" and "Prove it until I'm satisfied" is neither compelling nor "adult, good faith" discourse.
"You're question begging and I think you don't get that. But you tell me."
It's YOU who is begging the question, assuming the truth of your conclusion without providing evidence. I'm the one who's been providing evidence. You're the one dismissing it outright as insufficient just because you say it is.
January 10, 2026 at 3:20 PM
"I'm NOT saying that Genesis (or any of the Bible) is "unreliable," or even "Unreliable as a historical record." I'm NOT questioning "the veracity of the book." I'm saying there is no proof that it should be taken the way that humans like you have traditionally chosen to believe it should be and a great deal of solid rational and biblical reasons NOT to take them that way."
Which means you doubt the veracity and reliability of Scripture. If one must prove it beyond your unstated point of sufficiency, while you never provide this alleged "solid rational and biblical reason NOT to take" is a reliable and truthful, THAT is what doubting the veracity and reliability looks like.
"I can't prove it, but I believe it" is not an adult position. Peter tells us,
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
Your reason is no better than just, "because".
That is indeed a distinction without a difference. He says he disbelieves nothing, but then assures us there's no way we can know anything. My various links provides more evidence than he's been able to controvert with evidence of his own. His constant "no objective proof" fails to be evidence, but no more than dismissing that which has been presented as actual objective evidence. He has no basis for it. A single piece of evidence provides just a bit of confidence that what the evidence supports is true. Another piece added to it raises the confidence level accordingly. What further raises it is the dearth of countervailing evidence. At this point, there's quite a bit more which gives one confidence than can convince an honest person to have none.
[rolls eyes]
I'll wait to see if you've answered vital questions. Failing that, we're done. You just don't understand your lack of rational grounding or how you're blinded by your human traditions and cultural preferences.
Actually, there's reason to believe Moses DID write it down, including the many passages which refer to Moses writing stuff down. But archaeology offers evidence of an alphabet available to an educated guy like Moses in order to write down anything for posterity. He had the time to do it, that's for certain.
At this point there is "objective evidence" enough which affirms Dan is less concerned with proof or the lack of it, than he is deflecting to the question of whether there is or isn't. Remember how important ambiguity is to Dan's agenda. The more affirmed or confirmed as true and factual Scripture is shown to be, the harder it is for Dan's heresies and perversions to stand.
January 13, 2026 at 9:57 AM
"One thing at a time."
This is a funny thing to say by a guy who constantly insists on piling on to his comments that which consists of separate issues...many of which are distractions and obstructions and deflections from the point.
"First, a huge achievement, perhaps."
A "huge achievement" would be you truly engaging in "adult/good faith" discourse, which requires of you more "equity" (you know this word, right?) in your behavior as regards an equal back and forth, and equal attempt to prove or disprove by the use of actual evidence of the same stupidly high quality you demand of others. It's always one-sided with you, as you seek to control the discussion in a manner favorable to you personally, rather in service to the notion of seeking truth, facts or true common ground.
"Marshal, it SOUNDS to me like you're finally saying (albeit less-than-clearly):
"NO, none of us can objectively prove these ideas.
None of us, for instance, can objectively prove
that Moses "wrote" Genesis.
None of us can objectively prove that the earth/universe was created in six literal days,
that there was a literal Adam and Eve,
or that, literally through Adam/Eve's biting of the "fruit"
that they caused "sin" to be entered into humanity,
thereby introducing a "sin nature" to all humankind."
NONE of that can you objectively prove nor can I objectively disprove. Is that what you're clearly willing to state?"
No. Nor is there any evidence I was trying. I've been consistent in saying your demand for "proof" is constantly conflated with "evidence", which is required to prove anything and far more proves my positions regarding Scripture than does any of your "Nyuh uhs" or calls for more "objective proof". I'll point out that you provided only a definition of "proof" (while providing one for "objective evidence") and not "objective proof" while constantly demanding specifically the latter. I wonder why.
"Because that's a huge advance and an important starting point for actual conversation."
Once again, you believe yourself possessed of the authority for dictating terms of engagement at my blog. I started the conversation from which you strayed unable to address the problems with your "missing the mark" fixation, and then I allowed a bit of it until I saw fit to demand of you to respond to the questions, "What does God want and how do we know?" Each of those (three, actually) are actual starting points for conversations you clearly don't want to have due to the problems answers cause your agenda.
"IF you're affirming that, we can then move forward with why we think our opinions/theories are the most reasonable, given the known evidence (evidence, not objective proof - bits of data that may or may not support our theories)."
If we are to move beyond work as yet unfinished, you would only change the subject again due to confronting even more you cannot overcome. You still haven't addressed the questions which began all this, nor have you addressed how all the evidence I presented for why we can know what the Genesis author intended (again...an incredibly stupid thing about which to wonder) regarding the history therein. There's been nothing at all reasonable about your substance-free comments, but only childish petulance in the face of facts inconvenient for you.
"Help me and tell me if I'm understanding you correctly."
I just did, but I doubt it will matter. To understand what has been so clearly presented won't work for you, so you'll continue to feign confusion rather than meet your obligation as one truly concerned with "adult/good faith" discourse.
January 13, 2026 at 10:18 PM
"While waiting for Marshal to answer my last question, I'll reply to this and see if it fits his theory of being an appropriate question/comment:"
"Once again we see Dan demanding "proof" for "proofs" provided, "evidence " for "evidence" provided, "support" to support the support provided. It never ends with this guy. No amount of evidence/proof/support (whatever word he'll prefer to use interchangeably) which can possibly meet his purposely undefined standard."
"I've defined my standard: OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE evidence to OBJECTIVELY PROVE your human theories."
All evidence I've presented is "objectively" proven by virtue of the fact each link cites the source of the evidence given.
But that's not your standard. Your standard is a matter of what conclusion the evidence supports and whether or not you like it. Your abject failure is in your lack of countervailing evidence which rebuts or refutes evidence provided you at your demand. Said another way, your standard isn't honestly applied. It's as I said...you want evidence for the evidence before regarding it as "objective" or worthy to be put in the category of such so that it can support the conclusion you have no intention of accepting.
"OBJECTIVE PROOF that Moses was the author of Genesis.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that the Genesis story of a six day creation is factually correct.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that there were a literal Adam and Eve.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that "sin" "entered" human nature through "Adam's sin.""
None of these things were on the table. You put them there when the evidence I provided was too compelling in pushing you toward accepting these things as being true and factual. Your initial challenge to prove that the author intended for Genesis to be taken as actual history has been met and like the Black Knight you are, you prefer to hop about on the stumps where your legs used to be insisting you've not been beaten.
Instead, like the dishonorable person you are, you presume to question the intent of the Genesis author, as if it's actually possible he didn't intend that we should regard his work as an accurate record of actual historical events.
And you can question everything related to it...how later figures regarded it, whether they believed Moses was the author of the whole of the Torah, whether Genesis answers the questions listed in one of the links I provided which are necessary for understanding all of what follows Genesis. You can question it all, but to demand that we prove it's true while doing nothing at all to give a compelling reason why we should question it, too, is dishonesty. And it all begins with accepting that Genesis was intended to be believed as written, particularly without any evidence it was meant to be taken "figuratively" or "metaphorically" or as myth. Nothing. Not a stitch which suggests it either in Scripture itself or anywhere else.
One meets a man who says, "I just bought a brand new Lamborghini Huracan for %70,000!" full stop. He says nothing more. He walks away. One doesn't know it from Adam and thus no history to judge the man's honesty. On what basis then can one simply question whether or not he intends one should believe what he said? And keep in mind it's not a question regarding whether or not what he said is actually true, but whether or not he intended one should take it as true. The distinction is stark. Did he mean it figuratively? Did he mean it as some kind of metaphor? Do normal people ask themselves these questions about everything they read? Any of these things can be true, but just as you say about everything else, without OBJECTIVE PROOF, how can you not take it at face value? While you can question him based on a knowledge of prices of Lamborghini models, that's got nothing to do with his intention in telling anyone what he paid for his. He might even be lying about having bought a car of any kind. That's got nothing to do with his intentions.
"That, or simply admitting, "No, of course, I can't objectively prove that!""
I am not so obliged. I'm satisfied with the available evidence, the body of which continues to grow. I find no compelling evidence to question anything, particularly as you've offered none. So there's plenty of evidence to support the truth claims I've defended, even if they don't conclusively prove them as true to the likes of you. The truth is not in you, so convincing you of truth is a game I've long ago stopped playing.
"You know, objective proof - proof that can be shown to anyone to authoritatively, clearly prove to ALL observers that, of course, that must be true. Even if those observers did not believe that to be the case prior to the evidence. NOT merely SOME "evidence," but actually objective proof that clearly proves your various claims are objective facts."
"Proof that proves!" How absurd. It's evidence which proves. A body of evidence which cannot be countered (or simply is not countered) is proof, or at least suggestive of what is true. Without a counter argument complete with evidence of a most objective quality, one must accept that the conclusion to which a body of evidence points is likely true.
"Do you truly think that my request for objective proof for fact claims is unreasonable and undefined? How so?"
Yes. It simply asserts your terms haven't been met. You provide no "evidence" that it hasn't been. "Nyuh uh" or "that ain't good enough" ain't good enough. You don't even explain why the evidence provided fails!
"Because they're ancient, too, that means comparing them is legitimate?
In what world is that true?"
"In a world where there are NO known instances of literal history telling in the manner that has happened (more or less) since beginning about the time of Herodotus ("the father of modern history") in about 500 BCE - as opposed to the theoretical Moses' history in ~1300-1500 BCE. Comparing the common writing styles of cultures and time periods is a common practice for rational, scholarly (or even casual!) literary students. Read about it."
Bullshit. You still fail because you can't question the intention of any other author of ancient books with regard to the accuracy of the history presented. But the difference is Scripture has evidence aplenty to compel our belief in its reliability, including Genesis, and none of the others don't. And again, you provide nothing which forces us to question any ancient history simply based on the writing style of the author. Worse, you think the opinion of your sources is validation for your rejection of Scripture as reliable. Where's your proof your source is worth a damn?
You've got nothing, Dan. Just your "Nyuh uh". But that won't support any of your heresies and perversions. It just indicts your character as low.
[Shakes head]
Lord, have mercy, you're hard to understand!
I had noted/asked about these points:
"OBJECTIVE PROOF that Moses was the author of Genesis.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that the Genesis story of a six day creation is factually correct.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that there were a literal Adam and Eve.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that "sin" "entered" human nature through "Adam's sin.""
None of these things were on the table.
So, then can you clearly and without ANY obfuscation state definitively
NO, I can NOT objectively prove that Moses wrote Genesis!
NO, I can NOT objectively prove that "sin" "entered" the world and a "fallen nature" entered the world through a literal "Adam's" "sin..."?
etc?
By you saying "those things are not on the table," can you affirm that NONE of those can be objectively proven?
LORD have mercy!! Conversation does not need to be this difficult.
Marshal, indicating a misunderstanding of evidence and objective proof said:
It's evidence which proves.
No. Evidence is evidence. IF there is a smoking gun at a murder scene and Ralph is in the same room with the smoking gun, along with the dead body of George, that smoking gun is EVIDENCE, but it is not objective proof.
Understand the difference? Come on, this is basic Adult Reasoning 101.
Marshal, missing the point entirely, said:
None of these things were on the table. You put them there when the evidence I provided was too compelling in pushing you toward accepting these things as being true and factual. Your initial challenge to prove that the author intended for Genesis to be taken as actual history has been met
The question of whether or not
Genesis represents a literal creation story AS written - six literal days, a literal Adam made from dust, a literal Eve created from a rib, literal "sin nature" being literally introduced into human nature via a literal "Adam and Eve's" literal "original sin" - is an important question. It can not, of course, be objectively proven - ANY of it. But do you recognize that? THAT has been a important question addressing many of your human theories.
Also, much less important, but still relevant, the question of whether Moses literally recorded in some manner Genesis IS a reasonable question that has been on the table since you introduced that theory.
There have ALWAYS been two components of questions being asked:
Did the authors INTEND for Genesis to be considered literal history?
AND
Can you objectively prove that?
AND
Whatever in the name of all that is holy the "authors intended," IS IT objectively provable that these inane, insane, inept human theories of
A literal Adam/Eve
A literal six day creation
A literal "sin nature" being "introduced" into humanity through a literal "Adam's" first "sin
... are ANY of these objectively provable?
Those questions are, rationally, logically, obviously on the table and have always been. THESE questions are vital to address if you want to make an adult level case for your ridiculous, awful, ugly, hateful human theories.
IF you want to make some of these nonsense cases for these nonsense literal human theories, THEN, son, you MUST be prepared to answer these rational, reasonable questions IF you want your human theories to be taken seriously.
Grow up, little man.
Marshal:
You can question it all, but to demand that we prove it's true while doing nothing at all to give a compelling reason why we should question it, too, is dishonesty.
Don't be daft. Don't be childish or an immature, irrational "reasoner."
MOSES WAS NOT ALIVE AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN GENESIS.
THAT IS A COMPELLING REASON.
MOSES NEVER CLAIMED TO WRITE GENESIS!
NO ONE ELSE IN THE BIBLICAL TEXTS CLAIMED THAT MOSES WROTE GENESIS.
THESE ARE COMPELLING REASONS.
Seriously. Don't be a moron, son. You're embarrassing yourself.
As to your sources, a quick look-through involves quoting biblical texts where it says something like "Moses recorded the rules God gave Israel..." but NOTHING objectively pointing to Moses recording the Genesis stories.
NOT ONE THING.
Am I missing something?
WHERE is the biblical text or perhaps an authoritative email directly from Moses where he claimed he wrote Genesis?
(HINT: it doesn't exist. Feel free to prove me wrong with data.)
Sacred Atheism knows how to keep the peace. There is little evidence Moses even existed, there is no god or gods. There is no sin, just evil and wrongdoing.
This is Dan when he's not pretending to be Christian.
January 14, 2026 at 5:11 PM
"I had noted/asked about these points:
"OBJECTIVE PROOF that Moses was the author of Genesis.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that the Genesis story of a six day creation is factually correct.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that there were a literal Adam and Eve.
OBJECTIVE PROOF that "sin" "entered" human nature through "Adam's sin.""
And I responded,
"None of these things were on the table."
And yet in your childishly petulant way, you continue to press an issue irrelevant to the post and what remains unresolved by you. As such, I'm in no way obligated to respond to further distractions put forth in order to avoid your making good on your obligations to me. Every tangent comes when you're confounded by the simplest questions which call your heresies into question. "Missing the mark" is constantly referenced when the truth about the seriousness of sin and how God responds to it is presented. This choice to sidestep that issue led to the question, "What does God want and how do we know?" You presented a non-answer and then went to "Did the Genesis author intend his work to be regarded as actual history?" despite the fact that it is a record of history, regardless of what writing "style" was employed to present that history. Now you move to whether the creation events happened as described (giving up the question of the author's intent due to the obvious answer), then to whether Moses actually wrote Genesis. It never ends with you and then you dare to question my understanding of how to engage in honest, adult discourse, what "evidence" is versus what "proof" is and whatever other irrelevant bullshit you've moved to in order to avoid providing evidence of your own...which you don't have...to counter any of the many pieces of evidence I presented because you pretended none exists. Your behavior is additional evidence proving it isn't proof you seek, but agreement with your heresies and perversions.
"So, then can you clearly and without ANY obfuscation state definitively"
That these issues were not on the table for discussion and as such I've no obligation to respond to any demands with regard to them.
"By you saying "those things are not on the table," can you affirm that NONE of those can be objectively proven?"
By saying "those things are not on the table", I can affirm that you are misrepresenting what I said even after you copy/pasted what I actually said. These things were not on the table. You don't get to put them on the table because you can't effectively deal with what already IS on the table.
"LORD have mercy!! Conversation does not need to be this difficult."
Your imaginary god has no mercy to bestow upon you. It is YOU who is making this conversation difficult because you think you can change the subject anytime it serves you to do so. As I've indicated above, you've taken this far away from the post and even the few concessions I've allowed which also led to questions you didn't answer.
"Marshal, indicating a misunderstanding of evidence and objective proof said:
"It's evidence which proves."
"No. Evidence is evidence. IF there is a smoking gun at a murder scene and Ralph is in the same room with the smoking gun, along with the dead body of George, that smoking gun is EVIDENCE, but it is not objective proof.
Understand the difference? Come on, this is basic Adult Reasoning 101."
Good gosh you're stupid. You should ask your imaginary god for intelligence and wisdom, not mercy! So I "googled" Proof is the result of accumulated evidence and this is what I got from the AI assisted search:
"Proof is indeed the result of accumulated evidence that supports a claim or assertion. In legal contexts, the burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, requiring them to provide sufficient evidence to convince the court of their position. Wikipedia"
It goes on...
"Understanding Proof and Evidence
Proof is the outcome of presenting sufficient evidence to support a claim or assertion. In legal contexts, the burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, requiring them to provide evidence that meets specific standards."
Wow. Remarkably similar to what I said. It's like I just presented evidence enough to have proven my statement you stupidly rejected. But there's more...
"Evidence can be categorized into several types, each serving a different purpose in establishing proof:
Type of Evidence Description
Direct Evidence Directly points to the fact in question, such
as eyewitness testimony.
Circumstantial Evidence Indirect evidence that suggests a fact
through inference, requiring interpretation.
Documentary Evidence Written or recorded materials that support
a claim, like contracts or emails.
Physical Evidence Tangible items that can be presented in
court, such as weapons or clothing."
Standards of Proof
Different legal situations require varying levels of proof:
Standard of Proof Description
Preponderance of the Evidence More likely than not; used in civil
cases.
Clear and Convincing Evidence Higher than preponderance but lower
than beyond a reasonable doubt;
often used in civil cases involving
fraud.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt The highest standard; used in criminal
cases to ensure the defendant's guilt
is established without reasonable
doubt."
To reiterate:
"In summary, proof is established through the careful accumulation and presentation of evidence, which must meet specific standards depending on the context."
And just to be sure you get it:
From Bromundlaw.com:
"What is the difference between evidence and proof?"
Jun 9, 2024
"Evidence refers to information, materials, or facts that support a claim or hypothesis, often collected through observation, research, or experimentation. Proof, on the other hand, is a more definitive conclusion drawn from that evidence"
From evidenceexplained.com
"QuickLesson 8: What Constitutes Proof?"
"Proof is not a document. It’s a body of evidence. ---snip--- Achieving proof is a process in which we assemble evidence, test it, refine it, and reinforce it until that body of evidence is solid enough to withstand contradictions and counterclaims."
From Respicio & Co. Law Firm
“Proof is the result or effect of evidence."
"If evidence is the “means,” proof is the conclusion or persuasion achieved once evidence is properly introduced, weighed, and appreciated by the court. Proof is essentially the effect that evidence produces in establishing or disproving a fact in issue.
Evidence = the instruments or means used to show or demonstrate facts (e.g., documents, objects, witness testimonies).
Proof = the result, consequence, or effect brought about by the evidence (i.e., the demonstrated truth or persuasion in the mind of the judge)."
Thus, it seems crystal clear that I've again proven my case to be proved with objective evidence. I have a far better grasp of the difference between evidence and proof than you do (which is to say, you don't know shit) The question now is, will you embrace grace and humble yourself before the truth? I won't be holding my breath.
Apologies...I sought to present the last bit more clearly, but couldn't figure out how I could paste it without it bunching up as it has. Hopefully you have at least enough smarts to figure it out.
January 14, 2026 at 5:22 PM
"Marshal, missing the point entirely, said:"
"None of these things were on the table. You put them there when the evidence I provided was too compelling in pushing you toward accepting these things as being true and factual. Your initial challenge to prove that the author intended for Genesis to be taken as actual history has been met"
Clearly I didn't miss any point at all.
"The question of whether or not
Genesis represents a literal creation story AS written - six literal days, a literal Adam made from dust, a literal Eve created from a rib, literal "sin nature" being literally introduced into human nature via a literal "Adam and Eve's" literal "original sin" - is an important question."
Not for our purposes here. It's an entirely separate discussion in which I've not agreed to engage due to your failure to satisfactorily respond to previous challenges to you. Indeed, you put forth these questions to avoid doing responding.
"It can not, of course, be objectively proven - ANY of it. But do you recognize that? THAT has been a important question addressing many of your human theories."
Irrelevant and not required for most any of our debates. This is just your standard operation procedure, to demand a level of proof without which you can carry on with your heresies and perversions. I won't play that game. You're required to provide evidence for you positions, not reject all evidence presented by us to support ours and thus pretend the game is won. This blog isn't the one-way street life your Blog of Lies and Perversions is. You don't get to continually make demands for more and more evidence as if you're honestly going to accept any of it as sufficient, nor do you get to change the subject when the mountain of evidence is too much for you to avoid conceding to it.
"Also, much less important, but still relevant, the question of whether Moses literally recorded in some manner Genesis IS a reasonable question that has been on the table since you introduced that theory."
I didn't introduce this "question". I did no more that state that I believe he did write all of the Torah. I did so with no intent to debate the issue. You simply saw it as another means by which you can side-step providing a satisfactory answer to questions I raised in the post itself and in the early stages of your tangential actions.
"There have ALWAYS been two components of questions being asked:
Did the authors INTEND for Genesis to be considered literal history?
AND
Can you objectively prove that?"
You began with the first question and rejected all evidence I provided which supports my answer. But again, the primary question is stupid, as no honest person would wonder about the intentions of the writer of history that his work should be taken as presented...which in the case of the first two Chapters of Genesis is a record of Creation.
"AND
Whatever in the name of all that is holy the "authors intended," IS IT objectively provable that these inane, insane, inept human theories of
A literal Adam/Eve
A literal six day creation
A literal "sin nature" being "introduced" into humanity through a literal "Adam's" first "sin
... are ANY of these objectively provable?"
And here, in your typical grace embracing way, you've again provided even more evidence of your true disdain for Scripture. There's nothing in Scripture you don't like upon which you won't crap if it conflicts with your heresies and perversions.
"Those questions are, rationally, logically, obviously on the table and have always been."
Not in THIS discussion they haven't.
"THESE questions are vital to address if you want to make an adult level case for your ridiculous, awful, ugly, hateful human theories."
More grace embracing. But your questions are vital to a discussion where they're irrelevant. The post isn't about any of it. The subsequent discussion isn't either no matter how badly you're trying to make it so.
And there's nothing whatsoever "ridiculous, awful, ugly, hateful" about my positions, the truth of Scripture (which informs my positions), nor is there anything mature and "Christian" in you so describing them that way.
"IF you want to make some of these nonsense cases for these nonsense literal human theories, THEN, son, you MUST be prepared to answer these rational, reasonable questions IF you want your human theories to be taken seriously.
Grow up, little man."
More grace embracing condescension from a fake Christian who has no standing to posture in such a manner. Honest people of character already take me seriously. I won't lose any sleep because heretics like you find it hard to take Scripture seriously. You don't answer questions. You haven't provided answers for questions here. You've yet to provide a rational, fact-based case for SSM, for your wild ass claim that Lev 18:22 refers only to "some forms" of your favorite perversion. Don't you dare condescend to me or anyone here.
January 14, 2026 at 5:36 PM
"Don't be daft. Don't be childish or an immature, irrational "reasoner.""
I'm not. YOU'RE Dan Trabue, the lying heretic and pervert, not me!
"MOSES WAS NOT ALIVE AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN GENESIS.
THAT IS A COMPELLING REASON."
No it's not, unless your claim that you believe in God truly is the bullshit claim we all know it is. Those of us who actually believe in Him know nothing is impossible for Him, including inspiring Moses to write the entirety of the Torah. He was educated. There was an alphabet at the time. He had the time to write it, especially guided by God Himself Who commiserated with Moses regularly. Oh wait...we can't believe THAT just because it says so in the Bible!!! WE CAN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING WHICH COMES FROM THAT BIBLE!!! DAN TRABUE SAYS SO!!
"MOSES NEVER CLAIMED TO WRITE GENESIS!"
If only he knew Dan Trabue demanded that he must if he did!
"NO ONE ELSE IN THE BIBLICAL TEXTS CLAIMED THAT MOSES WROTE GENESIS."
But there is evidence from Scripture, such as Mark 12:26, which refers to Exodus 3:6. If God told Moses about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, what makes you think He couldn't have told him about Adam and Eve, Noah and everyone else who appears in Genesis, including lineages, the Creation event and everything else? Oh yeah...that's right... one can't cite Scripture without "objective proof" of it being fact. That is, unless it concerns "the poor and the marginalized". Then, no evidence or proof is needed.
"THESE ARE COMPELLING REASONS."
For what? I'm losing track of your convoluted tangents.
"Seriously. Don't be a moron, son. You're embarrassing yourself."
Seriously, go pound sand up your ass. Just move your head over a bit and squeeze as much sand as you can up there, you arrogant asshole.
"As to your sources, a quick look-through involves quoting biblical texts where it says something like "Moses recorded the rules God gave Israel..." but NOTHING objectively pointing to Moses recording the Genesis stories."
"A quick look-through"??? I'm pretty sure I encouraged you to study those links like an actual man seeking truth and you deigned to give it "a quick look-through"????? So you have no idea at all about the evidence and arguments for anything, do you? You simply swallow the gruel of secular humanists as regards Scripture and feel satiated. Where's the maturity, the "good faith", the "grace" in so cavalierly dismissing that which you fucking demand??
"Am I missing something?"
Quite a bit aside from the boat.
(HINT: it doesn't exist. Feel free to prove me wrong with data.)
there is evidence from Scripture, such as Mark 12:26, which refers to Exodus 3:6. If God told Moses about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, what makes you think He couldn't have told him about Adam and Eve
Mark 12: "Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
Exodus 3: "Then he said, “I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Again, Marshal: "what makes you think He couldn't have told him about Adam and Eve"
God COULD have done that. Of course, God could. That isn't the question, is it?
God COULD also have helped Moses invent a time machine and a time recording device that would allow them to travel back to before nothing, hit the Time Recorder (TM) and recorded everything that was literally, factually happening.
And God COULD have told Moses, "but just between you and me, I want you to delete all the parts about the aliens arriving and building the pyramids. Also, delete the Bigfoot parts..."
God COULD have done a lot of things, being God and all.
But DID God do that? THAT is the question. And what we OBJECTIVELY, OBSERVABLY KNOW is that the text does NOT say that God did ANY of that. AND, even if God did literally say any or all of that, was God joking? Did Moses understand it correctly (he, being a fallible human being who may not understand God's divine humor)?
We won't know until God finally gets around to publishing Their Book, "God's Divine Humor" (TM 2027??)
THIS is what your sources and you are missing. You all just keep making guesses, "But maybe THEN, God told Moses to write Genesis..." and those are fine guesses if you want to make guesses, but that's all they are.
And that other humans don't bow down to your guesses and affirm they MUST be facts, well, that just means that maybe we DO get God's Divine Humor.
I'm done. You just aren't speaking from a reasonable adult position and I can not help you on that any further.
Thanks for reinforcing my earlier point. That Dan demands a standard of proof which is beyond the standard of proof in virtually any other aspect of life.
Craig,
That's because it's not about "proof", since there's no quantity or quality of "proof" Dan will ever accept, if he considers it at all...which he never does. One can be assured he doesn't by how poorly and dishonestly he responds to it, his main response being, "that's not 'OBJECTIVE' proof", rather than an actual argument why the evidence fails or is insufficient to alter his position, or...and this is equally egregious...without providing more compelling evidence of his own.
January 15, 2026 at 8:41 AM
"God COULD have done that. Of course, God could. That isn't the question, is it?
But DID God do that? THAT is the question."
No. That's not the question at all. The question is on what basis is there any reason to question the notion that Moses could have written Genesis given he relates in Exodus his close relationship with the Almighty? Did He? Don't know. I wasn't there. But if Moses and the Almighty were as tight as depicted in Exodus, it's pretty absurd to suppose anything else. No alternative explanation as to who authored the Torah...including Genesis...is more speculative, and without basis, as are those which reject the notion that it was Moses.
And you in particular have nothing but your refusal to count all evidence I've provided as a preponderance of evidence sufficient to accept the position you reject without any basis until an actual counter argument can be presented, rife with evidence to the contrary.
And to ask the truly and desperately inane questions of whether or not God might have been joking or that He could inform Moses in a manner which wouldn't have been perfectly understood by him is cheap and childish stubbornness. More than that, it is not in any way mature "good faith" argumentation.
"We won't know until God finally gets around to publishing Their Book, "God's Divine Humor""
This God-hating tripe suggests we need to know to the degree you demand we must in order to accept Scripture as reliable in it's teachings, including about how all things were created. It fails to convince anyone that your purpose isn't simply to give you space to promote your heresies and perversions. So long as you can say, "you can't prove that" (regardless of how much evidence supporting the conclusion you don't like is provided you), you can carry on being a baby-murdering homosexual and still pretend you're "Christian".
"THIS is what your sources and you are missing. You all just keep making guesses..."
What you're missing...besides the boat...is that we're arriving at the most logical conclusions to which the body of available evidence points. YOU ignore the evidence because it confounds your heretical and perverse narratives.
"And that other humans don't bow down to your guesses and affirm they MUST be facts..."
We don't worry about those like you who reject truth in favor of lies and self-serving drivel.
"You just aren't speaking from a reasonable adult position and I can not help you on that any further."
By which you mean, "I can't make Art believe what I want him to believe and I can't figure out how to make my shit not stink, so I quit."
I saw your white flag flying long ago.
Of course it isn't. Dan accepts "global warming based on the alleged "scientific consensus", he accepted the narrative about COVID with less "objective" proof, he (and all of us) accept ancient history without "objective" proof, and on it goes. As noted we don't demand "objective" proof to convict of a crime, and even less in civil litigation.
The demand for "objective proof" is becoming more and more obviously an excuse to prevent an actual look at the evidence/DATA that does exist. I suspect that this is why Dan avoids actual discussion of Origins. Because he knows that he doesn't have an answer for the DATA, and because it's easier to make fun of 6 day/6000 year "creationists". He's good at substituting ridicule for discussion of the DATA, because he's fundamentally too lazy to do anything else.
I'm especially enamored with his typical sign off, "I don't know how to help you", which clearly indicates he couldn't possibly be wrong regardless of his having brought no evidence to support his case or to refute ours.
Dan, you are a retard. You can't even figure out if you are a man or a women. What do you even do?
While it's quite clear Dan is intellectually deficient as well as morally bankrupt, some people have a real problem with that word in this context. I'd appreciate that you not use it. Overall, I also prefer visitors not to post just to indulge in name-calling. If you can explain...seriously...why a label is appropriate, that's one thing. Drive-by insults I don't need. Thanks.
I'm curious exactly what actual evidence there is that we demand that "other humans bow down to our guesses and affirm that they must be facts.".
I have never done so, to the best of my knowledge, and I don't believe that any of the rest of us have either. We might be emphatic about our conviction that something might be fact or True, but we would never demand that people must accept fact/Truth as fact/Truth. I've argued for years that fact/Truth exist regardless of how we relate to facts/Truth or what we believe to be factual/True.
Strangely enough, when it comes to things like the "trans" stuff or "global warming" Dan is much more likely to insist that we "bow down" to his narratives than we are about Scripture. He, not we, is the one who keeps insisting that his hunches are "reality" and that we must accept/believe his "reality.
I've always thought that looking at the preponderance or the evidence or the most logical conclusion consistent with the evidence WAS the rational adult position. I'm sure the folks that make up our legal system will be shocked to learn this news.
"I'm curious exactly what actual evidence there is that we demand that "other humans bow down to our guesses and affirm that they must be facts."."
Well, Craig...I think you're a bit confused. As I understand it, only those like you and me are required to provide "objective proof" for claims, while Dan gets to hide behind "that's my opinion" as if one needn't even have "objective proof" to back it up, never mind he somehow isn't obliged to provide any.
One thing missing from this part of the discussion is Jesus regularly referring to OT people and events as if they were people who actually existed and events that actually happened.
If, we agree that Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, and was "In the beginning" and "was with YHWH" and "was YHWH", then surely He would know whether or not He was relating actual accurate information about actual people and events. Further, when Jesus ""Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female..." Jesus would be the only person who could speak to those things as an eyewitness.
This seems especially compelling from someone who claimed to be "The Truth" and who regularly assured His followers that He was telling them the Truth. I find it hard to believe that someone who embodied Truth at the very core of His being, would not be Truthful with His followers.
Good point. Yet, the notion that we demand that people "bow down" is simply incompatible with reality. Especially coming from one who insists that his opinions are "reality".
Post a Comment