I'm certainly not embarrassed by anything I've said. I'm happy that it's up there on the record for anyone to read.

Why would I or anyone else believe the Bible to be true? What an enormous question! Libraries have been filled attempting to answer that question. That is why I was attempting to limit the discussion to just one aspect of that; to the Biblical description of creation and the current observations and evidences in support of that view of our origins.

That wasn't what I asked, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Why would I or anyone else believe the Bible to be true?<<

The questions I posed are as follows, seriatim:

"You believe completely in Genesis, I have to accept that. Do you have the same commitment to Revelations? Or Leviticus?"

"Or perhaps you believe that Genesis was in fact an eye-witness account, written by Adam himself?" [I accept that you may have supposed that one to be a rhetorical question. It wasn't]

"Given that you are committed to the concept that Genesis is the last word on the creation of the universe, are you equally committed to the description of its demise in Revelations?"

"And give[n] that you might be committed to both, where do you stand on Leviticus?"

"I'm still keen to hear, by the way, on what basis you find the Book of Genesis so persuasive. It would be helpful, as I said before, if you could reassure us that you hold Revelations and Leviticus in equally high regard."

"Are you equally as convinced by [the instructions in Leviticus], as you are by the history in Genesis, and the visions of Revelations?"

As you can see - courtesy of my ability to cut'n'paste, rather than ask you to find the quotes yourself - the words "true" and "truth" appear nowhere. Fact is, I don't give a fig whether or not they represent a "truth" of some kind - or any kind, for that matter - only what it is in them that you find so persuasive.

>>What an enormous question! Libraries have been filled attempting to answer that question.<<

Not the question I asked, they haven't. The kind of response I am looking for from you should not even exhaust the allocated 350 words. Five sentences should do it. Six, max.

Your reply may well shed some light on the approach taken by "Answers", which is presently something of a mystery.

I appreciate the examples, Dan S de Merengue. Has anyone ever tried claiming Popper's repudiation of induction is not historical because it is unfalsifiable, I wonder?

But I'm not the one claiming that Genesis is an historical statement… even in my days as a church elder I would only have claimed it was Mystic at worst and allegorical at best.

A consequence of my family's dour Bible Christian Church branch of Methodism, no doubt. That, or their having originated in Cornwall.

But my intent was (and historically still is) to contrast lines of reasoning which allow for the possibility the conclusion is false, with those of young earth creationists whose methods and lines of reasoning do not.

"Yet you do now suggest that Genesis is not clear. What part of Genesis would you say is not clear?"

The short response is, all the bits of it that require 'The Creation Answers Book'.

"As for saying that I regard Genesis as evidence, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting we should somehow investigate Biblical creation without making any reference to Genesis (even for the sake of argument)?"

What I was suggesting was that we should (even for the sake of argument) investigate creation without making any reference to Genesis and see if there's any corroboration of the biblical version.

This would be consistent with your statement: "That is why I was attempting to limit the discussion to just one aspect of that; to the Biblical description of creation and the current observations and evidences in support of that view of our origins."

If that isn't also the view you hold, let us know.

I believe it's true to say we are still waiting for "the current observations and evidences in support of that view".

WmTrevor,
I'm having difficulty following you. Surely you would need to refer to Genesis to see if your investigation of creation corroborates with Genesis?

Pericles,
I can try and answer some of your questions as they relate to the theme of the Creation Answers Book.

Am I committed to the books of Revelation and Leviticus? I said above that it is standard Christian belief that they form part of the canon of Scripture. I accept the standard Christian beliefs. But I don't see how these books closely relate to the biblical accounts of creation. I'm no expert on Levitical law. I don't know what you mean by the 'demise' in Revelation. Yet these books each serve their individual purposes within the wider scope of Christian teaching. But it is Genesis that gives the historical background for understanding the beginnings of the universe, the human race, the concept of sin, the origins of language, the origins of the nations, the origin and purpose of Israel, and much else besides. It's a foundational book, necessary for understanding and incorporating much Christian doctrine.

So why do I find Genesis so persuasive? I think it was C S Lewis who said something like he appreciates the sun, not because he understands its light, but because its light helps him to understand everything else. Likewise, I appreciate Genesis for the understanding it gives. It gives a clear account of our history [I still don't follow why WmTrevor says otherwise.] I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would challenge its historicity.

Adam could not have been an eye witness to chapter 1. But there is sometimes discussion suggesting certain patriarchs such as Adam or Noah and others did write some records which were then included by the author/compiler of Genesis.

That is quite illuminating, Dan S de Merengue.

>>... it is standard Christian belief that they form part of the canon of Scripture. I accept the standard Christian beliefs. But I don't see how these books closely relate to the biblical accounts of creation.<<

They don't, of course. They are different books, explaining different aspects. Creation: Genesis. Endtimes: Revelation. Lifestyle rules: Leviticus. But as you say, they each form part of a whole.

In reality, I cannot see that you conduct your daily life along the lines recommended by Leviticus. Which confirms my assessment that you are quite happy to be selective in your choice of what parts of the Bible to believe, accept, follow, question or reject. Not an unusual state of mind amongst Christians, to be fair, and one that their intellect must wrestle with every time they catch themselves indulging in it.

But that still doesn't take us to the next step. What is it that encourages you to believe implicitly in the Creation story that you find in Genesis? Very few Christians follow your path, so it cannot simply be "I am a Christian, therefore I believe that Genesis is a factual narrative". I know a number of highly intelligent Christians who simultaneously believe that God made the heavens and the earth, but that he did this thirteen billion years ago. And further, that evolution has occurred, but has been guided by God's superior intelligence.

I am not trying to persuade you away from your beliefs, merely to understand more clearly what mental processes you undertake in order to rationalize your approach.

It has to be more than being wilfully blind:

>>I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would challenge its historicity.<<

Oh, come on, of course you do. In exactly the same way that I am aware of Answers, you are aware of the wealth of geological, cosmological etc. evidence that has accumulated over hundreds of years.

Your commitment to young-earth creationism might be a reason to disbelieve their findings, but not to deny the existence of "facts or evidences".

"WmTrevor, I'm having difficulty following you."

I should have been more explicit, Dan S de Meregue... my family missionary forebears - the Bible Christian Church Methodists - were a dour lot because of their faith OR they were dour because they were born in Cornwall.

[But don't worry. Because I have moved on from their beliefs, I feel no need to charge you with heresy]

If it was related to this, though: "Surely you would need to refer to Genesis to see if your investigation of creation corroborates with Genesis?"

Then you've got the idea... except that the emphasis is firstly all the investigation (except for all religious texts) and lastly the comparison of your results with, in your case, Genesis.

For my part, I don't follow your reasons for saying, "I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would challenge its historicity."

'Historicity' meaning the actuality of persons and events? Or do you extend the meaning to include historical narrative and myth? Or meaning the existance of the text itself?

If the former, then I'll clearly state (to save redirecting you to the last sentence of my post, above) that I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would corroborate its historicity.