Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Is the 'blood of Zechariah' a historical reality? In other words, was there a High Priest/Prophet named Zechariah who was slain just as Jesus had described in Luke 11:51?
Tell me this - was the "beginning of creation" the first day or the sixth?
It involves all the first six days of creation. Why equivocate about such a thing?
The writers of the New Testament also taught that the Genesis creation was literal.
2 Corinth. 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
1Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
These words have no meaning unless Adam and Eve were created as Moses said they were and did the things that Genesis records that they did. There is no evolution in the Bible.
The writers of the New Testament also taught that the Genesis creation was literal.
How does citing the Genesis creation account make it historical?
If I cited one of Jesus' parables, would that suddenly make it historical?
Not sure I understand your reasoning here.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Yes. Your question supposes that evolutionary creationists are the only ones who don't read Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. We aren't. NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. So your question should be directed, not at evolutionary creationists specifically, but at Christians as a whole (including yourself!).
Where do you draw the line between scientific concordism and accommodationism in Genesis, ToxicReboMan? Many evolutionary creationists I know would argue that Genesis 1-11 should be understood in the context of an accommodationist framework, with history phased in throughout.
"NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account."
Jesus did: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. " Mark 10:6
Where did Jesus hint anywhere that Genesis was to be take in any other sense than the literal/historical one? He made it clear that Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel, and Noah were real people and that the creation and flood were to be understood in the most literal sense and never hinted otherwise.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6
"...from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Matthew 23:35.
"They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:27.
It is the Word of God we should believe and not shallow theistic evolutionist opinions to the contrary.
Is the 'blood of Zechariah' a historical reality? In other words, was there a High Priest/Prophet named Zechariah who was slain just as Jesus had described in Luke 11:51?
Of course there was because Jesus said so. End of line; at least for believers who take Jesus words seriously. Theistic evolutionists DON'T take Jesus words seriously, they equivocate on Genesis and especially what Jesus said about Genesis in order to escape the meaning of the plain text of scripture. Such people are embarrassed at the thought of a literal six day creation because they feel so intimidated at the 'overwhelming evidence' of evolution. Such a position is not justified however, either by the evidence or by the demands of the plain text of God's Word.
The point being made by the poster above is an excellent point. If TE's are correct and Genesis is not literal (chaps 1-11 especially) then why would Christ mention a non-historical figure (Abel) in the same sentence with a historical one (Zechariah)? The Jews certainly thought Zechariah was a historical figure. The position of the TE on such issues is dishonest.
The same is true of Christ's lineage as compared with the chronology that Moses gave us of the antediluvians who are mentioned in Genesis 5. The very same names as found in Genesis are given by Luke in Jesus family tree in Luke 3. Unless that family tree is accurate and correct then what claim could Jesus ever make to being heir to the throne of David?
NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account.
Jesus did: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. " Mark 10:6
Where did Jesus hint anywhere that Genesis was to be take in any other sense than the literal/historical one? He made it clear that Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel, and Noah were real people and that the creation and flood were to be understood in the most literal sense and never hinted otherwise.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6
"...from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Matthew 23:35.
"They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:27.
It is the Word of God we should believe and not shallow theistic evolutionist opinions to the contrary.
How do you think Jesus interpreted Genesis 3:15?
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
No wonder Jesus was sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane.
"Um, God, I was supposed to get my heel bruised, right? That was supposed to be it! What's this cross business?"
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
It is the Word of God we should believe and not shallow theistic evolutionist opinions to the contrary.
It's funny you should call the accommodationist hermeneutic "shallow" while insisting on a superficial understanding of the text.
Again, simply citing a story doesn't make it historical. People cite Aesop's fables all the time, but that doesn't mean that a talking ant and grasshopper ever existed. Could've sworn I made this point here before.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Linear Mode
