Any Hypothesis or Experiment Ideas to test for Creationism

[Lantern Keirebu]

Shall we use the fallible science of man to prove GOD? What a maroon! Even the bible says we cannot trust the science of man (1TIM6:20), and science's track record clearly shows it cannot be trusted in the long run. Here is as simple as it gets: if you believe GOD, you believe HIS WORD by faith; however, if you doubt HIS WORD, you must turn to science for proof (which will never happen).

What does faith mean? There were plenty of german people who trusted Hitler's words by faith. That's why the Bible says to give a reason for your faith. What seperates God's word, from every other religion out there? Are we to accept every word that comes to us by faith? That is not faith, it's blind faith. Because faith simply means trust.

No, we don't understand everything that God says at the moment, but we need reason as to why we trust Him anyway. So we look at God's track record, and that's history. If certain events happened as the Bible mentions them, then they would have left evidence, an aftermath. That evidence would be one reason for why we have faith in God's words.

OK, it sounds like you have an interpretation of Genesis that you hope to compare to the data. Go for it.

Thanks. Most people shoot my thoughts down before I even have a chance to see them through. If inventors and even scientists listened to everyone who shot their ideas down, then things like the computer for instance would have never come about, and we wouldn't be having these wonderful conversations. I could be totally wrong concerning this thing here, but I like to think in my personal journey here, even if I'm wrong, that I will stumble across something unique by chance.

Cool. If it is truly as groundbreaking as it sounds, then it could be a major advancement. If so, then it's worth much more than a few blokes talking about on a chat board, but should be expanded upon and investigated. Perhaps one place to start to do that would be discuss it with the Christian experts at Biologos? Here is the link.

After all, if that idea does shed light on the origins discussion, it could help bring thousands to Christ, helping to offset or prevent the thousands who leave Christianity every year due to creationism.

Thanks again for your encouragement.

Except that the Good Samaritan, and other stories, show that the NT does not neccessarily present Genesis as historical. You may have been told one thing or another, but if you read the NT yourself, you'll see that an historical view is not required.

I grew up in a Christian home, and grew up around church as most people have. Yet I'm pretty much self taught concerning these things I mention here. If Jesus simply wanted to restore a lost connection with God, as far as communication and conversation, I would agree Genesis doesn't need to be historical. However, Jesus came to restore everything about us, including our bodies. The Bible talks about God judging the world with fire, and we know fire is a purifying agent. These things say Genesis had to have been literal history, because how can you restore something that never existed?

It's important to remember that scripture interprets scripture. God's word itself tells us that those geneologies are to be taken figuratively, by showing that they can't all be literally true, because they contradict each other. For instance. Luke and Matthew disagree (if read literally) on who Joeseph's grandfather, great grandfather, etc. were.

Similarly, Mt openly removes names from a geneology he got from Cr, telling us (well, the Holy Spirit telling us) that they are figurative.

You can see this by comparing the same geneology in Mt and Cr:
Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son,
....................................Skipped....................................Ahaziah his son,

....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son

7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son

8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son
]
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,

11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son.

There's a study concerning the differing genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Unlike Matthew, Luke states Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph. There is punctuation marks there that suggests this is an added statement bearing no direct meaning on the overall verses. So people have argued this genealogy is actually Mary's and not Joseph's. It has some ground to suggest this. For one, the beginning of Luke seems to almost be from Mary's point of view. So it's possible that Mary (or statements from Mary) was a source for Luke. If that's the case, the genealogy could have come from Mary as well, mentioning Joseph as an additional statement.


As for the skip in Matthew's genealogy, I don't think it would have great bearing as to some of those mentioned being figurative. Matthew states something about 14 generations three times concerning the genealogy. So that's probably why he skipped some people, but I never knew the significance he wanted to show with the 14 generations thing. Yet concerning the NT overall, I still see great reason for why it presents Genesis as history.

Paul explicitly says that Adam is a figure of something else. Again, it sounds like you are repeating what you've been told, not reading for yourself.

If that is the case, then Sarah and Hagar, along with their sons, are also to be taken figurative. Paul used them as types of the Law and God's grace. Hagar was a version of the Law, and Sarah represent God's grace. If these women and their children are figurative, it's not a stretch to say Abraham was figurative as well. If Abraham was figurative, he's pretty much the patriarch of the people of Israel. Making it safe to assume the people just created these stories from oral tradition, and this made up stuff is the basis of Christianity. This is foundational stuff.

So Paul used Adam as a type of Christ, that doesn't mean Adam wasn't a literal person. If we are to assume that, again from Abraham all the way down to Moses, could be seen in the same light.

But we see around us (and inside ourselves) that Christianity does indeed still exist. Since that evidence has shown for a long time that the three events you are referring to didn't actually happen as described by a literal reading of scripture, then you are claiming that Christianity already must have vanished - and it hasn't.

Papias
​

It hasn't vanished, but it definitely compromised a great deal.

 

[Papias]

Lantern wrote:

Except that the Good Samaritan, and other stories, show that the NT does not neccessarily present Genesis as historical.

Jesus came to restore everything about us, including our bodies. ... These things say Genesis had to have been literal history, because how can you restore something that never existed?

Because in our evolutionary history, before we chose to rebel against God, we, as animals, did not know good from evil and so did not sin. Our freedom from sin is being restored.

​

​

There's a study concerning the differing genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Unlike Matthew, Luke states Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph. There is punctuation marks there that suggests this is an added statement bearing no direct meaning on the overall verses. So people have argued this genealogy is actually Mary's and not Joseph's.

Well, that's not the one I listed - but even that case, that argument requires one to ignore the actual scripture - which literally says that the geneology is of Joseph.

It has some ground to suggest this. For one, the beginning of Luke seems to almost be from Mary's point of view. So it's possible that Mary (or statements from Mary) was a source for Luke. If that's the case, the genealogy could have come from Mary as well, mentioning Joseph as an additional statement.

Except again, the scripture plainly states that the geneology of of Joseph, not Mary. Mary is mentioned in the Gospel, yes, but it doesn't appear to be "from Mary's view."

As for the skip in Matthew's genealogy, I don't think it would have great bearing as to some of those mentioned being figurative.

Sure it does. If it is a literal genealogy, then Mt (the Holy Spirit) lied by taking names out of a literal genealogy.

Matthew states something about 14 generations three times concerning the genealogy. So that's probably why he skipped some people,

Sure, that's why he skipped people - because he (well, the Holy Spirit) knew it was a figurative genealogy, and so taking names out doesn't misrepresent anything. If, on the other hand, it was a literal genealogy, then doing so is lying.

but I never knew the significance he wanted to show with the 14 generations thing.

Because, just as in Genesis, 7 is a holy number (6=men, 7=god), and 14/2=7. Numbers of often used symbolically in the Gospels (many examples, like 12 disciples. 12 disciples (are men, 12/2=6) + 1 (Jesus) is God, etc.). Numbers are also used symbolically elsewhere, like in Genesis, Revelation, etc.

Yet concerning the NT overall, I still see great reason for why it presents Genesis as history.

Like the Good Samaritan? The Good Samaritan shows that the Gospels often just tell a story or refer to a story, while the story itself is not history, it tells a deeper truth of God.

If that is the case, then Sarah and Hagar, along with their sons, are also to be taken figurative.

Sure, they could be figurative (or not). Paul's use of these people as figures shows that they are being mentioned figuratively, to prove a point. They may or may not have actually existed - that's not the point.

So Paul used Adam as a type of Christ, that doesn't mean Adam wasn't a literal person. If we are to assume that, again from Abraham all the way down to Moses, could be seen in the same light.

Sure it could. The Conservative Jews have even agreed that a lot of this OT stuff didn't actually happen. Are you aware of their view of their own scripture? Here is a an article that is relevant:

New Torah For Modern Minds - New York Times

Making it safe to assume the people just created these stories from oral tradition, and this made up stuff is the basis of Christianity. This is foundational stuff.

No, the basis of any real faith, of Christianity, is your relationship with the Living God, Jesus Christ.

All of those stories are there to show God's message - and just like the Good Samaritan, that's true regardless of whether or not they actually happened.

It hasn't vanished, but it definitely compromised a great deal.

What's wrong and right with Christianity today is probably better as a topic for a whole thread. If I were to suggest things to fix, one would be treating a literal reading of scripture as a god in itself (Bibolatry - setting a human interpretation up as a god and worshipping it, instead of worshipping God).

Be blessed today-

Papias

 

[Calminian]

You should find these presentations very interesting and should provide you some with the answers that you seek.

Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV

I've been watching these videos you linked. Never heard of Walter J. Veith before. I like the way he presents. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Coelo]

Hey everyone. What I want to discuss in this topic are hypothesis for the literal reading of Genesis.

I believe in a literal reading of Genesis. Most pastors can tell you the meaning of every little detail that we read about in the Temple. Yet they still have trouble to explain Genesis. Moses writes in Shadows and Types where one represents the other. It is the same with Adam and Eve. Even though the story is literal and they are real people. Still there is a lesson for us to learn about the history of the earth going back a lot further than 6,000 years. Someday when we get to Heaven I look forward to Moses himself showing up and explaining to us how all of this works. How nice that will be to take classes and learn the deeper meaning of the Bible from the people that actually wrote the Bible.

 

[Coelo]

what is a "literal" reading of Genesis?

A literal meaning means a literal 24 hour day. We know that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. There is no mention of an eighth day. So we know that Adam's day was less then 1,000 years. God prepared the earth and the garden in Eden for Adam and Eve. One word used is "set" like God would set a watch. What science calls the ecosystem was all made perfect for the work God was doing in the Garden. So perhaps when we read about the day God made them, this is a reference to the day when God's work was perfected or made perfect or when His work was finished. At one time people had no problem to believe a day in Genesis was a literal 24 hour day. Now this is very difficult for people to understand and accept.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

Well, that's not the one I listed - but even that case, that argument requires one to ignore the actual scripture - which literally says that the geneology is of Joseph.

When we examine the text, again the mention of Joseph is an additional statement. Some translations even have the mention of Joseph in parentheses. So if an additional statement, you can take it out, and the overall message is not lost. What it's really saying is Jesus, son of Heli, son of etc....

It makes total sense then to say if it's not Joseph's line, it's Mary's. For one, I mentioned Luke having some of the most inner thoughts of Mary in those first couple of chapters. Two, Joseph most likely would have married someone within his own tribe, making Mary of the tribe of Judah. Lastly, Jesus had to have direct descendency from David. Which would mean Mary would have descended from David as well. So it would make great sense for that geneaology to be Mary's.

Except again, the scripture plainly states that the geneology of of Joseph, not Mary. Mary is mentioned in the Gospel, yes, but it doesn't appear to be "from Mary's view."

Unless Luke was putting a great deal of words in Mary's mouth, and thoughts into Mary's head, some of the first parts of Luke is definitely from Mary's view. Then once you consider all the rest of the things I mentioned, it makes sense for this geneaology to be Mary's. Why doesn't Luke mention Mary if that is the case? Well, it could be he only wanted to list the men in this geneaology. If he did mention Mary, she would have been the only woman. So he could have used Joseph as a substitute for Mary. Someone help me out, is Luke the only Gospel that mentions John being a relative to Jesus? If so, Luke had a great deal of knowledge concerning Mary's family. Perhaps more credence to say that geneaology is Mary's.

Sure it does. If it is a literal genealogy, then Mt (the Holy Spirit) lied by taking names out of a literal genealogy.

I don't know what to say concerning this, but ultimately I don't think it matters. Let's say 1 Chronicles is dealing with a literal line of descent, they still list Adam in that geneaology as well. So just because Matthew skipped a couple of people, that in itself doesn't say the geneaology is meant to be taken figuratively.

Interesting enough however, if you add in the ones Matthew skipped, it comes out to be 42 generations not counting Jesus. So even if Matthew skipped over those three names, he still includes them overall when he mentions the three 14 generations.

Because, just as in Genesis, 7 is a holy number (6=men, 7=god), and 14/2=7. Numbers of often used symbolically in the Gospels (many examples, like 12 disciples. 12 disciples (are men, 12/2=6) + 1 (Jesus) is God, etc.). Numbers are also used symbolically elsewhere, like in Genesis, Revelation, etc.

I definitely agree about numbers having meaning. I do want to point out that I believe the mentioning of the 12 disciples were more so from the twelve tribes of Israel perspective. Jesus said they will rule over the twelve tribes later on as a reward, I'm guessing during the 1,000 year reign.

Like the Good Samaritan? The Good Samaritan shows that the Gospels often just tell a story or refer to a story, while the story itself is not history, it tells a deeper truth of God.

Yes, but Genesis was not one of Jesus' parables. Besides, why say Adam and Eve are stories telling a deeper truth of God, and not Abraham for instance? Or Moses? If it's a matter of evidence in determining whether the Bible is referring to a story or history, there is currently no evidence to suggest anything concerning the patriarchs.

Sure, they could be figurative (or not). Paul's use of these people as figures shows that they are being mentioned figuratively, to prove a point. They may or may not have actually existed - that's not the point.

Yet that is the point. If they never existed, they are just made up stories. Christianity is based off made up stories. How can we then defend Christianity? Most likely Christianity would also be made up. Even if all those things were made up, and Jesus still turned out to be true concerning who He is, nobody will know what God is about. He would have created the world as scientists tells us concerning it's history. Meaning He saw death and disease as a very good thing. How could we depend on God for health if that's the case?

Sure it could. The Conservative Jews have even agreed that a lot of this OT stuff didn't actually happen. Are you aware of their view of their own scripture? Here is a an article that is relevant:
[/qoute]


This is the thing, if the Tanakh/Bible is just a human work, why continue to say God is involved here? Why continue to uphold the Law (if you're Jewish), or continue to be a Christian. If all these things are just stories, why continue in it? You can find moral truths all over the place, in many writings. I wouldn't even have a problem in someone just continuing to abide by the teachings of the Bible. Yet to say God is involved here, if you still believe God exists, isn't reasonable.

No, the basis of any real faith, of Christianity, is your relationship with the Living God, Jesus Christ.

Yes, but how can you grow in your relationship with God, if you don't really know what He wants? If what scientists say is true, He created the world as we see it today, yet He sees a problem with it. He sent Jesus to save us, and not just our spirit, but He came to save our body as well. (That by His stripes, we are healed. Being healed doesn't make sense if God created sickness and saw it as very good) There is a mass contradiction. Yet anyway, we are taught to have a reason for anyone who asked about our faith. This reason must be solid, not one with holes. I don't expect the world to understand me, but the world shouldn't be able to make me look foolish, like I'm believing something just because I was taught it or to have fire insurance.

 

[ChetSinger]

It makes total sense then to say if it's not Joseph's line, it's Mary's. For one, I mentioned Luke having some of the most inner thoughts of Mary in those first couple of chapters. Two, Joseph most likely would have married someone within his own tribe, making Mary of the tribe of Judah. Lastly, Jesus had to have direct descendency from David. Which would mean Mary would have descended from David as well. So it would make great sense for that geneaology to be Mary's.

Unless Luke was putting a great deal of words in Mary's mouth, and thoughts into Mary's head, some of the first parts of Luke is definitely from Mary's view. Then once you consider all the rest of the things I mentioned, it makes sense for this geneaology to be Mary's. Why doesn't Luke mention Mary if that is the case? Well, it could be he only wanted to list the men in this geneaology. If he did mention Mary, she would have been the only woman. So he could have used Joseph as a substitute for Mary. Someone help me out, is Luke the only Gospel that mentions John being a relative to Jesus? If so, Luke had a great deal of knowledge concerning Mary's family. Perhaps more credence to say that geneaology is Mary's.

Hello!

Another possibility involves the laws of inheritance of sonless marriages. If Mary had no brothers, Heli would've looked to adopt a son-in-law to continue his line.

From J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)

The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah: Problems in the Genealogies of Jesus

 

[Calminian]

I believe in a literal reading of Genesis. Most pastors can tell you the meaning of every little detail that we read about in the Temple. Yet they still have trouble to explain Genesis. Moses writes in Shadows and Types where one represents the other. It is the same with Adam and Eve. Even though the story is literal and they are real people. Still there is a lesson for us to learn about the history of the earth going back a lot further than 6,000 years. Someday when we get to Heaven I look forward to Moses himself showing up and explaining to us how all of this works. How nice that will be to take classes and learn the deeper meaning of the Bible from the people that actually wrote the Bible.

I suppose you could wait until you get to heaven to believe scripture, but why not believe it now? Yes, most pastors have all kinds of problems believing the word. Some don't believe in a literal Satan. Some don't believe in a literal Hell. Some don't believe scripture is inerrant. Some doubt the virgin birth.

But why not just reap the blessing now, and trust what God says in Genesis? The record is very clear and concise, as is Moses' commentary on the creation account.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, ........

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. ​

You'll notice the comparison between the six day creation and our current work week.

Also, the 6,000 years per se is not the main issue, it's just something that must co-exist with the main issue. The real big question is, where did suffering and death and imperfection come from? Did it come through Adam or through something else before him? Genesis 1:31 of course has to be taken into consideration also. When everything is looked at carefully, there's really no other way to look at the creation account. It says what it says. It's clear and concise. Nothing left to do but believe it, even if it is a direct challenge to modern science.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

Hello!

Another possibility involves the laws of inheritance of sonless marriages. If Mary had no brothers, Heli would've looked to adopt a son-in-law to continue his line.

From J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

That's a good point there. All four Gospels I think indicates Mary had a sister, but there's no mention of her having brothers. So this is a possibility.

 

[Assyrian]

God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus was meant to die for this to happen. If you look at Revelation 13:8, it says Jesus was slain "from" the foundation of the world. So from these verses, God's plan wasn't for Jesus to die necessarily, but for us to be in Him or to be one with Him. There's a lot to discuss here, but it's certain that God had a plan for Adam and Eve. Their mishap delayed that plan for a bit, and that's why Jesus came to die. Before hand, we were going to become one with God through obedience. Perhaps by eating from the Tree of Life.

Not sure you can distinguish 'from the foundation of the world' and 'before the foundation of the world' they seem too idiomatic, too much the stylistic preference of the writer, to attempt to read a distinction between them. To be chosen before the foundation of the world is to be chosen out of. It was choosing who would be saved by the death of Christ out of all of the sinful human race. Now I am not a Calvinist and I believe from Romans 8 that this choice is based on the foreknowledge of God of who would put their faith in Christ, but Calvinist or Arminian choosing people in Christ before the foundation of the world is choosing who will be in Christ through the cross.

For Paul the cross was God's hidden wisdom decreed before the ages. 1Cor 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

2Tim 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

I think death is death through and through. Falling down dead and your body ceasing it's operation, is a result of death overall. What death truly means is, being cut off from God. Since everything involving life comes from God, death is the only thing outside of God. It doesn't make since for Adam to be in full blown relationship with God, and yet he is diseased ridden and in severe pain. If this is the case, why should we expect to be healthy in Heaven? What if God decided while we are in Heaven or in the perfect age, that He wants us diseased ridden again? It's clear from Scripture those things are opposed to who God is. It's not a stretch to say He originally created the world without death, and it was our free will action that brought the process in.

Why shouldn't God bring to completion a new creation greater that the first? 1Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him" Surely Adam would have been able to image what God planned if it was exactly the same as Eden? Would Adam have been cut off from God if he had died before he sinned? If the sting of death is sin, wouldn't Adam's death have been without any sting or power?

 

[SkyWriting]

Would Adam have been cut off from God if he had died before he sinned?

Adam would never have physically died if not for sin. Adam and God walked in the garden.
God would never have watched Adam fall down and die of a heart attack. In God's presence, there is no death.

If the sting of death is sin, wouldn't Adam's death have been without any sting or power?

The sting of Sin is death. Adam sinned, so he had to surely die as payment.
His fate was sealed on the day he sinned.

 

[Assyrian]

Adam would never have physically died if not for sin. Adam and God walked in the garden.

You are assuming Genesis was talking about physical death. Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." The fact is, Adam didn't die physically the day he ate the fruit, he did however die spiritually.

God would never have watched Adam fall down and die of a heart attack. In God's presence, there is no death.

You are making assumptions about God and what he would or would not have done. Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.

The sting of Sin is death. Adam sinned, so he had to surely die as payment.
His fate was sealed on the day he sinned.

It doesn't say his fate was sealed on the day he ate the fruit, it says he would surely die on that day.

 

[Papias]

Lantern wrote:

Lastly, Jesus had to have direct descendency from David. Which would mean Mary would have descended from David as well.

That's no reason to give Mary's genealogy - by 10 BC, all Jews were descended from David. I'm descended from David. Practically everyone in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe is descended from David. That's like saying that we would have needed to do an autopsy on Jesus to show that he had a liver, or other organs that practically everyone has.

Why doesn't Luke mention Mary if that is the case? Well, it could be he only wanted to list the men in this geneaology.

We can get back to the specific point in a minute (they all are about ignoring the text again, anyway), but first, it struck me that it might be illustrative to compare your interpretation of Gen 1 &2 with that of Luke's genealogy in chap 3.

In the case of Genesis, the text contains many poetic elements and is recognized by most Bible scholars to be likely symbolic for that reason. The majority of clergy do not insist on a literal reading, and there are many other reasons to avoid a literal interpretation.

In the case of Luke, there are no poetic or symbolic elements that are not in Jesus' own words (such as the parables). Bible scholars do not point out much that suggests a non-literal reading.

Now, comparing these two, it seems reasonable to take a non literal reading of Gen 1&2 in places, and a literal reading in Luke 3. However, you are reversing that, insisting on a literal reading of Gen 1 & 2, and insisting on a non-literal reading of Luke 3. It seems ironic.

Originally Posted by Papias

Sure it does. If it is a literal genealogy, then Mt (the Holy Spirit) lied by taking names out of a literal genealogy.
​

I don't know what to say concerning this, but ultimately I don't think it matters. Let's say 1 Chronicles is dealing with a literal line of descent, they still list Adam in that geneaology as well. So just because Matthew skipped a couple of people, that in itself doesn't say the geneaology is meant to be taken figuratively.

Sure it does, because if literal, it means that Mt lied. I'd rather not claim that our Holy Gospel is a lie. The fact that it includes Adam reinforces the idea that Adam's literal life was much longer ago than a literal reading would suggest.

Interesting enough however, if you add in the ones Matthew skipped, it comes out to be 42 generations not counting Jesus. So even if Matthew skipped over those three names, he still includes them overall when he mentions the three 14 generations.

And if you cut out Jesus, then again, you've lost the whole point of the Gospel.

I definitely agree about numbers having meaning. I do want to point out that I believe the mentioning of the 12 disciples were more so from the twelve tribes of Israel perspective. Jesus said they will rule over the twelve tribes later on as a reward, I'm guessing during the 1,000 year reign.

Good. Nice to find a place we agree. Yes, the 12 tribes is also showing the "humanness" of Israel.

Originally Posted by Papias

Like the Good Samaritan? The Good Samaritan shows that the Gospels often just tell a story or refer to a story, while the story itself is not history, it tells a deeper truth of God.

Yes, but Genesis was not one of Jesus' parables.
​

Please read Luke again. You will see that Jesus never says that the Good Samaritan story is a parable. That's not to say that it isn't - but it is to say that just because something isn't explicitly labelled as symbolic speech doesn't mean that it is not. Jesus told us about the Good Samaritan, just as he told about Genesis - without saying first that it was symbolic speech.

Plus, Genesis is indeed "by Jesus"- because our Scripture is the Word of God.

Originally Posted by Papias

Sure, they could be figurative (or not). Paul's use of these people as figures shows that they are being mentioned figuratively, to prove a point. They may or may not have actually existed - that's not the point.

Yet that is the point. If they never existed, they are just made up stories. Christianity is based off made up stories. How can we then defend Christianity? Most likely Christianity would also be made up. Even if all those things were made up, and Jesus still turned out to be true concerning who He is, nobody will know what God is about. He would have created the world as scientists tells us concerning it's history. Meaning He saw death and disease as a very good thing. How could we depend on God for health if that's the case?

....
Why continue to uphold the Law (if you're Jewish), or continue to be a Christian. If all these things are just stories, why continue in it?

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. It's already clear beyond any reasonable doubt that a global flood didn't happen, that life evolved, and it seems more and more clear every day that much of the old testament (like the Exodus) is myth, which never literally happened. If you require those things to be literally historical for you to be Christian, than fine, you can't be Christian without denying reality. For me, I will still find richness and comfort with God, drawing from His word, and finding more to rejoice in with every new discovery from God's creation.

This is the thing, if the Tanakh/Bible is just a human work, why continue to say God is involved here?

It's not "just" a human work - it was written under inspiration from God. That inspiration was spiritual, not historical.

Did you read the article? It mentioned that these Jewish congregations were still quite active, drawing spiritual strength from their growing knowledge of God. They, like myself and millions of others, show that simply realizing a verse is symbolic and not literal is something that can strengthen, and not destroy, faith in God.

Originally Posted by Papias

No, the basis of any real faith, of Christianity, is your relationship with the Living God, Jesus Christ.

Yes, but how can you grow in your relationship with God, if you don't really know what He wants?
​

Through prayer, you can know what He wants, as well as through scripture. It's no different for either of us there.

If what scientists say is true, He created the world as we see it today, yet He sees a problem with it.

No. A view of Adam and original sin can indeed be consistent with all Christian doctrines. Here is some description in post #3. http://www.christianforums.com/t7642318/#post60075208

Yet anyway, we are taught to have a reason for anyone who asked about our faith. This reason must be solid, not one with holes. I don't expect the world to understand me, but the world shouldn't be able to make me look foolish, like I'm believing something just because I was taught it or to have fire insurance.

Right!

In His name-

Papias

 

[TasManOfGod]

Perhaps the scientists might like to be a bit less coy about fossils of giants that have been found.

 

[sfs]

Perhaps the scientists might like to be a bit less coy about fossils of giants that have been found.

Perhaps the believers should be less credulous about the reports of giants that they've read.

 

[Calminian]

Perhaps the believers should be less credulous about the reports of giants that they've read.

I think legends can tell us a great deal about our past. From legends of floods to dragons to giants, they all seem to paint a picture very compatible with biblical history.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the Colorado river, and the scientists studying the canyon go with the evidence rather than wishful thinking.

Interesting...

 

[TasManOfGod]

Perhaps the believers should be less credulous about the reports of giants that they've read.

Perhaps the Smithsonian can tell us about all the giant's fossil bones that have been submitted to it . or perhaps it might blow the evolution theory apart and confirm the Bible.
Here is a snip from www.6000years.org

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE: THE 'BLACK HOLE'

And as we go through a few more of these reports from homespun researchers and historians, think about this:

1) There had been Giants living all over the world, according to the Bible, but despite that fact...

2) the Smithsonian Institute, National Geographic, the Discovery Channel (et al) and any of the 'officially sanctioned' archaeological expedition teams...between the whole lot of them...have supposedly not been able to cough up one single solitary bone fragment, fossil, or artifact that would evidence these Nephilim.

Has the (elite-controlled) academic mainstream covered something up?

There are a number of these reports about discoveries of the remains of human giants. Keep in mind, numerous times these findings were turned over to 'government authorities', particularly to the Smithsonian, by conscientious and well-meaning citizens...only to have these artifacts then disappear permanently. This first report is a good example of that:

Well-known zoologist Ivan T. Sanderson (a frequent guest on Johnny Carson's TONIGHT SHOW in the 1960s--usually with exotic animals) reported that in 1944 (during World War II), an army engineer with whom he corresponded told of how his crew had been bulldozing through sedimentary rock when it stumbled upon what appeared to be a graveyard. In it were crania that measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown nearly three times as large as an adult human skull.

Had the humans to which these skulls belonged been properly proportioned, they undoubtedly would have been at least 12 feet tall or taller. He delivered the evidence to the Smithsonian Institute....where it was never heard nor seen again. Sanderson was quite puzzled by this and later wrote: "...is it that these people cannot face rewriting all the textbooks?".

There are reports regarding the Smithsonian Institute receiving extraordinary artifacts and evidence of this nature from dutiful citizens who thought they were handing over their findings to the highest and most reliable authorities...only to realize later that Smithsonian had made it all 'disappear'. Hollywood has even made a veiled (snickering?) reference to this bizarre trend: Recall the famous Smithsonian warehouse scene at the end of the Indiana Jones movie.

There is lot's of other stuff there too

 

[Manford]

Hey everyone. What I want to discuss in this topic are hypothesis for the literal reading of Genesis. How can we prove it through experimentation. Anyone have any ideas concerning that? Most of the outspoken creationists, such as the guys at Answers in Genesis, don't do any real testing. As a creationist, that drives me crazy. How can you argue something if you can't even prove it.? That's the job of a scientist, to find out the truth, and be able to back it up with evidence. So, does anyone have an hypothesis concerning the literal creation?

I think creationism is not far from the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. In other parts of the bible, it reads that god generated the universe from nothing. Though spontaneous generation theorists seems to imply "no God" there in the hypothesis, it does not substantiate, "no God" in the hypothesis. Romans 1 says God is invisible fundamentally. And if the visible world was somehow conjured up by an invisible God, the scene would seem as if the world were spontaneously generated.

To me, purely physiologically, there is no real difference between the ideas. One can look at creatism from an evolutionist point of view. And another can look at evolution from a creationist point. The two schools of thought merely two ways of looking a one phenomenon.

 

[Calminian]

I think creationism is not far from the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. In other parts of the bible, it reads that god generated the universe from nothing. Though spontaneous generation theorists seems to imply "no God" there in the hypothesis,.....

Exactly. It's actually the atheists and deists that believe in spontaneous generation, not creationists. They believe the opposite, that natural processes can't bring about life by chance processes.