Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

[dad]

This has not only been explained to you but dumbed down over and over again. Metaphors don't mean the story is fiction or the events and people never existed.

Yet you can't seem to say Eve existed. We seem to be getting may be some woman existed.. .or not...but not one God made from a man!

 

[Archivist]

If Paul was echoing mistaken ideas of his time rather than God....it is what it is.

You go right ahead and think that.

Only one creation order...chap two is details after the fact..nit some other order. But we see your contempt for people long ago that the Almighty used to write scripture.

Actually they differ on a number of points, including the creation of men and women. In Genesis 1 God simultaneously creates man and woman. In Genesis 2 God creates man first, woman later.

And I have no "contempt" for anyone. It is an allegory, it isn't written to be factual.

 

[Archivist]

The fruit of the vine was referred to after the prayer...it was still wine not blood. We need some sense of reality and context and the spirit of God gives it to us if we are sincere.

Jesus said it was His body and His blood. I will accept that.

 

[trophy33]

I've posted this several times and not one of the Theo-Evos want to answer the question.

The following is condensed from Luke 3:23...

Can you point out where the genealogy goes from Fact to fiction?

If you want to rely on genealogies, you must first take Matthew's genealogy into account.

Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus.

Which is fact and which is fiction?

 

[-57]

The order of creation differs between the two accounts, so you couldn't have spent much time looking into it.

So, are the elements of Holy Communion the body and blood of Jesus? He said they are.

The order is not different. I've liked several times. They are the same.

 

[-57]

Jesus said it was His body and His blood. I will accept that.

Jesus also mentioned creation....but you don't accept that.

 

[-57]

If you want to rely on genealogies, you must first take Matthew's genealogy into account.

Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus.

Which is fact and which is fiction?

I've heard two explanations. I 'll stick with one being of Josephs and the other genealogy belonging to Mary.

Both are fact.

Now that I answered that will you answer my question?

The following is condensed from Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Can you point out where the genealogy goes from Fact to fiction?

 

[Archivist]

The order is not different. I've liked several times. They are the same.

Wrong, and just repeating that doesn't help you. They even disagree on the creation of humans. In Genesis 1 God simultaneously creates man and woman. In Genesis 2 God creates man first, woman later.

 

[Archivist]

Jesus also mentioned creation....but you don't accept that.

No, I accept it. The Genesis account is an allegory.

Jesus was very specific regarding Holy Communion. "This is my body." He could have said "this represents my body" but He didn't.

 

[-57]

This has not only been explained to you but dumbed down over and over again. Metaphors don't mean the story is fiction or the events and people never existed. It's the details about them that are articulated artistically or based on the understanding of the culture during that time.

You've been told, not just here, but in your own thread yet you are still repeating the same questions showing your remaining ignorance of what you are talking about.

You're right Adam and Eve literally existed. They were the original 2 humans.

The culture of that time would've heard of Adam.
There's like 5 or 6 people Noah could have talked to..and that was of his direct ancestors....not to mention the others who were living.

 

[trophy33]

I've heard two explanations. I 'll stick with one being of Josephs and the other genealogy belonging to Mary.

No, have you read them? Both are genealogies of Joseph:

Luke: "He was known as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli..."
Matthew: "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary"

Because there are two totally different genealogies, I see no reason to built something on them or try to find out which parts are facts and which parts are fictions.

 

[-57]

Wrong, and just repeating that doesn't help you. They even disagree on the creation of humans. In Genesis 1 God simultaneously creates man and woman. In Genesis 2 God creates man first, woman later.

Gen 1 only says
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

It doesn't say simultaneously. That's something you added. The verse only say's He created them.
Gen 2 for the most part is an overview of day 6 where God goes into more detail about how He created them male and female.

1st Tim 2:13 should help clarify things. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve;"

 

[-57]

No, have you read them? Both are genealogies of Joseph:

Luke: "He was known as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli..."
Matthew: "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary"

Because there are two totally different genealogies, I see no reason to built something on them or try to find out which parts are facts and which parts are fictions.

Actually Joseph wasn't

No, have you read them? Both are genealogies of Joseph:

Luke: "He was known as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli..."
Matthew: "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary"

Because there are two totally different genealogies, I see no reason to built something on them or try to find out which parts are facts and which parts are fictions.

Joseph was Jacobs son by birth. Eli was Josephs father in law. When you read the rest of the genealogy that becomes apparent.

The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus was the heir to the throne of David.
Joe and his Dad.

Ref verses.
Matt 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary,
Luke 3:23... being supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli.

The bible seems clear that The Matthew verse tells us that Jacob as the father of Joseph. The term born in the verse seems to indicate that this is the case. Jacob was Josephs biological father.

Some have argued that Luke 3:23 may appear to be in contradiction or error saying that Joseph was the son of Eli. Further research clearly indicates that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli and that the term and meaning of the word in the ancient Greek language and legal understanding of the title son in this case meant son in law.

Some reasons why.

1)The Son-in-law belief is held by several early Christian writers.


a, Origen
b, Irenaeus
c, Tertullian,
d, Athanasius
e, Justin Martyr

2) It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Talmudic writers wrote of Mary as the daughter of Eli.

3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother.

4) This point affords a simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefor her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her fathers family , as his son. This would make Joseph the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Eli.

The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where Luke sets forth his natural pedigree. The latter employees Joseph's name, instead of Mary’s, in accordance with the Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.

I hope that helps.

 

[-57]

No, I accept it. The Genesis account is an allegory.

Jesus was very specific regarding Holy Communion. "This is my body." He could have said "this represents my body" but He didn't.

If you were to eat the "bread" and drink the wine....then got sick and puked it up...would the DNA of the wine and bread belong to Jesus'

 

[Archivist]

Gen 1 only says
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

It doesn't say simultaneously. That's something you added. The verse only say's He created them.

I am adding nothing. "Male and female, He created them." That is simultaneous.

Gen 2 for the most part is an overview of day 6 where God goes into more detail about how He created them male and female.

Except it doesn't say that it is an overview of Day 6. You are adding that.

 

[Archivist]

If you were to eat the "bread" and drink the wine....then got sick and puked it up...would the DNA of the wine and bread belong to Jesus'

Can't you at least be respectful when talking about the sacrament of Holy Communion. How low will you go in this thread?

 

[dad]

You go right ahead and think that.



Actually they differ on a number of points, including the creation of men and women. In Genesis 1 God simultaneously creates man and woman. In Genesis 2 God creates man first, woman later.

And I have no "contempt" for anyone. It is an allegory, it isn't written to be factual.

If two is not an order or necessarily in creation order your doubts are worthless.

 

[-57]

Can't you at least be respectful when talking about the sacrament of Holy Communion. How low will you go in this thread?

That was a serious question? What would it be? Would it change back?

 

[-57]

I am adding nothing. "Male and female, He created them." That is simultaneous.

It might appear to be simultaneous..but chapter 2 goes into more detail of day 6 and clearly shows it only indicated God made the male and female. Basic christianity 101.

 

[JacksBratt]

Interesting, because when I take the cup it is blood. When I take the bread it is flesh.

So you are saying that the words of our savior are irrelevant?

Hmm, When I take the cup... it's Grape Juice and the bread... it's a soda cracker... or "gluten free" cracker...