Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

[Archivist]

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.

But that isn't what it says. And nowhere does it say that Chapter 2 is Day 6. You're adding.

 

[Archivist]

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

So Jesus lied? He didn't say "this represents my body" or "this is a symbol of my body." He said "this is my body."

Again, you are free to your interpretation. But don't tell me that my reading of the Genesis creation stories is wrong because I read them as allegory but somehow it ignoring the plain meaning of the words of Jesus is fine.

 

[trophy33]

Actually Joseph wasn't



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.

Its interesting that the YEC proponents are so literal regarding Genesis and who is not, they call "anti-Genesis" and similar, but regarding the New Testament, you do what you criticize and suddenly "study", refer to "church fathers", do not read things literally, use other sources and similar.

You even referred to Origen, who read Genesis allegorically, but now his explanations suddenly suit you.

A bit of consistency would be nice.

 

[Cis.jd]

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

He and dad have been resorting to "clown-replying" for awhile.

 

[Cis.jd]

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!

Stop taking me out of context. I've been very clear about this topic about how Eve was created.. but i guess you are doing this intentionally since you've made up arguments (bible believers) already.

 

[dad]

Stop taking me out of context. I've been very clear about this topic about how Eve was created.. but i guess you are doing this intentionally since you've made up arguments (bible believers) already.

What I understand from the comments of you and the few other nommies who wave away genesis here, is that they do NOT believe God created Adam from the dust of the earth, and then took Eve from him. They believe that woman and man actually evolved from animals. Not sure why you think your position is misinterpreted. How exactly?

 

[trophy33]

What I understand from the comments of you and the few other nommies who wave away genesis here,

Not "away genesis", but "away literal uneducated reading of Genesis which ignores the text itself, the culture, the language and the other places in the Bible".

The fact that people do not read something in literal meaning does not mean they put that text away. Most of time the opposite is true - you are putting the point and message of Genesis away by concentrating on literal details.

 

[JacksBratt]

He and dad have been resorting to "clown-replying" for awhile.

Sorry Cis.jd..... but I have not had time for complete responses... thus, it's the only method to display my view on your post.... more symbolic emoji's would be nice.


Funny though.. there are many people on this forum that read and all they do is "clown" respond, or chirp verbally with no substance or argument other than that... I don't hear any complaining toward their "armchair" participation.

When I have time... I DO respond with actual substance... Just not lately.

 

[JacksBratt]

So Jesus lied? He didn't say "this represents my body" or "this is a symbol of my body." He said "this is my body."

Again, you are free to your interpretation. But don't tell me that my reading of the Genesis creation stories is wrong because I read them as allegory but somehow it ignoring the plain meaning of the words of Jesus is fine.

This is where I disagree, strongly.

Just like the "top dog" comment. Or the "I am the door".... quote.

The impact of whether the cup is real blood or the bread is actually Jesus' flesh... is a non issue...

We both are doing it in order to "remember" His work. We both consume the cup and the bread in the same manner. We come to the table with a reverence that highly respects the ceremony that we are engaged in and understand that it is not to be taken lightly.

This is not something that is going to draw unbelievers to the truth... or cause a stumbling block from it.

Whereas, the whole idea that the earth is six thousand years old and created by God.. or 4.5 billion years old... has HUGE implications and causes ripples through believers, non believers and academia as well as logistics in archeology and the whole concept of "Is there a God".

 

[Cis.jd]

Sorry Cis.jd..... but I have not had time for complete responses... thus, it's the only method to display my view on your post.... more symbolic emoji's would be nice.


Funny though.. there are many people on this forum that read and all they do is "clown" respond, or chirp verbally with no substance or argument other than that... I don't hear any complaining toward their "armchair" participation.

When I have time... I DO respond with actual substance... Just not lately.

I wasn't referring to you, but -57 and dad.

 

[dad]

Not "away genesis", but "away literal uneducated reading of Genesis which ignores the text itself, the culture, the language and the other places in the Bible".

So the rest of the bible is also under that category since creation and the references to Genesis are a theme. Got it. Chuck the whole thing away, and pat yourself on the back at how educated you think you have become.

The fact that people do not read something in literal meaning does not mean they put that text away.

Don't hide behind the word literal. Try the word real. You would allow for whatever meanings that suited your fancy to be applied to the stories in Genesis, but the characters and events themselves never happened. No worldwide flood, no woman taken from man...etc etc.

Most of time the opposite is true - you are putting the point and message of Genesis away by concentrating on literal details.

Anyone can insert supposed messages into Genesis. They have no value at when those inserting have rejected the characters and events themselves. All they want is the supposed inserted message, which could be almost anything. 'Gee, adopting the Sodom lifestyle is fine, and woman really has a right to murder kids...etc etc etc etc' (or whatever messages they happen to insert)

 

[dad]

But that isn't what it says. And nowhere does it say that Chapter 2 is Day 6. You're adding.

You can tell what day the details brought out in chapter two were from by looking at what happened. The creation order is in chapter one. So if chap 2 is talking about Eve, we know what day that was, or plants, etc. To try and say chapter two is some contradictory other created order is insulting to God and bible believers.

 

[dad]

...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..

The details about Eve in the bible you do not accept..that she was taken from man by God, who put Adam in a deep sleep. So you have made Eve not exist as the bible tells it. Now if you allow for some woman evolved from some ape/monkey/gabon like creatures and say that we could call her Eve, that is not the Eve of the bible. Basically that would be demon science Eve.

 

[trophy33]

The details about Eve in the bible you do not accept..that she was taken from man by God, who put Adam in a deep sleep. So you have made Eve not exist as the bible tells it. Now if you allow for some woman evolved from some ape/monkey/gabon like creatures and say that we could call her Eve, that is not the Eve of the bible. Basically that would be demon science Eve.

Genesis is not a scientific book, its a theological book. Its descriptions are not scientific, but theological. Why cant you grasp this simple thing.

 

[Cis.jd]

The details about Eve in the bible you do not accept..that she was taken from man by God, who put Adam in a deep sleep. So you have made Eve not exist as the bible tells it. Now if you allow for some woman evolved from some ape/monkey/gabon like creatures and say that we could call her Eve, that is not the Eve of the bible. Basically that would be demon science Eve.

Do you accept that the Promise Land is/was flowing with literal milk and honey?

 

[Archivist]

You can tell what day the details brought out in chapter two were from by looking at what happened. The creation order is in chapter one. So if chap 2 is talking about Eve, we know what day that was, or plants, etc. To try and say chapter two is some contradictory other created order is insulting to God and bible believers.

My saying that isn’t “insulting to God” because I view it as an allegory. As to your claim that I’m insulting Bible believers, you have admitted that you don’t believe every word in the Bible because you don’t believe that Holy Communion is the actual body and blood of Jesus. You are picking and choosing what is literal and what is not. Again, there is nothing wrong with that—you are free to your interpretation of the New Testament just as I am free to my interpretation of Genesis.

As to the two conflicting creation stories, they do differ. The order is different. You are adding words that are not there in an effort to correct the contradiction. Again, you are free to your interpretation.

 

[Archivist]

This is where I disagree, strongly.

Just like the "top dog" comment. Or the "I am the door".... quote.

The impact of whether the cup is real blood or the bread is actually Jesus' flesh... is a non issue...

We both are doing it in order to "remember" His work. We both consume the cup and the bread in the same manner. We come to the table with a reverence that highly respects the ceremony that we are engaged in and understand that it is not to be taken lightly.

This is not something that is going to draw unbelievers to the truth... or cause a stumbling block from it.

You are forgetting that it was the “supper strife” that caused a split among the Protestant reformers with major long-term implications.

Whereas, the whole idea that the earth is six thousand years old and created by God.. or 4.5 billion years old... has HUGE implications and causes ripples through believers, non believers and academia as well as logistics in archeology and the whole concept of "Is there a God".

And yet the majority of Christians accept evolution as being true and don’t have an issue with it.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are forgetting that it was the “supper strife” that caused a split among the Protestant reformers with major long-term implications.

Sorry, but I need more detail to understand your point here.

And yet the majority of Christians accept evolution as being true and don’t have an issue with it.

First: Majority has nothing to do with truth. The number of people that accept a concept has no bearing on the validity of that concept.

Second: The majority of Christians just sit in a pew, hear the sermon, drink the cup and take the bread, without questioning anything that they are being told.

If their minister tells them TE is correct...they won't balk.. Tell them YEC... that's OK too... Just make sure that you tickle their ears and don't talk about anything negative..

What does revelations say? For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

A good friend of mine closes down if you discuss anything outside of the Sunday School stories.. Don't tell him that Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him.. Don't tell him that Noah also got drunk... or that Elijah suffered from severe depression...

He has Jesus crucified, buried and risen.. and that's all he want...A nice neat little package and he sleeps at night with his doctrinal "teddy bear".

 

[Archivist]

Sorry, but I need more detail to understand your point here.

You need to learn your history Jack. The split in the Protestant reformation was over the understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

First: Majority has nothing to do with truth. The number of people that accept a concept has no bearing on the validity of that concept.

I didn’t say that majority has anything to do with truth. Your post to which I was responding stated that an old Earth had all sorts of implications for believers. It doesn’t. Christians accept scientific fact and continue to believe.

Second: The majority of Christians just sit in a pew, hear the sermon, drink the cup and take the bread, without questioning anything that they are being told.

If their minister tells them TE is correct...they won't balk.. Tell them YEC... that's OK too... Just make sure that you tickle their ears and don't talk about anything negative..

What does revelations say? For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

A good friend of mine closes down if you discuss anything outside of the Sunday School stories.. Don't tell him that Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him.. Don't tell him that Noah also got drunk... or that Elijah suffered from severe depression...

He has Jesus crucified, buried and risen.. and that's all he want...A nice neat little package and he sleeps at night with his doctrinal "teddy bear".

Not my experience, sorry if it has been yours.

People not enduring sound doctrine? Like people not accepting the plain meaning of the words of Jesus when He says “this is my body”? Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation...

My point is that you are telling me that it is wrong to doubt a literal interpretation of Genesis while you pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe literally. Double standard.

 

[JacksBratt]

You need to learn your history Jack. The split in the Protestant reformation was over the understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

I think that there was a lot more to it than the lords supper...

I didn’t say that majority has anything to do with truth.

Actually, that's precisely what you said.."yet the majority of Christians accept evolution as being true".

This was implied to have some sort of bearing or weight on your point.

Your post to which I was responding stated that an old Earth had all sorts of implications for believers. It doesn’t. Christians accept scientific fact and continue to believe.

My post was implying that no matter how many believers hold a certain position, has nothing to do with the actual facts...

Also, in conjunction with this, most believers are happy to sit in a pew, sing a few hymns, hear the prayer request, sleep through a message and go home to a football game.

Most believers just sit and believe what they are told.. They don't want controversy... they don't want to argue because their knowledge is simply.. God is God, Jesus is His son, Jesus died for our sins... pass the potato salad.

The other stuff... well they have been told, in school that it is fact... then they are told that Genesis is allegory in order to make it all fit in a nice little package.. The school is happy, the believers are happy... all is "good".