It does this throughout Genesis chapter 5, for example -
Genesis 5: 3
''When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth''
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
where in the geneologies do they say how old the patriarchs were when their sons were born
Genesis 5: 3
''When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth''
Not in any Bible version I ever read, but OK.It does this throughout Genesis chapter 5, for example -
Genesis 5: 3
''When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth''
Not in any Bible version I ever read, but OK.
So does it do that for all the patriarchs?
Are they using the Gregorian 365.25 day year, the Julian 365 day one, or the Babylonian 360 day one, just out of interest?
There is no successful way of trying to remove the rough date Adam was created from scripture. The only people who try to find reasons are evolutionists who of course don't take the genealogies seriously because their worldview is very different, for starters they believe man is around 200,000 years old, but Genesis is impossible to stretch that far for Adam.
Research2 wrote:
Or old earth creationists?
The scripture itself "removes the rough date Adam was created" by showing that the geneologies are symbolic, not literal. The text itself shows they are symbolic because there are three different geneolgies given for the same person, and they contradict each other if interpreted literally. Those three are in 1 Cr, Mt and Lk. Thus either they are symbolic, or the scripture is incoherent. Due to my faith, I don't see the scripture as incoherent, and so conclude that the geneologies are symbolic, like so much else in the scripture.
.
Papias
Research2 wrote:
Or old earth creationists?
The scripture itself "removes the rough date Adam was created" by showing that the geneologies are symbolic, not literal. The text itself shows they are symbolic because there are three different geneolgies given for the same person, and they contradict each other if interpreted literally. Those three are in 1 Cr, Mt and Lk. Thus either they are symbolic, or the scripture is incoherent. Due to my faith, I don't see the scripture as incoherent, and so conclude that the geneologies are symbolic, like so much else in the scripture.
.
Papias
Jesus existed, but Adam is metaphorical. I have no explanation you will like for the geneology in Matthew.So then according to you, Jesus never existed since the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is just symbolism...
Jesus existed, but Adam is metaphorical. I have no explanation you will like for the geneology in Matthew.
Um, well no, I don't believe Jesus was the son of Joseph. He was the son of God. Joseph was his step father, sure, but not his father.So who were the ancestors of Jesus?
Luke 3: 23 says Jesus was the son of Joseph. Do you not believe that?
We then have the rest of his ancestry from Joseph, going all the way back to King David, to Adam.
I guess you also don't believe King David existed (despite the fact archeological inscriptions has proven he did...).
So who were the ancestors of Jesus?
Luke 3: 23 says Jesus was the son of Joseph. Do you not believe that?
We then have the rest of his ancestry from Joseph, going all the way back to King David, to Adam.
I guess you also don't believe King David existed (despite the fact archeological inscriptions has proven he did...).
So who were the ancestors of Jesus?
Luke 3: 23 says Jesus was the son of Joseph. Do you not believe that?
We then have the rest of his ancestry from Joseph, going all the way back to King David, to Adam.
I guess you also don't believe King David existed (despite the fact archeological inscriptions has proven he did...).
So then according to you, Jesus never existed since the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is just symbolism...
Um, well no, I don't believe Jesus was the son of Joseph. He was the son of God. Joseph was his step father, sure, but not his father.
Thats actually a fairly significant plot pot in the whole deal, actually. I wonder what else you missed?
I am intrigued by your line of reasoning. Your tag line says you are an old Earth creationist. If this is true then you must not accept the geneologies either. And surely you have compared them at some point and found them to be wildly off both in names and in generation count right?
Research2 said:Actually the Epistle to the Romans is very clear Joseph was the physical father of Jesus, and that Jesus was from the line of David.
Romans 1: 3 -
''concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh'' - Young's Literal Translation
''About his Son who, in the flesh, came from the family of David''
- Bible in Basic English
The Adamic race is around 10,000 years old, as the geneologies in Genesis state. The other races are hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, see my polygenist thread.
One about Arianism, perhaps?Actually the Epistle to the Romans is very clear Joseph was the physical father of Jesus, and that Jesus was from the line of David.
Romans 1: 3 -
''concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh'' - Young's Literal Translation
''About his Son who, in the flesh, came from the family of David''
- Bible in Basic English
However i'm sure this topic can be debated in a more relevant thread.
Nope, I'm basing who to believe in on archaeology and logic. As far back as Moses, I'm happy to accept the line of patriarchs more or less represent vaguely historical figures. Prior to that? well, its all just a bit vague, with borrowings from other religious traditions, and characters from myth and legend being amalgamated and split apart. Oh, I'm sure many of them are based on folk memories of actual events, but I don't believe much in the OT is actual text book history, and less and less is the further back you go.Its however clear that you are just cherry picking who to historically believe in, while the rest you consider ''mythical''. For example, you accept Joseph and King David existed but not the early patriarchs, i don't see the logic behind this, because where do you draw the line between 'historical' and 'mythical'. Also if you are calling certain figures mythical, that means you are rejecting most books of the Old Testament.
That would go against one of the most basic aspects of Christianity: Jesus was the son of God.
Matthew 1:18-19: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. (KJV)Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary had not yet had sex with Joseph, as they were not married - hence why Joseph was surprised that we was pregant and planned to quietly break the engagement off. Similarly Luke 1:34-35 says that Mary questioned how she could become pregnant, seeing how she was a virgin, and Gabriel explained that she would conceive with the Holy Spirit.
But yes, that's a topic for another thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?