You both are believing nonsense. For absolute certainty, you are believing things that are not taught in scripture anywhere.
This is utter nonsense. How do you have the gall to call someone else's belief nonsense and then proceed to say something that is far more nonsensical than what she said?
Scripture says that Jesus descended from the people who you think are just myths.
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, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph
..........33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[
e] the son of
Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Do you see all the people who I put in bold there? All of them are mentioned in the book of Genesis, which you ridiculously and falsely say "is a creative myth" and "not meant to be read literally". If that was the case, then Jesus Himself would also be a myth since it would mean He descended from mythical people. Therefore, I can't take your claim seriously and, honestly, it's quite disappointing that you believe such nonsense.
Early Genesis - as in 1 to 11 - has various genres of writing.
Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other in the steps of creation if read literally.
After 11, Genesis reads more like a history.
So at some point we reach actual descendants of Adam and Eve - but Genesis 1 2 and 3 are not 'literal'. It's just not the genre used.
But - like so much of the bible - just because the genre isn't literal does not mean
it is not true!
Jesus said we should be born again.
Is that meaningless because it is not literally true?
Reading Genesis is more like reading Shakespeare than an engineering manual or literal history. There’s a false antagonism here. We don’t have a bad reaction to Shakespeare's metaphors in the line - "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!"
We don’t turn around and complain "What nonsense! There's no way any truth is being conveyed in this nonsense because Juliet is obviously not a giant ball of fusing hydrogen millions and millions of miles across!" That would be ridiculous. That would be misunderstanding the genre of the text, reading the poetic as literal. Sometimes poetry is the *best* genre to explain certain truths, like love or dramatic theology!
Dr John Dickson - with a Phd in history as well as degrees in theology - unpacks Genesis:
---
"In Genesis 1, multiples of seven appear in extraordinary ways. For ancient readers, who were accustomed to taking notice of such things, these multiples of seven conveyed a powerful message. Seven was the divine number, the number of goodness and perfection. Its omnipresence in the opening chapter of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the origin and nature of the universe itself. Consider the following:
The first sentence of Genesis 1 consists of seven Hebrew words. Instantly, the ancient reader’s attention is focused;
The second sentence contains exactly fourteen words. A pattern is developing;
The word ‘earth’—one half of the created sphere—appears in the chapter 21 times;
The word ‘heaven’—the other half of the created sphere—also appears 21 times.
‘God’, the lead actor, is mentioned exactly 35 times.
The refrain ‘and it was so,’ which concludes each creative act, occurs exactly seven times;
The summary statement ‘God saw that it was good’ also occurs seven times;
It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole account is structured around seven scenes or seven days of the week.
The artistry of the chapter is stunning and, to ancient readers, unmistakable. It casts the creation as a work of art, sharing in the perfection of God and deriving from him. My point is obvious: short of including a prescript for the benefit of modern readers the original author could hardly have made it clearer that his message is being conveyed through literary rather than prosaic means. What we find in Genesis 1 is not exactly poetry of the type we find in the biblical book of Psalms but nor is it recognizable as simple prose. It is a rhythmic, symbolically-charged inventory of divine commands."
John Dickson on the importance of giving consideration to both the literary style and the historical setting of Genesis 1.
www.publicchristianity.org
More at his podcast.
Undeceptions Episode 14: Collins talks about the six days of creation, suggesting there's a way that honours both message and intellect.
undeceptions.com
