Dinosaurs on the Ark?

[-57]

Perhaps you had better confine yourself to expressing your own views, rather than fabricating views for others.

You fabricate the view that Genesis is an allegorical story....mainly because of what your 5th grade science teacher taught you.

Believe your bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

In your numerous post you have.
If you had not denied it...then how did we get a sin nature?

I could be wrong here, but I think denialists think we acquire a sin nature the moment we commit our first sin.

Thus, the objective is to get an infant baptized as soon as possible, before he commits his first sin.

In God's way, we are born with a sin nature, and baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament.

 

[-57]

I could be wrong here, but I think denialists think we acquire a sin nature the moment we commit our first sin.

Thus, the objective is to get an infant baptized as soon as possible, before he commits his first sin.

In God's way, we are born with a sin nature, and baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament.

I think they believe we evolved a sin gene that forces us to sin.

 

[Speedwell]

I could be wrong here, but I think denialists think we acquire a sin nature the moment we commit our first sin.

Thus, the objective is to get an infant baptized as soon as possible, before he commits his first sin.

In God's way, we are born with a sin nature, and baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament.

No, but at least when you pull stuff out of you-know-where you admit it might be wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

You fabricate the view that Genesis is an allegorical story....mainly because of what your 5th grade science teacher taught you.

Believe your bible.

No, my 5th grade science teacher had nothing to do with it. It's something I learned at Church.

 

[Speedwell]

I think they believe we evolved a sin gene that forces us to sin.

And nothing we can say to you will ever cause you to change that belief.

 

[-57]

And nothing we can say to you will ever cause you to change that belief.

Yes, I've...and others...asked you to explain why we have a sin nature..and all you do is shrug your shoulders and tell us Genesis was allegorical.

No, my 5th grade science teacher had nothing to do with it. It's something I learned at Church.

It's pretty obvious that church that taught you this....doesn't have the answer either.

...do you ever wonder why they left out all the other portions of the Bible that say Genesis was literal and historical?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, I've...and others...asked you to explain why we have a sin nature..and all you do is shrug your shoulders and tell us Genesis was allegorical.

That doesn't mean I believe in your preposterous "sin gene." When you accuse me of that you lie.

It's pretty obvious that church that taught you this....doesn't have the answer either.

...do you ever wonder why they left out all the other portions of the Bible that say Genesis was literal and historical?

There are no such portions, so they didn't have to leave anything out.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Too late. He beat me to it.

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Just educating you.

I do not see anything in Hebrews 10 that requires a literal existence of Adam and Eve. It just says that Jesus Christ is the final sacrifice. Nothing about "once and for all" implies that we all inherited sin from one man.

As I've posted before....Paul definitely knew that Adam and Ever were literal and historical.
Here's how we knew....Paul sent a letter to Timothy. The letter instructed women on how to act in church. What did Paul base this instruction on?

2nd Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

Why would Paul impose a rule on the women based upon an allegorical story?

Let me quote the dictionary for you:
Allegory - "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one."

Paul quotes an allegorical story to teach a lesson. That is the very definition of allegory.

I agree with you!!!! Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead.

There are those who believe that Jesus' resurrection was not literal. I am shocked that you are one of these people.

Yes science has shown us a lot. Genesis is an allegory....even science has shown dead people stay dead on day 3.....The resurrection you believe in was also an allegory.

....see how great science is!!!

Now you are getting it. However, science does not tell us whether the resurrection is allegory. It does suggest that Genesis is allegory since we have ample scientific evidence (God given scientific evidence) that directly contradicts a literal interpretation of the stories. No such contradictory evidence exists for miracles, resurrection, etc that would have left no trace.

It's your science that you like to use a proof that the Bible is simply a just so allegorical story that says so.

No one says that the Bible is allegory. We are arguing that some parts of the Bible are allegory, other are factual (but not necessarily literal). The Bible is a collection of books of different literary types.

part 2:
For a christian you eager to deny our sin nature then and the need for Christ.
What can I say???

Who is denying our sinful nature. I said repeatedly that mankind is sinful. I also said that our sinful nature does not need to be blamed on one man (Adam) in order to exist. The evidence is all around us that mankind is sinful.

You have..in your many post here.

Nope. Try again. No one has argued that the entire Bible is allegory.

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.

This list of geneologies was taken from the bible....where does it turn form fact to fiction?

Which genealogy is the literal truth? Matthew or Luke? They can't both be since they directly contradict each other. And, I don't buy the argument about levirate marriage - that is more literalist gymnastics without supporting evidence.

I could be wrong here, but I think denialists think we acquire a sin nature the moment we commit our first sin.

Thus, the objective is to get an infant baptized as soon as possible, before he commits his first sin.

In God's way, we are born with a sin nature, and baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament.

No, I think mankind is sinful by nature. I just don't feel this need to have one person to blame it on. If we were born without sin, there would be no reason for baptism (infant or adult) until or unless one committed sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not see anything in Hebrews 10 that requires a literal existence of Adam and Eve.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

If Jesus is the last Adam, who is the first?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

If Jesus is the last Adam, who is the first?

He is making the point that mankind (adam) is from earth - physical creatures. Jesus is from heaven. By believing in Him, we (mankind) are elevated in spirit.

Again, clearly interpretable without need for literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

He is making the point that mankind (adam) is from earth - physical creatures. Jesus is from heaven. By believing in Him, we (mankind) are elevated in spirit.

Again, clearly interpretable without need for literal interpretation of Genesis.

Then who is Eve?

And if you say "the mother of all living," then ... even allegorically ... how did [mankind] come before [the mother of all living]?

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And while you're at it, please tell me who [mankind] is ... um ... having a relationship with in this verse?

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife;

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Then who is Eve?

And if you say "the mother of all living," then ... even allegorically ... how did [mankind] come before [the mother of all living]?

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And while you're at it, please tell me who [mankind] is ... um ... having a relationship with in this verse?

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife;

Mankind is having relations with womankind - isn't that obvious?

As for Timothy - I refer you to the definition of allegory.

Finally, which came first, the chicken or the egg? The man or the woman? Is it really that important to the overall lesson learned?

 

[Eryk]

He is making the point that mankind (adam) is from earth - physical creatures. Jesus is from heaven. By believing in Him, we (mankind) are elevated in spirit.

Again, clearly interpretable without need for literal interpretation of Genesis.

Romans 5:12 Adam is one man, not mankind. Jesus is one man, not mankind.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Romans 5:12 Adam is one man, not mankind. Jesus is one man, not mankind.

Adam is a figurative representation of mankind (adam means mankind in Hebrew).

Jesus is one man through whom mankind can achieve salvation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mankind is having relations with womankind - isn't that obvious?

Let me get this straight?

Mankind (Adam) is from earth and having relations with womankind (Eve).

Where is womankind from?

Even allegorically, you have to admit that the Bible says womankind came from mankind, do you not?

After all, mankind (Adam) wrote that God put them to sleep, took all their ribs, and when they all woke up, there were women there.

And please ... do tell me who Seth is ... would you?

Allegorically speaking, of course.

(And don't lose any continuity in your story.)

The reason I'm asking these questions is to show you (okay, lurkers) that denialists like to claim Adam and Eve were just an allegory ... but then stop right there and can't tell us where the allegory ends and literalism takes up.

And for those who do ... like the ones who say Genesis 1 - 11 is allegorical ... won't give us the whole allegory.

But anyway, let's forget the whole story for now.

Just tell me who Seth is, according to Plato (or whomever popularized the allegorical method).

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Let me get this straight?

Mankind (Adam) is from earth and having relations with womankind (Eve).

Where is womankind from?

Even allegorically, you have to admit that the Bible says womankind came from mankind, do you not?

After all, mankind (Adam) wrote that God put them to sleep, took all their ribs, and when they all woke up, there were women there.

And please ... do tell me who Seth is ... would you?

Allegorically speaking, of course.

(And don't lose any continuity in your story.)

The reason I'm asking these questions is to show you (okay, lurkers) that denialists like to claim Adam and Eve were just an allegory ... but then stop right there and can't tell us where the allegory ends and literalism takes up.

And for those who do ... like the ones who say Genesis 1 - 11 is allegorical ... won't give us the whole allegory.

But anyway, let's forget the whole story for now.

Just tell me who Seth is, according to Plato (or whomever popularized the allegorical method).

You misunderstand me. I don't think Genesis 1-11 are allegory. I think all of Genesis is allegory. When interpreting an allegory there does not need to be a one-to-one correlation between figures in the story and meaning in reality. The whole thing tells us who created heaven, Earth, and all creatures (God) and the consequences of sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Romans 5:12 Adam is one man, not mankind.

"Hit the one in the middle." -Rocky IV

 

[AV1611VET]

Adam is a figurative representation of mankind (adam means mankind in Hebrew).

Then I'd hate to be a Hebrew with that name.

Imagine how large my mailbox would have to be?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think all of Genesis is allegory.

Oh, my.

So the Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic covenants are just ... allegory ... right?

Israel is not the Promised Land, and when God says, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," He's just kidding?

Was Paul pulling our leg when he said ...

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

And the Protevangelium? that's just a bedtime story?