Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[-57]

What you were saying was unclear. Your latest example however was focused on the cross.
Everyone is aware of your opinon of course, but what was being asked of you was to make a coherent argument of how theology must differ as a result of believing in "A" or "B".

It's really pretty simple...A is the bible ...B, isn't.

 

[-57]

So why does it matter whether a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a piece of fruit or sin entered the world in some other way.

Because the bible said a talking snake was part of the fall. The bible tells us how and why mankind sins....your theology doesn't. Your theology can't.

 

[-57]

The big reason is, of course, that the Garden story is manifestly a different genre than the Gospels, written at a different time in a different language by a different author with a different literary agenda. I don't agree that we know fully what Paul's understanding of the Garden story was, although it seems reasonable to suppose that he believed it to be historical in some sense. But that is still a long way from 100% accurate literal history.

Then why is it presented as literal and historical?

What reason can you show me that would indicate Genesis isn't literal and historical?

Enoch was the seventh from Adam...Jude 1:14 is wrong!!!

 

[Archivist]

Because the bible said a talking snake was part of the fall. The bible tells us how and why mankind sins....your theology doesn't. Your theology can't.

Sure it does. It tells me that sin entered the world. How it happened isn't important.

 

[Archivist]

It's really pretty simple...A is the bible ...B, isn't.

I live your mindset: My interpretation is what the Bible says. Yours isn't. You're wrong. I'm right.

 

[-57]

Sure it does. It tells me that sin entered the world. How it happened isn't important.

If it isn't important....then why does the bible tell us how and why?

 

[-57]

I live the mindset. My interpretation is what the Bible says. Yours isn't. You're wrong. I'm right.

From what I gather your interpretation is filtered through old earthism and the religion od evolutionism.

 

[KWCrazy]

Because the bible said a talking snake was part of the fall. The bible tells us how and why mankind sins....your theology doesn't. Your theology can't.

Serpent.
The serpent had legs.
Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

The serpent was not crawling on its belly prior to the fall. Whatever it's shape, it became a snake after the curse... not before.

 

[Aman777]

Except that man will never be perfect. Man may be forgiven his imperfections. If only the perfect people made it to Heaven none would ever go. Moses and David were murderers. Peter denied Christ.

Then HOW can imperfect mankind get to Heaven? Hint: We all get there the same way, the only way.

 

[Aman777]

I agree. We keep the commandments as well as we can, but it is Christ who makes us perfect.

Amen. Jesus made a way where there was NO way back to the perfect Father.

 

[-57]

Serpent.
The serpent had legs.
Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

The serpent was not crawling on its belly prior to the fall. Whatever it's shape, it became a snake after the curse... not before.

Yes, apparently the serpent walked prior to the fall of Adam....and rose buses did't have thorns. Things changed. Man began to die.

 

[-57]

Then HOW can imperfect mankind get to Heaven? Hint: We all get there the same way, the only way.

I luv you Aman777...you're so right and at the same time so wrong.

 

[Archivist]

If it isn't important....then why does the bible tell us how and why?

Because it is an allegory.

 

[Archivist]

Then why is it presented as literal and historical?

What reason can you show me that would indicate Genesis isn't literal and historical?

Enoch was the seventh from Adam...Jude 1:14 is wrong!!!

If it is literal and historical why is it presented as Hebrew poetry? It is an allegory. Of course you are entitled to your own interpretation.

And no, no one is saying Jude is wrong.

 

[Archivist]

From what I gather your interpretation is filtered through old earthism and the religion od evolutionism.

Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory.

 

[Archivist]

Then HOW can imperfect mankind get to Heaven? Hint: We all get there the same way, the only way.

That's easy, the Blood of the Lamb.

But there is nothing that says that one must believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories to be saved, although some here seem to be implying that.

 

[-57]

If it is literal and historical why is it presented as Hebrew poetry? It is an allegory. Of course you are entitled to your own interpretation.

And no, no one is saying Jude is wrong.

Personally I don't believe it's presented as Hebrew poetry. But lets say it is...are you saying poetry can't be literal and historical?

You claim Jude is wrong when Adam is presented as a literal and historic person by Jude. You present Adam as not being literal and historical.

 

[-57]

Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory.

It's both. Especially the way you try to intertwine it with scripture. Your belief in the religion of evolutionism conflicts with scripture so you must change scripture to fit with your religion of evolutionism.

 

[-57]

That's easy, the Blood of the Lamb.

But there is nothing that says that one must believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories to be saved, although some here seem to be implying that.

Some here seem to be implying that if you believe in a literal historical Genesis..you're not saved.

 

[Archivist]

Personally I don't believe it's presented as Hebrew poetry. But lets say it is...are you saying poetry can't be literal and historical?

It can be, and as I have said multiple times you are welcome in interpret it that way. I interpret it as allegory.

You claim Jude is wrong when Adam is presented as a literal and historic person by Jude. You present Adam as not being literal and historical.

No, I've never said that Jude is wrong.