Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="-57, post: 71099257, member: 380403"]...
The purpose of the linage in this thread was to show that Adam was presented as a literal person.

If Adam wasnn't literal then the linage changed from fact too fiction. I asked, where?[/QUOTE

It changed from fact to fiction with the traditions from pagan religions , and their ways of thinking , a while after the first century,
with much much more of truth likewise abandoned, in favor of fiction.

 

[-57]

And the two contradictions (Mt contradicts Cr) and (Lk contradicts Mt) show that the lineages themselves show us that the Holy Spirit doesn't want us to interpret these literally. So why do you keep trying to do so?

One belongs to Mary while the other belongs to Joseph.

That's like asking "in the Good Samaritan parable, when does the story change from fact to fiction?" Well, where?

You can see as well as I can that the point of the Good Samaritan goes beyond the "fact or fiction" of each part of it. The whole question shows that you are completely missing the point of the Good Samaritan (and the lineages).

Apples and oranges. NOw here's the list again...tell me where it changes from fact to fiction.

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.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

NOw here's the list again...tell me where it changes from fact to fiction.

In the past, arguing with facts when someone has put faith in fiction just doesn't work......
Sometimes though, who knows..... < shrugs >

Stand fast in the faith,
endure as GOD says,
Shalom,
jeff

 

[-57]

QUOTE="-57, post: 71099257, member: 380403"]...
The purpose of the linage in this thread was to show that Adam was presented as a literal person.

If Adam wasnn't literal then the linage changed from fact too fiction. I asked, where?[/QUOTE

It changed from fact to fiction with the traditions from pagan religions , and their ways of thinking , a while after the first century,
with much much more of truth likewise abandoned, in favor of fiction.

HEre's the list for you. Where did it change? At David? Jacob? Enoch who was the 7th from Adam as presented quite literally in Jude 1:14 ? Where?

 

[-57]

In the past, arguing with facts when someone has put faith in fiction just doesn't work......
Sometimes though, who knows..... < shrugs >

Stand fast in the faith,
endure as GOD says,
Shalom,
jeff

It's pretty much like debating a mormon or jw.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

HEre's the list for you. Where did it change? At David? Jacob? Enoch who was the 7th from Adam as presented quite literally in Jude 1:14 ? Where?

< shrugs > I don't know what time or where (it) changed (in history) (in the 'church'?) -

(GOD'S WORD did not change. )

But ( I think) men over-ruled it(they think) with man's "better ideas" for world dominion....

Just like GOD said would happen, exactly....

 

[Speedwell]

One belongs to Mary while the other belongs to Joseph.



Apples and oranges. NOw here's the list again...tell me where it changes from fact to fiction.

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.

I still don't see why it makes any difference to your claim. All of those people could be actual historical persons--including Adam. But you would still have no evidence that the text of the creation stories was literal and inerrant.

You still seem to be confused about the difference between real people and events, and stories about them in a book.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But you would still have no evidence that the text of the creation stories was literal and inerrant.

Thankfully we do not have to trust in men to tell us,

our GOOD SHEPHERD, the SAVIOR JESUS, and HIS FATHER GOD,
and HIS WORD THROUGH and THROUGH (ALL SCRIPTURE)

verifies HIS FAITHFULNESS and we TRUST HIM.

For "physical proof", keep seeking.
Perhaps "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" would be helpful?
and the second edition...

(I have no idea where it is available nor how much it costs; but it has been a wonderful compilation of hundreds or thousands of 'proof' for those weak in faith, for many things SCRIPTURAL) ...

 

[SolomonVII]

My own thought on the list of 'begats' in Genesis-and I do not know of any other Christian who subscribes to this- is that the great ages of the people involved refer to Egyptian dynasties. This is based on the work of a maverick, amateur scholar who noticed the connections.
The literal understanding would be that people actually lived nine hundred years. The normal reaction on behalf of Christian everywhere, I think, is to roll their eyes, mutter "boring-g-g-g-g" under their breath, and to skip through quickly to the next chapters. There is a lot more juicy reading to be had in Genesis after all.
Other than that, I don't really know of any reason why all this begatting was theologically significant to be recorded. People either believe in it literally, or they move on to more interesting stuff.

 

[-57]

< shrugs > I don't know what time or where (it) changed (in history) (in the 'church'?) -

(GOD'S WORD did not change. )

But ( I think) men over-ruled it(they think) with man's "better ideas" for world dominion....

Just like GOD said would happen, exactly....

What happened was the concept of evolutionism became popularized....and people started filtering and changing their bible based upon this new religion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I never met a Christian who did not believe that the BIBLE is accurate until I met people who trust men and man's ways instead of trusting the BIBLE.
Thankfully, sheer grace, GOD'S GRACE, I did not meet any for the longest time....

 

[Speedwell]

Thankfully we do not have to trust in men to tell us,

our GOOD SHEPHERD, the SAVIOR JESUS, and HIS FATHER GOD,
and HIS WORD THROUGH and THROUGH (ALL SCRIPTURE)

verifies HIS FAITHFULNESS and we TRUST HIM.

Unfortunately for 57's claim, He does not verify that the text of the creation stories is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. 57 seems to be under the impression that establishing Adam as a real historical personage will do it, but I don't see how.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What happened was the concept of evolutionism became popularized....and people started filtering and changing their bible based upon this new religion.

True, but I thought you meant when did men start changing the BIBLE Authority over to man's authority (i.e. opposed to and different than originally/ apart from GOD'S guidance)

 

[Speedwell]

I never met a Christian who did not believe that the BIBLE is accurate until I met people who trust men and man's ways instead of trusting the BIBLE.
Thankfully I did not meet any for the longest time....

I never met a Christian who believed that in order to be true and trustworthy the Bible had to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration, until I met a YEC.

 

[-57]

I still don't see why it makes any difference to your claim. All of those people could be actual historical persons--including Adam. But you would still have no evidence that the text of the creation stories was literal and inerrant.

You still seem to be confused about the difference between real people and events, and stories about them in a book.

I've presented the way the account is presented through out the bible. It's presented as literal.
Paul's letter to Timothy is an example. Why would Paul invoke a rule based upon a parable?

Jesus said the following:
6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.

Once again why would Jesus base what he said on a parable?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Speedwell, post: 71108418, member: 387171"]Unfortunately for 57's claim, He does not verify that the text of the creation stories is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. 57 seems to be under the impression that establishing Adam as a real historical personage will do it,
but I don't see how.[/QUOTE

(not in the big words you used) , but
that's okay, that's why we are here. God Willing.

HE said if we come to HIM as a little child, in faith with a pure heart, HE shows us all things concerning SALVATION in this life, and in the life to come.

GOD is the ONE TO TRUST and TO SEEK and to have FAITH IN>
(FAITH is a gift, not gained by study nor by man's means,
but a SHEER GRACE of GOD)

 

[Speedwell]

True, but I thought you meant when did men start changing the BIBLE Authority over to man's authority (i.e. opposed to and different than originally/ apart from GOD'S guidance)

On the other hand, there are many denominations which reject evolution (the Copts come to mind, as I was just discussing this with one) but also reject YEC biblical literalism.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I never met a Christian who believed that in order to be true and trustworthy the Bible had to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration, until I met a YEC.

GOOD ! Everyone should be so BLESSED !

(years ago, we were not 'yec' or any such - we simply believe GOD and trust HIM )

 

[-57]

I never met a Christian who believed that in order to be true and trustworthy the Bible had to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration, until I met a YEC.

I never met a christian who believed the bible contained error, was mostly allegorical, not really trustworthy and written by uninspired men until I began to communicate with those that had mixed the religion of evolutionism into scripture.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

On the other hand, there are many denominations which reject evolution (the Copts come to mind, as I was just discussing this with one) but also reject YEC biblical literalism.

SO ?
Where did GOD ever say to trust men ?