YI think you do, for instance why did Christ come and die? We all know for our sins...but why do we sin? That you disagree with what the bible teaches.
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.
But I don't disagree with the bible on why Christ came and died, nor do I disagree with what the Bible teaches.
It is amazing to me, these Christians who consider a divinely inspired allegory to be of so much less value than a divinely inspired factual account.
I know you believe that the verses you quote do that--but they don't. All they show is that Paul probably thought the stories were historical in some sense. The do not show that the texts of the Genesis stories are 100% accurate literal history as you claim.If Genesis isn't a literal historical account..then the way the bible presents it is wrong. Over a little while I have provided several verses that show Genesis and the account of Adam and Eve are literal and historical.
But I don't disagree with what the Bible teaches. I do disagree with your interpretation.YI think you do, for instance why did Christ come and die? We all know for our sins...but why do we sin? That you disagree with what the bible teaches.
I know you believe that the verses you quote do that--but they don't. All they show is that Paul probably thought the stories were historical in some sense. The do not show that the texts of the Genesis stories are 100% accurate literal history as you claim.
Amen? I have no idea what you're talking about. What "prehistoric people?" I thought the whole point of creationism was that there where no "prehistoric people."IF Adam was not a literal man, then today's people would still be looking for a hole to sleep in tonight. Gen 3:22 ONLY Adam was made with a mind like God's which means that ONLY a literal Adam could have passed his superior intelligence to Noah.
When Noah arrived in the mountains of Ararat, his unborn grandsons, also arrived. Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they had NO other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry. Like Cain, they married and produced offspring with the sons of God (prehistoric people) of Adam's Earth AND on the present Earth, fulfilling the prophecy of Gen 6:4 of "and also after that". IOW, Only the descendants of Adam have INHERITED his intelligence since Nature does NOT evolve it. Amen?
YI think you do, for instance why did Christ come and die? We all know for our sins...but why do we sin? That you disagree with what the bible teaches.
I know you believe that the verses you quote do that--but they don't. All they show is that Paul probably thought the stories were historical in some sense. The do not show that the texts of the Genesis stories are 100% accurate literal history as you claim.
But I don't disagree with what the Bible teaches. I do disagree with your interpretation.
Rather than a denial..I've been waiting for you're explanation. Why do you continue to avoid the questions?
I have not avoided any questions.
I you haven't, then can you please respond again and tell us why we sin? When and how we received a sin nature?
...I think you agree that we have one. Tell us about the history of it. The bible tells us, you considerl it an allegorical account...OK, what really happened?
Amen? I have no idea what you're talking about. What "prehistoric people?" I thought the whole point of creationism was that there where no "prehistoric people."
In the twenty years and more we have been arguing about this "in some sense" has always been part of it. There is more than one way to write an historical narrative and the way you insist that Genesis is written wasn't even invented by historians until a couple of hundred years ago.You seem to be coming to your senses by adding "in some sense" to what Paul believed.
Tell us, just who was Adam? You can't even do that and stay true to the bible.
In the twenty years and more we have been arguing about this "in some sense" has always been part of it. There is more than one way to write an historical narrative and the way you insist that Genesis is written wasn't even invented by historians until a couple of hundred years ago.
Adam was the first man. How is that not true to the Bible?
I have no idea--and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, which is why it was written as an etiology.Adam was the first man. That's what the bible teaches. Eve was the first women, that too is what the bible teaches.
The bible teaches Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his rib...do you disagree? If so, how did Adam and Eve come to be?
I have no idea--and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, which is why it was written as an etiology.
Person "A" offers the understanding that Adam and Eve were shaped from the dust with a method similar to an artist making a sculture.Adam was the first man. That's what the bible teaches. Eve was the first women, that too is what the bible teaches.
The bible teaches Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his rib...do you disagree? If so, how did Adam and Eve come to be?
Person "A" offers the understanding that Adam and Eve were shaped from the dust with a method similar to an artist making a sculture.
Person "B" offers the understanding that people came into being through a metamorphosis of similar life forms in a genetic interplay with their environment.
Now lets us assume that both Person "A" and Person "B" both have come to an understanding that the Book of Genesis is a literary work inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Is there any theological lesson or insight that Person "A" would have as to the spiritual or moral or ethical lessons to be derived by reading Genesis that Person "B" would be bereft of?
If two different theologies are derived from the different understandings of Adam and Eve, then the differences between A and B are substantive. If the theologies derived are the same, then the disagreements are moot.
Person "A" offers the understanding that Adam and Eve were shaped from the dust with a method similar to an artist making a sculture.
Person "B" offers the understanding that people came into being through a metamorphosis of similar life forms in a genetic interplay with their environment.
Now lets us assume that both Person "A" and Person "B" both have come to an understanding that the Book of Genesis is a literary work inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Is there any theological lesson or insight that Person "A" would have as to the spiritual or moral or ethical lessons to be derived by reading Genesis that Person "B" would be bereft of?
If two different theologies are derived from the different understandings of Adam and Eve, then the differences between A and B are substantive. If the theologies derived are the same, then the disagreements are moot.
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?