The linage...FACT or FICTION?

Ark Guy · Oct 21, 2003

Phoenix, you'll need to explain you question just a bit better.

Still what I'm really looking for is when the linage turns from fact to fiction.

ThePhoenix · Oct 21, 2003

Ok, there's two lineages, the Matthew and the Luke one. The Matthew one is Joseph - Jacob, etc. The Luke one is Joseph - Heli, etc. In the OP you used the Luke lineage. However here you said:

5)According to an interlinear bible, the word son is not even used in the luke 3:23 verse when refering to Joseph as being the son of Eli. The word "Son" is probably italicized in your bible. I know my NASB and KJV have it that way. The correct translation is Joseph of Eli. The history and reasonings presented earlier indicate the Joseph was the son-in-law of ELI.

So the Luke lineage isn't the proper lineage of Joseph at all. Therefore your OP is wrong from the second name on down. Joseph was NOT begat by Heli (Eli). He was Jacob's son. Therefore your initial lineage is not the lineage of Joseph.

LewisWildermuth · Oct 21, 2003

Some of it may be fact some of it may be fiction...

Will your belief in Christ fail you if you found out tommorow that Abraham was fictional?

If you got up to heavens gates would you walk away if God told you that Able and Cain were mythic figures?

And more importantly, do you believe that God will throw someone in to hell because they may think so, even if the believe and accept Christ?

Buck72 · Oct 24, 2003

LewisWildermuth said:
Some of it may be fact some of it may be fiction...

Will your belief in Christ fail you if you found out tommorow that Abraham was fictional?

If you got up to heavens gates would you walk away if God told you that Able and Cain were mythic figures?

And more importantly, do you believe that God will throw someone in to hell because they may think so, even if the believe and accept Christ?

What's more important here is the credibility of scripture. If there is no Abraham, there is no promise, no covenant, Israel is a lost cause, and who is Christ? What significance does His appearance have to do with anything?

By deleting the patriarchs through whome the promise has been passed down up until the birth of Christ you've left the faith with gaping holes.

If this be the case, God doesn't have to fit within His own description of Himself in His word which He esteems even above His own name.

I contend the lineage was placed by absolute Divine will so that we could know beyond a shadow of a doubt who the Messiah is and how He is directly connected to both Abraham, and David.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Oct 24, 2003

Buck72 said:
What's more important here is the credibility of scripture. If there is no Abraham, there is no promise, no covenant,

Why should this be? The Abrahamic model communicates the nature of the covenant; it is a mythological vehicle for the spiritual truth of that covenant. St John the Baptist, Our Lord, and Paul didn't seem to think Abrahamic descent counted for much.

Israel is a lost cause, and who is Christ? What significance does His appearance have to do with anything?

Hmmm - God becomes man and walks the earth, and there is no significance to this unless you can link it to a literal historical Abraham? I don't follow. The Incarnation is of massive significance even if it occurs in a total vacuum.

By deleting the patriarchs through whome the promise has been passed down up until the birth of Christ you've left the faith with gaping holes.

I don't think so. It doesn't matter a jot whether these figures really existed or not; the promise was still communicated, wasn't it?

If this be the case, God doesn't have to fit within His own description of Himself in His word which He esteems even above His own name.

The only Word of God that God esteems that highly is Our Lord, the Word made flesh. Where do you get the idea God esteems the written word so very highly?

I contend the lineage was placed by absolute Divine will so that we could know beyond a shadow of a doubt who the Messiah is and how He is directly connected to both Abraham, and David.

And I contend it was put there to place Our Lord, whom the early church had come to recognise was the Messiah and God Incarnate, within the Patriarchal framework that they understood from their Judaistic roots. I think we have it the wrong way round when we say "Because Jesus is the heir of David He is the Messiah" - rather it's "We have experienced that Jesus is the Messiah, therefore He is the heir of David."

Vance · Oct 24, 2003

Yes, I believe that Abraham was a historical person, and I believe that the lineage from him to Jesus (one of them, anyway) is correct.

But, even if it was somehow proven tomorrow that it is not true history, it would not effect my Faith in the message of salvation. If God chose to create a covenant with a people based on a non-historic event, I could accept that. Like a parable or a morality story, it would still contain Truth and tell us what God has planned for us.

A fairly large group of Christian scholars believe that all before Abraham falls into this type of category. While I do not ascribe to this, I could accept it if it was shown by VERY strong evidence without it effecting my faith in the message of salvation. Having obtained a history degree before going to law school, I learned early on in my studies that early cultures treated true history and instructive legend as one and the same. They often *knew* the legends were not fully true in historical terms, but treated them exactly the same as history because they were as IMPORTANT to their culture, being inspired by their god(s) for their instruction. The separation of true history and legend into separate compartments in our mind is fairly modern. If the ancient Hebrews believed that Abraham was true history and that Adam and Cain, et al, were inspired legends, they would have still written it EXACTLY as it is written now.

Even as late as Rome, they were mentally and culturally able to treat the Aenid, which they knew was fiction, the same as they treated their true history. Very hard for us to grasp with our modern minds, though.

Ark Guy · Oct 24, 2003

Once again.....where does the linage change from fact to fiction?

Why do the Theo-Evos keep refusing to answer this question?

Ark Guy · Oct 24, 2003

Once again Phoenix, maybe I'm a little dense today...but you're still not making sense.

LewisWildermuth · Oct 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Once again.....where does the linage change from fact to fiction?

Why do the Theo-Evos keep refusing to answer this question?

Because we do not know where it does and if it does and T/E's unlike many Creationists do not feel the urge to make up things to justify our faith to God.

Vance · Oct 24, 2003

True, for most TE's "We can't be sure about that, it could be X, y or Z, and it doesn't really matter anyway" is a perfectly acceptable answer. This definitely is one of those.

It is VERY dangerous to say that something MUST be true for Christian beliefs to be true. Why can't YEC's see that?

ThePhoenix · Oct 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Once again Phoenix, maybe I'm a little dense today...but you're still not making sense.

Ok, let me give it one more go.

In the OP you used the Luke lineage. However you stated that the Luke lineage was MARY'S lineage. Yet the name before Jesus is JOSEPH. Did you mean to post the Matthew lineage?

Buck72 · Oct 25, 2003

LewisWildermuth said:
T/E's unlike many Creationists do not feel the urge to make up things to justify our faith to God.

Lewis, I'm afraid that you've completely lost me.

Let's just toss out the Bible since it is such an obvious stumbling block to the TE movement, and then we can argue over a peace pipe in the mountains with a hot cup of herbal tea and "reason" about the nature of things.

Even then the word of God would tell us that:

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

I must ask then: what is MADE UP?

What is faith and where does it come from?

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If the word contradicts evolution, how then are creationists making things up to justify our faith? Could it be the evolutionists are making things up to justify their faith?

{Paste from earlier post, different thread by Buck72}:

In six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and rested on the seventh day (Ex 20:11), and the timeline (doing the math: the numbers are clearly given for this very purpose) which adds up to 1,948 years from Adam to the birth of Abraham, plus another 2,160 up until the birth of Christ = 4,108 years from Adam until Christ; or 6,078 years from 2003 since Adam was "born" on the sixth day of creation.

Now I will not contend that we can determine the exact moment in time of the Genesis, but billions of years?

Buck72 · Oct 25, 2003

I'm also disturbed that many TE folks answer that "it doesn't matter" when presented with conflicting statements from the word. I will harp on this again and again - the WORD is the foundation of the Christian faith, apart from it is minefield of deceit. Why was Christ so emphatic about avoiding deception? How does one know that he is being deceived? The word is there to protect the believer from deception and illuminate them with the truth.

Today folks argue that there is no absolutes, although they cannot be absolutely sure!

If the word is not the "end-all-be-all", then we have a problem with our Christianity. What is right and wrong? Who decides? What is something is popularly wrong and then another comes along to challenge it (sans scripture) and they agree that it should be right? Does the government get to decide right from wrong? Are there rights and wrongs?

We're in big trouble fellas. The only thing we can be sure of is the word, apart from that, who knows?

Vance · Oct 25, 2003

No, Buck you are missing the point entirely. It is not AT ALL that the Bible doesn't matter. It not only matters, it is essential to the Christian belief. What is not essential is whether the flood was worldwide, local, or a morality story from God. The message from that Scripture IS essential, but that is all.

So, be sure of the message of the Word, there is no backing down from that position, I agree 100%. But to assert that a Scripture like the flood story HAS to be a literal, worldwide flood is very, very, very dangerous to Christianity. The evidence against a worldwide flood is SO dramatically overwhelming (see the science forum for a number of thread completely falsifying the possibility) that to assert that it must be so for Christianity to be true is simply going to lose souls from the Kingdom.

There are, indeed, absolute truths we can be certain of. A worldwide flood is not one of them.

Buck72 · Oct 25, 2003

The Flood is more than a morality lesson. It reads plain enough to me, I haven't even been to Bible school.

I've already posted this response in the SIX DAY Creation thread, but here's a copy for the folks in the this particular thread:

Mat 24:37-39 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be

I can list out (if you wish) dozens of verses that account for the Flood. I need to start a new thread about the flood - I'm AMAZED, stunned, shocked, astounded, bewildered, perplexed, suprised, flabbergasted, dumbfounded, floored, floundered, stupified, staggered, stunned, and totally confused as to why...my dear brothers in the faith the Flood is dismissed so casually.

The greatest threat to evolutionistic integrity is uniformitarianism - the flood seems to really bother evolutionists, and I do not know why. It seems simple enough, especially to a believer that there was a flood. Many remarkable discoveries have given the flood greater credibility over the years, and have removed much of the fog of "millions of years". Perhaps there is a weakness to evolution that is taboo to consider? I pray that among you men of faith this is not the case.

Please bear with me while I support the Flood:

Gen 6:17 "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
Gen 7:12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

Gen 7:17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

Gen 7:18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.

Gen 7:19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. (not a local flood)

Gen 7:20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

Gen 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

> Smart God to keep the Ark from hitting bottom!

Gen 7:21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;

Gen 7:22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

Gen 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

Gen 7:24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Gen 8:2 Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;

Gen 8:3 and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.

Gen 8:4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.
Gen 8:5 The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

______________________________________________________________________

Aside from the text - there are plenty more verses I'll be happy to share, but simply for verbosity sake I'll save them for another post, here's a few scientific points:

Sedimentary rock is formed in water. This is found all over the earth. Even the top of Mt Everest (29,000) feet is made of sedimentary rock and includes fossil sea life! Millions of petrified clams have been found with their shells closed, perhaps indicating a rapid burial? Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, oil, coal, and polystrate fossils are best explained by a flood.

Gen 10:25 tells us the continents were divided 100-300 years after the flood, allowing plenty of migration all over the world - a valid possibility.

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided

There is also enough water on the planet today to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth. Given modern erosion rates, this would have happened millions of years ago with a uniformitarianism viewpoint.
Psa 104:5[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Psa 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Ark Guy · Oct 25, 2003

vance posted;
True, for most TE's "We can't be sure about that, it could be X, y or Z, and it doesn't really matter anyway" is a perfectly acceptable answer. This definitely is one of those.

It is VERY dangerous to say that something MUST be true for Christian beliefs to be true. Why can't YEC's see that?

vance...you claim the linage changes from fact to fiction...this idea of your's is based squarely on the religion of evolutionISM.

In other words, you are now claiming the bible is wrong...which is very dangerous. Why is it dangerous? How do you know what parts are true and what parts are untrue? Hmmmmm...Oh I know, filter it through your religion of evolutionISM

Ark Guy · Oct 25, 2003

ThePhoenix said:
Ok, let me give it one more go.

In the OP you used the Luke lineage. However you stated that the Luke lineage was MARY'S lineage. Yet the name before Jesus is JOSEPH. Did you mean to post the Matthew lineage?

Lukes linage is Mary's linage.
Matthews linage is of Josephs.

Joseph was Jacobs son by birth as clearly presented in Matthew and Eli's son by marriage as presented in Luke.

If I posted anything different then I posted in error.

Now once again, where does the linage change from fact to fiction?

Ark Guy · Oct 25, 2003

vance said:
No, Buck you are missing the point entirely. It is not AT ALL that the Bible doesn't matter. It not only matters, it is essential to the Christian belief. What is not essential is whether the flood was worldwide, local, or a morality story from God. The message from that Scripture IS essential, but that is all.

If you can't trust the bible on the other issues that you pointed out....then how can you trust them on the essentials?

Vance said:
So, be sure of the message of the Word, there is no backing down from that position, I agree 100%. But to assert that a Scripture like the flood story HAS to be a literal, worldwide flood is very, very, very dangerous to Christianity. The evidence against a worldwide flood is SO dramatically overwhelming (see the science forum for a number of thread completely falsifying the possibility) that to assert that it must be so for Christianity to be true is simply going to lose souls from the Kingdom.

There are, indeed, absolute truths we can be certain of. A worldwide flood is not one of them.

What????? The evidence for a world wide flood is very compelling.
Here is a few examples:
Chalk Strata containing marine fossils has been found extending from Northern Ireland, through England, to France, southern Germany, northern India, Malaysia and ending up in Australia. This strata extends around three quarters of the world!
Plus we must not forget Evidence for a world wide flood can be seen when one looks at the rather large area of the St. Peters Sandstone in the United States and the 750,000 Square mile thousands of feet thick and 3 mile high Tibetan plateau.
Other evidences pointing to the Flood is the presence of the widespread conglomerates which cover as much as a million square miles with an almost uniformly thick layer of sediment.
It's quite obvious something more than a local flood or old sea deposited these formations.

LewisWildermuth · Oct 25, 2003

Ark Guy said:
vance posted;
True, for most TE's "We can't be sure about that, it could be X, y or Z, and it doesn't really matter anyway" is a perfectly acceptable answer. This definitely is one of those.

It is VERY dangerous to say that something MUST be true for Christian beliefs to be true. Why can't YEC's see that?

vance...you claim the linage changes from fact to fiction...this idea of your's is based squarely on the religion of evolutionISM.

In other words, you are now claiming the bible is wrong...which is very dangerous. Why is it dangerous? How do you know what parts are true and what parts are untrue? Hmmmmm...Oh I know, filter it through your religion of evolutionISM

No Ark Guy, there is no such thing as a religion of evolution, you have been shown this time and time again.

How does anyone get any meaning out of the Bible? Through a personal filter that is our knowlege and experiances.

Do you accept that the Sun is the center of our solar system? How can you since the Bible never states that it is? Through your own personal filter of knowlege you have learned and experiances in real life. The same thing that T/E's do in order to accept evolution even though the Bible never says it is a fact.

Ark Guy · Oct 25, 2003

Lewis, you FORCE the bible to accept evolution...therefor it is evolutionISM

The linage...FACT or FICTION?

Ark Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

The Watchman

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Ark Guy

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

The Watchman

The Watchman

Contributor

The Watchman

Ark Guy

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Senior Veteran

Ark Guy

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency