- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
I voted Yes, but not because of Genesis 1-3, rather because of Romans 5.
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.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
I voted Yes, but not because of Genesis 1-3, rather because of Romans 5.
Good. Had someone suggested otherwise?The New Testament witness confirms the testimony of Genesis 1-3 in no uncertain terms.
Adam can be used in the Old Testament as another name for humanity and often is, but that's for the same reason that Israel is used for all the descendants of Jacob.
Good. Had someone suggested otherwise?
I would love a discussion on Adam as our federal head, or Israel in eschatology and soteriology, but something tells me it would end up unedifying.
arguing that Adam is a figure of speach can't get you around the sin problem.
Yes, ALL the people in Luke's Genealogy were real live historical people. What we read and learn about these people are accurate and true. For example, Joshua really did fight the battle of Jericho, David really did fight Goliath. Rehab really was a prostitute. In fact if you go to ancient Jericho today, the only part of the wall that is still standing was the outside wall of Rehabs house. There is plenty of scientific evidence and archeology evidence to show that the Bible is an accurate and true book. That is why we are told that the day is coming when: "every tongue shall confess..."What are your thoughts?
You do know what beget means and what it involves?
Dear Assyrian, I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I actually believe that Jesus, who IS God, begat Adam.
The Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis disagrees with evolution too, but it doesn't disprove it. It just means if evolution is true, which it is, then the YEC interpretation is wrong. The literal interpretation of geocentric passages in Copernicus and Galileo's time didn't disprove heliocentrism. The fact the earth goes round the sun simply showed the geocentric interpretation was wrong and the church needed to find a better way to understand those passages, which it did. Now you may be convinced by your rather unusual interpretation of Genesis, you may think is means evolution is wrong, but it doesn't, it just means your interpretation of Genesis is at odds with reality.It was on the 3rd Day long BEFORE life came from the water PROVING that Adam did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature, but was made by the Hands of Jesus. We are the FIRST of all other living creatures and NOT the last.
You should notify the other Evols that the Theory of Evolution has been proven wrong SCRIPTURALLY. IOW, God tells us we did NOT evolve, thus overriding the false teaching of Evolutionism, both Godless and Theological.
In Love,
Aman
You take that literally? I thought only fundamentalist Mormons believe God actually begat Adam.
Oh, I am sure he believed there was an actual history that included an actual individual Adam. It doesn't follow that he believed the accounts were anything other than what he called them (according to the paragraph cited by Freezerman2000 in post 23)--namely, philosophy.
They also believed the allegorical meanings were where the real teaching of Genesis is. Naturally they also believed they were history. After all, allegory has to be allegory of something real. And they had no information that would challenge the history behind the allegory.
I don't believe the creation accounts describe actual history because creation itself tells us it can't be so. ...
You didn't address any of my points.Aman:>>You should notify the other Evols that the Theory of Evolution has been proven wrong SCRIPTURALLY. IOW, God tells us we did NOT evolve, thus overriding the false teaching of Evolutionism, both Godless and Theological.
Assyrian:>>The Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis disagrees with evolution too, but it doesn't disprove it. It just means if evolution is true, which it is, then the YEC interpretation is wrong.
Dear Assyrian, Not in God's time. God has but 7 Days or Ages and the 7th is Eternity. IOW, God is a YEC. He speaks of His Creation as being complete in just 6 Days.
Assyrian:>>The literal interpretation of geocentric passages in Copernicus and Galileo's time didn't disprove heliocentrism. The fact the earth goes round the sun simply showed the geocentric interpretation was wrong and the church needed to find a better way to understand those passages, which it did. Now you may be convinced by your rather unusual interpretation of Genesis, you may think is means evolution is wrong, but it doesn't, it just means your interpretation of Genesis is at odds with reality.
So where is your response to posts 79, 80 and 85 in your 'Man made on the 3rd day' thread?Then it should be easy for one approaching 15k posts to point out my obvious mistakes. We've tried that but you ran away when it got interesting. Perhaps it was because you kept insisting that man was NOT made on the 3rd Day as Scripture plainly says. Are you the one who kept insisting that God's Holy Word is Allegory?
In Love,
Aman
If Adam was created out of dirt rather than God being his biological father, then 'son of God' is not literal it is figurative. The same with the angelic 'sons of God and Israel.Luke never said God begat Adam. Son is a word used for direct creations. Angels are called sons of God in Job. They are direct creations and not created via procreation. The nation of Israel is also called the son of God as it is a nation created directly by God. And, it is also correct also to call Adam the son of God, as he was directly created out of dirt by God. Adam was the only human that could be called the son of God apart from those in Christ. Now the other way to become a son of God is to be found in Christ who is the only begotten Son of God. In Him we become the children of God, not because we were directly created, but because we have become united with Christ the Son.
If Adam was created out of dirt rather than God being his biological father, then 'son of God' is not literal it is figurative. The same with the angelic 'sons of God and Israel.
If anything Hebrew was even better at figurative and poetic usage of words, Benjamin's name meant 'son of my sorrow' you have the 'son of wickedness' in Psalm 89:22 and a similar Hebraism in the NT's 'son of perdition', a man condemned to death is a 'son of death' 1Sam 30:21 we see it in Joseph from Cyprus's Aramaic nickname Barnabas, 'son of encouragement', priests are 'sons of oil' Zech 4:14, people from Jeruslaem were 'sons of Zion' Psalm 149:2, the Babylonians were the 'son of Babylon' Ezek 23:15 and Arabs were called 'sons of the East' Gen 29:1. Sparks are the sons of coal Job 5:7, the northern stars are sons of the Great bear Job 38:22.I think you're perhaps looking at it in light of modern english nomenclature. For the ancient bible writers, seems "born" was a term used for direct creation. This is why first generation offspring are called sons, and this seems to be why angels and Adam were referred to as sons. Seems very literal. The term begotten is also interesting as that seems to be added to those created through the birthing process.
What do you think God meant in Exodus 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son?From what I've gathered pondering how the Bible speaks of this, there are two ways to attain sons. Create them, or father them. Only Christ was fathered by God, and begotten. Adam and the angels were created directly and therefore sons, but were not fathered, and therefore they don't call God Father as Christ does. And then of course, the good news is that those in Christ also can call God father as well, but only those in Christ. I don't think that is a privilege that even the most holy angels have.
Now you may disagree with his history, just as you disagree with the history of the Bible, but that doesn't warrant saying he thought his works to be merely allegory and not actual history.
gluadys said:They also believed the allegorical meanings were where the real teaching of Genesis is. Naturally they also believed they were history. After all, allegory has to be allegory of something real. And they had no information that would challenge the history behind the allegory.
But you're missing a very important point. That something has allegorical meaning does not mean it is not also literal.
The early church believed in literal days, and also believe those days had futuristic allegorical meanings.
I know, it it's so sad because you're missing a tremendous blessing that comes from believing the word of God. We please God by trusting him, and that in and of itself is perhaps the biggest blessing of all. I would never condemn you or any others for their rejection of Genesis, but at the same time, the church is missing out on the full blessing of believing and defending God's word.
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?