Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gospel writer Luke wrote the genealogical list at Luke 3 v 38 connecting Jesus being related to Adam.
Luke would have gotten that list from Jerusalem's public temple records.
The records would have started with 1st Chronicles 1: 1 starting with the Jewish ancestral listing Adam as a real person.
So, wouldn't denying Genesis mean denying all the rest of the Scriptures ?
Only if you argue for inerrancy meaning a God -guaranteed correct Bible. No room for human interpretation, which is to say, possible error. That is a tightrope indeed.
If you have followed the debates on the genealogy, you are either in serious denial or blinkered idiocy if tempted to refuse to accept that they cannot both be the genealogy of Joseph - and Joseph is what it says in both cases.
It is surely better to accept that, just as eyewitnesses don't always agree, people who write gospels don't always get everything right. While it may be embarrassing to admit that at least one of a couple of sainted evangelicals might not have written inerrant fact, it beats having to maintain Genesis as a history book and do the three Creationists Lucys act towards a branch of science with a stack of evidence that the religious historians would love have a tenth of.
I seem to recall Jesus making a reference to Adam and Eve, but does he specifically mention them by name?
Gospel writer Luke mentions Adam by name when Luke wrote down the genealogical list for us at Luke 3 v 38
Luke would have gotten that list from Jerusalem's temple records which contained 1st Chronicles 1 v 1
Jesus never said those old temple records [ which were later destroyed in the year 70 ] were wrong.
Only if you argue for inerrancy meaning a God -guaranteed correct Bible. No room for human interpretation, which is to say, possible error. That is a tightrope indeed.
If you have followed the debates on the genealogy, you are either in serious denial or blinkered idiocy if tempted to refuse to accept that they cannot both be the genealogy of Joseph - and Joseph is what it says in both cases.
It is surely better to accept that, just as eyewitnesses don't always agree, people who write gospels don't always get everything right. While it may be embarrassing to admit that at least one of a couple of sainted evangelicals might not have written inerrant fact, it beats having to maintain Genesis as a history book and do the three Creationists Lucys act towards a branch of science with a stack of evidence that the religious historians would love have a tenth of.
We have already corrected you on Jesus' genealogy and yet you go blithely on as if you were never corrected.
Tell us, oh ultra-informed-one, which parts of Genesis are to be taken literally and which figuratively and why they are? I'll be watching for your educated answer.
If you have followed the debates on the genealogy, you are either in serious denial or blinkered idiocy if tempted to refuse to accept that they cannot both be the genealogy of Joseph - and Joseph is what it says in both cases.
It is surely better to accept that, just as eyewitnesses don't always agree, people who write gospels don't always get everything right. While it may be embarrassing to admit that at least one of a couple of sainted evangelicals might not have written inerrant fact, .......
Is it the gospel accounts not getting things right, but humans lacking God's spirit not getting it right ?
Please remember Matthew's account follows Jesus' paternal line, and Luke records Jesus' maternal line.
Remember too that son-in-law in Scripture was considered then as being son.
Mary gave Jesus the birth right, Joseph gave Jesus the legal right to the throne of David.
Gospel writer Luke mentions Adam by name when Luke wrote down the genealogical list for us at Luke 3 v 38
Luke would have gotten that list from Jerusalem's temple records which contained 1st Chronicles 1 v 1
Jesus never said those old temple records [ which were later destroyed in the year 70 ] were wrong.
Not only that but the apostle Paul, who was raised in orthodox Judaism, believed, along with all good Israelites of his day, that Adam and Eve were real people. They weren't two people who came from some single celled amoebas.
Is it the gospel accounts not getting things right, but humans lacking God's spirit not getting it right ?
Please remember Matthew's account follows Jesus' paternal line, and Luke records Jesus' maternal line.
Remember too that son-in-law in Scripture was considered then as being son.
Mary gave Jesus the birth right, Joseph gave Jesus the legal right to the throne of David.
We've gone over this with him [AREQUIPA] ad-nauseum and he either forgets or just doesn't care to be misrepresentational in order, most likely to get as many out of the faith as he can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
