[_ Old Earth _] Creation

[Rick W]

If Adam is allegorical then...

Which son had an allegorical father?

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Exactly. He's not an allegory and was created without age, fully mature as the fish Christ created.

We simply have different opinions I guess. No way is a talking snake real life.

 

[kevinmaynard]

If Adam is allegorical then...

Which son had an allegorical father?

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Odd there were no girls. Leads me to think allegory.

 

[Rick W]

Again, who is real and who is not?

Do you not see how this goes?
Evolution is based on time and age. Therefore Adam had to be allegorical and the fish with which Christ fed the many could not have been through creation having full maturity and no age in both cases.
Now we see even Luke's genealogy must be allegorical. The problem with this one is we know through archeology there are those who are real indeed. So not all of it can be allegorical.

It snowballs from one problem to the next.

Now then, for Adam to be allegorical there has to be a place in Luke's testimony where the allegorical becomes real. In other words somewhere along the line Luke erred. For an allegorical father cannot begat a real son.

So again, which son had an allegorical father?

All cannot be allegorical but it's claimed not all is real. Where is the division?

 

[kevinmaynard]

by the logic how did jesus also come back from the dead and go through walls? what makes you believe that and not a talking snake or that satan talked to and tempted jesus and entered peter?

Again, who is real and who is not?

Do you not see how this goes?
Evolution is based on time and age. Therefore Adam had to be allegorical and the fish with which Christ fed the many could not have been through creation having full maturity and no age in both cases.
Now we see even Luke's genealogy must be allegorical. The problem with this one is we know through archeology there are those who are real indeed. So not all of it can be allegorical.

It snowballs from one problem to the next.

Now then, for Adam to be allegorical there has to be a place in Luke's testimony where the allegorical becomes real. In other words somewhere along the line Luke erred. For an allegorical father cannot begat a real son.

So again, which son had an allegorical father?

All cannot be allegorical but it's claimed not all is real.

I just find talking snakes world wide floods and many generations with no girls to be not literal.

Joseph was the first non allegorical father.

 

[Rick W]

I'm not talking about snakes, or floods. Lineage is traced through father/son. Most genealogy is.

Where is the dividing point?

 

[jasoncran]

I just find talking snakes world wide floods and many generations with no girls to be not literal.

Joseph was the first non allegorical father.

who was joseph' dad? Jacob? Isaac? Abraham. uhm just because they aren't listed, first the lineage is a list of jewish rites of inheritance fro the first born, david and had more then one son but ONLY Solomon had the throne and that is where the moshiac would come from.

 

[Rick W]

/edit
I see it was edited so it continues as before.

 

[Rick W]

Was Jacob allegorical?

 

[kevinmaynard]

who was joseph' dad? Jacob? Isaac? Abraham. uhm just because they aren't listed, first the lineage is a list of jewish rites of inheritance fro the first born, david and had more then one son but ONLY Solomon had the throne and that is where the moshiac would come from.

I don't know who was Josephs father?

 

[kevinmaynard]

Was Jacob allegorical?

Maybe I haven't put much thought into him. Anyone outside the bible write about him?

 

[kevinmaynard]

I'm not talking about snakes, or floods. Lineage is traced through father/son. Most genealogy is.

Where is the dividing point?

Talking snakes, and worldwide floods, and Jesus being related to Adam by males only certainly seems figurative. Really no girls?

 

[jasoncran]

I don't know who was Josephs father?

Jacob had twelves sons and if Abraham isn't real then how can any Hebrew be a Hebrew? jesus called father Abraham that? why? because he did indeed birth that nation. god promised him land and a son to take that land when he died and so on. no Abraham, no isreal, no isreal , NO JESUS!

 

[Rick W]

Hard isn't it?
That's the point though. If Adam is allegorical then we have to divert the subject to snakes, floods and no girls.

 

[jasoncran]

Talking snakes, and worldwide floods, and Jesus being related to Adam by males only certainly seems figurative. Really no girls?

uhm jesus wasn't realated to joseph but mary, mary and joseph are cousins, in jewish thought the mother gives the identity of being a Hebrew to the child and he or she will have her nature but the father is where the land rights come from. the lineage listed is off the kingly line from joseph not Mary's line. josephs line is accursed.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Jacob had twelves sons and if Abraham isn't real then how can any Hebrew be a Hebrew? jesus called father Abraham that? why? because he did indeed birth that nation. god promised him land and a son to take that land when he died and so on. no Abraham, no isreal, no isreal , NO JESUS!

I understand Zionists really want to believe God gave them that land. I however am not fully convinced. No Israel doesn't mean no Jesus.

 

[Rick W]

Talking snakes, and worldwide floods, and Jesus being related to Adam by males only certainly seems figurative. Really no girls?

Hard isn't it?
That's the point. If Adam must be allegorical then we have to take the subject away from that and bring up snakes, floods and no girls.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Hard isn't it?
That's the point though. If Adam is allegorical then we have to divert the subject to snakes, floods and no girls.

I tell you why I don't believe in literal Genesis. Besides Joseph isn't even the father of Jesus so he isn't related to Adam through Joseph at all.

 

[Rick W]

I understand Zionists really want to believe God gave them that land. I however am not fully convinced. No Israel doesn't mean no Jesus.

Now it's Zionists and Israel.
Forget about the question. Let's talk about something completely different instead.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Now it's Zionists and Israel.
Forget about the question. Let's talk about something completely different instead.

I responded to Jason didn't you see I quoted him?