Barbarian
Member
Show us where St. Paul said that account was "literal and historical." You know that he didn't.
Do you think that the story of Abraham and Issac was literal and historical?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences
- Thread starter Barbarian
- Start date
Show us where St. Paul said that account was "literal and historical." You know that he didn't.
Do you think that the story of Abraham and Issac was literal and historical?
Barbarian
Member
They died that day spiritually, as God said that they would. That was the serpent's deception. God was speaking of a spiritual death, not a literal one. The Serpent presented as a literal death, not a spiritual one.
That's not what God said, is it? He said they would die the day they ate from the tree. Nothing about "you will begin to die." That is a modern revision.
Barbarian
Member
She is the mother of all living humans. Still consistent with orthodox belief. Do you see why this is such a problem for your new doctrine?
Barbarian
Member
Yep. they aren't on the end of their snouts, but they are indeed nostrils. In fact, there is a very nice series of whales showing how their nostrils moved farther back on their heads over time. Would you like to learn about that?
Barbarian
Member
The solution is easy. Forget you new interpretation and just accept Jesus as He is. It doesn't matter to your salvation whether you're a creationist or not. But if you make an idol of your new doctrine, then you are removing yourself from Christ.
Don't do that. Be a creationist if you like. But don't pretend it's an essential doctrine for salvation. That is the way you put yourself in danger of losing eternal life.
Cygnus
Member
I've been waiting for you to show all of us why it is presented as literal and historical acording to all literature definitions...but you insist it never happened as was a parable...the at the same time act as if it did happen but must apply extra biblical meaning to the scripture.
As to Abraham and Issac, absolutly literal and historical. That's the way both the OT and NT present it. Why would I doubt it?
dirtfarmer
Member
hello Barbarian, dirtfarmer here
It is my belief that interpreting Genesis as a "creationist" gives an understanding of how sin entered the world. You being a non-creationist, how do you explain how sin came into the world?
Cygnus
Member
God selected two people out of the population...named them Adam and Eve, gave them souls, they sinned...and somehow all the people who didn't have sould died out and only Adam progeny remains. As you know, many x-tra biblical additions are needed for this to work....then more are needed to answer the contradictions that this Theo-Evo "doctrine" creates.
brujaq
Member
Yes , without a doubt. The proof is the covenant Genesis 17:9-14 ... Bwahahaha, you think a grown man and all of his family and adopted in Jewish males for generations even today would take a knife to their foreskin and still today if it weren't literal and historical ?