/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

No, that's arbitrary

No it all happened. Check the genealogy in the Book of Luke

>>791925

Why would it be?

physical evidence would suggest so

even so, it's truer than most literal stories

thus for all practical purposes we should discuss it as an actual event when we talk about it

>>791970

Because the events seem impossible?

>>792009

With God, all things are possible.

>>792009

Modernists absolutely hate that part of the Bible. It is wise to embrace it.

Who CARES?

You can spend time with actually fruitful discussion about Christ or sacraments but instead, every week at best, we have this moronic thread, discussing this absolutely useless topic ovee and over again because some American Protestants are autistic about it.

Enough already!

>>792027

On behalf of American Protestants I happily take responsibility for the debates in favor of the creation story as history.

I'd also like to point out that irrational rage is an actual characteristic of autism, maybe you should set doctor.

No it all physically happened. Genealogy ofLuke, bud,

No, not everything, in the same way that it isn't all literal historical journalism.

It's not "historical", in the sense that the book only begins to chronicle the lives of particular people and a strict series of events beginning with Abraham. But it's certainly not allegory.

No, only modernist homos think otherwise.

>>791925

No. Yes. Sorta. It reads really silly to modern people simply because translation is poor. And why is translation poor? Because (((subversives))) have been trying their damndest to make the religion unhealthy and stupid. I wasn’t a literal serpent in Eden. Serpent was a common insult for deceiver. The real lesson of Eden is don’t fall for subversive ideology, not acknowledging evil sends you to hell.

Genesis was written a thousand years after the earliest events in it. Do you think there were previous books or a series of scrolls that it collated, or do you think it was straight from oral history?

What do you mean?

Abraham is the literal Adam of Genesis, who represent how the Hebrews view (real and the originator of) humanity.

>>792204

There are 2 answers for this based on tradition.

1, as a Copt, would be the Ethiopian/Eritrean Bible books of Enoch and Jubilees. The Ethiopian and Eritrean Coptic Churches believe them to be divine scripture. Enoch specifically in its final chapters outlines how it will be passed onto Noah and survive the Flood. The Armenian Apostolic scripture of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs collaborate on this idea. Jubilees is like Genesis with additional information like the wives of the Patriarchs and parts of the Pentaeuch. Genesis could have simply been a combination of both Jubilees and Enoch together as a sort of abridged version.

2, and the more accepted theory among the Churches, is that Moses was given the first 5 books of the Bible by God Himself on Mt. Sinai and wrote them down for all the Israelites to have.

>>792206

>is that Moses was given the first 5 books of the Bible by God Himself on Mt. Sinai and wrote them down for all the Israelites to have.

wut? the pentateuch was written by Moses inspired by the Holy Spirit, what Moses received at Sinai was the 10 commandments, and there was a second time because of Israelites and the Golden Calf episode

>>792107

>I wasn't a literal serpent in Eden.

GET BEHIND ME SATAN!

>>792247

Yes, he did receive the 10 Commandments on Mt. Sinai, but I was told he also received the knowledge and words of the books, in order that he may write them down, from God on Mt. Sinai. That is the reason Moses took so long on the mountain.

>>792205

There it is. The stupidest thing I’ve read all day.

>>792107

Is this a test? You're being subversive right now

Genesis 3:14 ESV — The LORD God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

>>792113

This. If it was not real then Christ lied.

>>792009

So does walking on water. That happened though.

>>792354

Didn't he go up the mountain in Exodus to get the Commandments, and wrote the Pentateuch later when he was up the mountain again in Deuteronomy as an old man before God told him he couldn't go over the Jordan?

>>792443

Show me where the text says that this exact serpent was satan, and not just being controlled.

>>792447

Let me see…all the church fathers I've heard thus far? But since you are most likely a Prot, here's revelations:

>And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

and

>And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

>>792451

That doesn’t say he was the eden snake.

>Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

>beasts of the field

>beasts

>>791980 i spotted the jew. what do i win?

>>792113

The closest mention is "he which made them at the beginning made them male and female", Matt 19:4, in describing marriage. What Christ said certainly licenses the interpretation that Adam and Eve literally existed.

There surely was a first moment in which our ancestors started thinking about God, farming (In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread) and wearing clothes.

God certainly could have made Adam and Eve out of dust, but He could just as easily have not done that.

Of course Genesis is allegories and metaphors. It's naturalism to try to act like everything in the Bible is literally true, or act like what isn't literally true is false. Some people go too far the other way and say that since God is beyond our understanding we shouldn't call Him Father even though He told us to call Him Father.

>>792018

>Modernists absolutely hate that part of the Bible. It is wise to embrace it.

Embracing it gifted me faith and converted me to Christianity.

Genesis is the key to escape nihilism/naturalism/atheism/hell.

It also provided the the foundation to understand the Good News of Jesus Christ.

No, of course not. There is absolutely no reason to think so. The text is presented as historical narrative. It even says, 'morning, evening, the X day'. How much clearer could it be. Furthermore, Abraham lived roughly 200 years; was that allegorical? To start cutting up God's Word is a dangerous slope, just look at those people who do argue that Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and even parts of the New Testament, didn't exist.

To address another concern, yes Moses wrote Genesis-Deuteronomy. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit, that is, though Moses was the human author, the Holy Spirit was the divine author (as He was for the entire Bible). God in a sense told Moses what to write, while preserving Moses' personality and writing style. In pact, I believe it is in one of Peter's epistles that he says that the prophets would marvel at what they wrote, because they could not fully understand it. so yes, Moses physically penned the creation account, along with everything else in Genesis, but we have no reason to suspect that, because he did not live in that time, that the entire book of Genesis is inaccurate. If you claim this, then you are either deny the innerancy and inspiration of the Bible, or you are saying God got it wrong.

>>791925

No.

Unless you have genealogical records, you can’t prove that your ancestors aren’t Adam and Eve.