Has the church got Genesis all wrong?

[St. SteVen]

Jesus is The Word and existed in the beginning. (John 1:1) Yes, the Word of the Lord came to many of the Old Testament prophets. The Bible makes a big deal out of it when this happens. So much so, that it's reasonable to assume that if the Bible doesn't say so... that isn't what happened. And it doesn't say that this happened with regards to anything in Genesis.

Another interesting comparative.

1 Corinthians 10:4 NIV
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock
that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

It IS a theory. And some (but not all) textual critics ARE non-believers.

Davy said:
No such idea written in God's Word. That's just a theory by the modern un-believing Textual Critics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why would we trust such important work to doctrinally biased believers? Bad idea.
That's why the Bible is ALREADY such a mess.

Would you hire your Pastor to do your brain surgery, or leave it to the experts? - LOL

/ @Davy

 

[St. SteVen]

There's an argument to be made both ways. Like I said in another post, the Bible literally says that Moses father-in-Law was a Kenite... and a Midianite... and a Kushite. Either these are ALL true somehow, or the Bible is wrong about something.

That's really the key point of this whole topic, correct?

/

 

[Wick Stick]

This is an interesting comparative.

2 Corinthians 12:2 NIV
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven.
Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

/

It's a mysterious verse. Did Paul know Enoch? probably not... some people think Paul was talking about himself, his own vision. I don't think anybody knows for sure.

 

[Wick Stick]

That's really the key point of this whole topic, correct?

Haha it's more like the red herring. We can't stop talking about this but it isn't actually that important.

The point is that Genesis is a compilation of works and they aren't necessarily in chronological order!

 

[St. SteVen]

Haha it's more like the red herring. We can't stop talking about this but it isn't actually that important.

The point is that Genesis is a compilation of works and they aren't necessarily in chronological order!

It is curious that the history on this is so fuzzy in that area. I appreciate this topic, thanks.

/

 

[Davy]

Jesus is The Word and existed in the beginning. (John 1:1) Yes, the Word of the Lord came to many of the Old Testament prophets. The Bible makes a big deal out of it when this happens. So much so, that it's reasonable to assume that if the Bible doesn't say so... that isn't what happened. And it doesn't say that this happened with regards to anything in Genesis.

That part in red sounds like you just reversed what you said in your first statements in black. That's cute.

What I said about Jesus appearing to the OT Patriarchs was meant literally, not just because Jesus existed in the beginning with The Father. The following is what you are required to admit with Jesus showing He appeared to Abraham...

John 8:56-58
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
KJV

 

[Wick Stick]

That's cute.

Sarcasm, eh.

What I said about Jesus appearing to the OT Patriarchs was meant literally, not just because Jesus existed in the beginning with The Father. The following is what you are required to admit with Jesus showing He appeared to Abraham...

John 8:56-58
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
KJV

This is not the "got 'im" that you think it is. I literally said this in my last post.

You seem to have a problem with me. I would invite you to use the forum's block function if that's the case. You aren't actually interacting anyway, just repeating yourself at this point. You're wasting both our time, frankly.

 

[Davy]

Sarcasm, eh.

You mean your sarcastic double negative I put in red from your previous post? Yeah, I thought that was cute, in a sarcastic way. Those in Christ are to speak plainly, not throw out phrases that one must decipher.

This is not the "got 'im" that you think it is. I literally said this in my last post.

There it is again, I don't have a clue what you mean by the above. That's about as plain as a 2-day old hotdog without the bun.

You seem to have a problem with me. I would invite you to use the forum's block function if that's the case. You aren't actually interacting anyway, just repeating yourself at this point. You're wasting both our time, frankly.

No, I don't have a problem with you, per se. I do have a problem with your inability to communicate though. Because of that, I can't tell your meaning.

 

[Wick Stick]

Those in Christ are to speak plainly, not throw out phrases that one must decipher.

There it is again, I don't have a clue what you mean by the above. That's about as plain as a 2-day old hotdog without the bun.

I'm sorry to hear it. I do strive to speak plainly.

No, I don't have a problem with you, per se. I do have a problem with your inability to communicate though. Because of that, I can't tell your meaning. And if you think I'm wasting your time, little child, then quit responding just because you think you have to try and get the last word.

I feel an obligation to respond in topics that I've started. shrug

 

[St. SteVen]

Davy said:
No, I don't have a problem with you, per se. I do have a problem with your inability to communicate though. Because of that, I can't tell your meaning. And if you think I'm wasting your time, little child, then quit responding just because you think you have to try and get the last word.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Davy
That was uncalled for!

/ @Wick Stick

 

[Jay Ross]

@Davy
That was uncalled for!

/ @Wick Stick

As is this post.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Ok, I think maybe I understand what you're getting at now. Are you saying that this would make the genealogy in Matthew wrong?

If so, that... isn't a problem for me. The genealogy in Matthew is already wrong... well, either Matthew or Luke must be unfactual, because they give different genealogies. Luke's appears to be an actual genealogy.

Matthew seems to have something else in mind with the genealogy in chapter 1 of his gospel. I don't think he was trying to write a history there.

A little late to this and catching up.

My understanding is yes the genealogies are different but they differ in an important way: Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of Nathan, another Son of David. The end result is two distinct genealogies.

 

[St. SteVen]

The end result is two distinct genealogies.

Distinct?
That means different, right?
Do we conclude an error was made in the genealogies, or what?

/ @Wick Stick

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic. (shameless promotion)

The Limited Aspect of Christian Love - "I love you, but I don't like you."

As Christians, we are commanded to "love everyone". But that doesn't mean we need to LIKE them, right? RIGHT? - Have you found yourself in the position of having to "love" someone that is unlovable? - What does it mean to "like" someone? - Is "like" greater than, or even EQUAL to, love? /

www.christianityboard.com

/

 

[rwb]

A little late to this and catching up.

My understanding is yes the genealogies are different but they differ in an important way: Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of Nathan, another Son of David. The end result is two distinct genealogies.

How are the two distinct? I view the genealogies differ by showing Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. Luke proves Christ to be the Son of God, therefore fully Divine and Matthew proves Christ was born of man, David, making Him fully human.

See Luke 3:23-38 & Matthew 1:1-16

Mark 15:39 (KJV) And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

John 9:33 (KJV) If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

 

[Wick Stick]

How are the two distinct? I view the genealogies differ by showing Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. Luke proves Christ to be the Son of God, therefore fully Divine and Matthew proves Christ was born of man, David, making Him fully human.

See Luke 3:23-38 & Matthew 1:1-16

Mark 15:39 (KJV) And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

John 9:33 (KJV) If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

I'm not Rella, but... they aren't the same, and they both claim to trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

Additionally, Matthew uses a series of names that look very suspicious... he basically re-iterates the names of the patriarchs in the generations just before Jesus. Matthew's genealogy seems to put emphasis on counting the number of generations, which ties into some of the intertestamental prophecies.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

I'm not Rella, but... they aren't the same, and they both claim to trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

Additionally, Matthew uses a series of names that look very suspicious... he basically re-iterates the names of the patriarchs in the generations just before Jesus. Matthew's genealogy seems to put emphasis on counting the number of generations, which ties into some of the intertestamental prophecies.

Thank you @Wick Stick for bringing this up. An area that I blindly just accepted.

There is a fantastic look at this in Wiki.

Because it is another topic away from the OP here, I started a new one....

What's up with Mathew and Lukes genealogies of Jesus? Why are they so different?

Starting this thread because of Wick Stick's posts in Has the church got Genesis all wrong? And his reply #77 in which he said I'm not Rella, but... they aren't the same, and they both claim to trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. Additionally, Matthew uses a series of names that look very...

www.christianityboard.com

But the crux of the matter is more then confusing... and if you do not wish to go to the other link I started
it should be imperative to look at the extensive posting here

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

where you will see even the suggestion ... " A common explanation among theologians is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph"

However, some modern critical scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan state that both genealogies are inventions, constructed to bring the Messianic claim into conformity with Jewish criteria.

​

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

The church views Genesis as a single, literal, historical, chronological, mostly first-hand account stretching from the beginning of the universe to the beginning of the nation of Israel.

It's true!
If you have to question the origin and reliability of scripture in Genesis as if it came from man, then you'll likely have doubts about the rest of the Bible as well. Your faith will be weak at best. You'll pick and choose which ones work for you, fit into your world and little mind and reject or distort the rest.
ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED. It is inspired by God ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17). If you can grasp this concept, the prophets sat down and took dictation, word for word, stories, filled with events, details and times, etc., that He purposed.

In Gen. 2:24, Moses wrote these words ( translated on English NKJV): Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

>> Jesus confirms Moses wrote it but that it was ordained by God:

And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matt. 19:3-9

When I first became a Christian, I started with the New Testament because frankly the OT seemed too far out to accept. Then gradually I learned about Jesus and realized that if there had been any discrepancies in the OT stories, Jesus would have corrected them. They were accepted by Him, Who is God the Author, so they were good enough for me.

These prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit and so had a direct line of communication, empowered by God, without interruptions, pause or counter reflections by their own opinions or thoughts. When one is so empowered by the influence of the Holy Spirit, God's WORD becomes a direct telepathic text message that is written down exactly word for word.
>> Bible Scripture is NOT something passed down from a parent or an elder of a tale told long ago about the ancient world, our origins and ancestors that is now considered by some to be folklores and myths that have evolved over generations.

 

[Mr E]

Ok, I'll try not to belabor the point. Here are the ideas:

Moses compiled Genesis from older material.

That material likely came to him through the Edomites/Kenites/Midianites, rather than the Israelites. This point cannot be proven, but its more than speculation - it finds support in Scripture.

This being true, it necessitates that Genesis is not ONLY the history of Israel. Genesis ought to be viewed as the joint history of two nations, two brothers - one son of promise who inherits, and one who despises his birthright and defiles himself with foreign wives. And it isn't just Jacob & Esau - it's Isaac inheriting while Ishmael is banished, it's Lot leaving Abraham to dwell in Sodom, it's Keturah and Midian being sent away with gifts, it's Ephraim being preferred over his brother Manasseh, it's Adam being kicked out of Eden, and it's Cain being banished to the Wilderness.

So what is the theological endgame of all this? The point is that the thing that differentiates between the two is belief. Besides this, the two are the same - of the same heredity, having the same God, living in the same places, even traveling together as a mixed group. Israel wasn't ever a homogenous group.

Jesus arrived and said that the sheep needed sorting from the goats (Matt 25), that the wheat and tares had been planted together (Matt 13), that the true children of Abraham are the ones who act like Abraham (John 8), and that we can tell them apart by the fruits they bear (Matt 7).

Your thoughts?

You might be missing the fact also that Moses was an adult when he fled Egypt. He was raised and educated in Pharaoh's royal household, no doubt taught the histories and mysteries from the Egyptian library records by the finest instructors. Your assumption that his source material came to him from Edomites, Kenites or Midianites is premised on the idea that he wasn't taught the Genesis story even as a boy in Egypt.

Have you ever heard of the Shabaka Stone?