YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Very well, please explain the doctrine of the virgin birth using only Genesis 1-3. Then we can further discuss whether or not I am "completely wrong".

The Lord said that Satan would be defeated by the " her seed."  Anyone who knows basic biology knows that the seed is from the man, not the woman.   So the seed of the woman referenced in the text is Jesus who was born of a virgin.  In biblical times, offspring was counted through the Father not the mother.  So to refer to Jesus as the seed of a woman  is counter intuitive to the cultural norms in the ancient near east  at the time Genesis was written by  Moses.  And we know this is referring to Jesus because it speaks of woman's seed having a final and deadly victory over Satan and that is ultimately fulfilled in the book of Revelation, although Satan's defeat was first accomplished on the cross. 

Quote

I am not denying the sinful nature of mankind. We can look around us and easily pick out examples. When we are honest with ourselves, we can also easily reflect inward and see our own sinful natures. There are many evolutionary creationists that maintain a literal Adam and Eve (among many other people), while others use Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity. After all, Adam can be translated as "man". Regardless of exactly how it happened, Genesis teaches that sin entered the world each one of us to this day is a slave to it, without the saving power of Jesus Christ. The Romans passage is relevant and vital, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, not because of one man's sin or the sin of all mankind. Jesus sacrifice was for ALL mankind, and not just for a single man and woman.

Well, there it is, that is what I am talking about.  The Bible tells us exactly how sin entered the world. There should be no question about the exact way sin came into the world for the Christian who is committed the authority of the Bible.  The Bible tells us that Adam was a real person and cannot simply be an archetype of humanity.  So "evolutionary Christians" who believe that are simply wrong.  Adam is listed in Jesus' genealogy in Luke 3 and was a real, historical person, as was Eve.  

The passage in Romans agrees with Genesis 3 as to how sin entered the world and it is relevant to us because of both because sin entered into the world through Adam and this effected all mankind and because Jesus came into the world made salvation available to all who would receive it through being the "Last Adam."   So you cannot discount the relevancy of Adam's rebellion as a being both relevant and vital (at least you can't and still maintain a coherent theology).

[Enoch2021]

On 8/20/2017 at 8:23 AM, guestman said:

So, this will be my last response to you.

Of course, you have no coherent argument or position.

This is quite mind numbing....  

We have people prognosticating their 'Every Wind of Doctrine' from the Rooftops... then when challenged, they run to Scripture and say the Bible Says not to challenge me: "No Debate... just Pray".  

Great Googly Moogly !!

 

Quote

Any of your future retorts will simply be put in the "trash" folder.

That's exactly where this belongs.  

 

regards

[enoob57]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Since God does not literally need rest and refreshment, it would seem to indicate that a strictly literal view of the Exodus passages may not be the best approach.

Really Jesus experienced every and all needs and He was God wasn't He? And also being taught by Scripture  that God 'IS' I AM that I AM meaning He being The God of the living and not the dead in all time as His present would suggest God could say this of His Own experience any time....

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

Really Jesus experienced every and all needs and He was God wasn't He? And also being taught by Scripture  that God 'IS' I AM that I AM meaning He being The God of the living and not the dead in all time as His present would suggest God could say this of His Own experience any time....

My earlier comments were in direct reference to Exodus 31:17 and its relation to creation. "It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." I contend that these Sabbath instructions to the Hebrew people is symbolic of God's creation, and is not direct evidence supporting 24-hour "day" periods. I think we can probably all agree that the omnipotent Creator was not tired and in need of refreshment after creation. Yes, Jesus was God incarnate, but He stepped into a specific period of time and place in His incarnation.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

" her seed."

It is a significant stretch to use these two words to build the entire doctrine of the virgin birth. Without the other passages in the Bible that actually mention the virgin birth, I doubt anyone would claim these two words would mean that the Savior would be born of a virgin.

 

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible tells us exactly how sin entered the world

Indeed, the Bible clearly teaches that mankind chose its own way instead of God's. Each one of us does the same in our own lives. I cannot blame Adam or Eve for my sin, I am the one responsible. The message of Genesis is clear regardless of the specific details of how it happened.

[enoob57]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

My earlier comments were in direct reference to Exodus 31:17 and its relation to creation. "It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." I contend that these Sabbath instructions to the Hebrew people is symbolic of God's creation, and is not direct evidence supporting 24-hour "day" periods. I think we can probably all agree that the omnipotent Creator was not tired and in need of refreshment after creation. Yes, Jesus was God incarnate, but He stepped into a specific period of time and place in His incarnation.

So you hold God in the same limitations as you yourself are in ... When the Son testified this

Matthew 19:26 (KJV)

[26] But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

So according to the Scriptures your assessment could be in error... this alone is reason for further thought in your study  

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

So according to the Scriptures your assessment could be in error... this alone is reason for further thought in your study

Of course my position could be in error! And I do intend to conduct further study. It is others here that claim they have the only possible explanation

[enoob57]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Of course my position could be in error! And I do intend to conduct further study. It is others here that claim they have the only possible explanation

well be patient.... love God and others   

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

well be patient.... love God and others   

Always great advice, thank you. Grace and peace to you, brother!

[Guest shiloh357]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It is a significant stretch to use these two words to build the entire doctrine of the virgin birth. Without the other passages in the Bible that actually mention the virgin birth, I doubt anyone would claim these two words would mean that the Savior would be born of a virgin.

   I am not using the words "her seed" to build the entire doctrine of the virgin birth.   I said that the doctrine finds its point of origin in Gen. 3:15.   I can building the doctrine using all of the other references to the virgin birth.   My point was simply that Gen. 3:15 is the first mention of it.

I notice that you completely ignored the cultural issue surrounding Gen. 3:15.  The cultural context of Scripture would not refer to anyone as coming from the seed of a woman.  The family line always goes through the father, not the mother and this was especially true in ancient Israel where tribal affiliation was through the father. 

"Seed," from a reproductive stand point, comes from the Father, not from the mother. So that only further highlights the fact that this is verse is the first mention of Jesus being born of a virgin girl.  

Quote

Indeed, the Bible clearly teaches that mankind chose its own way instead of God's. Each one of us does the same in our own lives. I cannot blame Adam or Eve for my sin, I am the one responsible. The message of Genesis is clear regardless of the specific details of how it happened.

But from an evolutionary stand point, there is no such thing as sin, because from an evolutionary stand point, Adam and Eve were not created from the dust and there was no "fall."    What the Bible calls sin, evolutionists call "human expediency."

The Bible teaches that Adam rebelled against God and His sinful nature is passed to all of us and all of us are sinners as a result.  We cannot blame Adam for our individual sins, we commit, but Adam is the point of origin for sin entering the world and Christ came to reverse the curse of sin that hangs over the corporate head of humanity.   Understanding that fact requires a literal interpretation of Genesis and not an evolutionary, incoherent interpretation supported by theistic evolutionists.

And despite what you think, the details do matter.  They matter a lot.