Revealed - The TRUE Biblical Geneology

reply to post by Iason321

Honestly, what difference does it make how someone interprets the first 6 chapters of Genesis,

I already told you that. If you tell them toss out Genesis and you can't trust what it says then it plants seeds of doubt. Then they can throw out or doubt the verses that teach the path to salvation also.

It's either His Word or it's not. Evolution is completely un-Biblical. It's one team or the other, the middle team violates every aspect of Creation. I've tried to show you this privately, gave you quite a few piece of information to review and I think you tuned me completely off. Examples:

Evolution says Sun before the Earth, Genesis says Earth before the Sun.
Evolution says dry land before the seas, Genesis says seas before the dry land.
Evolution says atmosphere before oceans, Genesis says oceans before the atmosphere.
Evolution says Sun before light on Earth, Genesis says there was light on Earth before Sun created.
Evolution says stars before Earth, Genesis says Earth created before the stars.
Evolution says Ocean creatures before land plants, Genesis says the opposite.
Evolution says land animals before trees, Genesis says trees before land animals.
Evolution says death before man existed, Genesis says man existed before death was in the world.
Evolution says reptiles before birds, Genesis says birds made before the reptiles.
Evolution says Sun before plants, Genesis says plants before the Sun.

Shall I continue? Everything about Evolution is in direct contrast and attacks the Word of God, EVERYTHING. Do you understand how completely and utterly un-Biblical Evolution is. Everything about the theory is directly contrary to God's Word. If you want to believe in Theistic Evolution just rip out the book of Genesis from your Bible, and any quote from Jesus in the gospels saying Adam and Eve were "at the beginning".

reply to post by NOTurTypical


[Sarcasm implied]

How did Adam name all the Animals over billions of years, if he only lived to be 930yrs old?

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

[Sarcasm implied]

How did Adam name all the Animals over billions of years, if he only lived to be 930yrs old?

He never slept? But he named them all before Eve was made from his side, when did she conceive and birth Cain?

He actually only had 129 years or so.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Back off, he's a babe in Christ still trying to iron out his theology, I'm talking to him via u2u. New converts are not heretics if they mess things up at first in the process of discipleship. Do you ever speak in the spirit of Ephesians 4:15?

It's all good. First thing I tell new Christians is to GET CHRISTIAN FRIENDS. Time to separate yourself from the Old and begin a New life. That's always the biggest hurdle I've come to find with the majority. So easy to get back into your old ways, even if you feel "on fire" for Christ.

Of course, I could be wrong. I should say, of the majority I work with, that is the issue.

I just get righteous anger going when mature Christians attack new converts for getting something wrong that they themselves conquered a while ago. Babes in Christ ironing out their doctrines the first time aren't heretics. They are just babes feeding on milk at this point. They need discipled not rebuked. So my anger is righteous, don't worry though I won't go to sleep on it. LOL

Now, here's something that doesn't exist, RIGHTEOUS ANGER. There are only 2 emotions: Fear and Love. Anger is never one of love, no matter the type of 'fire' you want to cloth it in.

Your anger is the result of your fear for whatever you believe may happen to this "Christ Babe" as you call him. Bottom line is that you and all the other closed minds in this thread should be in awe of his approach, for if you just believe everything, you know nothing.

He's actively doing his own soul searching, and you all are just sheep, in mind AND spirit, telling him he's wrong for not doing exactly what you did. It's the same reason nobody repiled to my earlier post, because you cant argue with it. So don't, just go back to sleep.

Iason follow your heart it will lead you where you need to go. As you read and learn, pay attention to what your heart says about it, not the people around you. Don't use ATS as a rationalization machine, because there are too many closed minds, at least in this thread. You are on the right track and I hope this doesn't deter you!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
He never slept? But he named them all before Eve was made from his side, when did she conceive and birth Cain?

He actually only had 129 years or so.

edit on 20-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Good catch.

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
He never slept? But he named them all before Eve was made from his side, when did she conceive and birth Cain?

He actually only had 129 years or so.

Good catch.

I hope my brother sees that Theistic Evolution is un-Biblical on every account imaginable, it's from top to bottom made to counter every aspect of God's Word. I pray he does.

reply to post by InLightTend

Now, here's something that doesn't exist, RIGHTEOUS ANGER.

Okay, sure, that means Jesus sinned when He was angry at the money changers and the Pharisees, and I should rip Ephesians 4:26 from the Bible right?

"Be angry and do not sin" is a two-fold verse. First of all it means have righteous anger for the things of God, be angry at the things He is angry about, and secondly, in that anger do not sin against another brother or sister. Likewise do not go to sleep angry, get it out and forgive.

www.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Iason321


I'm curious. Are you saying that "Adam" when described as living 930 years is the race of men and not the man himself Adam? Because if that's the case, then according to my research and concordance is inaccurate.

The word for Adam means "first man". The root word is 'Adam which means race of men. But the he few clearly shows Adam the man and not the race of men. Also contextually, it says "he died" If I am not mistaken in what you are saying then that would also have to be allegorical and I just don't see it that way. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your TP.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Don't you find it odd that there are so many contradictions? How can you tell for sure that Genesis is the "word of God?"

reply to post by np6888


Actually there aren't as many contradictions as you think or have been "taught". The cool thing is when there seems to be one, dig into the original text and apply proper hermeneutics and you will be amazed at how consistent and deep the bible is.

reply to post by 4REVOLUTION


How come wiki says an ark was never discovered? Did you try to edit it and see if someone contested you?

reply to post by np6888


Also, one way you can tell its the word of Gof is prophecy. Writing history before it happens.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by Iason321

 

I'm curious. Are you saying that "Adam" when described as living 930 years is the race of men and not the man himself Adam? Because if that's the case, then according to my research and concordance is inaccurate.

The word for Adam means "first man". The root word is 'Adam which means race of men. But the he few clearly shows Adam the man and not the race of men. Also contextually, it says "he died" If I am not mistaken in what you are saying then that would also have to be allegorical and I just don't see it that way. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your TP.

The OP's actually on to something here, in regards to "Adam and Eve being" created in plural.

Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Eve wasn't given the title, Eve, the mother of all the living, until after she ate of the forbidden fruit.

Genesis 3:20
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living

Since Cain was so fearful of other people, it could be that there were many "Adams." The bible isn't explicit on that.

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Don't you find it odd that there are so many contradictions? How can you tell for sure that Genesis is the "word of God?"

I've been doing this apologetics work for a long time, and 99% of the time people don't understand Biblical hermeneutics or fail to follow contextual keys that are vital. There is also the issue of Hebraisms and remezs that are unique to Hebrew writing and culture that western minds don't understand not being Hebrews.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by np6888

 

Actually there aren't as many contradictions as you think or have been "taught". The cool thing is when there seems to be one, dig into the original text and apply proper hermeneutics and you will be amazed at how consistent and deep the bible is.

Yep, it's generally a fail in hermeneutics or an ignorance to the conceptual application of it. Good call.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So what are you saying? Regardless of how the words were meant to be as, didn't you just translate them yourself? Or are you saying that the Bible was translated one way by Christians, and the opposite by evolutionists?

Or is your point really that there aren't that many contradictions at all? If that's the case, then it makes a lot more sense to me. I mean, if you want to alter the Bible for an agenda, I don't think you'd be that obvious.

reply to post by np6888

So what are you saying?

I'm saying 9.9 times out of 10 people who say there are contradictions are not using sound Biblical Hermeneutics.

A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that a verse or passage must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Historical interpretation refers to understanding the culture, background, and situation which prompted the text. Grammatical interpretation is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage. Contextual interpretation involves always taking the surrounding context of a verse/passage into consideration when trying to determine the meaning.

biblical hermaneutics

reply to post by InLightTend


It hasn't deterred me one bit.

NuT is a really great guy who is STRONG with the Holy Spirit,

He's just got his southern oldschool roots and he can't drop that literal interpretation! I know many, many people like him in real life....

For some reason, people tie in evolution and an old universe/earth with somehow proving God doesn't exist or the Bible is inaccurate, or not the word of God, which is NOT true.

As I've stated, I am 100% confident and sure the Bible is 100% the written inspired word of God!

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.[26]

The "Clergy Letter" Project, drafted in 2004, and signed by thousands of Christian clergy supporting science and faith, states:

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.

That Clergy Letter about sums up my view of the whole situation....

and the more in depth I study Genesis and the Hebrew texts, the more convinced I am that Genesis describes Gods use of evolution perfectly,

I look at Gods use of evolution to bring us about as beautiful!

Go watch videos of what early life on earth was like, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and then the prehistoric life forms and giant sea creatures etc, its truly awe in spiring and amazing,

To say that YHVH is incapable of creating a 4.54 billion year old earth and bringing about life through evolution, which is exaclty what he did, is to downsize His Majesty!

I believe in an UNLIMITED God, and the God who created everything the scientific world has confirmed!

The Biblical world has in its possession a large collection of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. These ancient copies of the Bible were written in different locations around the world and in different ages. We are told that in our current age there are up to 24,000 such ancient copies of the Bible. These are the manuscripts that the scholars go to in order to produce our modern Bibles (such as the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, etc.). In most cases the most ancient copies of the Bible are the ones held in the highest regard and considered to be the most accurate. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule.

All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James Version" (KJV) of the Bible? In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:

"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."

They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:

"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."

Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:

"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"

Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):

"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)

"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)

"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)

"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)

"Bias" In NT Development

A balanced look at the status and authenticity of the New Testament texts.



Some examples of these grave defects in the Bible:

So if these highly esteemed 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations tell us that through their study of recently discovered manuscripts of the Bible they have found many grave and serious defects in the King James Version of the Bible then where are some examples of these "defects"? A good question, let us have a look:

In 1 John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (John 5:7)"

As we have already seen in much greater detail in section 1.2.2.5, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the RSV by these thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the "most ancient manuscripts." However, we find that the noble Qur'an (the Muslims' Holy Scripture) did not need to wait for 2000 years for these Christians to discover this fact. Indeed God revealed it to us fully fourteen hundred years ago:

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and his Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three" desist It will be better for you for Allah is one God Glory be to him Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs. (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"

Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..(John 3:16)"

This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up massive signs declairing:

"JOHN 3:16"

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an we read:

"And they say 'Allah Most Compassionate has begotten a son!'. Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such a claim), and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most Compassionate. But it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most Compassionate that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to the Most Compassionate as a servant. He has taken account of all of them and has numbered them all exactly. And every one of them will come to him singly on the day of judgment. On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will Allah most gracious bestow love. Verily, We have made this [Qur'an] easy in your tongue [O Muhammad] that you might deliver glad tidings to those who seek refuge [in Allah] and warn with it a people who are contentious. And how many a generation before them have we destroyed! Can you find a single one of them or hear from them so much as a whisper?"

The reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version and to compare it to the King James Version. Specifically, notice that the following 17 verses have been omitted outright in the newer and more faithful translations:

Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 John 5:7.

Further, in the NRSV Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 are also marked as highly questionable since they do not appear in the most ancient copies of the Bible. This Bible also questions four other verses with footnotes-- Matt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of 45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing (eg. Rev 1:11 etc.).

Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of his ascension into heaven. This great event is mentioned in only two places in the NT. They are:

"So then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19)"

and once again in Luke:

"While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (Luke 24:51-52)"

In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this later). Similarly, in the commentary on the verses of Luke 24, we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible "Other ancient authorities lack "and was carried up into heaven'" and "Other ancient authorities lack 'and worshipped him'". Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in its original form only said:

"While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."

It took centuries of "inspired correction" to give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.

As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read:

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. (Luke 24:1-7)"

Once again, in reference to verse 5, the footnotes say: "Other ancient authorities lack 'He is not here but has risen'" Also, please read entries 16 and 17 in the table in section 2.2.

The examples are far too numerous to list here, however, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for yourself and scan through the four gospels. You shall be hard pressed to find even two consecutive pages that do not contain the words "Other ancient authorities lack..." or "Other ancient authorities add..." etc. in the footnotes..

See: The Creep Show Bible



Well, the R.S.V. is just one Bible:

So is the revised Standard Version of the Bible the only one that makes these changes? Is it just a matter of the KJV vs. the RSV? Far from it. These very same changes have become so widely acknowledged by the scholars of Christianity that we find the very same changes made to most other modern versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), etc.In conclusion the geneology cannot be verifible genuinely. Go to your local library and have a look.

You come in peace!reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters

How great it is you have come to unite chrisendom(sic) and Islamic people..

What does the holy texts say about people who say they come in peace?

Hope you study hard,

Mr medinet

P.S. Much love to you