If Genesis is not to be taken literally then why did God include Adam and Eve in Jesus' genealogy?
2007-11-12 14:06:19 · 16 answers · asked by Bible warrior 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
who said its not supposed to be taken literally . if you believe god wrote the bible then of course you take it literally.
2007-11-12 14:17:57 · answer #1 · answered by godsgift 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
'Isn't taking Genesis literally similar to hearing Aesop's fable about the fox and the sour grapes, and thinking "Wow, foxes can talk"?' No, I am convinced that it is not, because interpreting what is meant to be literal as being a fable, YOU miss the point. God created the universe in six literal days and had Moses record the sequence in Genesis. If you miss that, it makes you willfully ignorant.
2016-05-22 21:47:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Literal.
But don't ask any revisionists what they think. Don't ask Rob Bell or Doug Pagent or Brian McLaren what they think, they'll just confuse you.
Most of this Emergent Movement is an absolute waste of time and an attempt to bring extreme liberalism into the Church.
We must protect the Word of God and remain standing on solid theology and we must hold up and sustain Christian doctrine.
Relevance is wonderful but never at the expense of the Truth.
Here's my take on the subject:
A non-literal interpretation of the lineage of Christ destroys the legitimacy of who He really is.
A denial of the virgin birth does the same thing.
Jesus apart from the Resurrection does the same thing.
The denial of Christ's Deity does the same thing.
The denial of the doctrine of hell does the same thing.
etc, etc, etc,etc,etc,etc!
Guard your hearts my brothers and sisters, remember that a little leavan ruins the whole loaf, don't place yourself in front of false teaching just because once and a while the guy makes sense.
Protect yourselves.
2007-11-12 16:39:04 · answer #3 · answered by PHIL B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was a time when everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally. But with the advancement of science, scientific discoveries, and just a general increase in our knowledge, more and more of the bible has fallen into the category: Not To Be Taken Literally. This category will continue to get larger until most of the bible is in it. Science and knowledge are the enemy of The Big Story Book.
2007-11-12 14:09:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
there some verses in genesis that should not be taken literally. but most of the events in this book really did happen and the evidences are just around us. but instead the book of revelations should not be taken literally. it needs to be critically analyzed. and not everyone has given the right to interpret the revelations.
2007-11-12 14:26:27 · answer #5 · answered by Jay Aka. ngerkday 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I take it very literally. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament. That is enough of proof for me. The Old Testament is the same now as it was at the time of Jesus' was living here.
2007-11-12 16:03:43 · answer #6 · answered by Nina, BaC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Think of Adam as the Egyptians, and Eve as the Jews..
2007-11-12 14:13:13 · answer #7 · answered by WillieRoberto 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I watched the history channel, and they said that 1/4 men in Mongolia are related, coming from a single ancestor...Genghis Khan.
So if he, living 800-900 years ago and has 600,000 descendants...then why is it so unbelievable that we came from Noah and his family, and before that from Adam and Eve?
2007-11-12 14:12:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I thought Adam and Eve was in everyone's genealogy?
2007-11-12 14:10:04 · answer #9 · answered by I'm an Atheist 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
We should take Genesis literally. Those things did happen.
2007-11-12 14:13:46 · answer #10 · answered by paula r 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋