Does anyone support these elements of creationism?

Genealogy of jesus back to adam

Patrilineage of Jesus according to Luke

1. God
2. Adam
3. Seth
4. Enos
5. Cainan
6. Maleleel
7. Jared
8. Enoch
9. Mathusala
10. Lamech
11. Noah
12. Shem
13. Arphaxad
14. Cainan

1. Sala
2. ****r
3. Phalec
4. Ragau
5. Saruch
6. Nachor
7. Thara
8. Abraham
9. Isaac
10. Jacob
11. Juda
12. Phares
13. Esrom
14. Aram

1. Aminadab
2. Naasson
3. Salmon
4. Boaz
5. Obed
6. Jesse
7. David
8. Nathan
9. Mattatha
10. Menan
11. Melea
12. Eliakim
13. Jonam
14. Joseph

1. Judah
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Matthat
5. Jorim
6. Eliezer
7. Jose
8. Er
9. Elmodam
10. Cosam
11. Addi
12. Melchi
13. Neri
14. Salathiel

1. Zorobabel
2. Rhesa
3. Joannan
4. Juda
5. Joseph
6. Semei
7. Mattathias
8. Maath
9. Nagge
10. Esli
11. Naum
12. Amos
13. Mattathias
14. Joseph

1. Jannai
2. Melchi
3. Levi
4. Matthat
5. Heli
6. Joseph
7. Jesus

Aside from all else, one wonders why joseph is listed as jesus father?

 

There is a reason we find only little mice with the dinosaurs. Anything bigger would have made a great scene for Jurassic Park.

Argentinosaurus was 130 feet long. Thats quite a lot of space in a 430 foot long ark. Lets throw in a T-Rex and keep them together for a year and hope for the best!

Somehow a year-long flood is able to make an oceans worth of oil. Just throw some branches into the ocean, or bury it under a mountain, and we got oil!

Incredible how all that world wide water just somehow drained back into the ground and we can't find any trace of those drain holes.

How did this subterranean ocean somehow all rise above the ground, and what pushed it all up? Why didn't it all immediately drain back in and take the ark that was dashed to pieces by the thousand foot waves with it?

6 miles of water covering the entire planet. I'd like to find that subterranean ocean. One 7.5 mile deep mine we dug is 360 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

A kid playing with a raptor. Natural selection at work.

 

According to this DNA test, Joseph you are not the father!

 

There are seventy-seven names on you list. Do they represent the seventy-seven lambs mentioned in Ezra 8:35?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra8:35&version=CEB;ERV;NKJV;KJV;CEV

 

Possibly, it seems more likely than joseph would have a known genealogy going back to adam
If that were possible.... wouldn’t we have people living today who would have a heritage going back to adam? Where are those genealogical records!

 

I don't think it does, one commentator said I think it was Matthew gives ancestors in three patterns of 14, which was of numerological significance of some kind.

 

Destroyed in the destruction of the Temple in AD70. That's why if Jews believe in a Messiah, they must choose someone who lived before AD70 when the records existed. Almost no Jew today knows what tribe they are from.

As far as discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, what we see is similar to what we see in court testimony today, agreement on the big picture and minor disagreement on other points among eyewitnesses. Some survivors of the Titanic said it sunk whole, others that it split in two. No two eyewitnesses of Lincoln's killing had the exact same story, but they all agree Lincoln was killed, and the Titanic sunk in my prior example. If it was all made up, why have ANY discrepancies, and why make the disciples look bad? Heck, why not make the disciples the hero of the story? And why would the disciples knowingly die for this 'lie'?

 

One wonders why god would allow the destruction of records showing jesus lineage to adam

Are you saying these are just separate versions .... that would make them fallible.... which would not be consistent the gospels being the inerrant word of god

.... and, btw, none of the gospels claims to be written by an eye witness. In the best case. The gospel writers collected stories told by eyewitnesses long after the events

Otoh, no one claims these versions of reality as being the word of god

Yes.... this is an excellent question
Lets say that the gospels were written long after the events.... which they were

Lets say that in the development of the church.... different people came up with different ideas about the direction and dogma of the church....which is what happened

Lets say that these gospel writers wanted to emphasize different theological perspectives

Then when they wrote their version of the gospel, they would spin the story differently

So, for example.... lets say that jesus was jewish and taught jewish followers.... which was the case. And lets say that jesus proclaimed a message designed for jews in which he said he had come to fulfill the jewish law, not erase it.... which is what jesus said in the earliest gospel, mark

Now lets say that decades pass, and the faith is being spread to non jews. And lets say that jewish Christians are an impediment to this evangelism because the jews want to insist on following jewish laws (as jesus taught). Well then a later gospel targeted to non jews might tell the story of how jesus was betrayed and essentially killed by the jews... and how his message was for everyone, not just jews.... and how it was not at all important to follow jewish laws. And THIS is the message that is found in the last gospel

People died for joseph smith and mormonism
People died for jim jones
People died for adof hitler

The evidence is that people dying for a cause tells you nothing about the veracity f the cause

 

Personally..... I just do not know for certain what might have taken place from around ten millennia ago until about four or five millennia in the past..........

I feel that we are dealing with technology that is so far beyond what we humans have in 2019........
that I suspect that the aliens who may well have been heavily involved in the first several millennia from the Garden of Eden until the time of Noah........
might have been capable of doing almost as much or maybe even more than we have thought of in science fiction films........?????

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

 

Probably because there is no evidence! That and of course god doing that would be the ultimate act of pure evil.

 

Oh dear; we have the 'we don't quite yet know how it happened so it must be god' theory again.
We didn't used to know much about anything, so god done it all. Now we know how most stuff works so god didn't done it.
Same thing here; scientists are working on the origins of life and will discover how it happened, just like we've figured out most of this stuff.
Soon your lousy god will have nowhere at all to hide.

 

If it existed, would you believe it? The main purpose of the Gospel is irrelevant to the exact lineage.

Yes, they are four accounts, the more accounts we have of an event the more reliable. They all agree on the big picture, Jesus was God incarnate, performed miracles, died and rose again.

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitness, like Luke. This presents both sides but supports my position: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels

Even if we didn't know who wrote the Gospels it wouldn't mean the events didn't really happen. There are other historical books whose authorship is uncertain.

Not long after at all by historical standards, a few decades is nothing. There is only a 200 year time gap between the earliest copies we have of the NT and when they were written shortly after the events. Compare to a 1,300 year time gap for Plato's writings, 1,300 years for Thucydides' History, 1,350 years for Herodotus' History, 1,000 years for Cornelius Tacitus' Annals, and 1,000 years for Ceasar's Gallic Wars.

So you're saying you're a priori rejecting ANY supernatural claim, no matter how many testify otherwise?

No they were not, Matthew may have been written less than two decades after the events, all would have written when some eyewitnesses would have still been alive, yet none contradicted the Gospel events. In fact there is no record of anyone disputing the events prior to 100 AD, when the eyewitnesses would still be alive. Even the Jewish leadership both in the NT and later Babylonian Talmud didn't deny Jesus' miracles, instead attributing them to 'sorcery'.

https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

Not really. None of the Gospels vary on the big picture, whatever variances were due to four different personalities writing them.

No contradiction, the Gospel was to the Jew first, then Gentiles.

You completely miss my point, none on your list knowlingly died for a lie, as you allege the Apostles did. Would you?

 

Since you don't know, shouldn't the God hypothesis be on the table?

If nothing else you have a lot of faith that your god science will tell us someday how the first non-life became life, something we've never observed.

Always interesting how those who say they don't believe in a personal God hate Him in a personal way. One day, you will be the one with nowhere to hide.

 

The joke is that the fairy tale has the Paul character saying to hell with those genealogical records because they didn't make sense.

 

Absolutely............ and once serious power has been given to a Covering Cherub.....
that Covering Cherub may be able to convince a third of the angels to follow him
in a really awful experiment..........
the evidence for this experiment is all around us.

https://www.near-death.com/science/articles/richard-eby-and-secomd-coming-of-christ.html#a03

Near death experiencer Howard Storm was shown the restoration by the year 2185.......

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/howard-storm.html#a04

 

The serpent of Genesis one may have been much like a Raptor.......
apparently it had feet and arms.

The Book of Adam and Eve that was preserved into our time period only in Ethiopic adds details:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/eden_1.htm

 

Its pretty much a Fundamentalist Christian view though you put the Bible first now they will accept science like the Earth being round and going around the Sun in a huge Universe and Black Holes are a thing however not the dates or times the same for Creation God did it, there was a big flood and evidence is hidden likely by Satan since this is his realm not God's after the Fall. Many even think aliens might be out there as perfect beings who never fell into sin and therefore are separated from us by God likely why the Universe is huge if you were a perfect sinless alien species would you come here or want to be safe in some other galaxy.

Just saying the views of the group your talking about the evidence is the Bible then everything else must be explained using it not the other way around.

 

Your source is indefinite on lots including what you claim
He is not a scholar
And is a self described applogist
Who therefore has an agenda

I have found a source
Which, if anything would be biased towards your views
The catholic council of bishops
Dates Mathew ad 70 or later
And says the author is UNKNOWN

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.​

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66–70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mt 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0

 

Sorry I don't quite understand the last paragraph.

 

There must be a shed-load of money to be made out of these idiots - books, movies, entertainment parks, donations, advertising, merchandise. It's no wonder this garbage is still being pushed - hey, it's the American dream, let's make a buck from the dimwits.

 

Do you believe time and space are infinite and without end? If you can believe that, why not something with no beginning?

 

No one can explain how life started, but they're dead certain positive how it didn't.

These artifacts at least suggest that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/visual.html

 

The exact lineage is important for several indirect reasons

1. It is the lineage of joseph.... presenting joseph as the father... which he was not, since mary was a virgin

2. Presenting this lineage falsely represents jesus as fulfilling biblical prophesy

3. There are two different and contradictory lineages.... which means that one of them is wrong, which means the bible is not inerrant

4. This lineage going back to god is not presented as a divine miracle... it is just ordinary records.... snd i let any judge whether it is credible to have a lineage going back to god

5 and lets say the lineage is accurate, then humanity and the earth and the universe would have to be less than 100,000 years old. And again i ask anyone other than you whether they believe that is true

Well that is not entirely true
The first gospel... mark has a controversial ending, or non ending

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?​

Question: "Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?"

Answer: Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later b y scribes

The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyrand Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.

The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark.

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.


https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html​

And so this presents very big problems

One has to wonder why the first versions of the first gospel had such a sketchy story about the key part of Christianity... most everything relating to jesus rising from the dead is not in the first version of the earliest gospel. It is not credible that this important stuff happened and mark forgot to write it down.

So if mark missed the most important stuff, but later scribes added it..... maybe the later gospels also contained expedient invention!

There is no historical book other than the bible
And if the bible is inconsistent and tampered with, it is hard to know what about it can be trusted ... beyond the fact that it is most likely tro that jesus was an apocalyptic preacher wandering the hills of galilee, and that he likely was executed by the romans for claiming to be king of the jews

Nothing? I doubt anyone remembers anything of obamas first state of the union, or any sermon by billy graham,

They were NOT written shortly after the events
And THAT is also interesting.... why not write it down right away?
Simple
Because jesus promised he would return BEFORE living people died. His followers did not think it was important to write things down because the end was coming soon!

And no one depends on these as the word of god.

There are no shortage of non christian supernatural claims to which lots of people testify
If jesus wanted to make a supernatural show.... he could do so at any tine, but does not

If it is the word of god, there should not be different versions
And to the extent there are different versions, they should not contradict each other

The gospel of john is clearly anti jewish.... and largely responsible for later attitudes towards jews as “christ killers”

1. Evidence that the author stands removed from Judaism

2:13; 11:55 "the Passover of the Jews"
5:1; 6:4; 7:2 "feast of the Jews"
2. Negative Portrayal of "the Jews"

• "The Jews" used 71 times in John (and only 16 in the Synoptics), usually by the narrator
• typically the Jews are on the side of the "world"--those who do not believe

3:1-4; 6:52; 7:35; 8:57 the Jews fail to understand Jesus
5:16-18; 7:1; 10:31, 39; 11:8, 53 the Jews persecute Jesus and seek to kill him
5:39-40; 7:19; 8:39-44; 10:31-39 the Jews are untrue to their tradition/Torah

• possible referents:
  • all Jews (but the disciples and other followers were Jews; cf.9:22)
  • the religious leaders at the time John wrote
  • the majority of Jews at the time John wrote
  • the leaders and/or the masses at the time of Jesus' ministry

3. Negative Portrayals of the Leaders

19:15 the leaders seem more faithful to Caesar than to God
9:40-41; 11:46-53 the Pharisees are blind, false teachers
4:1; 7:32; 8:13; 12:42 the Pharisees oppose Jesus
12:10; 19:6, 15, 21 the chief priests oppose Jesus
4. Jewish Responsibility for Jesus' death

18:3, 12, 19-24; 19:15-16 Jewish responsibility declared
18:31, 38-40; 19:4-8, 12-16 Pilate succumbs to the desires of the Jewish leaders
18:38; 19:4, 6, 12 Pilate declares Jesus innocent
5. Jewish Links with the Devil

John 8:44: "You are of the [= your?] father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, because truth is not in him. Whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks of his own [voice, nature, native language], because he is a liar and the father of it."

 

Exactly!!!!

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05