tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post3654418510019185871..comments2024-03-16T02:12:38.325-07:00Comments on God cannot be contained!: God and EvolutionMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-30542922755400121342014-11-11T03:45:38.030-08:002014-11-11T03:45:38.030-08:00As someone who has studied his own genealogy for a...As someone who has studied his own genealogy for almost forty years, I feel very comfortable addressing your question. To answer it, however, we have to address a couple of other questions: How did the people who wrote the Bible regard genealogy? and What motivated them to include so much of it in the Bible?<br />Then, as now, people were concerned with the subject of origins - How did I get here? Where (Who) did I come from? Who (What) am I? Hence, these genealogies were a significant part of their attempt to answer these questions.<br />The author of Matthew begins his genealogy with Jesus Christ as the "son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew 1:1) He then picks up with Abraham and carries the line forward to David and then to Christ. (verses 2-16) The author concluded his genealogy by pointing out that there were fourteen generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian Captivity and between the Captivity and Christ. (verse 17) So he is obviously focused on demonstrating that Christ was a descendant of Abraham (connecting him to the story of the origins of the "children of Israel" and thereby demonstrating that Christ was an Israelite - one of God's People - an heir and a fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham). Next, the author wanted to demonstrate Christ's connection to the man who founded the God-ordained dynasty of Israel (David). In ancient times, a king's legitimacy (right to rule) was derived from his ancestry. Thus, embellishing that ancestry with gods, heroes and/or former kings was important in establishing the person's bona fides in this regard. Finally, the author of Matthew was concerned with demonstrating that there had been structure and purpose behind God's plan (the fourteen generations between seminal events). <br />I think that it is very significant that Luke's genealogy of Christ ends with "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38) In addition to showing Christ's connection to figures like Abraham and David, Luke wanted to affirm God as the source of the entire human narrative.<br />Hence, the purpose of these genealogies was to tie Christ to the bloodline, traditions and God of the Israelites. In this connection, the actual existence or order of individuals within the genealogies is unimportant. Even if one allows that one of these genealogies should be attributed to Joseph and the other to Mary, it cannot adequately explain all of the technical discrepancies that exist within them: Generations are skipped, Order is changed, We know that people have never lived to be nine hundred years old, etc. Nevertheless, all of that becomes irrelevant when you look at what the authors were trying to accomplish with these genealogies. In other words, they weren't interested in meeting the standards of modern documentary based genealogy. In this respect, I think that one would have to conclude that both authors succeeded in accomplishing their objectives with regard to these genealogies. Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-26967431019517077402014-11-10T23:08:54.163-08:002014-11-10T23:08:54.163-08:00So far you have dodged my question. Let me repeat ...So far you have dodged my question. Let me repeat it:<br />Your holy book gives a contiguous genealogy from "Adam & Eve" to your god-man savior: at what point does this genealogy cease being "metaphoric/poetic" and start becoming historic?Minimalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394978086891772878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-52565619500348264702014-11-10T18:30:09.499-08:002014-11-10T18:30:09.499-08:00Much of the history of Christianity is miserable, ...Much of the history of Christianity is miserable, and you are justified in taking most Christians to task for their late acceptance of scientific and historical fact. It is, however, a great irony to me that the people who have fled God and Christianity have generally faulted God and the religion instead of their own ignorance and faulty reasoning. In my opinion, the "thinning of the ranks" is generally a consequence of folks not wanting to deal with the embarrassment and fallout resulting from their former associations and thinking. "I'm enlightened now, so all of that stuff is useless!" It seems to me that's just an equally unenlightened place to be as when they were sitting there in church swallowing everything the pastor was feeding them. So one could reasonably say that such a person wouldn't have much credibility before or after he/she left the ranks. Isn't it more enlightened to come to the conclusion that one's belief system contains a mixture of truth and error, and that the most intellectually (and spiritually) honest thing to do would be to try to weed out the error. Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-2090296468840933712014-11-10T17:43:48.949-08:002014-11-10T17:43:48.949-08:00Christians (not including scholars LOL) have only ...Christians (not including scholars LOL) have only ditched Genesis the last few decades of their 2000-year miserable history. What kind of credibility does that confer to you people? Not much judging by the accelerating thinning of the ranks. Minimalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394978086891772878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-9062787714886230492014-11-10T13:39:46.703-08:002014-11-10T13:39:46.703-08:00I'm not a member of GCI, but I do like the Tka...I'm not a member of GCI, but I do like the Tkach statement that you referenced in your comments. And no one can force me to be a literalist - I'm not stuck with anything. I like most of the poetry of Robert Frost (he's my favorite), but I don't like all of it. If something in the Bible doesn't make any sense or contains obvious error, why am I stuck with it? It sounds like you are still a prisoner of Herbert Armstrong's "all or nothing" approach to Scripture.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-69451793773975516082014-11-10T08:28:29.517-08:002014-11-10T08:28:29.517-08:00Christian damage-control Apologetics: A wonder to ...Christian damage-control Apologetics: A wonder to behold!<br />Like Tkach's GCI (possibly your church) says:<br /> "The Bible was not intended as a science or history book—it affirms God as the Creator of the universe and all life on earth without addressing the “when” and the “how”"<br />What arrant nonsense! <br />Christians are stuck with Genesis. which gives a contiguous genealogy from "Adam & Eve" - So you are limited to a (mythical) young earth! At what point, Christian, does this genealogy cease being "metaphoric/poetic" and become history?Minimalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394978086891772878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-47978625299956402212014-11-10T06:39:00.852-08:002014-11-10T06:39:00.852-08:00I like the thoughts in the article. I agree, evol...I like the thoughts in the article. I agree, evolution has never diminished my belief in God, it has only enhanced it. I am always in awe of creation. Thanks for the article. Roy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com