Jesus constantly borrowed from the book of Genesis as truth. One example was in (Mark 12:17) when the Pharisees attempted to snare Jesus running him afoul with Roman occupation. Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him" But what did Jesus say before as his qualifier in v. 16 "Whose likeness and inscription is this?” Now, why would Jesus use this as a qualifier or for that matter. Why would the Pharisees even accept such an argument, let alone marvel at it? It’s because Jesus was reiterating the book of Genesis as his authority. (Genesis 1:27) “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” 
I haven’t seen anyone around here who doesn’t believe Genesis except for the atheists. But yeah, thanks for that, just in case there are any Christians around who don’t believe in the Bible or whatever.
1 Like
Really? That’s news to me. I constantly see people here saying it is allegorical or that Adam wasn’t real etc… but thanks for the clarification?
That doesn’t mean they don’t believe Genesis, it means they interpret it differently to you. There are people here who don’t believe the record God left of His own handiwork, written in the Earth itself. They think the Earth is only six thousand years old. Where did they get that idea? It’s not in the Bible. Someone made it up a long time ago, and they chose to believe it. But they would still claim they believe in the Bible as well.
I’m confused. So you are saying that Jesus was teaching that coins were created in the image of Caesar like humans were created in the image of God? Can you point me to a NT commentary that sees that passage as an allusion to “the image of God” in Genesis?
I think your contention that Jesus constantly borrowed from Genesis would be hard to defend. That doesn’t make Genesis less authoritative or truthful though. I don’t think you are really understanding the EC approach to Scripture. It is definitely not a case of dismissing Genesis as not true.
As in real or not real
[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:4, topic:5504”]
They think the Earth is only six thousand years old.
[/quote] They think that because the bible for some inexplicable reason provided a genealogical record. I mean what could God be trying to convey?
My friend, It’s only hard to defend to those who refuse to believe it 
They believe it’s real.
A genealogical record, not the age of the Earth. This is a great example of people not reading their Bibles. Do they even believe what the Bible says?
Well it’s a genealogy, so I guess He was saying something about, you know, genealogy. But no, YECs say “No, this is about the age of the Earth!”. Classic case of simply ignoring the Bible and making things up. Do you know how those genealogies would have been read by the original audience?
1 Like
My friend, it’s only “hard” to defend to those that refuse to believe that the book of Genesis is actual a true historical record
1 Like
Do you?
Yes. That’s why I believe the genealogy in Genesis is a genealogy, not a record of the age of the Earth.
2 Likes
Ya, I see what you mean. God says He created the earth on day 1, created man on day 6 . That plus that equals billions of years
p.s please stay on topic
How are Genesis being a true historical record and the contention that Jesus constantly referred to it related? Either Jesus constantly referred to Genesis or he didn’t, it’s irrelevant what I believe about Genesis’ historical accuracy. I doubt very much that you could come up with even ten clear examples of Jesus referring to Genesis. Exodus or Leviticus, maybe, but not Genesis. Jesus quotes Genesis once, when talking about marriage.
No, God didn’t actually say that. This is a great example of not reading the Bible. And no, as I have already said, the days in Genesis 1 are not billions of years.
I am. And every time I make a post on topic, you try and change the subject. Moderators, is this thread really going to go anywhere, bearing in mind WP’s previous very well documented behaviour on this forum?
2 Likes
Who did?[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:14, topic:5504”]
I am. And every time I make a post on topic
[/quote]
Actually you are not. My topic is about Jesus quoting from the book of Genesis. You counter with yec believe the world is 6,000 years old, my friend
My friend, I could come up with many, but sadly, you would just explain it away. Furthermore, I wouldn’t need ten. I would just need one, because if Jesus referred to the book of Genesis to use as his authority of what is truth, whereby Genesis was not true. Then Jesus would be a liar, because He would be knowingly using false data in order to prove his argument.
This is an example of what I mean by YECs not actually reading the Bible. Here’s a hint; when you see God referred to in the third person (“God”, “He”, “Him”, etc), it’s a good sign that God isn’t talking. It’s someone writing or speaking about God. Next step, look at the internal evidence which dates Genesis 1-11. I’ll give you a head start; it dates reliably to the time of the Babylonian exile at earliest. That’s enough to get you started.
Your topic is the claim that people who don’t hold the same YEC beliefs that you do, don’t really believe in the Bible or what God has said. That is your topic. I have already addressed this several times, and demonstrated that YECs such as yourself neither read the Bible as it stands, nor simply rely on the Bible alone (contrary to your claims).
1 Like
(2 Timothy 3:16) “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” All meaning, ALL . You can trust the bible, my friend:-)
Why would I be motivated to explain it away? Either it is there or it isn’t. It isn’t. The fact that Jesus didn’t constantly refer to Genesis doesn’t mean Genesis isn’t true. It just means you make claims about the Bible that you can’t back up. I already knew there is one reference, and I feel no need to “explain it away.” Jesus referring to Adam and Eve is hardly “using data” to prove an argument. I could refer to Frodo Baggins to make a rhetorical point about the weak overcoming the strong. Whether or not my point stands has nothing to do with whether or not Frodo Baggins was a historical person, whether or not I believe Frodo Baggins is a historical person, whether or not my listeners believe Frodo Baggins was a historical person, and whether or not my listeners believe I believe Frodo Baggins was a historical person.
2 Likes
Seriously, when a YEC starts a thread and virtually every single post is an accusation that anyone who doesn’t believe the same way as they do is trying to “explain away” the Bible, regardless of how many times they are pulled up on this, what is the actual point of the thread?
3 Likes