Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

Love that you brought this up. That miracle is amazing because Jesus didn't seemingly do anything to the water; He just has authority over every molecule and can change them whenever, however He wants.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

You've never explained why an omnibenevolent deity would trick his creation by creating a world that can be dated using the senses and materials present in that world to something far beyond its actual date.

Appreciate your post.

My take is that while I surely put my emphasis on a view based on Scripture, there is also certain scientific pieces that seem to corroborate it as well. So, as a Christian, I don't have a blind faith, I have real and tangible historic, scientific, and archeological elements that tell the story of redemption that we know to be true in the Bible.

Once creationist are forced to admit the actual scientific evidence is utterly overwhelming in favor of an old earth we get this idea of either light in route or various other apparent ages (like apparent radioactive decay).

This then isn't really a scientific question as we both agree things appear old based on naturalistic processes. The issue I have with this is that it's so unnecessarily misleading. There are ways in which an apparent age is unavoidable as a matter of function, say like Adam being a grown man. But there are ways in which it wouldn't be required. Like Adam having scars, tooth decay, clogging arteries, or even memories of a childhood that never happened.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Appreciate your post.

My take is that while I surely put my emphasis on a view based on Scripture, there is also certain scientific pieces that seem to corroborate it as well. So, as a Christian, I don't have a blind faith, I have real and tangible historic, scientific, and archeological elements that tell the story of redemption that we know to be true in the Bible.

---

Agree. I have always looked at science as explaining how God works.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

You've never explained why an omnibenevolent deity would trick his creation by creating a world that can be dated using the senses and materials present in that world to something far beyond its actual date.

---

To keep the arrogant from finding him by their supposed wisdom.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

You've never explained why an omnibenevolent deity would trick his creation by creating a world that can be dated using the senses and materials present in that world to something far beyond its actual date.

---

To keep the arrogant from finding him by their supposed wisdom.

---

So God is tricking humanity to hide his existence. This doesn't actually answer my question; it just raises the exact same question.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I appreciate your civility in this discussion. The speed of light is probably the most difficult thing for me to account for in my worldview. I don't believe God created light in transit, however. The anisotropic synchrony convention is one theory that at least seems plausible to me, but I readily admit that distant starlight certainly appears to point to an old earth.

But as I said in my original post, I think both sides have their own challenges. Collagen in dinosaur bones is difficult to explain from an old earth perspective. As are polystrate fossils and the decay rate of earth's magnetic field.

As you intimated, I believe God created this universe and everything in it, and so I have no expectation that I should be able to explain or understand everything about how He did so.

---

If someone today or someone tomorrow could solve for you the scientific issues you've listed above, would it shake your faith in Creation or convince you of an old Earth?

I think that what we may be agreeing on here is that certain religious beliefs are informed more by [something outside of science] rather than by science. People evaluate questions differently by placing different levels of importance on faith, scripture, experience, observation, science, culture, etc.

My position is that to believe in a young earth requires someone to place a higher level of importance on scripture than in science. Which is totally fine. Any objection from me is likely only to come where I perceive an 'act of God' presented as scientific explanation.

This is where I question you bringing up things like collagen in dinosaur bones or polystrate fossils or the the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. If scripture is what drives your belief, then these questions are irrelevant.

---

I can't imagine my faith being shaken in regard to Creation, but I suppose I could be convinced of OEC in theory. There are many believers I have great respect for that hold that view. But from the evidence I have seen, much of what is used as proof of an old earth has YEC explanations as well.

A catastrophic global flood event is critical to the YEC perspective. And since virtually no one apart from those who hold a conservative Christian worldview believes in such a thing, it makes perfect sense that YEC is considered a joke.

My only point in bringing up what I see as holes in the old earth worldview is simply to say that I don't believe it is wrapped up as nicely as many of its supporters would claim. If it were, I would like to think I'd have the humility to side with my OEC brothers.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

You've never explained why an omnibenevolent deity would trick his creation by creating a world that can be dated using the senses and materials present in that world to something far beyond its actual date.

---

To keep the arrogant from finding him by their supposed wisdom.

---

So God is tricking humanity to hide his existence. This doesn't actually answer my question; it just raises the exact same question.

---

I think he hides his existence for several other reasons, depending on the person and circumstances. But I think the things we are to believe are pretty "out there" in order to prevent the arrogant from achieving salvation through their self-perceived wisdom. For example,

1 Cor. 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

You've never explained why an omnibenevolent deity would trick his creation by creating a world that can be dated using the senses and materials present in that world to something far beyond its actual date.

---

To keep the arrogant from finding him by their supposed wisdom.

---

So God is tricking humanity to hide his existence. This doesn't actually answer my question; it just raises the exact same question.

---

I think he hides his existence for several other reasons, depending on the person and circumstances. But I think the things we are to believe are pretty "out there" in order to prevent the arrogant from achieving salvation through their self-perceived wisdom. For example,

1 Cor. 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

---

God needs us to be ignorant?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

You've never explained why an omnibenevolent deity would trick his creation by creating a world that can be dated using the senses and materials present in that world to something far beyond its actual date.

---

To keep the arrogant from finding him by their supposed wisdom.

---

So God is tricking humanity to hide his existence. This doesn't actually answer my question; it just raises the exact same question.

---

I think he hides his existence for several other reasons, depending on the person and circumstances. But I think the things we are to believe are pretty "out there" in order to prevent the arrogant from achieving salvation through their self-perceived wisdom. For example,

1 Cor. 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

---

God needs us to be ignorant?

---

Ignorance is a large factor why some don't believe. But ultimately it's because they are hardened against God. They are willfully ignorant.

Eph. 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

Maybe it only took six days to write the computer code.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

---

Well said. If I bring you a glass of wine and tell you that moments before it was water, and that a man transformed the water instantly into wine, what's the point in examining the wine and coming up with a scientific explanation? As if it could somehow validate or invalidate the claim. The wine itself isn't evidence of anything. We all know wine comes from grapes and takes days to ferment.

---

You've never explained why an omnibenevolent deity would trick his creation by creating a world that can be dated using the senses and materials present in that world to something far beyond its actual date.

---

To keep the arrogant from finding him by their supposed wisdom.

---

So God is tricking humanity to hide his existence. This doesn't actually answer my question; it just raises the exact same question.

---

I think he hides his existence for several other reasons, depending on the person and circumstances. But I think the things we are to believe are pretty "out there" in order to prevent the arrogant from achieving salvation through their self-perceived wisdom. For example,

1 Cor. 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

---

God needs us to be ignorant?

---

Ignorance is a large factor why some don't believe. But ultimately it's because they are hardened against God. They are willfully ignorant.

Eph. 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

---

That passage could very easily be interpreted as being directed at those who jettison the ability to reason in favor of contorting books like Genesis into something that compels them to believe in talking snakes and God with legs.

I don't see how. The Genesis story is not even mentioned.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I don't see how. The Genesis story is not even mentioned.

---

It's a general reference, not a direct reference.

I have no idea what you're referring to. This is the context:

Eph. 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ! 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Has nothing to do with Genesis or the creation story.

JJxvi said:

---

Maybe it only took six days to write the computer code.

---

that can seem like thousands of years

It's helpful to look at Genesis within the context of the Sumerian Enuma Elish, which had been the cultural heritage myth of the Middle East for over a 1,000 years before The Torah was written.

The parallels are strong enough to clearly show the writers are crafting a polemic to the previous concept of the purpose of creation and man's role in it.

In the EE, the forces of creation are a cacophony of competiting personalities, and man is created as a slave to their purposes to do the things on earth they are too lazy to do.

In Gensis. The Force of Creation is hierarchical and unified, and man is created in Its Image and asked to take part in Its Purposes.

The purpose of Genesis to establish Man's relationship to Creator and Creation. It's a foundation myth...no....no...its The Foundation Myth of Western Civilization.

Its incredibly, incredibly, incredibly important and what it teaches us about our role in this universe is transcendental and true.

It is, in all likelihood, not literally true. The Enuma Elish is broken into 7 parts, which seems to be where the 7 day scaffold comes from...the Hebrew scribes were applying the Truth they wanted to convey onto already well established mythological tropes and poetic structures.

I cannot stress enough that I say this to take nothing away from The Torah. It is, unequivocally, the most important and transformative document in human history. It's just not a science book.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I have no idea what you're referring to. This is the context:

Eph. 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ! 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Has nothing to do with Genesis or the creation story.

---

Sorry. I really am not trying to be a jerk. It's just my opinion that one can apply the criticism made in those verses to people who persist in an ignorant position due to an obstinate refusal to engage the rationale mental capacity that God gave them.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I have no idea what you're referring to. This is the context:

Eph. 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ! 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Has nothing to do with Genesis or the creation story.

---

Sorry. I really am not trying to be a jerk. It's just my opinion that one can apply the criticism made in those verses to people who persist in an ignorant position due to an obstinate refusal to engage the rationale mental capacity that God gave them.

---

Not without a renewed heart. You can't rationalize yourself into belief. It specifically says "due to their hardness of heart." It's not due to an obstinate refusal to engage the rational mental capacity that God gave them. Atheists engage the rational mental capacity that God gave them all them time.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I have no idea what you're referring to. This is the context:

Eph. 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ! 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Has nothing to do with Genesis or the creation story.

---

Sorry. I really am not trying to be a jerk. It's just my opinion that one can apply the criticism made in those verses to people who persist in an ignorant position due to an obstinate refusal to engage the rationale mental capacity that God gave them.

---

Not without a renewed heart. You can't rationalize yourself into belief. It specifically says "due to their hardness of heart." It's not due to an obstinate refusal to engage the rational mental capacity that God gave them. Atheists engage the rational mental capacity that God gave them all them time.

---

We're just not connecting so I will bow out and leave you to it.

KingofHazor said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

It is, in all likelihood, not literally true. The Enuma Elish is broken into 7 parts, which seems to be where the 7 day scaffold comes from...the Hebrew scribes were applying the Truth they wanted to convey onto already well established mythological tropes and poetic structures.

---

That argument is similar to many today that are apparently the consensus in academia. There are several problems with that argument, however:

1. The Enuma Elish was not inspired by God. The Creation account was.

2. According to my brief research, the Enuma Elish was written after the Creation account. The Enuma Elish was written in approximately 1200 BC whereas Moses wrote the Creation account sometime prior to 1400 BC. If you dispute the dates of Moses's writing, then the debate morphs into the dating and reliability of most of the OT.

3. There is no hard evidence at all that Moses's Creation account was influenced by anything other than the Holy Spirit. The attempt to make it influenced by other ancient creation myths is a modern conceit used by academics to eliminate the fact of its inspiration and trustworthiness.

4. Why would God inspire something not literally true?

---

1. Sure, but the audience the Torah scribes were working within that frame work.

2. The underlying Sumerian story almost certainly dates much earlier. Sumerian Babylon stopped being a real thing by 1850 BC.

No, I don't think the Torah was written till about 1200 BC. 1446 is just a difficult time to reconcile with the historical record. The archeological record and the Amarna letters seem to make it clear Egypt controlled the Levant until the bronze age collapse. So, an early date for the Exidus becomes harder to justify.

3. The people who wrote the Torah had a long history with literacy. I mean, the cradle of the alphabet is the land that would one day be called Isreal. We can find examples of the alphabet in Lacish as far back as 1750 BC.

I think people severely underestimate literacy rates in the region at this time period.

4. God Imspired would communicate His Purpose. My hypothesis is that purpose seems to better answer Why Creation? Then How Creation?

"4. Why would God inspire something not literally true?"

I think this assumes God thinks like an engineer.

Let's start with Adam being a real person. Is Luke's genealogy true? Or is there a point that it diverges into myth/allegory?

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Zobel said:

---

i think there's a false dichotomy between true and metaphor/allegory/symbolic

several times in this discussion people are making the assumption that "true" = scientifically testable / demonstrable / empirical etc. which is a modernist presupposition

---

HARUMPH!!!

Zobel said:

---

i think there's a false dichotomy between true and metaphor/allegory/symbolic

several times in this discussion people are making the assumption that "true" = scientifically testable / demonstrable / empirical etc. which is a modernist presupposition

---

Let's start with Adam being a real person. Is Luke's genealogy historically accurate? Or is there a point that it diverges into myth/allegory?

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think there's a false dichotomy between true and metaphor/allegory/symbolic

several times in this discussion people are making the assumption that "true" = scientifically testable / demonstrable / empirical etc. which is a modernist presupposition

---

Let's start with Adam being a real person. Is Luke's genealogy historically accurate? Or is there a point that it diverges into myth/allegory?

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

---

Accurate is the wrong word. Perhaps you mean complete, rather than relayed with an alternate purpose?

Let's start with Adam being a real person. Is Luke's genealogy historically complete and accurate? Or is there a point that it diverges into myth, allegory, incomplete, or inaccurate?

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

i dont think it matters, personally.

as silent for too long said, the message is why creation, not how or when. the message that God created Man in the image of God, to reign over earth as priest and king is what matters.

Quote:

---

i dont think it matters, personally.

as silent for too long said, the message is why creation, not how or when. the message that God created Man in the image of God, to reign over earth as priest and king is what matters.

---

false dichotomy. Of course there's always the why. Why creation. Why the fall. Why the flood. Why Abraham was chosen. Why the exodus. Why the law. Why the promised land. Why Jesus. Why the cross. Why the resurrection.

Doesn't mean the historical accuracy completeness of these things don't matter.