I believe evolution and Genesis 1-11 are irreconcilable. Only one can be correct.
So you believe. What is necessary to salvation?
So, if Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose there was no Abraham, no Jacob, no Issac, no Joseph, or any of the other fathers of Israel. If Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose when Jesus quotes from Genesis in a literal sense that He is lying to us. Or, is it only parts of Genesis are a parable and others are history? How do you decide which portions are which?
I meant the Creation story part of Genesis.
This is a popular lie propogated by critics who want to discount the New Testament. It ignores the fact that the Old Testament books were canonized by the Jews around 400 BC! The New Testament books were agreed upon as early as 100 AD based upon the writings of early church fathers.
As it turns out, I was thinking of the Council of Rome from 382. My apologies. The Council of Rome declared that the Apocrypha were divinely inspired, and no less significant than the other books of the Bible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-14 12:48 pm (UTC)So you believe. What is necessary to salvation?
So, if Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose there was no Abraham, no Jacob, no Issac, no Joseph, or any of the other fathers of Israel. If Genesis is just a parable, then I suppose when Jesus quotes from Genesis in a literal sense that He is lying to us. Or, is it only parts of Genesis are a parable and others are history? How do you decide which portions are which?
I meant the Creation story part of Genesis.
This is a popular lie propogated by critics who want to discount the New Testament. It ignores the fact that the Old Testament books were canonized by the Jews around 400 BC! The New Testament books were agreed upon as early as 100 AD based upon the writings of early church fathers.
As it turns out, I was thinking of the Council of Rome from 382. My apologies. The Council of Rome declared that the Apocrypha were divinely inspired, and no less significant than the other books of the Bible.
Yet Luther discounted them. Why?