In the Beginning....

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
On Day 3 - God creates Plants and those plants actually grow.

11 Then God said, ""Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them''; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Notice the text says that the earth "sprouted vegetation" complete with "plants yielding seed" this means - they appear in mature form on day 3. This word for vegetation in Gen 1 is not the word used in Gen 2 for what was not yet in the earth.

Hint: There is no text for day 5 and 6 saying "And God created animals - and they starved for there was no plant to eat".

So What does the Gen 2 text actually say?

KJV

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.


A. The first point this new section makes is that there were four things that did not yet exist after God had completed the earth and the heavens:
1 - the shrub of the field (literally - thorny plants - weeds)
2. - the plant of the field (farm crops like wheat)
3. - rain
4. - the man to work the soil. (Gen 3:17 - man is cursed to work the soil after sin )

In Gen 2:9 we are told that man is eating fruit not wheat. Adam was not tilling the ground in Gen 2.

Weeds were not growing. Nor was man cursed as in Gen 3
18 ""Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;


And there was no rain.

In fact there is no mention of Rain at all until Gen 7.

Your streatching it a bit. Genesis 2 problems is still in contrast with genesis one.

1. Genesis 2 provides no "contrast language" at all.
2. Genesis 2 does not attempt a second chronological sequence. Rather it simply speaks of a "day" generically -- no "morning and evening" and no sequence of days and no addressing the issue of fish or of vegetation in general or of Sun and Moon or of sequence of animals created (i.e. fish and birds before land animals or after).

Thus all of the Gen 2 language is simply added to Gen 1 and it all just works!

TS said -
There is not indication that there is any other vegitation in Genesis two.

1. there are no chapter divisions in the Bible.
2. Gen 2 perfectly sets up three and follows 1 since it says there are no thorns, no farm crops of the soul, no humans toiling by the sweat of the brow, digging up weeds, turning over soil, planting new crops each year and no rain -- prior to sin.

TS
BTW aren't fruit cultivated plants as well?

In Gen 2 God creates the plants "with seeds in them" already. This means there is no "planting trees" going on the garden - rather it is a case of tending to the garden (an orchard primarily).

This is totally different from clearing land, tilling soil, planting and harvesting wheat.

Thus the "eating bread" feature is part of the curse of sin in Gen 3:17-18.

These are details that have to be glossed over and ignored entirely to make the "two-blind accounts" argument.

TS said
The problem is genesis one is to be taken differently. Genesis two sets up a problem which resolves by showing man's place in the world.

I keep stating that the first is "taken" as the strict chronological squence that it is. The second presents no chronological sequence at all - it merely explains the rules for staying the garden, it explains marriage and it explains the 7th day Sabbath (the two institutions that mankind takes out of Eden after the fall).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jedi Knight]

In the beginning Genesis 1:1 :godisgood: In the beginning John 1:1 :jesus:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. Genesis 2 provides no "contrast language" at all.

As a matter of fact they do. Consider for a moment Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible

The two stories, the seven-day sequence and Genesis 2:5-3:24, tell of two different Creations, both of which cannot be true because their details contradict each other. Man, beasts and plants are created in two different sequences, and man and woman are made in two different ways

and A Biblical/Hebrew scholar named Robert Alter who states

You could say, as many scholars have, that J is an old authoritative text. But how could the author of P do something so stupid as to put together the J story with his own when the two so clearly contradict each other in certain significant elements? I think there is a kind of perspectivist maneuver here. The stories are placed side by side, and, in the matter of the creation of woman, for example, there is a blatant contradiction. In P human creation is simultaneously male and female, in J woman is made out of the humans spare parts. What's at stake is two different cultural perceptions of woman's role. Woman is perceived in terms of a patriarchal culture in which she's subordinate, but nevertheless she is very powerful.

And a commentary of a verse by verse account

Initially it appears that there was no plant life - the next part stated as an aside provides an explanation as to why, and seems to show God is preparing for man's arrival by watering the ground: there is no mention of anything actually growing yet. God then forms man as this watering is taking place.

Which makes your statement something of a puzzle

2. Genesis 2 does not attempt a second chronological sequence. Rather it simply speaks of a "day" generically -- no "morning and evening" and no sequence of days and no addressing the issue of fish or of vegetation in general or of Sun and Moon or of sequence of animals created (i.e. fish and birds before land animals or after). Thus all of the Gen 2 language is simply added to Gen 1 and it all just works!

when its clear the word usage doesn't work nor does the chronology.

1. there are no chapter divisions in the Bible.

Yes this is true but irrelevant to the passages under consideration. The New Testiment also has this issue. Am I to believe Paul is not quoting when he says

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

which is obviously a pre pauline creed. Funny Paul didn't put in quotation marks

2. Gen 2 perfectly sets up three and follows 1 since it says there are no thorns, no farm crops of the soul, no humans toiling by the sweat of the brow, digging up weeds, turning over soil, planting new crops each year and no rain -- prior to sin.

and indicates there is no other plant life viable at this point. Its all seed.

These are details that have to be glossed over and ignored entirely to make the "two-blind accounts" argument.

Whats being glossed over is the contradiction.

I keep stating that the first is "taken" as the strict chronological squence that it is. The second presents no chronological sequence at all - it merely explains the rules for staying the garden, it explains marriage and it explains the 7th day Sabbath (the two institutions that mankind takes out of Eden after the fall).

And you change your own rules Genesis 1 taken literally is chronological but of course Genesis two must note be taken literally? Clearly before plants emerged Adam was created in contradiction to genesis 1.
The commentary continues to note discrepancies.

Following on from the creation of plants, God notes that man is alone and requires a companion - the fact that he needs to make him a companion suggests none has already been made, since God would just presumably bring it to him without requiring that it be made (since it would already exist), as he eventually does once he is finished creating the animals (next section). Obviously as man is alone and requires a helper to be made, it suggests man was there before the beasts, birds and fish...God then forms all the animals, but none are suitable companions for Adam...God then creates woman, well after all the beasts of the field and sky have been made, and there definitely appears to be a hierarchy of importance here - in Gen1 the creation seems to put them on an even footing, where they are both made in God's image. Here, the woman is composed from spare parts from the man.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In the beginning Genesis 1:1 :godisgood: In the beginning John 1:1 :jesus:

It is no surprise that those who reject the Biblical veiw of salvation, reject also the inspiration of the Scriptures, as the unregenerate man is without spiritual ability to submit to the Word of God but instead opposes it, contradicts it and presumes it is untrust worthy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A man is known by the companions he chooses to associate with and uses as references.

As a matter of fact they do. Consider for a moment Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible

and A Biblical/Hebrew scholar named Robert Alter who states



And a commentary of a verse by verse account


Which makes your statement something of a puzzle
when its clear the word usage doesn't work nor does the chronology.


Yes this is true but irrelevant to the passages under consideration. The New Testiment also has this issue. Am I to believe Paul is not quoting when he says which is obviously a pre pauline creed. Funny Paul didn't put in quotation marks

and indicates there is no other plant life viable at this point. Its all seed.


Whats being glossed over is the contradiction.

And you change your own rules Genesis 1 taken literally is chronological but of course Genesis two must note be taken literally? Clearly before plants emerged Adam was created in contradiction to genesis 1.
The commentary continues to note discrepancies.[/QUOTE]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A man is known by the companions he chooses to associate with and uses as references.

You had to add a caveat to the age old proverb that "you are known by the companions you choose". The truth of the matter is you have no idea who I choose as companions. So you had to make up "and uses as references" I am well read. I use all sorts of references. I particularily like Bruce Metzger. I don't agree with Erhman. But I may use him as a reference because he may have a valid point. What you are attempting to get at is that I hang around people who aren't Christian thus I am not because of their company. This is your agenda by your statement. However, like in many things, you again are mistaken in this. My aquantances are missionaries, pastors, Christian professors, people at work, my church family, etc... I read many books as I've said I particularily like Bruce Metzger but I also have works by Norman Geisler, though I don't always agree I also read RC Sproul, same with Max Lucado, I read Schaeffer, I also like CS Lewis, FF Bruce, JI Packer, and I've even read Grundam's systematic theology as well as Carl Barth. I've also read Augustine, Aquinas, Cohen, and many others. I read a lot. And at any time I may quote an author I don't agree with in conclusion or in general but if they have a point I'll make a note of it.
So your assertion or intended direction falls. I must as you a question however. Why are you always about a witch hunt.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You had to add a caveat to the age old proverb that "you are known by the companions you choose". The truth of the matter is you have no idea who I choose as companions. So you had to make up "and uses as references" I am well read. I use all sorts of references. I particularily like Bruce Metzger. I don't agree with Erhman. But I may use him as a reference because he may have a valid point. What you are attempting to get at is that I hang around people who aren't Christian thus I am not because of their company. This is your agenda by your statement. However, like in many things, you again are mistaken in this. My aquantances are missionaries, pastors, Christian professors, people at work, my church family, etc... I read many books as I've said I particularily like Bruce Metzger but I also have works by Norman Geisler, though I don't always agree I also read RC Sproul, same with Max Lucado, I read Schaeffer, I also like CS Lewis, FF Bruce, JI Packer, and I've even read Grundam's systematic theology as well as Carl Barth. I've also read Augustine, Aquinas, Cohen, and many others. I read a lot. And at any time I may quote an author I don't agree with in conclusion or in general but if they have a point I'll make a note of it.
So your assertion or intended direction falls. I must as you a question however. Why are you always about a witch hunt.

When you quote people who outrightly assert the Bible is full of irreconciable contraditions to support your view then questions are in order.

So let us simply this matter! Do you believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are irreconcialable contradictory accounts? A simple yes or no is sufficient.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When you quote people who outrightly assert the Bible is full of irreconciable contraditions to support your view then questions are in order.

So let us simply this matter! Do you believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are irreconcialable contradictory accounts?

I don't hold to the literal interpretation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in the fashion that you do. I believe them to assert that God created the universe in an orderly fashion. I believe Genesis 1 was structured to do 3 things. Assert God is greater than all other gods, to assert that God indeed created the universe in an orderly fashion from an ex nihilio starting point, and to establish the theology of the sabbath. I believe that Genesis 2 deals with a different set of issues and establishes 1) the special creation of man being in God's image. 2) the place of man amongst creation 3) the origins of community and the theology of marriage. So genesis 2 is a means of establishing a theology of man.

You set a false negative in your question to answer either yes or no. If I were using your interpretation of these two chapters as being God's intent I would say by word structure they contradict each other. However, I find your interpretation faulty as it ignores the manner of what type of literature in the context of how a person from ancient Mesopotamia might see the stories. I believe it is still truth but not they way you view it. I believe that the world is older than 10,000 years.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't hold to the literal interpretation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in the fashion that you do. I believe them to assert that God created the universe in an orderly fashion. I believe Genesis 1 was structured to do 3 things. Assert God is greater than all other gods, to assert that God indeed created the universe in an orderly fashion from an ex nihilio starting point, and to establish the theology of the sabbath. I believe that Genesis 2 deals with a different set of issues and establishes 1) the special creation of man being in God's image. 2) the place of man amongst creation 3) the origins of community and the theology of marriage. So genesis 2 is a means of establishing a theology of man.

You set a false negative in your question to answer either yes or no. If I were using your interpretation of these two chapters as being God's intent I would say by word structure they contradict each other. However, I find your interpretation faulty as it ignores the manner of what type of literature in the context of how a person from ancient Mesopotamia might see the stories. I believe it is still truth but not they way you view it. I believe that the world is older than 10,000 years.

So you do believe according to their "word structure they contradict each other"? What is your view of inspiration then? Do you reject plenary verbal inspiration of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Second, do you accept Genesis one to be an authentic record of how God created fish, birds and mammals according to their "kind" exnihilo or do you merely believe God created a uniformitarian processs that eventually produced fish, bird and mammals according to their "kind"?

 

[DHK]

I am well read. I use all sorts of references. I particularily like Bruce Metzger. I don't agree with Erhman. But I may use him as a reference because he may have a valid point.

So you are well read. Is there a point to that statement?
I have read the Koran, the Book of Morman, some of the Vedas, the RCC Catechism, and many other heretical works. But I don't quote them as truth. I don't defend them. I don't believe in them. My authority remains the Word of God.

When it comes to discussing the Word of God you have taken the opinions of unbelievers and have made them of greater importance over and above that of evangelical scholars who have the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth. Those that believe in Higher Criticism and such theories as the JEDP theory are unbelievers that continually deny the inspiration of the Bible, attack its integrity, and deny the supernatural. But you keep their company.

The Bible states very clearly: "How can two walk together except they be agreed?"
The rhetorical question has only one answer--they cannot. Unsaved walk with the unsaved and the saved fellowship with the saved. Thus you wonder why people on the board, at times, question your salvation. It is because of the company you keep. You don't have to refer to others that you have to read; only to those that you keep on posting on this board including those who believe in baptismal regeneration on other threads and posts that defend various other heresies. What do you think people should conclude?

A man surely is known by the company he keeps. The company you keep (according to most of us) is that which you post on this board. The Bible commands us to contend for the faith, not against it.

 

[Jedi Knight]

6 24 Hr days! Not hard! :type:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So you do believe according to their "word structure they contradict each other"?

A false summery wouldn't you say? I said if I took how you interpret Genesis 1 and 2 which is literal 6 days of creation; then unbaisedly looked at the passage and the word structure I would come to the conclussion that at this point the bible contradicts itself if that how God wanted it taken. If I wanted to look at it biasedly and had to have the bible agree with my interpretation despite evidence to the contrary I would "force", like you have, an interpretation to show more unity.

What is your view of inspiration then?

That the term means God breathed. That the bible is the very word of God that God lead men by inspiring them by the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth God wanted us to know about salvation. That the bible is truth in all that it asserts. I do not believe that God superseded the language and literary styles of the day but used them in their context to spread the truth. That the bible is made up of different literary types and each book must be considered with that in mind. I don't discount the miracles as they happened. But I do know the entire bible is not to be taken literally and the truth is niether do you. Having done a comparitive analysis of the literary types of Summeria its clear that it is in this fashion that God communicates the truths as I've pointed out in my previous post.

Do you reject plenary verbal inspiration of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

There are times God dictates or writes himself such as the ten commandments other times he does not. I do not believe that God dictated the entire bible. But that men in their capasity wrote as they observed and where inspired by the Holy Spirit. For instance I do not believe God dictated Psalm 22. I believe Psalm 22 as written by David was David complaining about the troubles as he'd experienced it. I believe the Holy Spirit orchestrated David's personality that would write such a psalm, his life and circumstances in such a manner as to perfectly express the suffering Jesus Christ would have at Calvery. But it was not dictation. David was expressing himself and complaining to God holding out the hope of his future salvation. The Holy Spirit inspired him to make it go beyond just David.

Second, do you accept Genesis one to be an authentic record of how God created fish, birds and mammals according to their "kind" exnihilo

I've told you what I believe about the Genesis account. God made the universe Ex Nihilo. He did it in steps or stages. He created man specially in all creation. I do not go against that. But I believed he used the literary forms of that day to express these truths. I do not believe the earth is 7-10 thousand years old. In short I hold that

In ancient Israel a day was considered to begin at sunset. According
to the highly artificial literary structure of Gn 1, 1—2, 4a,
God’s creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness
of the sabbath rest on the seventh day in the Israelite religion

If you were to diagram the creation account in Genesis this is how the world would look

Inclusive of the Floodgates spoken of in Genesis "Waters above the frimament" the placing of the stars in the sky below the "waters above the firmament" the "columns of the earth" and the all encompassing river ocean that surrounds all land mass. Now this is the dipiction of God's creation as described in genesis. Does that look anything like the real world? You must ask yourself.

 

[David Lamb]

As a matter of fact they do. Consider for a moment Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible

I hadn't heard of that book, or its author, so I looked them up. At http://www.amazon.com/dp/0679744061/?tag=baptis04-20 I found this (emphases mine):

From Library Journal
The author of Pagans and Christians ( LJ 1/87) gives a detailed exposition of the historical origins (or lack thereof) of the Bible. Fox claims that he believes "in the Bible, but not in God," and thus explores the Bible as a historian. His version is "unauthorized," not because it has been suppressed, but because the Bible does not proclaim its authority. He reaches for what the authors of the Bible intended, realizing that the Bible is not the word of God and that much of it is not historically accurate or factual.
​

I cannot really see the point of quoting as an authority a man who doesn't even believe in God, and believes that the bible is not God's Word.

and A Biblical/Hebrew scholar named Robert Alter who states

Again, what are his background beliefs, the presuppositions with which he approaches the bible? I don't know how representative of him the following is, found at http://www.docbible.net/boobofabrah...in-ancient-literature-and-the-book-of-abraham :

Robert Alter believes that it was Jacob, who subsumed the ancient Canaanite sky god, who was El, "the supreme god in the Canaanite pantheon," who now, thanks to Jacob's actions becomes the God of the people of Israel
​

And a commentary of a verse by verse account

It would have been helpful if you had named the commentary.

 

[Dr. Walter]

. In short I hold that If you were to diagram the creation account in Genesis this is how the world would look

Inclusive of the Floodgates spoken of in Genesis "Waters above the frimament" the placing of the stars in the sky below the "waters above the firmament" the "columns of the earth" and the all encompassing river ocean that surrounds all land mass. Now this is the dipiction of God's creation as described in genesis. Does that look anything like the real world? You must ask yourself.

Your diagram is pure figmant of a wild imagaination. Do you know of any Christian Scientist that agrees with that diagram interpretation of the words in Genesis????? I sincerely doubt it!

Do you know of any Biblical writer that expresses the account of creation as you do in figurative terms? You seem to literalize what you want and spiritualize what you want! For example you choose to spirituallize just about everything but the Sabbath day and marriage.

What about the creation of man? Do you take the account of the creation of man literally or symbolically? If you spiritualize the creation of fish, birds and animals and thus make it fit the evolutionary hypothesis of uniformitarianism then do you also see man as part of the millions of years of evolutionary process that God simply began?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I hadn't heard of that book, or its author, so I looked them up. At http://www.amazon.com/dp/0679744061/?tag=baptis04-20 I found this (emphases mine):

From Library Journal
The author of Pagans and Christians ( LJ 1/87) gives a detailed exposition of the historical origins (or lack thereof) of the Bible. Fox claims that he believes "in the Bible, but not in God," and thus explores the Bible as a historian. His version is "unauthorized," not because it has been suppressed, but because the Bible does not proclaim its authority. He reaches for what the authors of the Bible intended, realizing that the Bible is not the word of God and that much of it is not historically accurate or factual.
​

I cannot really see the point of quoting as an authority a man who doesn't even believe in God, and believes that the bible is not God's Word.



Again, what are his background beliefs, the presuppositions with which he approaches the bible? I don't know how representative of him the following is, found at http://www.docbible.net/boobofabrah...in-ancient-literature-and-the-book-of-abraham :

Robert Alter believes that it was Jacob, who subsumed the ancient Canaanite sky god, who was El, "the supreme god in the Canaanite pantheon," who now, thanks to Jacob's actions becomes the God of the people of Israel
​

It would have been helpful if you had named the commentary.

As I said, birds of a feather flock together!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your diagram is pure figmant of a wild imagaination. Do you know of any Christian Scientist that agrees with that diagram interpretation of the words in Genesis????? I sincerely doubt it!

Do you know of any Biblical writer that expresses the account of creation as you do in figurative terms? You seem to literalize what you want and spiritualize what you want! For example you choose to spirituallize just about everything but the Sabbath day and marriage.

What about the creation of man? Do you take the account of the creation of man literally or symbolically? If you spiritualize the creation of fish, birds and animals and thus make it fit the evolutionary hypothesis of uniformitarianism then do you also see man as part of the millions of years of evolutionary process that God simply began?

The fact is that is exactly how the ancient world viewed the world for many years. You can see why. Because this is how the genesis account describes it. You can see it throughout biblical literature. There are gates that hold back the wind...etc... The problem with "creation scientist" is that, like you, they have to make the universe fit their view or faith. They believe that God is literal in his 6 days of creation account so they force fit pieces together that an unbiased person would say "wait a minute that's not what is said in scriptures". But because their faith is so reliant on their ability to understand they take facts to fit their design. No different from the Global warming fanatics who were also scientist. Its the same paradigm for both of these people. Rather then stepping back saying the facts don't fit therefore my hypothesis is wrong I must form another.
Note another limit to your thinking. You tend to force a false negative or false positive by concluding there are only two options. I must either accept 6 days of creation or accept macro evolution in total. That is a false delemma.
You easily purport

You seem to literalize what you want and spiritualize what you want!

while ignoring the fact that you do the same thing. According to the language used in John 6 about eating Jesus' Flesh; Jesus is being literal. Yet you don't take it that way because it doesn't jive with your faith. So you contradict yourself. I on the otherhand and being consistent when I state that John 6 can be very figurative. So who is inconsistent? You or I? Jesus clearly states you must gnaw(chew) on his flesh or you have no life in you. You say ahh that's figurative but genesis is literal for 6 days of creation? LOL. You are the one being inconsistant in that regard.

 

[Dr. Walter]

believe Genesis 1 was structured to do 3 things. Assert God is greater than all other gods, to assert that God indeed created the universe in an orderly fashion from an ex nihilio starting point, and to establish the theology of the sabbath.

Do you have any basis in Genesis chapter one for believing God created the universe "from an ex nihilio starting point"?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As I said, birds of a feather flock together!

Ah another statement that is an attempt which fits your motus apparendi of conducting a "witch hunt" for those that disagrees with you. You happily ignored my previous post which shows I read a lot of people who I don't necissarily agree with their conclusion but accept that they may have valid points. For instance I like Metzger his student Erhman became and agnostic. While I don't hold to his agnosticism Erhman may have valid things to say with regard to the scriptures. Everyone can have a piece of truth no matter what their creed is. Doesn't mean I buy their creed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you have any basis in Genesis chapter one for believing God created the universe "from an ex nihilio starting point"?

Genesis 1:1. Clearly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You easily purport while ignoring the fact that you do the same thing. According to the language used in John 6 about eating Jesus' Flesh; Jesus is being literal. Yet you don't take it that way because it doesn't jive with your faith. So you contradict yourself. I on the otherhand and being consistent when I state that John 6 can be very figurative. So who is inconsistent? You or I? Jesus clearly states you must gnaw(chew) on his flesh or you have no life in you. You say ahh that's figurative but genesis is literal for 6 days of creation? LOL. You are the one being inconsistant in that regard.

Your interpretation of the scriptures reveals your spiritual status. Jesus said we can know them by their fruits and one very definite fruit is how they handle God's Word.

Again in John 6 you pick what you want and ignore the rest. You choose to ignore that twice before Jesus made that statement he provided the interpretative method to understand his words:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Here is how you partake of the bread of life - you come and believe in him.


47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Here is how you partake of eternal life, you believe on him.


And after he made these statements he explictly denied that his message was to be understood in regard to his own literal flesh but rather his words conveyed spiritual life in the essence of saving faith:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


In our discussions it is clear to me that you do not even know the true gospel of Jesus Christ but pervert it as you do everything else in God's Word.