Jesus knew that the story of Adam and Eve is real (Matt. 19:4-6).
I speak of Adam and Eve all the time, but I understand them as symbols of humanity as a whole. If I refer to Adam and Eve, and I don't think of them literally, why would you assume from that passage that Jesus did? It can't be simply because he cited them. I cite them too. So that can't be the reason for assuming he "knew the story was real". That's an assumption on your part.
But, even so, for argument's sake let's say he generally just didn't question it and just assumed they were real, like anyone else of his day might have. I mean, after all, Jesus did not have the knowledge of modern science available to him at the time, so most people would have just took those things as givens because that's what everyone believed to be true. There really wasn't knowledge to the contrary to them at the time. So, so what then? Does that mean we should ignore the evidence we have now, because ancient humans were unaware of it at the time these books were written?
Do you assume, that Jesus, the human being who claimed he did not possess omniscience, was in fact
omniscient? Do you believe Jesus would have known everything about the natural world in scientific terms? Why? Upon what basis would you assume that? I can see none from scripture. So where are you getting that from?
Footnote, I do not believe that omniscience, even if were were to grant this to the human person named Jesus from the 1st century, means knowledge of all technical data and factoids. Omniscience is more a matter of seeing Truth versus illusion, not some
Cosmic Encyclopedia.
Evolution denies not only the Genesis story and many other biblical statements that take the event for granted, but it also denies the teaching of Jesus himself.
No it doesn't! Evolution does not say "God did not create us". Science, or the Theory of Evolution says nothing about God, nor the book of Genesis. It only looks at the evidence we have from nature, and can see based upon that evidence, how things became created. Reading the story of Genesis
literally, is not a requirement of faith in God or in Jesus.
The only thing the Theory of Evolution (ToE), does challenge, is a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Reading Genesis as a scientific account, is not a religious requirement. It's not something believers from antiquity themselves demanded be believed. You have church fathers of the 2nd century understanding its story as allegorical, and not literal. And that was pre modern science and the ToE.
So Christians today who do accept evolution are not denying the Bible, and certainly not denying Christ! Why do you put that on them? How is it that you entangle someone's faith, with how they interpret the book of Genesis, or any scripture for that matter? Do you believe that salvation is based upon
correct beliefs?
Christians are not following people who deny what the Scripture says but they are showing those people that what they say contradicts the Bible.
Again, the only thing being contradicted, is some people's interpretation of scripture. Challenging your interpretation of Genesis, is not contradicting scripture. It's contradicting you. Big difference there, right?
The very genealogy of Jesus Christ and many of his ancestors is traced back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:33-38). To deny Adam and Eve is to declare this genealogy an invention, a lie.
I wouldn't go from saying something is a creative invention, to calling it a lie like that. The purpose was not to speak to a modern audience who was trying to figure out the age of the earth!
Their audience was a Jewish audience where tracing lineage was considered important for the sake of validating Jesus' heritage back to the proper bloodlines. It was NOT to satisfy Bishop Ussher in the 17th Century AD who was trying to play science with the Bible!
Ussher chronology - Wikipedia
Again, I don't see that saying Adam and Eve were not literal historical persons, but were archetypes of humanity, contradicts the
intent of the authors who traced Jesus' lineage back to Adam (heck, even my lineage goes back to him too, as does yours and everyone else's!
). The intent was not to do science or literal history,
like a modernist does. The intent was to speak of the validity of the Christian lineage back through Jewish history. John takes that even on step further, and traces Jesus back to Creation itself! What is the intent of the authors? And it certainly was not doing science and history.
To deny part of the Scriptures is to DENY the Scriptures. To deny part of what Jesus says is to DENY Jesus.
What does disagreeing with someone's interpretation of scripture, or their interpretations of what Jesus says, have to do with denying scripture or denying Jesus? Isn't that awfully presumptuous of you?
Luke 9:26 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of man will be ashamed of this one when he arrives in his glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels.
Understanding them differently, is not be ashamed of them! It's simply having a different understanding that you.
I am not judging those who view this matter differently, but I am helping them to think sensibly on the matter and rectify their thinking before it is too late for them. Biblical truth has many enemies, and they go around simulating intellectuality to kill the faith of believers.
Yes, you are judging them. You are saying I, and anyone else who doesn't read scripture the same as you do, in ways that require we have to deny the facts of science in order to believe like that, is denying scripture and denying Jesus. Yes, that is passing judgement.
Now as far as threatening us, "before it's too late for them", as you put it, are you saying that we are saved by correct beliefs? Is that a Biblical teaching? Can you point to where it says "You are justified by correct beliefs"? "Those who believe anything differently about God than me, shall be sent to the flames of hell,", you'll never find supported in scripture.
Don't equate Christians who have more flexible understandings of scriptures with being "enemies of the truth". Again, that is mighty presumptuous, judgemental, and false on your part. I believe your interpretation of Genesis is in error, but I don't call you an enemy of God. A babe, yes, but not God's enemy.
I consider your views in error, because that view requires you to deny solid scientific evidence. I also consider that detrimental spiritually to have to sever our rational minds in order to support beliefs we refuse to modify or change or let go of. Faith doesn't require obstinate ideas be clung to at all cost.
To be able to embrace both faith and reason, serves one's faith better than clinging tenaciously to outdated, outmoded ideas. That does not serve one's spiritual growth well.