Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[rjs330]

It's a well-known and commonplace fact of Bible history. Ask a Jew; it's their book. The notion that it's all Darwin's fault is Creationist propaganda.


You are assuming that the "truth" of Genesis can only be 100% accurate factual history.

You know a,lot of,Jews don't believe in the OT right? Just because the modern Jew doesn't believe doesn't have anything to do whether it's true or not. They also,don't believe in Jesus either. Does that make his story untrue also?

 

[Speedwell]

You know a,lot of,Jews don't believe in the OT right?

One of the barriers to communication about this is just that turn of phrase. When you say "believe the Bible" you really mean "believe a literal interpretation of the Bible." Many of the faithful who don't hold with that interpretation also consider themselves as believing the Bible.

Just because the modern Jew doesn't believe doesn't have anything to do whether it's true or not. They also,don't believe in Jesus either. Does that make his story untrue also?

We're not discussing whether rejection of a literal Genesis is the right thing to do, only if it is a barrier to salvation.

 

[rjs330]

Yes I do mean literal interpretation. Because if you don't you can't claim Jesus was,real either. His life death and ressurection could be an allegory,as well.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes I do mean literal interpretation. Because if you don't you can't claim Jesus was,real either. His life death and ressurection could be an allegory,as well.

Not possible. We know of His life, death and resurrection through Apostolic witness. The Bible merely corroborates it.

But even so, you are making a serious claim:

If one text is determined to be an allegory, another text written centuries later in a different language for a different literary purpose must also be an allegory, even if the internal structure of the second text does not lend itself to that interpretation..

Is that what you claim? Lucy, looks like you got some splainin' to do.

 

[rjs330]

Not possible. We know of His life, death and resurrection through Apostolic witness. The Bible merely corroborates it.

But even so, you are making a serious claim:

If one text is determined to be an allegory, another text written centuries later in a different language for a different literary purpose must also be an allegory, even if the internal structure of the second text does not lend itself to that interpretation..

Is that what you claim? Lucy, looks like you got some splainin' to do.

I am saying that if you claim Genesis is then the same,claim could be made for any scritptural story and often is by the unbeliever. The unbeliever often states the NT is not true because it was written long after Jesus lived. Therefore it is a made up,story. They use the exact,same arguments you use for Genesis. The differences in the gospels show it was made up. That's their argument. The difference in the Genesis account is your excuse.

The structure of Genesis does not lend itself to,allegory you have purchased the theory perpetrated by unbelievers and propagated by liberal thought to,justify a belief in science propgated by ungodly men over Gods word.

 

[Speedwell]

I am saying that if you claim Genesis is then the same,claim could be made for any scriptural story...

No, it could not. The claim is not made arbitrarily at the whim of an individual, but only after serious study with the help of expert scholars. If you knew anything about literary genre, you would know that the Gospels cannot be allegory, because of their internal structure. Unbelievers may claim that they are not true, but none claim they are allegory.

I don't trust your usage of "true" in any case, because it seems that you think it can only mean factual historic truth.[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

Hi, Bob. Nice day here.

Same here - spent most of it at the park.

 

[BobRyan]

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. .

Sadly for you I am not the one posting wild speculation about John not being informed about the Genesis 1 fact that God created everything.

Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? .

Wonderful - so then John 1's reference to creation - is in fact a reference back to the Genesis 1-3 creation fact which also includes the fall man and explains the basis for the Gospel solution.

The point remains.

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.

Hint - John 1 comes after Genesis 1 - where we are told that God created everything.

Is your argument that John was not aware of Genesis 1 or that John assumed all of his readers rejected Genesis 1?

What "creation" event or account is John 1 referencing -- for those who "imagine" that John did not know about Genesis 1?

Let us see just how seriously you take your own wild speculation.

What wild speculation? I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.

Please tell me this very simple post sequence has not left you confused about the details in the posts again.

If the evolutionists are not even interested in their own arguments - how can we be expected to help them??

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. .

Sadly for you I am not the one posting wild speculation about John not being informed about the Genesis 1 fact that God created everything.

Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? .

Wonderful - so then John 1's reference to creation - is in fact a reference back to the Genesis 1-3 creation fact which also includes the fall man and explains the basis for the Gospel solution.

The point remains.

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.

Hint - John 1 comes after Genesis 1 - where we are told that God created everything.

Is your argument that John was not aware of Genesis 1 or that John assumed all of his readers rejected Genesis 1?

What "creation" event or account is John 1 referencing -- for those who "imagine" that John did not know about Genesis 1?

Let us see just how seriously you take your own wild speculation.

What wild speculation? I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.

Please tell me this very simple post sequence has not left you confused about the details in the posts again.

If the evolutionists are not even interested in their own arguments - how can we be expected to help them??

I'll tell you what, let's see if you can stay on topic. I have said several times that Genesis and John both tell us that God created everything

Indeed - but Genesis does not end with 'God did something' - r


, but that isn't what we are discussing. John was obviously aware of Genesis, but that isn't what we are discussing eithe. We are discussing whether belief in the Genesus account is a salvation requirement. Stay on topic. Also please make an effort to be polite because you have bit been to this point.[/QUOTE]

I'll tell you what, let's see if you can stay on topic. I have said several times that Genesis and John both tell us that God created everything

We all agree - they agree with each other and John knew it.

John's Bible starts this way ---
Genesis 1 "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Gen 2:1-4 " Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the

John's Gospel starts this way
John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John's accepted TEN Commandments of God included this - at the time of John 1
Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

And ARE discussing the fact that the GOSPEL as John gives it - has as its foundation the CREATION fact of the Bible - known and accepted by John AND his readers.

John shows us that this creation fact is the basis and foundation for his Gospel. The VERY POINT we are discussing according to the title and the OP.

John was obviously aware of Genesis and we both know.

John 1 makes that Genesis account of creation foundational - to his Gospel account. Chapter 1, verse 1-4 -- a detail that yo find "inconvenient" because it drives the answer to the question of this thread in a direction that goes against your preference.

We are discussing whether John's idea of belief in and acceptance of the Bible creation account as John would have known it from Genesis is the foundation and basis for the Gospel of salvation just as John says it is.

This is the topic - but it includes an 'inconvenient detail' in John 1 linked to Genesis 1 that you "prefer" to ignore.

Noted - but that inconvenient detail is essential to the topic you have chosen.

 

[BobRyan]

I am saying that if you claim Genesis is then the same,claim could be made for any scritptural story and often is by the unbeliever. The unbeliever often states the NT is not true because it was written long after Jesus lived. Therefore it is a made up,story. They use the exact,same arguments you use for Genesis. The differences in the gospels show it was made up. That's their argument. The difference in the Genesis account is your excuse.

The structure of Genesis does not lend itself to,allegory you have purchased the theory perpetrated by unbelievers and propagated by liberal thought to,justify a belief in science propgated by ungodly men over Gods word.

That is true - the same Bible-denying arguments against Genesis 1 are applicable to the virgin birth, the literal bodily resurrection of Christ - the literal bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the Bible etc. Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, bodily-ascension-into-heaven-ists all appeal to the same idea that the "Bible is not myth".

Atheists and T.E.'s all appeal to the same idea that the Bible is nothing but myth when it opposes something they prefer to imagine to be true.

The two issues could not be more clear and obvious to all.

 

[Speedwell]

That is true - the same Bible-denying arguments against Genesis 1 are applicable to the virgin birth, the literal bodily resurrection of Christ - the literal bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the Bible etc. Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, bodily-ascension-into-heaven-ists all appeal to the same idea that the "Bible is not myth".

Atheists and T.E.'s all appeal to the same idea that the Bible is nothing but myth when it opposes something they prefer to imagine to be true.

The two issues could not be more clear and obvious to all.

It's a good thing it is "clear and obvious" because so far you haven't been able to back it up with any convincing argument.

TEs and most atheists are smarter than to say "the Bible is a myth" even though they think some parts of it may be.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's count the times this post is referenced while ignoring every single point that it raises.

=====================================

It's a good thing it is "clear and obvious"

I couldn't agree more. The deny-all response from evolutionists not nearly as compelling as they like to imagine to themselves.

TEs and most atheists are smarter than to say "the Bible is a myth" even though they think some parts of it may be.

Indeed they love the "pick and choose Bible is myth" dodge. No question.


============== for example my last post to you

Filled with details - that your argument does not survive --

I suppose nothing of the kind--that's just a lie you made up about me.
I made no such argument. That's just another lie you tell about me.
I suppose you think you're very clever, .

Let's try this again -

Notice the details in the post that deal with your own posts -- I have copied your posts 'for you' to help you focus.

=======================================

How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute

again your own argument does not survive the details in your own post.. I am not the one that brings in Discovery Institute into the discussion - you keep doing that while ignoring Romans 1 like it was your Kryptonite.

Paul makes a much stronger argument for Intelligent Design at a much higher level - than the Discovery Institute proposes.

The Discovery Institute argument is more like "can the brain-dead atheist evolutionists finally admit that up is up"... They are satistified with a very tiny, very minimalist scope for Intelligent Design. I don't claim to be making their argument.

Paul argues for much more than that in Romans 1.

Thus the 'distinctively atheist nature' in the argument against I.D. - because Paul goes way beyond the claims of today's I.D.

 

[rjs330]

No, it could not. The claim is not made arbitrarily at the whim of an individual, but only after serious study with the help of expert scholars. If you knew anything about literary genre, you would know that the Gospels cannot be allegory, because of their internal structure. Unbelievers may claim that they are not true, but none claim they are allegory.

I don't trust your usage of "true" in any case, because it seems that you think it can only mean factual historic truth.

[/QUOTE]

The same expert scholars that refute the veracity of the gospel accounts? I know the gospel accounts are not allegory. But plenty of scholars believe they are untrue. These same schlolars also believe Genesis isn't true either. I understand very well. I have a degree in Bible Literature. I know all the one and outs of the literature. Unless you have a degree in it you understand it less than I.

There are plenty of expert scholars that believe the Genesis account. And neither you nor anyone else can show anywhere in scripture where it is referred to as an allegory. And neither you nor anyone else has been able to refute the scriptures that reaffirm the Genesis account as factual.

You consistently claim it's what you believe but you have no basis for that belief except the basis of ungodly men proclaiming science disproves Genesis. Whereas the truth is Gods word affirms Genesis. It is up to you to prove it is an allegory based upon Gods word and you can't.

 

[Speedwell]

I couldn't agree more. The deny-all response from evolutionists not nearly as compelling as they like to imagine to themselves.





Indeed they love the "pick and choose Bible is myth" dodge. No question.

So explain how you can take a heterogeneous collection of texts written in all kinds of genres, in different cultural settings, a variety of languages by a variety of authors for a variety of literary purposes, and say, "If this one is a myth, that that one could be too" even though that one is structured nothing like a myth.

 

[Speedwell]

The same expert scholars that refute the veracity of the gospel accounts?[/QUOTE] Many devout Christian scholars and theologians.

And neither you nor anyone else can show anywhere in scripture where it is referred to as an allegory.

That's fine, I don't think much of it is allegory. The Garden story, in particular, is an etiology. If you are right, it is also 100% accurate literal history, but it is still an etiology. Jesus and the NT authors used it as if it was an etiology, so I don't care whether it is also 100% accurate literal history or not.

It is up to you to prove it is an allegory based upon Gods word and you can't.

BTW, what you are implying (bolded section) is the Doctrine of Self Interpretation, which my denomination doesn't hold with. It's more a Fundy thing.

 

[Speedwell]

Notice the details in the post that deal with your own posts -- I have copied your posts 'for you' to help you focus.

Here is my statement:

"How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed?"

Notice it is a question. The purpose of the question was in part rhetorical, responding to your suggestion that Roman's ! proved that Paul believed even pagans should see evidence of Irreducible Complexity in nature, but mostly I wanted to know if you really believed such nonsense. Nowhere did I argue or assert or say anything to suggest I disbelieved anything in Romans 1, particularly Paul's beautiful development of the idea that even an umbiblical pagan could be expected to see God's handiwork in nature

So your response,

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

imputed to me positions which you know full well I do not hold and arguments which you know full well I did not make.

It is a lie.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is my statement:

"How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed?"

Which is total nonsense for Romans 1 since Paul is going wayyyy beyond the simplistic "can't those atheist evolutionist admit to this one tiny fact that even the math requires one to admit to".

Paul is making a much larger claim than that. As you have been told repeatedly in your endless dodge of the actual text of Romans 1.

Notice it is a question. The purpose of the question was in part rhetorical, responding to your suggestion that Roman's ! proved that Paul believed even pagans should see evidence of Irreducible Complexity

You are the only one repeatedly trying to insert "irreducible complexity" into the Romans 1 statement by Paul -- as you repeatedly ignore what Paul actually said - as if to quote Romans 1 is to destroy your entire argument against Intelligent design.

hence you fail to address a single point in that discussion so far.

As if -- "we were not supposed to notice".

Why do that? who is fooled by that?

 

[BobRyan]

Let's count the times this post is referenced in an opposing post while at the same time that opposing post - ignores every single point that this post raises.
=====================================

It's a good thing it is "clear and obvious"

I couldn't agree more. The deny-all response from evolutionists not nearly as compelling as they like to imagine to themselves.

TEs and most atheists are smarter than to say "the Bible is a myth" even though they think some parts of it may be.

Indeed they love the "pick and choose Bible is myth" dodge. No question.


============== for example my last post to you

Filled with details - that your argument does not survive --

I suppose nothing of the kind--that's just a lie you made up about me.
I made no such argument. That's just another lie you tell about me.
I suppose you think you're very clever, .

Let's try this again -

Notice the details in the post that deal with your own posts -- I have copied your posts 'for you' to help you focus.

=======================================

How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute

again your own argument does not survive the details in your own post.. I am not the one that brings in Discovery Institute into the discussion - you keep doing that while ignoring Romans 1 like it was your Kryptonite.

Paul makes a much stronger argument for Intelligent Design at a much higher level - than the Discovery Institute proposes.

The Discovery Institute argument is more like "can the brain-dead atheist evolutionists finally admit that up is up"... They are satistified with a very tiny, very minimalist scope for Intelligent Design. I don't claim to be making their argument.

Paul argues for much more than that in Romans 1.

Thus the 'distinctively atheist nature' in the argument against I.D. - because Paul goes way beyond the claims of today's I.D.

 

[Speedwell]

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

I made no such attempt, as you well know.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

I made no such argument, as you well know.

Paul makes a much stronger argument for Intelligent Design at a much higher level - than the Discovery Institute proposes.

That he does, and I have neither denied it or argued against it, as you well know. But I stand by my position that neither the concept of Irreducible Complexity nor Specified Complex Information can be found in Romans 1 (or anywhere in God's creation, for that matter).

I think you know, too, that they cannot.

 

[rjs330]

The same expert scholars that refute the veracity of the gospel accounts?

Many devout Christian scholars and theologians. That's fine, I don't think much of it is allegory. The Garden story, in particular, is an etiology. If you are right, it is also 100% accurate literal history, but it is still an etiology. Jesus and the NT authors used it as if it was an etiology, so I don't care whether it is also 100% accurate literal history or not.



BTW, what you are implying (bolded section) is the Doctrine of Self Interpretation, which my denomination doesn't hold with. It's more a Fundy thing.[/QUOTE]
Scripture must interpret scripture. If I were the sole source of scriptural interpretation that puts me in charge of interpreting scripture and that's where man can pollute. When we argue that the bible doesn't say what it says we are self interpreting.

When the bible says God created in six days and we say it doesn't mean that, it means something else we are self interpreting scripture. We are deciding what scripture says instead of letting scripture speak for itself. It's especially bad when other scripture supports itself and we deny those passages as well.

 

[Speedwell]

Scripture must interpret scripture.

But should only scripture be used to interpret scripture?