Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[rjs330]

But should only scripture be used to interpret scripture?

Depends on what you mean. I think using things to help,us understand is important because translations sometimes fall short of getting good understanding. For example when Jesus speaks to,Peter after his denial and he uses the word love. Using things like lexicons or even Strongs Concordance or a commentary can help us get the depth of the words Jesus was actually using.

Paul talks about teachers being part of the gifts of God to the church and he speaks to Timothy about using scripture to teach,and exhort. So teachers can help us understand scripture too.

BUT, all these things MUST align with scripture and must align with,what scripture says about itself. For example someone might use a scripture to say we are free from sin. Which the bible does say. Then they might say we are then free to do as we please including commit fornication. But scripture interprets scripture. We know from Paul's letters that he isn't saying we can't sin because he specifically addresses fornication as being sinful behavior.

If something is taught whether in the church or outside of the church that specifically says something that goes against what scripture specifically says then it's wrong and we are self interpreting and twisting scripture to make it say something it doesn't. Especially bad if other scriptures verify what it's saying.

 

[Speedwell]

Depends on what you mean. I think using things to help,us understand is important because translations sometimes fall short of getting good understanding. For example when Jesus speaks to,Peter after his denial and he uses the word love. Using things like lexicons or even Strongs Concordance or a commentary can help us get the depth of the words Jesus was actually using.

I was thinking more along the lines of historical, linguistic and archaeological sources, extra-biblical contemporary Hebrew and neighboring cultural literature, things like that.

Especially bad if other scriptures verify what it's saying.

But how do you determine that? For example, many people on this board have asserted that Jesus' use of the OT in His preaching "verifies" the literal inerrancy of the texts--which is simply illogical hogwash. How does one avoid errors like that?

 

[rjs330]

I think looking into things like you mentioned are fine as long those things do not contradict scripture. If they contradict scripture they are wrong. Why? Because scripture is the only inspired (God breathed) word of God.

Other literatures, cultures etc are not inspired. They are ONLY man's thoughts and ideas and findings and are often based on preconceived notions and assumptions. For example, using contemporary Hebrew understanding is invalid if it contradicts scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

For example, using contemporary Hebrew understanding is invalid if it contradicts scripture.

So what that boils down to is, that what Hebrews though about a text at the time it was written is immaterial?

Or to take another example: there are many Daniel stories in Jewish folklore, some of them quite old, much older than the Exile--kind of like King Arthur or Robin Hood stories. Should that be taken into account when trying to determine what kind of story the Book of Daniel is?

 

[Archivist]

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 what is Scripture other than the literal creation stories in Genesis am I denying? Interesting that we have some on here who believe in a literal Genesis but deny the plain meaning of the words of our Lord and Savior, "this is my body," and "this is the New Testament in my blood."

Obviously.

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.

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.

But John states that God created everything. That is what I believe. At no point does John specifically reference Genesis. John certainly would have believed what his Lord and Savior believed. And his Lord and Savior knew that God created everything, because it was created through Him.

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.

Nonsense.

Obviously

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.

Exactly where did I ever say that John did not know about Genesis 1? In fact, I earlier said that "John was obviously aware of Genesis." Please show me exactly where I ever said otherwise. Making things up is nothing more than "wild speculation" on your part. Obviously.

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.

Repeating the same words over and over does nothing to help your case.

Obviously.

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.

Again, show me exactly where that was stated.

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.

Again, where does John specifically reference Genesis.

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.

Wrong.

Obviously.

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.

Again, repeating the same words does not help your argument, nor does being rude. Reference is defined as "a source of information (as a book or passage) to which a reader or consulter is referred." The fact is that John 1 doesn't reference any source. Obviously.

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.

Again, we are specifically discussing whether belief in the Genesus account is a salvation requirement. You have yet to answer that question. Stay on topic.

 

[rjs330]

So what that boils down to is, that what Hebrews though about a text at the time it was written is immaterial?

Or to take another example: there are many Daniel stories in Jewish folklore, some of them quite old, much older than the Exile--kind of like King Arthur or Robin Hood stories. Should that be taken into account when trying to determine what kind of story the Book of Daniel is?

Daniel is history not a fictional,story. This the other stories have no impact on Daniel anymore than the stories of King Arthur and Merlin have any impact on the real history of Great Britain. It is what it is. They might be cool stories but have no real impact on reality.

 

[Speedwell]

Daniel is history not a fictional,story. This the other stories have no impact on Daniel anymore than the stories of King Arthur and Merlin have any impact on the real history of Great Britain. It is what it is. They might be cool stories but have no real impact on reality.

And you know this how?

 

[BobRyan]

So what is Scripture other than the literal creation stories in Genesis am I denying?

Sounds like you are up for some true confession... ok

1. How about the literal Adam and Eve story and the fall of mankind as the Bible states it? do you also deny that - having first denied Genesis 1 and the seven day creation account of the Word of God??

2. How about the literal world wide flood of Genesis 6-8? Do you also deny that having denied Genesis 1?

3. How about Noah and his family getting off the ark and repopulating earth such that all families of earth today are traced back to Noah himself and thus all cultures and religions today derived from Noah - his religion, his story about the flood? do you also deny that Bible fact?

4. How about story of Jonah and the whale?? more to be denied?

5. how about Job 1 and 2 -- a council in heaven where Satan presents himself and challenges God on the standing Job being righteous or currupt in character?

6. Virgin birth? bodily resurrection of Christ... Matt 17 Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glorified form - on the mount of transfiguration?

7. How about the miracles of Christ and of Paul - raising people from the dead etc. And all those people raised from the dead in the Matt 27 account at the resurrection of Christ?

How much "Bible tossing" are you actually engaged in -- or do you claim that atheist scientists have looked into all these events and found that they all actually happened just as stated in the Bible?

 

[BobRyan]

Daniel is history not a fictional,story. This the other stories have no impact on Daniel anymore than the stories of King Arthur and Merlin have any impact on the real history of Great Britain. It is what it is. They might be cool stories but have no real impact on reality.

And you know this how?

Bible-denying almost never stops with Genesis 1.

Rather it turns into an entire world-view and way-of-life.

 

[rjs330]

And you know this how?

Know what specifically? That Daniel is history or that other fictional literature has no impact on Daniel?

 

[Speedwell]

Know what specifically? That Daniel is history or that other fictional literature has no impact on Daniel?

Both. The mainstream opinion is that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC toward the end of the reign of Antiochus IV, in response to his tyranny. The well-known folk hero Daniel was cast in the leading role, with Nebuchadnezzar playing the tyrant.

 

[rjs330]

Both. The mainstream opinion is that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC toward the end of the reign of Antiochus IV, in response to his tyranny. The well-known folk hero Daniel was cast in the leading role, with Nebuchadnezzar playing the tyrant.

Well I've answered your question. If other sources counter the bible They are wrong when should be unceremoniously tossed out on their ear. There is no reason biblically to believe Daniel isn't history and there ungodly stories from other cultures have zero impact on Daniels validity.

You again reiterate the problem with buying into the nonsense of allegory of the OT including Genesis. Once you do everything in the OT is up for grabs. Any of it could be fable or fabrication. And you become the arbiter of what's real and what isn't. The REAL problem is you provide the very ammunition the ungodly need to scoff at the word of God. There are plenty of scoffers and mockers on this forum you use precisely your arguments to disbelieve. They point out all the ungodly arguments and say why should they believe the bible when it's nothing but fiction written by,men and their own thoughts on a fictional being called God.

It boggles my,mind why a believer would desire to give in to ungodly men's thoughts and agree with their arguments that the bible isn't true.

 

[Speedwell]

It boggles my,mind why a believer would desire to give in to ungodly men's thoughts and agree with their arguments that the bible isn't true.

It boggles my mind why a believer should be so arrogant as to dictate to God what kind of literature He is allowed to inspire.

 

[Archivist]

Sounds like you are up for some true confession... ok

1. How about the literal Adam and Eve story and the fall of mankind as the Bible states it? do you also deny that - having first denied Genesis 1 and the seven day creation account of the Word of God??

2. How about the literal world wide flood of Genesis 6-8? Do you also deny that having denied Genesis 1?

3. How about Noah and his family getting off the ark and repopulating earth such that all families of earth today are traced back to Noah himself and thus all cultures and religions today derived from Noah - his religion, his story about the flood? do you also deny that Bible fact?

4. How about story of Jonah and the whale?? more to be denied?

5. how about Job 1 and 2 -- a council in heaven where Satan presents himself and challenges God on the standing Job being righteous or currupt in character?

6. Virgin birth? bodily resurrection of Christ... Matt 17 Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glorified form - on the mount of transfiguration?

7. How about the miracles of Christ and of Paul - raising people from the dead etc. And all those people raised from the dead in the Matt 27 account at the resurrection of Christ?

How much "Bible tossing" are you actually engaged in -- or do you claim that atheist scientists have looked into all these events and found that they all actually happened just as stated in the Bible?

And where in this or any other other thread did I deny belief in any of this, other than the Genesis creation account? Please show me. Where did I deny the miricles of Jesus? Where did I deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus.? You are making false accusations.

Oh, and the Bible never says that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

 

[rjs330]

It boggles my mind why a believer should be so arrogant as to dictate to God what kind of literature He is allowed to inspire.

Good question. Here's the answer, it's not arrogance. Where in scripture does it indicate that there are other literatures out there that are inspired by God? I am only putting scripture first. I would have no problem at all if God stated he has spoken to us through ancient Babylonian texts and they are included in his word. But he doesn't does he. Not one single place does God indicate that he has spoken to us by any other means than scripture. If you wish to accuse me of arrogance then please come up,with a better argument than accusing me of trusting too,much in Gods word rather than,placing my trust in ungodly men's ideas and thoughts and literature. I feel I am on much,more solid ground trusting the word of God. I guess if that makes me arrogant I stand guilty.

You still can offer no justification for believing ungodly men over the word,of God itself. You still have no biblical evidence to justify that anything Genesis or Daniel or any other history in the Bible is fiction.

You still have offered no justification for offering the ungodly reasons why they shouldn't believe the bible.

After all there is little history to back up the death and resurrection of Christ. The same arguments that are used to discredit Jesus are the same ones used to discredit the OT.

I am on far more of a solid foundation to believe what the bible says rather than disbelieve it. Im not really sure how that makes me arrogant. But if you think it does I guess I am guilty in your eyes.

 

[rjs330]

And where in this or any other other thread did I deny belief in any of this, other than the Genesis creation account? Please show me. Where did I deny the miricles of Jesus? Where did I deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus.? You are making false accusations.

Oh, and the Bible never says that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

He's not saying you do. But was asking the questions. I think it's understandable why because often people who don't believe Genesis also don't believe the other histories of scripture. Take a look a Speedwell.

So, I guess his questions still remain unanswered. More broadly the question would be Is Genesis the only account you don't believe in it seen their others and if so what are they and the final question is why?

 

[Archivist]

He's not saying you do. But was asking the questions. I think it's understandable why because often people who don't believe Genesis also don't believe the other histories of scripture. Take a look a Speedwell.

So, I guess his questions still remain unanswered. More broadly the question would be Is Genesis the only account you don't believe in it seen their others and if so what are they and the final question is why?

Then I stand corrected and appoligize and he needs to work on his sentence structure. Starting off with "Well you need to work on some true confessions" is not the way you start a list of questions.

In any event, his questions go well beyond the topic of this thread. We are specifically discussing whether belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue, not whether belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a salvation issue.

 

[Speedwell]

Good question. Here's the answer, it's not arrogance. Where in scripture does it indicate that there are other literatures out there that are inspired by God?

I made no such claim. however, the existence of a body of Hebrew folklore about Daniel should certainly be taken into account when one comes across another such story, even if it is in the Bible.

You still can offer no justification for believing ungodly men over the word,of God itself. You still have no biblical evidence to justify that anything Genesis or Daniel or any other history in the Bible is fiction.

Not just fiction; fiction inspired by God.

You still have offered no justification for offering the ungodly reasons why they shouldn't believe the bible.

They don't need me to offer them reasons--you're already doing a good job.

After all there is little history to back up the death and resurrection of Christ. The same arguments that are used to discredit Jesus are the same ones used to discredit the OT.

The Gospels are an entirely different literary form than Daniel and their historicity has to be judged differently. Why do you equate them? In any case, I don't care. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Christ on the basis of Apostolic Witness, not "because it says so in the Bible."

I'm not really sure how that makes me arrogant.

Because you deny to God the authority to inspire anything but 100% accurate literal history.

 

[rjs330]

Fiction inspired by God? Where in scripture is that claim ever made? Please show us in scripture where God claims he is inspiring a fictional story. Jesus is God and he told us when he was telling a story to illustrate a point. At no time does Jesus EVER indicate that the OT is full of fiction. At no time does any of the Apostles EVER indicate the OT is full of fiction.

And you believe because of Apostolic witness? Does that apostolic witness not come from the bible?

My friend, I give the ungodly no,reason to disbelieve the bible. I have been in numerous conversations with the atheists and bible deniers on this forum. They tell me why they don't believe in the truth in Gods word. They NEVER say because I think it true. They believe the bible is a work of fiction. And because it's a work of Fiction they think it's crazy I think it's real. The bottom line is they use the SAME arguments you use to try and prove its not real. Because the bible is a work of Fiction so is God.

I believe God created everything out of nothing spontaneously by His awesome power. So he could if he wanted to create the most amazing fiction ever. But he never said he did. If he said so I would believe him and I would read it and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truths within it. BUT not one time does God, Jesus or the Apostles make a,claim that the OT is fiction.

 

[rjs330]

Then I stand corrected and appoligize and he needs to work on his sentence structure. Starting off with "Well you need to work on some true confessions" is not the way you start a list of questions.

In any event, his questions go well beyond the topic of this thread. We are specifically discussing whether belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue, not whether belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a salvation issue.

I think we've moved well beyond the OP at this point. I feel like that particular question has been settled.

And I see why you would interpret his response to you in the way you did.