Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Archivist]

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.

Apparently it is settled for everyone but Bob. And thank you, when I reread what he said I understood, but that wasn't obvious when I initially read it.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Please show us in Scripture where God claims he is inspiring 100% accurate literal history. This is important, because no human author wrote history in that way in those days. Please also show us in Scripture where God claimed there is only that one kind of history--or pure fiction.

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

No. I believe because the Apostles believed, and through of the power of the Holy Spirit that had descended on them they convinced others and so on down to this day. I don't know about you, but I didn't come to faith in Christ because I read about it in the Bible, but because someone I loved and trusted explained it to me, in a continuous chain of witness back to the Apostles themselves. The Bible corroborates it and helps us keep the details straight but that's all its for. The Bible is meant to be our companion in faith, not the object of it. There wasn't even a Bible for the first couple of hundred years, and things worked out just fine.

"Preach the Gospel," commanded Jesus, not, "Hand them a magic book what my daddy wrote."

BUT not one time does God, Jesus or the Apostles make a,claim that the OT is fiction.

They don't make the claim that it is 100% accurate literal history either, but that doesn't seem to stop you from claiming it. God gave us the intellectual and scholarly tools to figure out which is which; it's not God's fault that you don't use them.

 

[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?

And where in this or any other other thread did I deny belief in any of this,

Hmmm ... maybe a slower typing sequence.


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?


notice these questions are stated in the form of.... questions.

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

Which is an evasive way of saying - it never happened or that the fish is a big fish not a whale??

notice these questions are stated in the form of.... questions.

You are making false accusations.

Please deal in actual fact.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Indeed - the questions were in the form of ... questions.

I had hoped to see an answer to each of the questions.

 

[Speedwell]

You are sure doing a good job of trying to convince a fellow Christian of the truth of your particular beliefs about the Bible. It's hard to see how he could resist the gentle kindness of your technique.

 

[mark kennedy]

Have you ever studied science? Have you ever read anything about evolution that didn't come from a Creationist propaganda mill?

I've seen dozens of you post and there hasn't been the slightest hint of anything remotely scientific. Hurling insults at religious views isn't science but somehow every thread has a guy like you trolling the topic back th the stone age.

 

[Speedwell]

I've seen dozens of you post and there hasn't been the slightest hint of anything remotely scientific. Hurling insults at religious views isn't science but somehow every thread has a guy like you trolling the topic back the the stone age.

It was, and is, a serious question, considering the grotesque parody of science Creationists direct their arguments against. There is also the issue of insults coming from your side, to the effect that we are "calling Christ a liar," or "disbelieving the Bible" and other offensive crap of that sort.
I have given serious thought to the matter, prayed over it even, and can come to no other conclusion than that what YECs are trying to do is "purify" the Christian faith of all who will not subject themselves to the discipline of your Bible doctrine by convincing them that they can't, or don't really, believe in Jesus without it.

 

[Hieronymus]

It was, and is, a serious question, considering the grotesque parody of science Creationists direct their arguments against. There is also the issue of insults coming from your side, to the effect that we are "calling Christ a liar," or "disbelieving the Bible" and other offensive crap of that sort.

I wonder what God would find offensive

 

[Speedwell]

I wonder what God would find offensive

Infighting. We are all Christians here, we all believe in the real, historical life on Earth, the physical death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. We belong to various denominations of Christianity; none is necessarily "better" or "truer" than any other--including yours.

 

[Hieronymus]

Infighting. We are all Christians here, we all believe in the real, historical life on Earth, the physical death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. We belong to various denominations of Christianity; none is necessarily "better" or "truer" than any other--including yours.

Including Scripture?

 

[Speedwell]

Including Scripture?

Including scripture. Your take on scripture is not necessarily "better" or "truer" than that of any other Christian here. You guys don't own the Bible; you are in no position to dictate to the rest of us what we should believe about it.

 

[rjs330]

Including scripture. Your take on scripture is not necessarily "better" or "truer" than that of any other Christian here. You guys don't own the Bible; you are in no position to dictate to the rest of us what we should believe about it.

Very well. If will concede the point you believe the bible to be fiction in spite of the fact there is no such claim in the bible. You do have the right to disregard statements made by Jesus and the apostles which affirm it's true and not fiction.

You can do that as long as you still trust in Jesus as your saviour. I just hate to give the ungodly more ammo on why the bible is not true and therefore neither is the God it claims.

 

[Speedwell]

Very well. If will concede the point you believe the bible to be fiction in spite of the fact there is no such claim in the bible. You do have the right to disregard statements made by Jesus and the apostles which affirm it's true and not fiction.

See, you can't even "concede the point" without being snotty.

I don't "believe the Bible to be fiction" as you well know. I also don't believe that "true" and "fiction" are the only and mutually exclusive alternatives. I don't necessarily expect you to understand that, but I don't expect you to be unpleasant about it, either.

You can do that as long as you still trust in Jesus as your saviour. I just hate to give the ungodly more ammo on why the bible is not true and therefore neither is the God it claims.

IMO, the ungodly are not given more ammo by taking an honest look at the nature, history and authorship of the texts. Nothing that can be discovered by human scholarship will impeach the divine inspiration and authority of the texts. Again, IMO, what gives the ungodly their ammo is casting doubt upon that inspiration and authority by tying it to the partiular interpretation of the YECs

 

[rjs330]

See, you can't even "concede the point" without being snotty.

I don't "believe the Bible to be fiction" as you well know. I also don't believe that "true" and "fiction" are the only and mutually exclusive alternatives. I don't necessarily expect you to understand that, but I don't expect you to be unpleasant about it, either.


IMO, the ungodly are not given more ammo by taking an honest look at the nature, history and authorship of the texts. Nothing that can be discovered by human scholarship will impeach the divine inspiration and authority of the texts. Again, IMO, what gives the ungodly their ammo is casting doubt upon that inspiration and authority by tying it to the partiular interpretation of the YECs

Well, I am going to,apologize for being snotty. I want to have a continuing conversation on this and being snotty doesn't help. So you have my apology.

So back to the conversation. The position of parts of the Bible being fiction is untenable. The reason for that is you or I if I take that position are placed in the position of deciding what is and what isn't fiction. Since you stated that God never stated the bible is all true, therefore there could be fiction in there is a very bad position to take. Why? Again it puts us in position of believing whatever we want. I get to pick and choose which,portions of scripture I believe and which I don't. And I base that on ungodly men's opinions rather than on Gods revelation.

Daniel is a good example. Jesus himself spoke of things to come in the end times that specifically are mentioned in Daniel. If it's fiction why would Jesus do that when he isn't giving fiction when he is speaking? Were Daniels prophecies fictional as well? If so Why would you Jesus make mention of things that mirror Daniel so closely?

If God inspires fictional stories which ones are fictional and which ones aren't and how do fallible faulty and ungodly men decide?

Look again at Genesis. There is nothing in the wording that would suggest God is authoring fiction. It says God speicifically did this and did that and spoke this and spoke that. It speaks as fact. Exodus and beyond all speaks as history.

Really the only correct way to view scripture is to say it's all fiction or its not. Jesus spoke as if the OT was true.

Paul himself had 107 references to the OT including Genesis, Isiah, Jeremiah and others to authenticate what he is saying and what God has said through scripture and the prophets. Its an affirmation of the factuality of the OT including Genesis. There's just no justification to,believe that there is fiction there.

As far as giving unbelievers ammo belief in a fictional OT or even,portions of it DOES give them ammo. I'm going to,start collecting a dollar for every time an unbeliever says "not even your fellow Christians think it's true" as a justification for why they don't believe the bible either. And they always follow that argument to its logical conclusion of if Christians don't believe in it then they following a fictional book that means nothing. They might as well believe in Thor. So yes they do use that argument.

And yes I do hold Gods word as the highest authority of all things. Its the word of God. God speaks to us through the word. Of we want to,k,ow anything about what God thinks or says on a subject we go to his word. God tells us to study his word. He tells us the word is the authority to,teach, reprove, rebuke and exhort. He warns us against people who twist the scriptures. Its the moral,authority of our lives as believers.

https://bible.org/seriespage/1-authority-bible

So yes it is reviered as Gods words to,us. If God spoke to you in an audible voice wouldn't you revier what he said? Wouldn't you,hold that in highest regard or would you say I revier God, but his words,are just words? Its the same with the bible. Its not just some dusty,old,book written by men long dead. It IS Gods word. As important as if he spoke the words himself to you. In fact he did.

See, you can't even "concede the point" without being snotty.

I don't "believe the Bible to be fiction" as you well know. I also don't believe that "true" and "fiction" are the only and mutually exclusive alternatives. I don't necessarily expect you to understand that, but I don't expect you to be unpleasant about it, either.


IMO, the ungodly are not given more ammo by taking an honest look at the nature, history and authorship of the texts. Nothing that can be discovered by human scholarship will impeach the divine inspiration and authority of the texts. Again, IMO, what gives the ungodly their ammo is casting doubt upon that inspiration and authority by tying it to the partiular interpretation of the YECs

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I am going to,apologize for being snotty. I want to have a continuing conversation on this and being snotty doesn't help. So you have my apology.

Thank you, and I will try to remain more civil as well.

So back to the conversation. The position of parts of the Bible being fiction is untenable. The reason for that is you or I if I take that position are placed in the position of deciding what is and what isn't fiction. Since you stated that God never stated the bible is all true, therefore there could be fiction in there is a very bad position to take.

We are still talking at cross purposes because we use our terms differently. See if you can get your head around this:

1. I believe the Bible is divine revelation. All of it, every word.
2. I believe the Bible is all true. All of it, every word.
3. I believe the Bible contains many different kinds of texts; songs, stories of various kinds, even historical narratives of various kinds.
4. But not 100% accurate literal history. Nobody wrote history like that in those days.

Why? Again it puts us in position of believing whatever we want. I get to pick and choose which,portions of scripture I believe and which I don't. And I base that on ungodly men's opinions rather than on Gods revelation.

I am not aware of the freedom to believe whatever I want that you seem to think I enjoy. I have the entire Christian community (except YECs and other such fringe groups like the LDS or JWs) now and back down through the ages that constitute Christian tradition guiding me on this. No, I can't believe whatever I want.

Daniel is a good example. Jesus himself spoke of things to come in the end times that specifically are mentioned in Daniel. If it's fiction why would Jesus do that when he isn't giving fiction when he is speaking? Were Daniels prophecies fictional as well? If so Why would you Jesus make mention of things that mirror Daniel so closely?

Because the Book of Daniel is prophecy, duh! Do you think it stops being prophecy if it isn't also 100% accurate literal history? Do you think it stops being prophecy if it was written in 160 BC instead of during the Exile? In God's name, why???

That's enough. There are more disparities between our cognitive categories revealed in the rest of your post, but we can get to them later.

 

[rjs330]

Thanks for being gracious.

I do struggle with the idea,of the Bible is true, but not real history. If the bible speaks historically like "in the days of....." or David did this and the Isrealites did this or were commanded to,do that, is that not history? Are you saying those things never happened?

The bible was not meant to be written strictly as a history book. It was written as history where God was intimately involved in the actions of men. Its a history book with spiritual and divine revelation. Way different that just a history book. Being it is inspired by God It shouldn't read like any other old history book. It has a far higher purpose than just to say so and so did such and such. It has that element in it, but contains a far greater purpose. It's a history book inspired by God. Certainly,no mere history book. I would expect it to be different. But that has no bearing on its historical accuracy. God would have a far greater grasp of history than any man alone since he was around for all of it and often intervened directly in it.

If Daniel was fiction so,was his prophecy. The prophecy was fiction as well. And being fiction it's not real and never will be. However since Jesus and other apostles mentioned things directly contained,in Daniel it doesn't register as fictional.

There is a lot of fictional prophecy out there. The sword of truth series has a lot. But I don't know of any reliable preachers or teachers who,are making prophetical statements that would agree with it.

God says,we know if a,prophet is real if his prophecies come true. So if Daniels prophecies come true he was real. If they,don't then well, I guess he was fiction after all.

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks for being gracious.

I do struggle with the idea,of the Bible is true, but not real history. If the bible speaks historically like "in the days of....." or David did this and the Israelites did this or were commanded to,do that, is that not history? Are you saying those things never happened?

I wouldn't be able to tell, just by reading it. The Bible is not a message to me or to you as individuals. It is intended to speak to the whole community of the faithful, and it takes the whole community to fully understand it using all of the scholarly tools which are available.

If Daniel was fiction so,was his prophecy. The prophecy was fiction as well.

I don't see how that follows. Given that the author was divinely inspired to prophecy, I don't see how couching that prophecy as a tale about a well-known folk hero of old and an ancient king necessarily negates it.

 

[rjs330]

I wouldn't be able to tell, just by reading it. The Bible is not a message to me or to you as individuals. It is intended to speak to the whole community of the faithful, and it takes the whole community to fully understand it using all of the scholarly tools which are available.



I don't see how that follows. Given that the author was divinely inspired to prophecy, I don't see how couching that prophecy as a tale about a well-known folk hero of old and an ancient king necessarily negates it.

That's just it. How do you know he was divinely inspired to prophecy? Because of Jesus and apostles words right? The logical assertion would be the entire book is not fictional and not just part of it. Especially when neither the author nor any other scriptures hint at it.

And there is plenty of apolgetics and archeological and historical evidence for the legitimacy of Daniel. Here's one.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/006dan.html

 

[Speedwell]

That's just it. How do you know he was divinely inspired to prophecy? Because of Jesus and apostles words right? The logical assertion would be the entire book is not fictional and not just part of it. Especially when neither the author nor any other scriptures hint at it.

Since when did 100% accurate literal history become the default assumption? Why do you think that the only alternative to 100% accurate literal history is "fiction?"

BTW, a good commentary on the subject is Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by John J. Collins. (yes, he's a Christian)

 

[rjs330]

Because of the NT affirmations of the OT. Remember there was very,little skepticism until far later in history.

And there is,no reason to believe that Daniels story wasn't an inspiration for other fictional stories rather than the other way around.

There is enough scholarly material And archaeology finds to show the bibles history is accurate. At the very least we should say it's accurate history until proven otherwise. There is no reason at all to try and say it's not when there's enough evidence to say it is.