Why is the literal view of Genesis 1 so critical for salvation in the view of many cr

[SNPete]

From this creationist site and other creationists I have heard this statement over and over:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/52/
For Christians, trying to accept the prevailing evolutionary-long-age view undermines basic tenets of Christian belief. Consistent application of the evolutionary worldview to the Bible, bending the Bible’s teaching to make it fit, results in either atheism or a ‘religion’ indistinguishable from atheism, as professor Provine recognized:‘… belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.’3
*********************************************
Perhaps I am dense and in need of enlightenment. It seems to me that one can accept the fact that God created the universe without taking a literal view of Genesis 1& 2. Further, if I read my NT correctly, it appears that one’s salvation is based on personally accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for my sins and entering into a personal relationship with God.
Having reviewed the Nicene and Apostles Creeds and the Book of John, which IMO neatly summarize the basic tenets of Christianity, I find nothing that is undermined by the idea of evolution. So tell me: How does being a Christian who accepts Theistic Evolution as a possibility “has a religion indistinguishable from the atheist” ? How does believing that God created the universe, but not taking Genesis as literal negate the message of the NT.

For that matter, why are there stand alone NTs being published and passed out so freely by evangelists, if Genesis 1&2 is so fundamental to salvation?

 

[laptoppop]

There are many issues. One of the biggest is a literal Adam, made directly from God.

Another one is a literal flood, referred to throughout the Bible. Understanding the Fall is important in understanding our salvation. The flood is referred to throughout Scripture -- and it has left us huge amounts of evidence - which you must ignore to be an evolutionist.

They are crucial, but not salvific issues. Our salvation is in Jesus, not Genesis. Our understanding is imperfect, and no one's theology (or science) is perfect, but the Lord loves us. Our shared desire is to come closer to Him.

 

[SNPete]

There are many issues. One of the biggest is a literal Adam, made directly from God.

Another one is a literal flood, referred to throughout the Bible. Understanding the Fall is important in understanding our salvation. The flood is referred to throughout Scripture -- and it has left us huge amounts of evidence - which you must ignore to be an evolutionist.

OK, Let's add to my OP that one accepts that God created the first modern type man and woman and the fall occured. In addition God, being the God of miracles caused the Flood. As a TE I accept those events. I have a problem ignoring things like dinosaurs and the evidence that indicates the earth may be way older that 6000 years.

I also have discovered that one can only have so many letters in the OP Title. cr is supposed to be: creationists

 

[laptoppop]

Who says one should "ignore" any evidence? Certainly not me. Truth can stand any level of investigation. However, one must be extremely careful to separate the actual physical evidence from the interpretation of the evidence.

You do not need to ignore dinosaurs or other evidence. You do need to understand it. For example, the RATE project at ICR.org documents some of the issues with radiometric dating methodologies. However, the full first phase report runs something like 600 pages (its on their site as a PDF, so be prepared for a bunch of reading.

When one talks about Adam and Eve as real people, there are lots of issues relative to evolution / suffering /death before the Fall.

What about the global flood?

 

[R3quiem]

Well, if evolution is true than it casts doubt on a literal Adam and Eve existing, and that undermines the basically philosophy of a flawed, sinful, humanity. That in turn brings about confusion as to why Jesus had to sacrifice himself to save us from sin, if there never was a literal "fall".

It also may undermine the idea that God created us in His imagine, because apparently he played around with the planet for a few billion years before having us evolve from apes.

It just shows in general that the Bible is not an exact account of creation and history, and maybe that makes some very religious people a bit worried- so they cling to the Bible and ignore science.

 

[laptoppop]

It just shows in general that the Bible is not an exact account of creation and history, and maybe that makes some very religious people a bit worried- so they cling to the Bible and ignore science.

No, not at all. Science has a solid role in understanding God's creation. The incredible inner machines in each and every cell are better than anything mankind has ever made. The physical evidence such as the geologic strata support the Scriptural account when examined using appropriate scientific methodology, such as hydrodynamics, hydrodepostion, sedimentation, etc. We do not "ignore" science. Instead we use it knowing the methodological presuppositions involved.

 

[shernren]

They are crucial, but not salvific issues. Our salvation is in Jesus, not Genesis. Our understanding is imperfect, and no one's theology (or science) is perfect, but the Lord loves us. Our shared desire is to come closer to Him.

I think your word choice was quite tragically ironic. "Crucial" literally means "about the cross" ... and scientific disagreements about certain physical facts are hardly "crucial" theological differences. I'm going to ask the question in full:

What difference, if any, is there in the nature of God's revelation in the Bible if certain events are, instead of divinely authorized retellings of historical events, divinely authorized retellings of non-historical events?

 

[Assyrian]

The physical evidence such as the geologic strata support the Scriptural account when examined using appropriate scientific methodology, such as hydrodynamics, hydrodepostion, sedimentation, etc. We do not "ignore" science. Instead we use it knowing the methodological presuppositions involved.

If YEC geology cannot tell where flood strata begins and ends, they cannot tell flood strata apart from strata laid down when the earth wasn't submerged under a flood, then I don't think you can say the geologic strata supports a global flood.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, if evolution is true than it casts doubt on a literal Adam and Eve existing, and that undermines the basically philosophy of a flawed, sinful, humanity. That in turn brings about confusion as to why Jesus had to sacrifice himself to save us from sin, if there never was a literal "fall".

Surely sinfulness of humanity is established for believers by the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin? Not to mention all the passages in scripture that tell us all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?

It also may undermine the idea that God created us in His imagine, because apparently he played around with the planet for a few billion years before having us evolve from apes.

The length of time God spent forming us undermines him making us in his image???

It just shows in general that the Bible is not an exact account of creation and history, and maybe that makes some very religious people a bit worried- so they cling to the Bible and ignore science.

Well yes, people always get upset when traditions are overturned. So are you arguing for or against? or just chewing over the issues?

 

[gluadys]

Well, if evolution is true than it casts doubt on a literal Adam and Eve existing, and that undermines the basically philosophy of a flawed, sinful, humanity. That in turn brings about confusion as to why Jesus had to sacrifice himself to save us from sin, if there never was a literal "fall".

But why is a literal Adam and Eve necessary for there to have been a fall?

Is not our present sinfulness an adequate evidence of a fall, however and whenever it happened?

I just don't see why the undeniable fact of sin and the corresponding need for redemption requires a literal first couple eating literal fruit from a literal tree.

Does anyone really think that all sin would disappear from the world if there was no literal Adam and Eve?

It also may undermine the idea that God created us in His imagine, because apparently he played around with the planet for a few billion years before having us evolve from apes.

Again, why? "Image of God" has never been understood theologically as referring to our bodily appearance. Isn't the whole idea of "image of God" about what makes us different from other animals? Bodily we are very much the same as other animals.

I can't see evolution having any relevance to being made in the image of God.

Nor can I see billions of years as being in any way relevant. If it pleases God to play around for a few billion years (as if that meant anything to him) how does that make us any more or less in his image?

It just shows in general that the Bible is not an exact account of creation and history, and maybe that makes some very religious people a bit worried- so they cling to the Bible and ignore science.

True enough, but isn't that making a god of the bible? Must the bible be what we want it to be for us to believe in God?

 

[MrSnow]

There are many issues. One of the biggest is a literal Adam, made directly from God.

Another one is a literal flood, referred to throughout the Bible. Understanding the Fall is important in understanding our salvation. The flood is referred to throughout Scripture -- and it has left us huge amounts of evidence - which you must ignore to be an evolutionist.

They are crucial, but not salvific issues. Our salvation is in Jesus, not Genesis. Our understanding is imperfect, and no one's theology (or science) is perfect, but the Lord loves us. Our shared desire is to come closer to Him.

It's not a matter of whether or not someone is reading it "literally" or not. In fact, I think that that word is severely abused by people. "Literal" does not mean that the definition of a sentence equals the sum total of the definition of all the words in that sentence. Rather, "literal" means to read it according to the literary genre in which it was written.

Someone who does not believe that the earth is 6,000 years old is not "taking the Bible figuratively". Rather, they just think that perhaps age is beyond the scope. That the genre of Genesis 1 is not that of a science text book and aren't reading it as such.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I believe that a lot of people think it is hard to accept what God says about Creation in the Bible when he was the only one there. I believe that some people look at man's opinion on what God did (some people don't believe God did it) and then they ask how would this explain evolution if we have all of these scientists say it occurred through evolution only. Literally, all don't say that. I believe that all scientific evidence points towards what God did and not what man suggests. After all the Bible is the first science textbook but it's not meant to be treated like a textbook. It has history, science, romance, adventure, and wisdom. God talks about the dinosaurs which he calls Behemoths, Leviathons, and Dragons.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12

It's sort of like when God the Creator, the Supreme Scientists of all time and space who was at the beginning of creation told us what he did in Genesis was the real thing. And God doesn't lie and he can't learn. I do know that the bible is literal and figurative in some areas, but the point is where at. The bible says the Lord is my rock, but not literally a rock. He's like a rock of salvation, a strong tower, a safe place, the foundation. But it's always in the beginning is where we humans argue mostly about even us Christians. In this Scripture, Jesus was tell Nicodemus about salvation. I believe if you don't have a great understanding about the earth that God makes and tells us about it himself how can we understand salvation. Also why would we need salvation if man didn't fall.

 

[KerrMetric]

After all the Bible is the first science textbook

Hate to burst your bubble but it isn't. Actually it isn't one at all.

but it's not meant to be treated like a textbook.

How convenient. You say it's a science textbook but not meant to be treated as such. Can you play dodge ball any more blatantly?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I suggest that u make a better one.

 

[KerrMetric]

I suggest that u make a better one.

I have.

 

[Assyrian]

I believe that a lot of people think it is hard to accept what God says about Creation in the Bible when he was the only one there.

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12

It's sort of like when God the Creator, the Supreme Scientists of all time and space who was at the beginning of creation told us what he did in Genesis was the real thing. And God doesn't lie and he can't learn. I do know that the bible is literal and figurative in some areas, but the point is where at. The bible says the Lord is my rock, but not literally a rock. He's like a rock of salvation, a strong tower, a safe place, the foundation.

God was the only one there, ok, certainly no humans.

And God does us figurative language. So how do you know the account of the beginnings, were there were no human witnesses, aren't part of God's figurative descriptions? After all, there were not human witnesses to the events God told John about on Patmos, and the book of Revelation is highly figurative. If the end of the bible is figurative why can't the beginning be too?

 

[The Lady Kate]

There are many issues. One of the biggest is a literal Adam, made directly from God.

Another one is a literal flood, referred to throughout the Bible. Understanding the Fall is important in understanding our salvation. The flood is referred to throughout Scripture -- and it has left us huge amounts of evidence - which you must ignore to be an evolutionist.

Evidence such as...?

In any case, what's the real connection between the flood and the fall? I see them as two separate events.

 

[laptoppop]

I've started a thread in the creationism subforum to gather some of the best evidence and arguments.

Yes, the Fall and the flood at the time of Noah are very much two events. But if one is to deny that that there was a global flood, one is forced to use methods of interpreting Scripture that affect everything else, including the Fall.

 

[SNPete]

Yes, the Fall and the flood at the time of Noah are very much two events. But if one is to deny that that there was a global flood, one is forced to use methods of interpreting Scripture that affect everything else, including the Fall.

Not really.

A question: Do you believe that God can trandsend natural law? Do you believe that He just made the flood happen, even tho it is not "scientifically possible". I do.

IMO the flood was a supernatural event, independent of the age of the earth or the process of evolution. As to the Fall, well it just happened to Adam and Eve, the first modern humans.