Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Speedwell]

We aren't experts in Hebrew, but yet we've heard from people who are, and I've seen a couple of them say that a lot of analysis was done on the writing style of Genesis and it used very literal terms, and was not written in allegory, poetic terms, etc. The style of writing was meant to be taken literally.

Have you got any non-YEC sources for this?

When you use metaphors and such, you usually label them, such as Psalm 19:5. "Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;"

Who said the Garden story was a metaphor? I was always taught that it was an etiology, and it certainly has the characteristics of one.

Or the many parables told by Jesus.

He labeled them?

And besides, how do you reconcile Exodus 20:11 and then later on, in the Gospels where Jesus affirms that Moses was given the Law by God?

God straight out said He did it in six days in Exodus. Do you think He was making a pun there, too? Fact is, He wrote it in STONE with His own finger.

Good. Maybe you can explain the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which in Hebrew (a language without quotation marks) would ordinarily indicate that the passage was a parenthetical insertion by the transcriber rather than the quoted words of God. None of your Fundy colleagues here are up to it.

 

[Xalith]

Have you got any non-YEC sources for this?

Anybody who has done the research who knows Hebrew, and who has concluded that it was written in Literal text is naturally going to believe in YEC.

He labeled them?

Uh yeah.... He began most of them by saying "Heaven is like....." or "Hear the Parable of....." and then He at one point said "I speak to you in Parables".

Good. Maybe you can explain the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which in Hebrew (a language without quotation marks) would ordinarily indicate that the passage was a parenthetical insertion by the transcriber rather than the quoted words of God. None of your Fundy colleagues here are up to it.

Easy.

http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/20-1.htm

"And God spake all of these words, saying..........."

And then it goes down through the rest of Chapter 20, which would naturally imply that anything following 20:1 are words spoken by God.

EDIT: IN FACT, the KJV version of Exodus 20, has no quotation marks either, lol. But yet, it says that all the words following 20:1 were spoken by God.

Exodus 20:2 says "I am the LORD thy God...." so naturally anything that proceeds after this, is being spoken by God.

EDIT 2: And the Jews, especially not Moses, wouldn't have inserted their own words in the middle of God's words. The Jews had so high a reverence for God, that they refused to write out His full name. They would NOT taint his words by inserting their own in the middle of what He was saying.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you read ancient Hebrew fluently, are thoroughly familiar with ancient Hebrew literary forms, both in the Bible and in contemporary extra-biblical Hebrew literature, and you can state categorically that there are no puns or other wordplay in Genesis. Right?

I've learned to access the ancient Hebrew through lexicons and dictionaries and did pretty extensive studies, expositional and exegetical. Even with that aside the clear meaning of the translated text indicates nothing resembling puns or figurative language, it doesn't take an exegetical expert to see that. Genesis does have literary features fairly unique to the Hebrew literature including parallelisms. This one is especially signficant since it indicates a repetition for the sake of emphasis, actually indicating the heart of the emphasis:

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Gen. 1:27)
​

The word for created is the strongest term for a miraculous creation, used only of God. God created the universe (Gen.1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:27). This kind of creation has been called; 'divine fiat', 'ex nihileo' and even miraculous interpolation. The KJV simply translates it 'created'.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...all other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning. a carefull study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses, primarily in Genesis, the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistant material. (Vine's Dictionary)
​

There is no way the ancient Hebrews were using puns and there is absolutely no indication of figurative language. There is another pattern in Genesis, the 'generations' (Strong's H8435 - towlĕdah). Defined as an account of men and their descendants, that are foundational to Scripture, inextricably linked to Messianic prophecy:

These are the generations H8435 of the heavens and of the earth when they were created Gen 2:4
This is the book of the generations H8435 of Adam. In the day that God created man Gen 5:1
These are the generations H8435 of Noah: Gen 6:9
Now these are the generations H8435 of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth Gen 10:1
These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, H8435 in their nations Gen 10:32
These are the generations H8435 of Shem: Gen 11:10
Now these are the generations H8435 of Terah:Gen 11:27
Now these are the generations H8435 of Ishmael Gen 25:12
And these are the generations H8435 of Isaac Gen 25:19
Now these are the generations H8435 of Esau, who is Edom. Gen 36:1
These are the generations H8435 of Jacob Gen 37:2​

You guys seem to be under the impression that all Bible believing Christians are incompetent to study their on Scriptures. Thats a gross misconception.

Who said the Garden story was a metaphor? I was always taught that it was an etiology, and it certainly has the characteristics of one.

I looked up etiology, found this definition for the nonmedical usage:

etiology: the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation.
​

That's exactly what it is, an historical cause of creation and the cause of original sin.

Good. Maybe you can explain the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which in Hebrew (a language without quotation marks) would ordinarily indicate that the passage was a parenthetical insertion by the transcriber rather than the quoted words of God. None of your Fundy colleagues here are up to it.

For some reason modernists are obsessed with majoring in the minors. You can get this kind of convoluted semantics but try to drag an exposition out of them and you have your work cut out for you. None of the modernists sporting these fallacious arguments seem even vaguely interested in theology, doctrine or anything remotely expositional. Yet they like to throw in some obscure semantics like it's supposed to mean something

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Anybody who has done the research who knows Hebrew, and who has concluded that it was written in Literal text is naturally going to believe in YEC.



Uh yeah.... He began most of them by saying "Heaven is like....." or "Hear the Parable of....." and then He at one point said "I speak to you in Parables".



Easy.

http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/20-1.htm

"And God spake all of these words, saying..........."

And then it goes down through the rest of Chapter 20, which would naturally imply that anything following 20:1 are words spoken by God.

EDIT: IN FACT, the KJV version of Exodus 20, has no quotation marks either, lol. But yet, it says that all the words following 20:1 were spoken by God.

Exodus 20:2 says "I am the LORD thy God...." so naturally anything that proceeds after this, is being spoken by God.

EDIT 2: And the Jews, especially not Moses, wouldn't have inserted their own words in the middle of God's words. The Jews had so high a reverence for God, that they refused to write out His full name. They would NOT taint his words by inserting their own in the middle of what He was saying.

So how do you explain the change of voicing?

 

[Xalith]

So how do you explain the change of voicing?

What "Change of Voicing" are we talking about here?

 

[Speedwell]

​

There is no way the ancient Hebrews were using puns and there is absolutely no indication of figurative language. There is another pattern in Genesis, the 'generations' (Strong's H8435 - towlĕdah). Defined as an account of men and their descendants, that are foundational to Scripture, inextricably linked to Messianic prophecy.

You guys seem to be under the impression that all Bible believing Christians are incompetent to study their on Scriptures. Thats a gross misconception.

Have a nice day
Mark

It's not a misconception if you think there are no puns in the Garden story. What about the pun on Adam's name? Every Sunday School kid learns about that one. Or Eve's?

 

[Speedwell]

What "Change of Voicing" are we talking about here?

From first person in 20:10 to third person in 20:11.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not a misconception if you think there are no puns in the Garden story. What about the pun on Adam's name? Every Sunday School kid learns about that one. Or Eve's?

It wasn't unusual for the name to mean something, Adam actually means 'red' but the implied meaning is 'earth', indicating he was created from the earth for the earth. Eve got her name from Adam, it wasn't a pun, that's absurd. Jacob's new name was Israel, Peter got a new name from Jesus, this practice is throughout Scripture and there is no indication of some kind of a pun. It's absurd.

 

[Speedwell]

It wasn't unusual for the name to mean something, Adam actually means 'red' but the implied meaning is 'earth', indicating he was created from the earth for the earth.

That's a pun.

Eve got her name from Adam, it wasn't a pun, that's absurd. Jacob's new name was Israel, Peter got a new name from Jesus, this practice is throughout Scripture and there is no indication of some kind of a pun. It's absurd.

Do you know what a pun is? Eve's name, btw, is derived from the Hebrew for "mother of all living."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jacob's new name was Israel, Peter got a new name from Jesus, this practice is throughout Scripture and there is no indication of some kind of a pun. It's absurd.

Being given a new name is not only throughout Scripture,
but also as you know well
in the new heaven and new earth.

Bad puns and wrong information however is throughout sunday schools and church teachings based on , well, not Scripture.

 

[Xalith]

From first person in 20:10 to third person in 20:11.

People talk in third person all the time to make a point. Let's say you got a boss named John and he is talking to a group of employees and he goes:

"I changed a bunch of rules... you're going to do this, and this and that. Remember people, John said that this thing here is to be done regardless of what you think."

That's basically what God is doing. He's reinforcing the point. He goes:

"Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal....."

And then He goes:

"The LORD thy God made the Heavens and the Earth, and all in them in six days, so therefore you will work during the six days and rest on the seventh."

He's talking about Himself in Third Person to drive the point home, He's basically saying something along the lines of "Remember kids, your parents said 'don't talk to strangers'..."

Haven't your parents ever done that to you, or you did that to your kids?

"Remember, Tommy... your daddy said 'don't talk to strangers'."

 

[SkyWriting]

People spend a great deal of time debating the creation of the Earth and the creatures upon it. Some say the Genesis account is literal--God did it in six 24 hour days, Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman. Others say that God used evolution to create man. Many fall somewhere between these two positions. Sometimes discussion here gets fairly heated.

My question: Does it really matter? Is this an issue that will determine one's salvation? If not, why do we spend so much time debating it? Why do some people seem determined to convert others to their view?

Yes and no. Acknowledging God as Creator is critical. And faith is critical. But faith in a "young" earth is not critical or biblical. Ken Ham says otherwise. But he is otherwise not very insightful in his sermons. I recommend Chuck Swindoll.

 

[Archivist]

Yes and no. Acknowledging God as Creator is critical. And faith is critical. But faith in a "young" earth is not critical or biblical. Ken Ham says otherwise. But he is otherwise not very insightful in his sermons. I recommend Chuck Swindoll.

Thank you SkyWriting for trying to get this thread back on topic. Please remember that in this thread we are discussing whether believing the salvation stories contained in Genesis is a salvation issue. We are not discussing the creation itself.

Some of you are doing a good job of staying on topic, even if your post is somewhat off topic you tie it back to the question at hand. Thank you if you are doing that. If you are not doing that please stay on topic. Is it or is it not a salvation issue? Why or why not? Provide supporting scripture if possible.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thank you SkyWriting for trying to get this thread back on topic. Please remember that in this thread we are discussing whether believing the salvation stories contained in Genesis is a salvation issue. We are not discussing the creation itself. Please stay on topic. Is it or is it not a salvation issue? Why or why not? Provide supporting scripture if possible.

The biggest one is among my favorite verses:

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

This passage specifically points out that anything written in scripture
in the last 4000 years is not a fundamental to salvation. Jesus never
carried a Bible with Him.

Not seeing the stars moving away, no human would see space
as the result of a "big-bang". I've been around campfires and
watched a shower of sparks spread into the sky as a log fire
collapsed. The sky does look like that, but not a recent event.
"Young Earth" has no obvious basis in scripture, or the sky, so
those who hold to it are without support.

You can thank Ken Ham. He scribbled "Rom. 1:20" in my Bible
and it caused me to think about that passage a lot.

 

[Speedwell]

People talk in third person all the time to make a point. Let's say you got a boss named John and he is talking to a group of employees and he goes:

"I changed a bunch of rules... you're going to do this, and this and that. Remember people, John said that this thing here is to be done regardless of what you think."

That's basically what God is doing. He's reinforcing the point. He goes:

"Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal....."

And then He goes:

"The LORD thy God made the Heavens and the Earth, and all in them in six days, so therefore you will work during the six days and rest on the seventh."

He's talking about Himself in Third Person to drive the point home, He's basically saying something along the lines of "Remember kids, your parents said 'don't talk to strangers'..."

Haven't your parents ever done that to you, or you did that to your kids?

"Remember, Tommy... your daddy said 'don't talk to strangers'."

Certainly that's a possibility. What's your evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you SkyWriting for trying to get this thread back on topic. Please remember that in this thread we are discussing whether believing the salvation stories contained in Genesis is a salvation issue. We are not discussing the creation itself.

Some of you are doing a good job of staying on topic, even if your post is somewhat off topic you tie it back to the question at hand. Thank you if you are doing that. If you are not doing that please stay on topic. Is it or is it not a salvation issue? Why or why not? Provide supporting scripture if possible.

Sorry, Archivist, I am one of the worst offenders. But I only learned about YECs and their take on the Bible fairly late in life (after I was so I thought, fairly well educated in my faith for a layman) and my reaction was, "They believe what??? about the Bible??? For God's sake, why???
I still don't know why. Yet there is a lot of effort being put into it, and we see the results here. In fact there is a whole industry of websites and ministries and publishers devoted to it. Our colleagues are being supplied with carefully crafted misrepresentations of the content of scientific theories and the content of the faith of non-YEC Christians, with bogus church history and bogus linguistic and literary scholarship. Why? If it is not the essential points of Christian doctrine which are at stake, then exactly what is being defended and why?

 

[SkyWriting]

Anybody who has done the research who knows Hebrew, and who has concluded that it was written in Literal text is naturally going to believe in YEC.

No. Dating the earth using genealogies is a tourchered and
strained route requiring a fair amount of information not found in
scripture. No two estimates are alike. Evidently, that's not
why God included the genealogies. A number of passages mention
ancient mountains rather than "mountains formed yesterday".

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes and no. Acknowledging God as Creator is critical. And faith is critical. But faith in a "young" earth is not critical or biblical. Ken Ham says otherwise. But he is otherwise not very insightful in his sermons. I recommend Chuck Swindoll.

Ken Ham says that where? I don't get that from Ken Ham has repeatedly said that the age of the earth isn't a salvation issue:

How many times do we have say that to believe in an old earth is not a salvation issue—but it is an authority issue. (Undermining biblical authority is epidemic in the church)​

He recommends reading this essay to understand his position better.

Every major doctrine of Scripture is ultimately (directly or indirectly) found in Genesis, so when believers dismiss Genesis 1–11 as myth or as unreliable, on what foundation can biblical doctrines stand? We are left with human opinions, which at the root are just man’s ideas lifted up as an authoritative standard over God’s Word. (What’s the Core Message of the Answers in Genesis Ministry?)
​

No. Dating the earth using genealogies is a tourchered and
strained route requiring a fair amount of information not found in
scripture. No two estimates are alike. Evidently, that's not
why God included the genealogies. A number of passages mention
ancient mountains rather than "mountains formed yesterday".

That's simply not true, the translations all show the same timeline based on the genealogies. What varies are the qualified revisions of the text based on very specific inferences. What you will get, no matter how you count the years represented, is between six and eight thousand years.

The biggest one is among my favorite verses:

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

This passage specifically points out that anything written in scripture
in the last 4000 years is not a fundamental to salvation. Jesus never
carried a Bible with Him.

No, that's not what the message there means. It means people know about God's 'eternal power and divine nature', being understood from God's, 'workmanship', so that they are without excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. It doesn't say anything about salvation what you must believe in order to be saved.

In the immediate context Paul tells us what you have to believe in order to be saved:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (Rom. 1:16,17)
​

If this were a real question of whether or not creation is a salvation issue you would think the question of whether or not the creation is part of the gospel. John seems to think so:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)
​

In Christ was life and that life was the light of men. In Genesis 1 God creates life, as far as when God created the heavens and the earth all we know is that it was in the beginning. If you don't know the difference between the two issues then you are blind.

Not seeing the stars moving away, no human would see space
as the result of a "big-bang". I've been around campfires and
watched a shower of sparks spread into the sky as a log fire
collapsed. The sky does look like that, but not a recent event.
"Young Earth" has no obvious basis in scripture, or the sky, so
those who hold to it are without support.

The Big Bang is really just the expansion of the universe projected backwards, cosmology is pretty irrelevant as a Biblical issue except to say God is the first cause. The Scriptures do present an apparent young earth depending on how long before creation week the original creation actually occurred. It could have been minutes, it could have been billions of years.

You can thank Ken Ham. He scribbled "Rom. 1:20" in my Bible
and it caused me to think about that passage a lot.

You really should read that passage in context.

​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

How many times do we have say that to believe in an old earth is not a salvation issue—but it is an authority issue.​

Why? Non-YEC Christians generally believe that the scriptures are authoritative.

Every major doctrine of Scripture is ultimately (directly or indirectly) found in Genesis, so when believers dismiss Genesis 1–11 as myth...

The Garden story is a myth--even if it is 100% accurate literal history--because that is the literary form in which it is couched.

...on what foundation can biblical doctrines stand?

On the foundation of divine inspiration.
​

 

[Archivist]

Sorry, Archivist, I am one of the worst offenders. But I only learned about YECs and their take on the Bible fairly late in life (after I was so I thought, fairly well educated in my faith for a layman) and my reaction was, "They believe what??? about the Bible??? For God's sake, why???
I still don't know why. Yet there is a lot of effort being put into it, and we see the results here. In fact there is a whole industry of websites and ministries and publishers devoted to it. Our colleagues are being supplied with carefully crafted misrepresentations of the content of scientific theories and the content of the faith of non-YEC Christians, with bogus church history and bogus linguistic and literary scholarship. Why? If it is not the essential points of Christian which are at stake, then exactly what is being defended and why?

Not a problem Speedwell. You have always come back on topic.

That was why I started this thread. I have had a few on CF tell me that I would go to hell if I didn't not believe in a literal creation story. God created the Earth in six days. Adam was the first man. Eve was the first woman. Period, end of discussion. Sorry, I don't buy that.