Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

You, Archivist, STILL haven't answered the question that both rsj330 and I have asked you:
"Where in Scripture does it say Physical Death came long BEFORE Adam?"...as YOU CLAIM.
Are you afraid to admit that Scripture DOES NOT say that?...If you cannot admit it, then you have failed miserably.
End of story....
You are fighting against Scripture , not against us. Learn to admit when you are wrong rather than fighting against everyone who points out your error.

Goodbye, I have no intention of continuing to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man who continually promotes doctrine that is not supported by Scripture and refuses to answer when asked a direct question.
Goodbye.

" He, that being often reproved hardening his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. " (Prov. 29:1)

Archivist said:

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?

Click to expand...

Of course it is not a salvation issue.

As we saw here that -- the Word of God places the creation fact - as the basis for true worship.

BobRyan said:

What you have not shown is that John is not informed by Genesis 1, does not accept it... does not think his readers are informed by it... assumes they reject... will let you just 'make up what you wish'.

Notice that John 1 is not blind faith evolutionism - just as Genesis 1 is not.

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.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 20
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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
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 heavens,

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

And "yes" John knew of Ex 20:11 so also did his readers

Click to expand...

Rev 14:6-7
6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Revelation 4:
9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”



John 1
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.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 20
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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
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 heavens,

those who speculate that atheist-creationism (evolutionism) or hindu or buddhist creationism can be inserted in place of the Word of God - and still get the same form of worship... are telling a tale a whopper of a tale.

Archivist said:

But nothing that you posted indicates that belief in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is required for salvation. Where in scripture does it say this?

Click to expand...

until you read the post where we see that the Creation event as described by God - and not Darwin - is the basis for worship according to the actual Bible.

simply making stuff up - does not work.

BobRyan said:

those who speculate that atheist-creationism (evolutionism) or hindu or buddhist creationism can be inserted in place of the Word of God - and still get the same form of worship... are telling a tale a whopper of a tale.

Click to expand...

Atheist-creationism (evolutionism)?

Bob, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, science is secular, not atheist. There is a very large body of Christians who have no problem with it including my own denomination. (underline emphasis below, mine)


God Bless

Archivist said:

RickG is correct. Science is secular, not atheist.

Click to expand...

But junk science - such as blind-faith evolutionism is not objective -- it is atheist orthodoxy. hence the complaints about it EVEN from their own atheist high priests in that religious order.

Details matter.

RickG said:

Atheist-creationism (evolutionism)?

Bob, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with atheism

Click to expand...

Until you read the details.

Reading the details - then Darwin, Dawkins, Provine.. P.Z. Meyers all freely admit to the atheist position in evolutionism's orthodoxy that totally opposes the Bible.

Details matter.

BobRyan said:

Until you read the details.

Reading the details - then Darwin, Dawkins, Provine.. P.Z. Meyers all freely admit to the atheist position in evolutionism's orthodoxy that totally opposes the Bible.

Details matter.

Click to expand...

Yes, it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but that doesn't make it atheism.

Speedwell said:

Yes, it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but that doesn't make it atheism.

Click to expand...

And by that you mean "admitting to what the text says" ??

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

Not to worry - even the atheists can see that elephant in your living room.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

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

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

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

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

BobRyan said:

And by that you mean "admitting to what the text says" ??

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

Not to worry - even the atheists can see that elephant in your living room.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

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

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

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

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

Click to expand...

You keep posting that quote over and over. I don't know what you think it proves. I, for one, agree with Barr.

Speedwell said:

You keep posting that quote over and over

Click to expand...

because people keep trying to "circle back" to the bogus idea that we can't read Genesis 1.

The point of that quote is that Genesis 1 is so obvious there is in fact " no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’"

Which of course is merely an 'inconvenient detail much to be ignored' by those who take a position that is debunked by such a fact.

I think we can all see that point with no problem at all.

Archivist said:

So evolution, one of the most widely respected scientific theories, is "junk science" in your book? .

Click to expand...

Atheists respect a great many junk-science blind-faith notions that I do not think are objective or difficult to see through.

is that supposed to be news??

In "theory" this thread is about what the Bible says regarding the significance of the Bible account of creation and how it pertains to the Gospel - salvation.

Which got this response.

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

As we saw here that -- the Word of God places the creation fact - as the basis for true worship.

BobRyan said:

What you have not shown is that John is not informed by Genesis 1, does not accept it... does not think his readers are informed by it... assumes they reject... will let you just 'make up what you wish'.

Notice that John 1 is not blind faith evolutionism - just as Genesis 1 is not.

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.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 20
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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
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 heavens,

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

And "yes" John knew of Ex 20:11 so also did his readers

Click to expand...

Rev 14:6-7
6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Revelation 4:
9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”



John 1
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.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 20
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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
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 heavens,

=============================================
T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

BobRyan said:

because people keep trying to "circle back" to the bogus idea that we can't read Genesis 1.

The point of that quote is that Genesis 1 is so obvious there is in fact " no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’"

Which of course is merely an 'inconvenient detail much to be ignored' by those who take a position that is debunked by such a fact.

I think we can all see that point with no problem at all.

Click to expand...

I find it neither inconvenient nor necessary to be ignored. I guess I still don't see your point.