Creation is it a neccessary foundation?

[theywhosowintears]

Who thinks that believing Genesis is the literal truth is a very important foundation to belief in Christ and salvation itself?

What I am trying to say is who thinks it is essential to believe creation to be saved? (knowing that God is our judge and we will never know until we reach heaven)

If not how important do you think it is?

 

[Remus]

Who thinks that believing Genesis is the literal truth is a very important foundation to belief in Christ and salvation itself?

What I am trying to say is who thinks it is essential to believe creation to be saved? (knowing that God is our judge and we will never know until we reach heaven)

If not how important do you think it is?

So many questions in one

I believe that it isn't an issue for salvation. However, I believe that a plain/natural reading of Genesis is an important foundation.

Sorry for all the qualifications. Guess I've been posting here too long

 

[mark kennedy]

Who thinks that believing Genesis is the literal truth is a very important foundation to belief in Christ and salvation itself?

What I am trying to say is who thinks it is essential to believe creation to be saved? (knowing that God is our judge and we will never know until we reach heaven)

If not how important do you think it is?

I'm with Remus on one point, this is not a salvation issue. On the other hand the ressurection is a salvation history and if it didn't happen as described in the New Testament we are still in our sins. Try to keep this in perspective, the Gospel is rooted and grounded in history and salvation is God's greatest act of creation. He makes us new creatures in Christ, has set Jesus at His right hand and done wonder without number throughout human history. Faith is not about understanding everthing about how God works but believing that the One who makes the promise if faithfull.

Don't doubt your salvation because you don't have all the answers about how God made the Universe. Put your faith in the promise, not your ability to understand things that are too wonderfull for you.

"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?" (Job 38:1-11)

"Then Job answered the LORD, and said,

I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not." (Job 42:1-3)

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Antman_05]

If Genesis isn't truth, then now of the other part of the Word is truth, as its based on a lie and we should all know about what Jesus said about the man Building his house on the sand.

 

[mhess13]

If Genesis isn't truth, then now of the other part of the Word is truth, as its based on a lie and we should all know about what Jesus said about the man Building his house on the sand.

amen

 

[SBG]

I believe this isn't a salvation issue, but can lead to problems with salvation. You will not be able to fully understand God's purpose in His pursuit of mankind without understanding what He did in Genesis 1-3 and what Adam and Eve did in Genesis 3.

My problem lies with Vance asking us to say we can all read scripture differently and all be right, as well as his misrepresentations of Church Fathers and more importantly Scripture.

 

[keyarch]

Who thinks that believing Genesis is the literal truth is a very important foundation to belief in

Christ and salvation itself?

What I am trying to say is who thinks it is essential to believe creation to be saved? (knowing that God is our judge and we will never know until we reach heaven)

If not how important do you think it is?

One can be saved without ever reading the Bible. However, I think that if one is going to witness to others, you should base it on the Word of God. How foolish we would look to non-believers if we said that Scripture is the inspired word of God, but that you have to pick and choose what is to be taken literally based on current science. How absurd, especially when science is not the pursuit of absolute truth, but rather consensus.

Now if the Bible said the earth was flat or that the sun and the stars rotate around a stationary earth, there would be a conflict between God’s word and His general revelation. I have not found even one instance where any statements found in Scripture are counter to true scientific evidence if each are studied in depth. This includes the entire creation account, and the Global Flood etc.

Just for the record regarding your survey… To take Genesis literally, does NOT automatically translate to a Young Earth Creation model. I actually believe the "YEC" model actually does more harm than good, and am very disappointed that ministries like AiG and ICR are so dogmatic supporting it. It makes no sense to me how they can say that the earth was created first and then all the stars and matter in the universe days later some 6,000 years ago. That doesn’t fit with God’s general revelation and forces one to come up with all kinds of theories about apparent age etc. It also forces language constructs that are not consistent with how the plain reading of Scripture was intended, including the insertion of words for clarity that actually change the meaning.

Case in point:

A. Genesis 1:1; is not a heading or overview statement.

B. Genesis 1:16; does not say “he made the stars also”, but rather “with stars”. The meaning being that the moon was to rule the night with the stars (that were already there).

C. Exodus 20:11; dos not say “For in six days God created..” but rather “For six days God worked on (‘aasaah)… See the totally different meaning?

So a different model of creation that I believe is true to the word of God and His general revelation, without the need for additional theories is this:

1. The universe with stars and the earth in an unfinished state existed for an undefined amount of time prior to the “creation week”;

2. The first “act” of the creation week was the infusion of “light” on the surface of the deep. This was light from God and not the sun.

3. The work to make the earth habitable and the creation of all the original biology in the planet took place during a six literal day period, some 6,118 years ago;

4. The sun and moon were put into their current place on the fourth day.

5. Genesis 1 defines two Heavens: Lower Heaven is the firmament between the waters from the sea to the bottom of the upper waters (cloud layer); and Upper Heaven is the firmament from the bottom of the cloud layer and continues up into space to include at least the visible stars.

6. Genesis 1 & 2 define the Earth (world, globe); Land (dry land, continents); and ground (dirt, soil). These definitions can be used to prove that Scripture describes a global catastrophic flood in Noah’s time.

This model has been called “YBC” for Young Biological Creation. There could be inorganic materials on earth and observations of space that show greater ages than 6,000 years without creating any conflict with this model. Additionally, I have not had any “YEC” show me a scriptural conflict that makes any sense. I think any model that has the earth and all it’s biology along with the universe as being all old or all young is inherently wrong.

 

[Knowledge3]

Who thinks that believing Genesis is the literal truth is a very important foundation to belief in Christ and salvation itself?

What I am trying to say is who thinks it is essential to believe creation to be saved? (knowing that God is our judge and we will never know until we reach heaven)

If not how important do you think it is?

Very.

Since God laid the foundation of the earth set it forth as the dwelling place for mankind,I find it obligatory to practice creationism strenously out of mere respect for God and His Creation.Irony is, God in His wisdom as separated us as believers in Spirit,Word and creationism.

Also we as overall Creationists should be careful when we explain...What could be some ways that one might make a mistake or error? (If there was/is any)

 

[Knowledge3]

One can be saved without ever reading the Bible. However, I think that if one is going to witness to others, you should base it on the Word of God. How foolish we would look to non-believers if we said that Scripture is the inspired word of God, but that you have to pick and choose what is to be taken literally based on current science. How absurd, especially when science is not the pursuit of absolute truth, but rather consensus.

Now if the Bible said the earth was flat or that the sun and the stars rotate around a stationary earth, there would be a conflict between God’s word and His general revelation. I have not found even one instance where any statements found in Scripture are counter to true scientific evidence if each are studied in depth. This includes the entire creation account, and the Global Flood etc.

Just for the record regarding your survey… To take Genesis literally, does NOT automatically translate to a Young Earth Creation model. I actually believe the "YEC" model actually does more harm than good, and am very disappointed that ministries like AiG and ICR are so dogmatic supporting it. It makes no sense to me how they can say that the earth was created first and then all the stars and matter in the universe days later some 6,000 years ago. That doesn’t fit with God’s general revelation and forces one to come up with all kinds of theories about apparent age etc. It also forces language constructs that are not consistent with how the plain reading of Scripture was intended, including the insertion of words for clarity that actually change the meaning.

Case in point:

A. Genesis 1:1; is not a heading or overview statement.

B. Genesis 1:16; does not say “he made the stars also”, but rather “with stars”. The meaning being that the moon was to rule the night with the stars (that were already there).

C. Exodus 20:11; dos not say “For in six days God created..” but rather “For six days God worked on (‘aasaah)… See the totally different meaning?

So a different model of creation that I believe is true to the word of God and His general revelation, without the need for additional theories is this:

1. The universe with stars and the earth in an unfinished state existed for an undefined amount of time prior to the “creation week”;

2. The first “act” of the creation week was the infusion of “light” on the surface of the deep. This was light from God and not the sun.

3. The work to make the earth habitable and the creation of all the original biology in the planet took place during a six literal day period, some 6,118 years ago;

4. The sun and moon were put into their current place on the fourth day.

5. Genesis 1 defines two Heavens: Lower Heaven is the firmament between the waters from the sea to the bottom of the upper waters (cloud layer); and Upper Heaven is the firmament from the bottom of the cloud layer and continues up into space to include at least the visible stars.

6. Genesis 1 & 2 define the Earth (world, globe); Land (dry land, continents); and ground (dirt, soil). These definitions can be used to prove that Scripture describes a global catastrophic flood in Noah’s time.

This model has been called “YBC” for Young Biological Creation. There could be inorganic materials on earth and observations of space that show greater ages than 6,000 years without creating any conflict with this model. Additionally, I have not had any “YEC” show me a scriptural conflict that makes any sense. I think any model that has the earth and all it’s biology along with the universe as being all old or all young is inherently wrong.

Wow. ^


keyarch..I am sitting right on the fence between old-earth creationism and YEC.Several Scriptures indicate that God is ancient.

example:

Psalm 90
Lord, you have been our dwelling place from generation to generation, before the mountains were born and you brought forth the earth and the world.

And the Ancient of days in the Chapter of Daniel.

I can't seem to overlook the facts of fossil records and the dinosours I loved as kid.As well as the overall science indicating a 4.6 billion year old earth.What are you valuable reasons for YEC over old-earth creationism?

 

[keyarch]

I can't seem to overlook the facts of fossil records and the dinosours I loved as kid.As well as the overall science indicating a 4.6 billion year old earth.What are you valuable reasons for YEC over old-earth creationism?

First off, I don't care how old you date a rock or measure the distance of a star and starlight, that doesn't mean the biology on this earth is the same age. Let's say you were just covered with a landslide. If a scientist tested the soil and rocks that covered you and said they were one million years old and you are under them and therefore older, does that mean that they're right? NO. Can they use any method for dating something that was living older than 6,000 years and be sure it wasn't contaminated with minerals that are older? I don't think so. In my study, it appears that they date fossils by the strata of rock or sediments that their contained in and then use the geologic column. I have not seen where they could do a radiometric analysis in a "blind" test and come up with these dates. In fact, I just saw an article on a new dinosaur find where a reporter asked if they had dated it radio-metrically, and the paleontologist said “No, it’s too old for that”. I’m sure he knew that there are problems using these kinds of test on living organisms that have been buried in the earth.

Also, I think the "consensus" of “science” is to not let anything “supernatural” be part of a “scientific” theory, and they rule out the catastrophic global flood as just story in the Bible and not something that actually happened.

To answer your last question: I do not support a young earth, only young biology. Additionally, while the elements of the earth may be “old”, the current mountains and other land masses that extend above sea level are “young” formations. In other words, until just over 6,000 years ago, the “waters” (plural) of the earth covered everything. [I hope I'm making sense, it's late at night here.]

 

[Knowledge3]

First off, I don't care how old you date a rock or measure the distance of a star and starlight, that doesn't mean the biology on this earth is the same age. Let's say you were just covered with a landslide. If a scientist tested the soil and rocks that covered you and said they were one million years old and you are under them and therefore older, does that mean that they're right? NO. Can they use any method for dating something that was living older than 6,000 years and be sure it wasn't contaminated with minerals that are older? I don't think so. In my study, it appears that they date fossils by the strata of rock or sediments that their contained in and then use the geologic column. I have not seen where they could do a radiometric analysis in a "blind" test and come up with these dates. In fact, I just saw an article on a new dinosaur find where a reporter asked if they had dated it radio-metrically, and the paleontologist said “No, it’s too old for that”. I’m sure he knew that there are problems using these kinds of test on living organisms that have been buried in the earth.

Also, I think the "consensus" of “science” is to not let anything “supernatural” be part of a “scientific” theory, and they rule out the catastrophic global flood as just story in the Bible and not something that actually happened.

To answer your last question: I do not support a young earth, only young biology. Additionally, while the elements of the earth may be “old”, the current mountains and other land masses that extend above sea level are “young” formations. In other words, until just over 6,000 years ago, the “waters” (plural) of the earth covered everything. [I hope I'm making sense, it's late at night here.]

Almost.. Make you sure sleep well at night keyarch. <><

You will have to point me to site where you study geology or hopefully instruct about in general...I don't have enough money to purchase these books I desire to read...I need more blessings.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not kidding, the more I study that I am convinced the genetics is based on creationism, it just got buried under an avalance of naturalistic mumbo jumbo like natural selection. This is from the formal debate I am finishing up, Mendel was a creationist who established the laws of inheritance that transposed into modern genetics. I thought there might be a creationist or two who might like to know that in order to support creationism as science you don't have to reinvent the wheel. It allready is established science, its called Mendel's Laws of Inheritance:

"The striking regularity with which the same hybrid forms always reappeared whenever fertilization took place between the same species induced further experiments to be undertaken” (Mendel)


Mendel's experiments yielded two laws of science that became the foundation of modern genetics. Without directly observing the chromosomes he built a scientific model that demonstrated how the internal mechanism of inherited traits worked. Nearly half a century later his only surviving paper on the pea plant experiments were discovered and demonstrated again and again in the early 1900s. Mendel noted that one trait masks the other; the one that masks the other is dominant the masked trait is recessive (aka epistasis). It was believed that inheritance was a mixture of characteristics that blended to produce unique internal traits. We know now that the genes, Mendel called the 'elementen', recombine through a process of recombination called Meiosis

Mendel clearly states based on his experiments that the demonstrated mechanisms that are the bedrock of modern genetics had defining boundaries. These boundaries are the elementum (genes) that are separated from each other as gametes form. The gametes join at fertilization and would recombine at random. The traits are expressed in different ways because a gene can exist in alternative forms, or alleles. In summarizing after producing 70 hybrid crosses with each of the seven traits he studied, from 10,000 meticulous experiments, crossing and cataloging some 24,034 plants, over a six year period (1857-1863), Mendel writes:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.”

Evolutionists keep asking me what limits, I say the ones defined in modern genetics that were built of the work of the creationist, Mendel. Darwin's natural selection is nothing but one long argument against independant creation. Mendel's laws of inheritance demand independant creation because of the way traits are inherited. I argue this from peer reviewed scientific journal papers all the time. You would not believe how easy it is.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Knowledge3]

I believe that Creator authored the specific instructions encoded in DNA.

There really is no concievable way animal and intelligent life could have sprung into existence by mere random chance of abiogenesis and evolutionary biology.IMO

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe that Creator authored the specific instructions encoded in DNA.

There really is no concievable way animal and intelligent life could have sprung into existence by mere random chance of abiogenesis and evolutionary biology.IMO

That's right, the genes actually change very little even though combinations during reproduction can result in a lot of divergance. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary biology it's just wild speculation about how basic life could have came from a biochemical, primordial soup. Major transitions are a problem as well, there are no known ways of overhauling the genes involved and yet the say natural selection like its abra cadabra and *poof* you have an overhaul of the genes:

"Lahn and his team argue that this selective process impacted a significant fraction of genes in the human genome. They estimate there may have been thousands of mutations in thousands of genes that contributed to the evolution of the human brain. This “staggering” number of mutations suggests the human lineage was driven by intense selection process."

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050106/lahn.shtml

To put this in perspective, there are about 25,000 to 35,000 genes in the entire human genome. What do you think happens when there are changes in these genes? The human chromosome 21 has the majority of genes that make us uniquely human. In case your interested, the Human Genome project has identified a long list of disease and disorders associated with changes in the genes on this chromosome, things like Alzheimers, Downs syndrome and Schizophrenia:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/chromo21.shtml

Would you like to know what kind of changes would have to have been made for us to evolve from apes? Check this out:

"By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. "

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/nature02564_fs.html

You ask an evolutionist how they got there they say, natural selection. You ask a creationist they say, In the begining God...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Knowledge3]

That's right, the genes actually change very little even though combinations during reproduction can result in a lot of divergance. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary biology it's just wild speculation about how basic life could have came from a biochemical, primordial soup. Major transitions are a problem as well, there are no known ways of overhauling the genes involved and yet the say natural selection like its abra cadabra and *poof* you have an overhaul of the genes:

I understand the concept of Creationism and respecting the Creator, who is forever to praised. Amen.By you sayingg I have an "overhaul of the genes" in terms of my soon to be written thesis and essay that there is no way possible that G-d could not hav been the Author of DNA. From that complex and set chemistry is what I believe wrote and authorized the basic biological rules for life was we know it. Without such a Creator, it is astoundingly implausible and inconceivable that this is not the Truth.

"Lahn and his team argue that this selective process impacted a significant fraction of genes in the human genome. They estimate there may have been thousands of mutations in thousands of genes that contributed to the evolution of the human brain. This “staggering” number of mutations suggests the human lineage was driven by intense selection process."

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050106/lahn.shtml

I even found a loophole in so "called random chance" and one "random" mutation as a fact and Internet Infidels. It may have much to do with "God gene". I do not know the details about it but it is definitely the wisdom of God.

Perhaps a google search and study on both concepts could lead to some scientific information? I have several ideas and hypothesis that cannnot be refuted becuase of naturalist thinking relying solely on scienitific evidene. I do not even call science or evolution false.

To put this in perspective, there are about 25,000 to 35,000 genes in the entire human genome. What do you think happens when there are changes in these genes? The human chromosome 21 has the majority of genes that make us uniquely human. In case your interested, the Human Genome project has identified a long list of disease and disorders associated with changes in the genes on this chromosome, things like Alzheimers, Downs syndrome and Schizophrenia:

What I think happens in my current understanding as th OT God as the Author DNA in the Genesis account of creation. However to make a short response to latter short. I believe that the divinity of Jesus Christ can heal every human disease and ailment. I do not ask Him why He allows it to exist or happen but leave it alone with Him.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/chromo21.shtml

Would you like to know what kind of changes would have to have been made for us to evolve from apes? Check this out:

"By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. "

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/nature02564_fs.html

You ask an evolutionist how they got there they say, natural selection. You ask a creationist they say, In the begining God...

Grace and peace,
Mark

I am also astounded at the atheist mistunderstanding (whether it be accidental or "intentional") of the the beginning toward the Bible. Does anyone know?

I will definitely re-read your post and articles again, thus deeming it as worth reading.

Blessings. K3

 

[Ave Maria]

It's optional. I know many Catholics who are Theistic Evolutionists.

 

[Knowledge3]

It's optional. I know many Catholics who are Theistic Evolutionists.

Hello Holly...

I don't understand why there are theistic evolutionists....

I don't believe that you can drop something Biblical in order to support something unbiblical? I do not even contest the ToE and is scientific validity in a sense..There many loopholes in ToE that are explained in vain by naturalist philosophy.......I don't think I ever come to accept ToE as valid theory until Jesus comes.....Whether that in my lifteime or a thousand years from now.

I would love to discuss with some good theistic evolutionists and understand the reasonings behind those principles.....

 

[Knowledge3]

It's optional. I know many Catholics who are Theistic Evolutionists.

Your avatar is awesome....I noticed it the other day..It's awesome...