Is belief for/against creationism important for salvation?

[furry001]

I could turn the question back at you, and ask you if you have any scientific evidence that Genesis 1 is how it really happened? Note that the Biblical account does not qualify as scientific evidence.

As for the evidence you asked for, I'm not as experienced in arguing TE as some others on this forum, but here's one piece. Various dating methods have determined the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. However, the universe is at least 10 billion years old.

Now if the Genesis 1 account is exactly how it happened (i.e. in 6 24-hour days), then the Earth and the universe would be the same age. So a literal reading does not match the physical evidence.

Thanks for your response. However, I don't need to prove that Gen 1 is literal, for I firmly believe it to be so. It is up to those who believe that it cannot be to prove it, for they are questioning that God's word on the matter is not factual.

Your point about the Earth and Universe being the same age is interesting. How do you know that they are not? Can you prove conclusively that they are of different ages? If so, how, seeing as man has only been to the moon.

Do you know how accurate the dating is? How can you prove it to be accurate?

One last question, what is TE? Seen these initials around but unsure as to what it means. Thanks

 

[Melethiel]

One last question, what is TE? Seen these initials around but unsure as to what it means. Thanks

TE = Theistic Evolution, aka Evolutionary Creationism

 

[LightHorseman]

I think God will have serious words with anyone who insists on believing in a silly old book than in what their God given sense and mind can tell them.

 

[Mallon]

I think God will have serious words with anyone who insists on believing in a silly old book than in what their God given sense and mind can tell them.

I would certainly shy away from calling the Bible a "silly, old book." Without it, our God-given minds probably couldn't teach itself about Christ's saving sacrifice.
Just because the Bible may speak of a young, flat earth standing on pillars doesn't make it silly. It was written to bring us closer to God. I think that makes it the most precious book we have.

 

[pgp_protector]

If one does not believe the story of creation.They doubt that we are Gods creation.So,

Nope, not true.
TE Beleves that God Created Everything, just not that Gen Is an ACCURATE Account of How.

if we are not God's creation,why then must we submit to God?It's always been the same with man.We want to run the show and be our own God.

This is based of a false premise of the first question, IE it falls apart if the first part is not true, and I've already stated that it's not true for TE.

 

[laptoppop]

it is not only not literal, to look at it literally misses ALL the significance and glory of the chapter, and breaks it down into little pieces of what came first and how to create correspondences between the days and modern science. and poof the theology escapes.

I just want to point out one thing -- to see the first part of Genesis as accurate historically IN NO WAY removes our ability to appreciate/discuss/understand other spiritual messages contained within the events. In fact, it deepens it -- God is not just telling a story to us, He is acting within our universe, right where we live. Of course His actions have greater significance then just the literal event.

When I got married, it was a literal event. However, it continues to carry wonderful profound meaning and impact throughout my life. The fact that it was a historical event does not change my ability to appreciate the deeper realities.

 

[vossler]

I think God will have serious words with anyone who insists on believing in a silly old book than in what their God given sense and mind can tell them.

Wonderful! The Bible is referred to as a "silly old book."

Can it get any stranger on Christian forum, what's next Jesus metaphorically rose from the dead?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

just want to point out one thing -- to see the first part of Genesis as accurate historically IN NO WAY removes our ability to appreciate/discuss/understand other spiritual messages contained within the events. In fact, it deepens it -- God is not just telling a story to us, He is acting within our universe, right where we live. Of course His actions have greater significance then just the literal event.


my evidence that YECism misses all the theology is the discussions here.

for example:

the triads of creation are still missed by most YECists here.
the meaning of the Sabbath is distorted. only on reformed or SDA websites do i see Gen 1 and the Sabbath discussed.
i still get private PM's asking what the polemic against the neighbor's gods means.
the idea of kingdoms, kings and providence is NEVER talked about on YECist sites. it is THE point of Gen 1.

yet for all this missed theology i can depend on YECists sites talking about:
the age of the earth, after all it is the distinctive their viewpoints name comes from.
no death before the fall.
an explanation of how to harmonize light before the lightbearers and nothing about Babylonians worshipping the moon.
their sites are about science + Genesis.

when Genesis is all about providence, the ordering of creation as a kingdom under God, so that man is responsible to God as vicegerent.


you may be right, it may not be an absolute requirement to miss all the theology because you are concentrating on the science and historical order of the week. but evidence shows that it is really really hard to get pass scientific correlations and talk and see the theology.


When I got married, it was a literal event. However, it continues to carry wonderful profound meaning and impact throughout my life. The fact that it was a historical event does not change my ability to appreciate the deeper realities.

but talking about the photo album, your wife's dress and the guests at the wedding are worthwhile topics, because these things have to do with the wedding and how it was.

yet talking about the age of the earth when talking about Genesis is nonsense, there is NOTHING in Gen 1 about the age of the earth. zero, nilch, nada. that is a fundamental difference between a wedding the really happened and the framework of Genesis. You can not even put Genesis into a scientific box from the very beginning of the discussion because it is completely undatable. and dates are the essential starting point for cosmological discussions. and Genesis 1 is completely timeless and unaware of timing in the scientific sense either of dating or of order.

to compare a wedding for which the date is VERY important to a undated, untimed, eternal "event" misses the point that Gen 1 is NOT about cosmology in our reality but cosmogony in showing God's attributes to a watching world.

 

[Endless]

I do not believe your salvation is in question if you do not accept creationism. However, it is difficult to believe in the inerrancy of the Word if you believe the beginning of the Bible is a fable. It's also a very easy "way out" for non-believers. "It's just a story book" ... "it's a guideline" ... "it's not historically correct" ... in the evangalistic process it is important to show the correctness of the creation and to validate it with fact. evolution is just a "theory" that the scientific world at large has accepted as fact.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Can I ask how you know that Genesis 1 is not how it really happened? That's a big thing to state, so I would like you to back it up with evidence, and could you include an account of how creation actually happened?

Thanks

the reason Gen 1 is not a scientific cosmology is that the order of things is wrong, something known for hundreds of years.

the sun is the source of light, that coupled with the rotation of the earth defines days and nights, without a sun and potentially without an earth there are no days, nights, morning, evenings. these things function as a refrain in a song, repeating and drawing attention towards them.

but rather then have this insight that light is from the sun inform our hermeneutic and go looking for God's explanation of what Gen 1 means, the modern church has left the playing field and gone looking over the hill for what is not there to be found. because of the dominant influence of modern scientific thinking on our consciousness, we find the thought that Gen 1 is literary inferior to if it is scientific, and less truthful if it doesn't answer our burning questions in our modern manner.

the structure of Gen 1 is literary, it is not in scientific order.

if you want to know the scientific and historical order of the creation, in the beginning, inquiry of modern science as it looks at God's creation and asks the question: how and what mechanism. never question occurs to ANE Hebrews, God is not answering that question in gen 1, just because it is important to us and our culture doesn't mean it is to be found in Genesis or even the Bible. The Bible tells us what God thinks we need answered not what questions are important to mechanistic and means-dominated modern man.

by allowing ourselves to be distracted by modern ideas of what are the significant questions of life, we miss God's answers which are in ancient terms like kings and kingship, rulers and lawgivers, triads and the Sabbath.

 

[Carey]

Really....is it?

If so, then why?

If not, then why argue about it so often?


Peace.

God will accept a willing uneducated person that knows not the truth of his creation. If the uneducated person believes Jesus Christ is the son of the creator Jehova GOD and died for all who believe this truths sins and will return to earth to rule for 1000 years.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

God will accept a willing uneducated person that knows not the truth of his creation. If the uneducated person believes Jesus Christ is the son of the creator Jehova GOD and died for all who believe this truths sins and will return to earth to rule for 1000 years.

o'no. now i'm in trouble again.

for i thought:

God's name is not Jehova
that is an error from the KJV where they confused the YHWH with the vowel pointings for adonai, indicating that the world Lord was to be substituted for YWHW.
(the word -- Jehova is an error)

that Jesus died only for the elect.
(arminians are wrong)

that the millennium started with the resurrection.
(dispensational premills are wrong)


is 1 out of 4 enough? (Jesus is the son of the Creator)

do i get extra credit for knowing how God created the universe? answer: big bang


*grin*

 

[pgp_protector]

I do not believe your salvation is in question if you do not accept creationism. However, it is difficult to believe in the inerrancy of the Word if you believe the beginning of the Bible is a fable. It's also a very easy "way out" for non-believers. "It's just a story book" ... "it's a guideline" ... "it's not historically correct" ... in the evangalistic process it is important to show the correctness of the creation and to validate it with fact. evolution is just a "theory" that the scientific world at large has accepted as fact.

Why ? Are there any Fables in the bible ?

 

[DailyBlessings]

in the evangalistic process it is important to show the correctness of the creation and to validate it with fact.

Unless you cannot actually do that, in which case insisting that you can becomes an even larger stumbling block.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If one does not believe the story of creation.They doubt that we are Gods creation.

This has already been shown to be incorrect.

So, if we are not God's creation,why then must we submit to God?

I am not the police's creation, but I certainly submit to them... especially when they pull me over.

It's always been the same with man.We want to run the show and be our own God.

Speak for yourself.

 

[furry001]

the reason Gen 1 is not a scientific cosmology is that the order of things is wrong, something known for hundreds of years.

the sun is the source of light, that coupled with the rotation of the earth defines days and nights, without a sun and potentially without an earth there are no days, nights, morning, evenings. these things function as a refrain in a song, repeating and drawing attention towards them.

but rather then have this insight that light is from the sun inform our hermeneutic and go looking for God's explanation of what Gen 1 means, the modern church has left the playing field and gone looking over the hill for what is not there to be found. because of the dominant influence of modern scientific thinking on our consciousness, we find the thought that Gen 1 is literary inferior to if it is scientific, and less truthful if it doesn't answer our burning questions in our modern manner.

the structure of Gen 1 is literary, it is not in scientific order.

if you want to know the scientific and historical order of the creation, in the beginning, inquiry of modern science as it looks at God's creation and asks the question: how and what mechanism. never question occurs to ANE Hebrews, God is not answering that question in gen 1, just because it is important to us and our culture doesn't mean it is to be found in Genesis or even the Bible. The Bible tells us what God thinks we need answered not what questions are important to mechanistic and means-dominated modern man.

by allowing ourselves to be distracted by modern ideas of what are the significant questions of life, we miss God's answers which are in ancient terms like kings and kingship, rulers and lawgivers, triads and the Sabbath.

I'm not sure I follow this argument. You are saying that Genesis 1 is wrong because the order of creation is wrong, yet you are basing this assumption on modern thinking and discovery, ie, the earth goes round the sun and the sun provides heat and light for the earth. Yet how do you know that the way it works was the way in which it was created? Also, the earth has two meanings - the planet and dirt (or soil) is called earth. Therefore the planet was created in Gen 1:1 and the land (dirt or soil) created in Gen 1:9-10.

While I would agree that the bible does not tell us every tiny detail about every tiny thing, I would disagree that the bible does not tell us where we came from. Evolution says we came from apes, yet the bible says we came from the dust of the ground, and God breathed into man the breath of life. How does this fit with evolution?

 

[furry001]

do i get extra credit for knowing how God created the universe? answer: big bang

If you truly believe that God used the big bang to start creation, can you tell me why? Surely it makes more sense for an almighty and all powerful God to just make everything out of nothing, rather than the tedious process of the big bang. Consider this: God has complete power over this world, and demonstrates this throughout the OT. Pillar of fire by night that turns into a pillar of cloud by day, Red Sea becoming completely dry and stacked up for the children of Israel to cross over, the mighty storm that stopped instantly when Jonah was thrown overboard. Why can God do this but not create everything from scratch in 6 literal days?

 

[LightHorseman]

Perhaps I should clarify my position re: "silly old book"

Genesis, is a silly old book in the sense that it is old, a book, and factually, well... silly. The Bible as a whole is one of the great works of humanity, and the message it contains, especially in the later parts, are key to our salvation.

However, I maintain that people who continue to believe Genesis as the literal truth in the face of all the wonderous evidence God has given them that creation is so much MORE than what Genesis says... well, I think God can't want them to think that way.

I imagine a loving parent watching a child recieve a gift at Christmas, the most wonderful, exciting, fun and educational toy in the world... and the child refuses to take it out of the box, insisting that the picture on the box is what its all about, despite the parent patiently explaining that there is so much more to it. This is how I imagine God looks at Biblical literalists re Genesis.

 

[Melethiel]

Why can God do this but not create everything from scratch in 6 literal days?

Nobody's saying God can't. What were saying is that it sure looks like God didn't.

Creativity maybe? I know when I'm doing an artwork, it turns out much better when I spend hours on the details then when I just throw together a few vectors in 20 minutes.

 

[LightHorseman]

Surely it makes more sense for an almighty and all powerful God to just make everything out of nothing, rather than the tedious process of the big bang

Who are you to dictate what makes sense to God? Maybe, being eternal, he felt it might be fun to watch 13 Billion years of cosmological process before humankind arrived. Maybe he thought it would look more impressive than just snapping his fingers and "hey presto" instant universe. I don't know. But, the point is, that there is clear EVIDENCE that that is how he chose to create the universe, whereas, outside of Genesis, there is no evidence at all for a 6000 year old universe.

Why can God do this but not create everything from scratch in 6 literal days?

a. big difference between creating a universe and being a fiery pillar, or stopping a storm
b. However, that said, I still don't see anything to suggest that omniscience should equal a 6 day creation. I mean, why not a 5 day creation? why not a 2 second creation? Like I said, outside of Genesis, what makes 6 days of creation seem so logical?