Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Archivist]

On a side note, is it idolatry to worship anything other than the living God? In addition, what is deemed worship of an "interpretation" of Genesis?

Who here has said anything about worshipping "an 'interpretation' of Genesis"?

 

[brinny]

Leviticus 11:13-19 "These you shall regard as detestable among the birds. They shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the buzzard, the kite of any kind; every raven of any kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the water hen, the desert owl,the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat."

This is from the New Revised Standard Version.



Just what the word means, a people who treated "complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are."

Are you saying that God made a mistake here, and "Oops"? It appears to me that He was speaking of winged creatures. A bat is a winged creature.

Which people are you referring to? (in your 2nd paragraph.)

I'm reminded of a verse that says that God is not the Author of confusion. It is man that complicates and thus generates confusion, isn't it?

 

[brinny]

Who here has said anything about worshipping "an 'interpretation' of Genesis"?

Read the post i was responding to.

Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

And by whose wisdom is one relying on in deciding if what is written in Genesis is "credible" or not?

This verse comes to mind:

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." ~Isaiah 55:9

Oh, it's credible all right--after all, it is the inspired word of God. The question is, must it be taken literally? The answer to that question requires a great deal of wisdom, and a great deal of scholarly effort as well. No single person can decide merely by reading it.

 

[Archivist]

Are you saying that God made a mistake here, and "Oops"? It appears to me that He was speaking of winged creatures. A bat is a winged creature.

I believe I already answered that. It was written for a simplistic people who did not understand a difference between mammals and birds. If a creature had wings to them it was a bird.

Which people are you referring to? (in your 2nd paragraph.)

The people of that time.

I'm reminded of a verse that says that God is not the Author of confusion. It is man that complicates and thus generates confusion, isn't it?

But we are looking at Scripture.

 

[Archivist]

Read the post i was responding to.

Thanks.

Sorry.

 

[brinny]

Sorry.

LOL! 'Tis ok.

i still luv's ya' brother

 

[Archivist]

Oh, it's credible all right--after all, it is the inspired word of God. The question is, must it be taken literally? The answer to that question requires a great deal of wisdom, and a great deal of scholarly effort as well. No single person can decide merely by reading it.

Well said Speedwell. I'm still waiting for anyone who claims that a literial reading of the Genesis creation stories is required for salvation to provide any Biblical requirement of that.

 

[brinny]

I believe I already answered that. It was written for a simplistic people who did not understand a difference between mammals and birds. If a creature had wings to them it was a bird.



The people of that time.



But we are looking at Scripture.

Well yes, we are looking at scripture, and right there in scripture it is written that God is not the Author of confusion, and man is nothing but confusion and complications, that as a matter of fact, rob man of peace of mind, etc.

A bat IS a winged creature, by the way.

Isn't it?

 

[Archivist]

Well yes, we are looking at scripture, and right there in scripture it is written that God is not the Author of confusion, and man is nothing but confusion and complications, that as a matter of fact, rob man of peace of mind, etc.

So a bat is a bird? And I know the answer to that, but a simplistic people of the Bronze Age had a different answer then we do today.

A bat IS a winged creature, by the way.

Isn't it?

Yes, I believe I already said that.

 

[rjs330]

Sola Fides rules it out. We are saved by our faith in Christ--the Gospels are pretty clear about this.

Struggling to accept the crackpot interpretation of Genesis promoted by YEC Bible cults is a work. We are not saved by works.

I don't want to cause waves here, so I am going to try and be gentle about this. Your statements about crackpots and cults do not fit within the scriptures of having gentle speech. Calling people names and relegating them to a cult is not good.

I feel the same way about those that call believers who believe in evolution members of some satanic conspiracy.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

All it does is destroy faith in the interpretation of Genesis promoted by YECs, not in Genesis itself.

It seems like a lot of trouble for Satan to go to merely to discredit some upstart Protestant Bible cult.

Speedwell the belief in Genesis is not some upstart bible cult. You do know that the belief in evolution is relatively new,while the belief,in the Genesis account goes back to the time of the forming of the Law.

As,far as upstartness is concerned creation by evolution is the upstart belief.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

I feel the same way about those that call believers who believe in evolution members of some satanic conspiracy.

If the posters on this board are any indication, you are highly unusual in that respect. For my sins, I had to live in the Bible Belt for several years, an experience which only reinforced my impression that "gentle speech" is almost entirely absent from the YEC lexicon.

 

[Speedwell]

Speedwell the belief in Genesis is not some upstart bible cult. You do know that the belief in evolution is relatively new,while the belief,in the Genesis account goes back to the time of the forming of the Law.

As,far as upstartness is concerned creation by evolution is the upstart belief.

Of course people have always "believed" in Genesis as the inspired word of God, and most of them have believed that the creation accounts were a reasonable description of how creation went down, although figurative interpretations of the texts have always been entertained as well.

That it is essential to believe that the creation stories of Genesis are 100% accurate literal history, that they are the scientifically inerrant and perspicuous product of plenary verbal inspiration, is a theological novelty.

 

[rjs330]

So a bat is a bird?



Yes, I believe I already said that.

I've heard this argument before. The problem with it is it used to cast doubt upon the scriptures. Athiests use it all the time to show how we can't believe or trust the bible. I mean if the bible got this wrong how do we not know that it got all kinds of things wrong and therefore cannot be believed or trusted.

Here's the truth on this scripture. The Hebrew word owph is meant to,describe this that cover or to fly. It was not meant to,specifically describe creatures into,modern scientific categories. It was a broad definition that would encompass birds, bats even insects.

So no the bible is not "wrong" or in error or being accomodating to ignorant people. It is mentioning the flying creatures or creatures with covering that the Israilites were not to eat.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

I've heard this argument before. The problem with it is it used to cast doubt upon the scriptures. Athiests use it all the time to show how we can't believe or trust the bible. I mean if the bible got this wrong how do we not know that it got all kinds of things wrong and therefore cannot be believed or trusted.

It is also used by Christians to cast doubt on the proposition that it was always the intent of divine authorship to convey accurate scientific information--or (even more dubious) that any scientific facts which can be deduced from the text, however far-fetched the deduction, must be correct as a sign that the text was divinely inspired.

 

[rjs330]

Of course people have always "believed" in Genesis as the inspired word of God, and most of them have believed that the creation accounts were a reasonable description of how creation went down, although figurative interpretations of the texts have always been entertained as well.

That it is essential to believe that the creation stories of Genesis are 100% accurate literal history, that they are the scientifically inerrant and perspicuous product of plenary verbal inspiration, is a theological novelty.

No it's not a novelty. The,novelty is actually the belief that the biblical stories are allegory and not true. Remember Jesus' statements that "as in the days of Noah?" The apostles referenced the OT writings and characters as truth and not mere allgories of truth. Certainly the writers of the OT NEVER indicated anywhere that what they were writing were,stories to share a truth and not facts of what really occurred. That is a more modern concept not an ancient one and not supported by scripture itself.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Archivist]

I've heard this argument before. The problem with it is it used to cast doubt upon the scriptures. Athiests use it all the time to show how we can't believe or trust the bible. I mean if the bible got this wrong how do we not know that it got all kinds of things wrong and therefore cannot be believed or trusted.

Here's the truth on this scripture. The Hebrew word owph is meant to,describe this that cover or to fly. It was not meant to,specifically describe creatures into,modern scientific categories. It was a broad definition that would encompass birds, bats even insects.

So no the bible is not "wrong" or in error or being accomodating to ignorant people. It is mentioning the flying creatures or creatures with covering that the Israilites were not to eat.

Nor did I ever say that the Bible is "wrong," that isn't the point I'm trying to make. Sorry if I gave that impression. As I said, bats were included as birds because the people at that time did not understand the difference between mammals and birds. If a creature had wings it was a bird. However, we aren't bound to follow that literally today.

Likewise, if we are not bound to see a bat as a bird why would we be bound to see a literal six day Genesis account of creation as being anything other than an allegory, the purpose of which was to tell a simplistic people that God created everything in a way that they would understand? Why would failure to accept a literal reading of Genesis deny salvation to a Christian?

 

[Speedwell]

No it's not a novelty.

I'm afraid it is. You will search in vain for the doctrine of Plenary Verbal Inspiration or the doctrine of Perspicuity as conceived by YECs in Christian writing prior to a couple of hundred years ago. My opinion of it is that it is a reaction to the discoveries of science about our origins heavily influenced by the Darbyite heresy.

the,novelty is actually the belief that the biblical stories are allegory and not true.

Allegories aren't true? In any case, you have perpetrated a false dichotomy. There are many more possibilities than "allegory" and "true."

Remember Jesus' statements that "as in the days of Noah?"

Yes, and I also observe that Jesus was careful to indicate that he was referring to the texts themselves, not necessarily the events behind them, "Have you not read...?" so we have no information at all about whether he thought them 100% accurate literal history.

Certainly the writers of the OT NEVER indicated anywhere that what they were writing were,stories to share a truth and not facts of what really occurred. That is a more modern concept not an ancient one and not supported by scripture itself.

That facts should be allowed to get in the way of a good story is the modern notion, as any scholar of ancient literature can tell you.

 

[brinny]

So a bat is a bird? And I know the answer to that, but a simplistic people of the Bronze Age had a different answer then we do today.



Yes, I believe I already said that.

Bronze age?