Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Speedwell]

That would make His word a lie.

No, it just makes the Genesis creation stories something other than 100% accurate factual history.

 

[Archivist]

First of all I've never seen a theistic evolutionist concede a point much less convert, with creationists it's rare but it does happen. But your question regards salvation and it comes down to why you reject the creation doctrine. If it's because an epic panorama of. a miraculous divine fiat the is a problem. To deny creation as an actual sequence of events leads one to wonder at the influence on other miracles from Genesis to the Incarnation. What about the New birth, is that a mirable or a metaphor. What about the resurrection at the return of Christ.

Sure you can doubt the creation account and still have saving Faith. The problem is that secular scholars and scientists reject creation because of the miraculous ha the of creation. We embrace a faith in a God of miracles, to think of that in exclusively naturalistic terms is to have a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. There is also the divisive and argumentative nature of Darwinism to wonder if we can embrace Darwinism and saving faith. Do you get bitter and sweet water from the same well?

So you admit that accepting the Genesis creation stories is not a salvation ussue.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you admit that accepting the Genesis creation stories is not a salvation ussue.

I would say it depends on why. I think I was pretty clear on that.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it just makes the Genesis creation stories something other than 100% accurate factual history.

Which is written as an historical narrative. What does that say about other historical narratives. You guys never have an answer for that and rarely even discuss miracles.

 

[Archivist]

which is an written as historical narrative. What does that say about other historical narratives. You guys never have an answer for that and rarely even discuss miracles.

I don't know any Christians who support theistic evolution who doubt that micicles performed by Jesus. I'm happy to discuss those.

 

[Speedwell]

which is an written as historical narrative.

The question is, what kind of historical narrative? Gen 1 we can leave out as it is clearly hymnody. Gen 2 is an historical narrative of a kind known as an etiology. Such a narrative may be factual or not, but facticity is not essential to its literary purpose.

What does that say about other historical narratives.

It depends on what kind of historical narrative they are. In general, writers of historical narratives in ancient times were not prone to let facts stand in the way of a good story, and their readers would not have expected it of them. Preoccupation with factual accuracy in historical writing is a relatively modern development.

 

[mark kennedy]

The question is, what kind of historical narrative? Gen 1 we can leave out as it is clearly hymnody. Gen 2 is an historical narrative of a kind known as an etiology. Such a narrative may be factual or not, but facticity is not essential to its literary purpose.

So a text written as an historical narrative can have some literary purpose even though its false. What kind of literary purpose? Something on par with comic books?

It depends on what kind of historical narrative they are. In general, writers of historical narratives in ancient times were not prone to let facts stand in the way of a good story, and their readers would not have expected it of them. Preoccupation with factual accuracy in historical writing is a relatively modern development.

I'm familiar with the Grecian love for drama. Levites we're not known for any such hyperbole. Indeed the foundational nature of the Petetauch like the Gospels and Acts are clearly presented as literal factual event from redemptive history. Its not like the Apostles encounter a Cyclops like Ulysis. did.

 

[Archivist]

So a text written as an historical narrative can have some literary purpose even though its false. What kind of literary purpose? Something on par with comic books?

Comic books? Get real.

I'm familiar with the Grecian love for drama. Levites we're not known for any such hyperbole. Indeed the foundational nature of the Petetauch like the Gospels and Acts are clearly presented as literal factual event from redemptive history. Its not like the Apostles encounter a Cyclops like Ulysis. did.

How would you explain natural selection to a Bronze Age people whose minds couldn't comprehend things like DNA? Easy, you write an allegory that shows that God was ultimately responsible for the creation of everything. Actually in the case of Genessis you write two of them that do not agree.

 

[Speedwell]

Especially if you were crafting a story which had to survive an indefinite length of time in oral tradition. The "Garden" story has all the earmarks: Lots of puns and other wordplay, highly anthropomorphiized non-human characters, and so on.

 

[mark kennedy]

Comic books? Get real.

By your estimation it's little more the folklore and myth, if it's fictitious then by what criteria do we determine actual historicity?

How would you explain natural selection to a Bronze Age people whose minds couldn't comprehend things like DNA?

Charles Darwin explained natural selection a hundred years before the unveiling of the DNA double helix model. Greagor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance reflecting meiosis and mitosis fifty years before anyone had seen a chromosome. The is no reason for God to reveal the Law to Moses and include a fictional account of creation.

Easy, you write an allegory that shows that God was ultimately responsible for the creation of everything. Actually in the case of Genessis you write two of them that do not agree.

For an allegory you need a 'like' or 'a's. Genesis has none of the marks of figurative language. Secondly the expansion of the narrative to include details on the creation of man is a literary feature, not a different account. There is no basis for two separate account aside from the bias of people who turned their worldly philosophies into pseudo theology. This JEPD, higher criticism, falsely so called was contrived by secular academics who believe neither the Bible no rtf the Gospel. Its telling that you reference only what you don't believe. What, if anything do you believe to be factual in the Pentetauch and the Gospels? You guys never want to talk about that. That makes me wonder what you actually believe.

 

[dad]

So a Christian who does not believe in a literal reading on Genesis will not be saved?

To be saved, it is not required to have a thorough knowledge of Scripture. If saved, one would hope that, in due time, we would realize creation and Genesis were real and to be as much believed as heaven. If not, I would consider that a stunted growth.

 

[dad]

No, it just makes the Genesis creation stories something other than 100% accurate factual history.

Right like a steaming pile of manure and totally false. Jesus affirmed Moses was right on by the way. You are up against the big boys now.

 

[Speedwell]

By your estimation it's little more the folklore and myth, if it's fictitious then by what criteria do we determine actual historicity?

That's a deep subject. A good introduction, accessible to the layman (and which does not fawn over the Documentary Hypothesis, which you seem to dislike) is The Bible as Literature by Gabel & Wheeler. I could ask you for sources, but I think you would be in trouble because it sounds to me like you're pulling your stuff out of you-know-where.

Charles Darwin explained natural selection a hundred years before the unveiling of the DNA double helix model. Greagor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance reflecting meiosis and mitosis fifty years before anyone had seen a chromosome. The is no reason for God to reveal the Law to Moses and include a fictional account of creation.

I like the way you dictate to God what He can inspire and what He cannot.

This JEPD, higher criticism, falsely so called was contrived by secular academics who believe neither the Bible nor the Gospel.

I hope you realize that you're slandering a good many respectable Christian theologians. You may not agree with them, but that is no reason to deny their faith. The trouble is, that if you impose limits on what God can inspire, you're in a tight place if the Bible turns out to be something else.

What, if anything do you believe to be factual in the Pentatauch and the Gospels? You guys never want to talk about that. That makes me wonder what you actually believe.

In fact we talk about it some detail, and generally are blown off or misrepresented if our views don't line up with the cartoon you people are taught.

 

[dad]

Especially if you were crafting a story which had to survive an indefinite length of time in oral tradition. The "Garden" story has all the earmarks: Lots of puns and other wordplay, highly anthropomorphiized non-human characters, and so on.

Funny the guys in the new testament never got that.

 

[dad]

The trouble is, that if you impose limits on what God can inspire, you're in a tight place if the Bible turns out to be something else..

Relax, His word is settled in heaven. The world will pass away, never His word. Science turned out to be something else!

 

[mark kennedy]

Especially if you were crafting a story which had to survive an indefinite length of time in oral tradition. The "Garden" story has all the earmarks: Lots of puns and other wordplay, highly anthropomorphiized non-human characters, and so on.

No it has no such thing, you guys just make it up as you go along don't you. see this what makes this start to look like a salvation issue, a complete lack of profession or any expression if conviction.

 

[Xalith]

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?

If you don't believe in what He says on how He created us, then how can you have faith in anything else that He says He does, or will do?

If you reject His words on how Creation was (because, yanno, He was the only One who was there to see it), how can you turn around and accept His words with faith concerning your salvation?

And moreover, if you're going to call Him a liar on how He created the Earth, Man, and everything there is, then what are you going to say to Him the day you stand before Him at the Judgment?

What, is it gonna be something like "Your story sounded so ridiculous, I couldn't stomach it, but yet I liked that part about Jesus?"

Are you thinking about these kinds of things?

 

[Speedwell]

No it has no such thing, you guys just make it up as you go along don't you. see this what makes this start to look like a salvation issue, a complete lack of profession or any expression if conviction.

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?

 

[Speedwell]

If you don't believe in what He says on how He created us, then how can you have faith in anything else that He says He does, or will do?

If you reject His words on how Creation was (because, yanno, He was the only One who was there to see it), how can you turn around and accept His words with faith concerning your salvation?

And moreover, if you're going to call Him a liar on how He created the Earth, Man, and everything there is, then what are you going to say to Him the day you stand before Him at the Judgment?

What, is it gonna be something like "Your story sounded so ridiculous, I couldn't stomach it, but yet I liked that part about Jesus?"

Are you thinking about these kinds of things?

No, you are because you have been brainwashed to believe that if Genesis is not 100% accurate literal history then it can only be trash.

 

[Xalith]

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?

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.

No, you are because you have been brainwashed to believe that if Genesis is not 100% accurate literal history then it can only be trash.

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;"

Or the many parables told by Jesus.

When God is using metaphors, allegory, and such, He labels them everywhere else in the Bible. But you're saying "He did it in Genesis too!" but yet... He used no such labels in Genesis but does it everywhere else in the Bible?

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.