Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Archivist]

Get real - there is no time frame at all in Genesis 2 and there is no air no dry land created no fish no sun...

The Genesis 1 chronological sequence is the only timeboxed chronological sequence in which add the "details" of Genesis 2 not in Genesis 1 -- details about marriage, about the garden, about the tree of life about the Sabbath etc.

Please be serious just for a few posts at least.

This us what people who are tied to the Genesis account do. Genesis 2 isn't tied to a time frame, only Genesis 1 has a time frame. Let's just ignore the fact that that the order is different. And, of course, those who point out the differing order aren't being serious.

 

[BobRyan]

This us what people who are tied to the Genesis account do. Genesis 2 isn't tied to a time frame, only Genesis 1 has a time frame.

Indeed no statement in Genesis 2 about how many days, weeks, months in the details given. It is added detail - not a new timeline.

And we both know it.

Let's just ignore the fact that that the order is different.

Let us ignore the fact that the same details given in Genesis 1 are NOT given in Genesis 2 no matter the order - and that there is no sun or moon or air or sea or fish or birds in Genesis 2 -- AS If being oblivious to details is even remotely logical??

Please be serious just for a post or two at least.

The details added in Genesis 2 about marriage, man created first, no rain, the two trees, the garden... none of it in Genesis 1 -- ALL of it added detail.

As you and I both know.

Incredibly obvious to all at this point -- yes to all of us.

 

[BobRyan]

As I have stated already - I welcome serious debate - but simply playing games ignoring all the details in the posts - etc is hard to take seriously.

 

[Archivist]

Indeed no statement in Genesis 2 about how many days, weeks, months in the details given. It is added detail - not a new timeline.

And we both know it.



Let us ignore the fact that the same details given in Genesis 1 are NOT given in Genesis 2 no matter the order - and that there is no sun or moon or air or sea or fish or birds in Genesis 2 -- AS If being oblivious to details is even remotely logical??

Please be serious just for a post or two at least.

The details added in Genesis 2 about marriage, man created first, no rain, the two trees, the garden... none of it in Genesis 1 -- ALL of it added detail.

As you and I both know.

Incredibly obvious to all at this point -- yes to all of us.

This is what people do when they have nothing better to say. The differing order can't be explained, so I'm not "being serious" when I point out the differences, and of course I "really know" the truth. Yes, I do know the truth. The order is different. Saying that Genesis 2 just adds more detail doesn't explain that fact.

 

[Hieronymus]

A strange dichotomy, considering that processes using random variation and selection have a wide application in industrial design and manufacturing.

But then it's designed to do so, and only for details.
And industrial design and manufacturing is childs play compared to the product we call creation.
So the dichotomy is not strange at all, it is obvious.
Your comparison is weak.

And here we have some statements that reveal your complete ignorance of how the real theory of evolution is supposed to work.

Your following explanation boils down to the same thing.

Here is an answer I gave to a creationist who wanted me to explain how speciation occurs according to the real theory of evolution. He ignored it, of course, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear. Why don't you take a crack at it?
First, evolutionary biologists don't see speciation as a big deal.

Of course they do.
They assume it started from 1 kind / species of organism.
It seems to me you don't realise how utterly specialized the various organisms are.
Explaining this variety is obviously THE challenge for naturalists / evolutionnists.

Species aren't pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve; they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Of course, but then they assume evolution.

When part of a population is subjected to different selection criteria than the rest, it will evolve to meet those new criteria.

Only if there's change.
No change to select is no change.
This change is supposed to have been caused by random mutations.
Yes, they can survive, they do survive, but they can not write specialized data by corrupting the existing data.
However, this is the belief and fundament of the assumed change (like new organs).
Selection doesn't change anything, changes (mutations) change things.
"Evolving to meet" suggests a direction, but there's no direction in random mutations.

If it evolves enough that the two groups are no longer interfertile, a new species is said to have formed.

Still, "Kind begets kind".
Where's the evidence that suggests otherwise?
Why believe otherwise?
Do you think it's progress when a kind looses interfertility?

But the process is slow and partial interfertility will last a long time. There is no "hard line" between species. That is why the determination of species is sometimes difficult and can be controversial.

Alright, I see what you mean.
Indeed, kinds or species, where does taxonomy draw the lines?

How does it happen? No offspring is exactly the same as its parent. In each generation the population will present a range of variants to the environment for selection. For a given heritable trait, the length of a limb, say, the distribution of variation will be random (think "bell curve"). Most variation will be near the average, with outriders at either extreme, like a bell curve. If selection criteria are stable, the central group will survive to reproduce, the outriders not so much. However, if the selection criteria change, there will be already in the population at least a few individuals on the edges to take advantage of the situation. As they reproduce more successfully, generation by generation, than the individuals nearer the original central tendency and on the other side of it, the central tendency will shift in that direction, producing more outriders to take advantage of further shifts in selection criteria.

Fine, but this is no explanation for different organs in different kinds / species.
You still have that to explain "without God doing it".
You know birds for example have all kinds of specialized organs to be a bird.
How did the data for a fertilized egg cell growing into a bird come about?
Why would assumed systems in development (i.e. not yet operative) dominate the gene pool of the assumed "not yet bird"?
These are the big questions obviously.
And where is the compelling evidence for it?

And so on. How long? Hard to say.

Obviously the naturalistic model need a LOT of time, like millions, even billions of years.
That's why they torture the data as long as it takes to confess to it.

It depends on the size and diversity of the gene pool and the degree of selection pressure.

Selection pressure can be too high too, and species go extinct.

Maintaining the diversity of the gene pool is key to to successful evolution; a population of clones would generate little or no variation and would not be able to evolve.

Hence you need mutations for the actual change.
Since these mutations are random / have no direction, it is not realistic to expect them to come up with genius systems.
Let alone in the abundance we find in living nature.
Claiming otherwise needs a proper explanation and evidence to support it.

Gene pool diversity is also reduced by the normal action of natural selection. That's where mutations and other contributors of diversity come in.

I want to thank you for trying to explain things.
It is however no explanation of what we find in living nature.
The obvious problem is accounting for species / kind specific traits like organs and incorporated systems.
And why choose this model then over design and manufacturing?

Look, i know i'm not an expert and i know i'm probably annoying.
But when there's no explanation for speciation (ranging from moss to bird, from feline to arachnid, all of them including us) i.e. the writing of DNA, let alone the arise of the system of DNA replication itself, then why believe it?

Anyway, we'd better stop this, i don't think it's useful to continue.

God bless.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Your fiction that someone has to be a Bible-believing Christian such as me to see what the glaringly obvious story of Genesis is on the subject of 7 day literal creation - summarized as such by God in Exodus 20:11, was already fully debunked here -- and we both know it.

I have never said, nor do I hold that someone has to be a Bible believing Christian to believe to the exclusion of everything else the Genesis one narrative. You say that.

It is not MY fiction, it is YOUR credo.

Your statement also indicates that ONLY a 'Bible-believing Christian' believes as you do. The implication is anything else is not a proper Bible belief.

I fully believe the Bible, including the Genesis account showing God created the Universe and all in it. However, it didn't happen in seven days. Without any question, I am a Christian. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by the Grace of Almighty God.

So now, you face up and be a man. Either confess in writing on this thread I am a full Christian - which you have carefully avoided addressing - or admit you reject my Christianity as insufficient because I don't agree with you. To use Elijah's question in 1 Kings 18:21 "How long are you going to be paralyzed by indecision?"

 

[Archivist]

Well said Archie! I am still waiting for anyone to offer any evidence that a belief in the Genesis creation stories is required for salvation.

 

[Hieronymus]

I fully believe the Bible, including the Genesis account showing God created the Universe and all in it. However, it didn't happen in seven days.

this is the contradiction (not only by you).

 

[Speedwell]

Another reminder of an example of a post where the emotional responses that follow - ignore every detail in the post.

The only "detail" in that post was you being snotty with your "do you still beat your wife?" style of questioning
But since there is nothing in Romans about irreducible complexity or specified complex information I will have to assume that what you mean by intelligent design is the general notion that God designed the universe. As to what you mean by a "Christian" view of Romans, I have have no way of telling. Your Bible doctrine is too strange to me. You might even be one of these "pre-trib Rapture" people and so hardly a Christian at all.

 

[Archivist]

this is the contradiction (not only by you).

How? If the Genesis account is an allegory there is no contradiction.

 

[Speedwell]

Only if there's change.
No change to select is no change.
This change is supposed to have been caused by random mutations.

There is always change. Randomly distributed variation is a constant feature of reproduction. If there is no variation there can be no evolution. The change is not "supposed to have been caused by random mutations." Random mutations are one of the raw materials of the process which causes constant variation. That 's why the theory is called "the theory of evolution by random variation and selection," not "random mutation and selection".

Selection doesn't change anything, changes (mutations) change things.

Variation produces changes which may or may not be selected. Mutation is merely one of the raw materials of the process which produces variation.

Why would assumed systems in development (i.e. not yet operative) dominate the gene pool of the assumed "not yet bird"?

There are no "assumed systems in development." The only step in evolution is the very next step towards greater fitness.

These are the big questions obviously.
And where is the compelling evidence for it?

They are, and I have not begun to answer all of them (which would be at least 3 units of college-level genetics). As to the evidence, where have you looked? At any research university there will be (quite literally) many tons of it.

Anyway, we'd better stop this, i don't think it's useful to continue.

God bless.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have enjoyed talking about the real theory of evolution for once.

As to your metaphysical question, philosophers and theologians have known since the time of Aristotle that any phenomena requires the simultaneous action of four distinct kinds of causes. Science can detect and concern itself with only two of them.

 

[Speedwell]

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 writer(s) 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.

I don't understand why you keep re-posting that Barr quote. It doesn't really prove anything presently under discussion and in any case I, for one, agree with him.
Barr was a Presbyterian clergyman and respected professor of Hebrew at, among other places, Princeton Seminary--an institution for intellectually respectable conservative Evangelicals (and there are many of them). If you knew anything about Barr besides that quote which some Creationist propaganda mill cherry-picked for you, you would understand that he was an outspoken opponent of much of what you stand for.
What's your point?

 

[rjs330]

According to your interpretation.

Show where it,does.

 

[rjs330]

Get real. It doesn't take much study to see that the order of creation differs between the two stories.

You are,right. A cursory read makes it seem like the,order of different. But I am not talking about a cursory read. I am talking,about a solid study. A solid in depth study will,show you it's not a different story.

 

[Archivist]

Show where it,does.

According to your interpretation apparently it does.

 

[Archivist]

You are,right. A cursory read makes it seem like the,order of different. But I am not talking about a cursory read. I am talking,about a solid study. A solid in depth study will,show you it's not a different story.

Any reading, in-depth or not, shows a different order.

 

[rjs330]

And it goes on. YEC 'experts' like those posting here steadfastly deny anyone but them are Christians; ignoring any form of evidence to the contrary of their beliefs and a rather unbelievable inability to even suspect their own self-righteous arrogance and wrong-headedness.

YEC is not a key to salvation. Belief in God and the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the key, the only key. When YEC supporters equate belief in YEC with belief in God, they cannot reason. Let this be a lesson to all who love God and have any sort of connection to reality.

Wow Archie, that's a pretty bold criticism. Now I haven't read every post, but I don't see that YEC people are claiming you're not a Christian if you don't believe the historicity of Genesis. I certainly don't believe that.

I think you are missing the bigger picture which is faith in the word of God as written. If you don't believe it why should non believers? The non believers make the same claims and then expand their claims to,cover everything else they don't believe in the bible including Jesus. It seems it would be difficult to share,with them the reality of Christ when they can throw in your face that even you don't believe in the bible. So why should they?

 

[Archivist]

Wow Archie, that's a pretty bold criticism. Now I haven't read every post, but I don't see that YEC people are claiming you're not a Christian if you don't believe the historicity of Genesis. I certainly don't believe that.

I think you are missing the bigger picture which is faith in the word of God as written. If you don't believe it why should non believers? The non believers make the same claims and then expand their claims to,cover everything else they don't believe in the bible including Jesus. It seems it would be difficult to share,with them the reality of Christ when they can throw in your face that even you don't believe in the bible. So why should they?

But whether you must believe the Genesis creation stories to be saved is the question beingvduscussedvin this thread. Some have said that they do need to be believed. Cyou apparently are on myvsidevaatong no.

 

[rjs330]

According to your interpretation apparently it does.

No show scripturally where Jesus,or,anyone else believed and taught it was an,allegory and not truth.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Wow Archie, that's a pretty bold criticism. Now I haven't read every post, but I don't see that YEC people are claiming you're not a Christian if you don't believe the historicity of Genesis. I certainly don't believe that.

Very quickly; if you don't see YEC adherents claiming one is not a Christian, you simple haven't looked. Perhaps you don't and I prefer to believe you and further believe there's hope for you.

I think you are missing the bigger picture which is faith in the word of God as written.

I am sure you are missing the bigger picture. I do believe the message of God as written. You believe what you've been told.

Do you ever consider your view might be wrong and what you've been told is incorrect?