Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[BobRyan]

Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? .

Wonderful - so then John 1's reference to creation - is in fact a reference back to the Genesis 1-3 creation fact which also includes the fall man and explains the basis for the Gospel solution.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

 

[BobRyan]

People spend a great deal of time debating the creation of the Earth and the creatures upon it. Some say the Genesis account is literal--God did it in six 24 hour days, Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman. Others say that God used evolution to create man. ?

Atheists will say they prefer the religion of blind-faith-evolutionism to the Bible - I think we all would agree on that.

So what about the rest of us?

What does the "text" say??

hmm... let's see

is the text "so glaringly obvious" that even all the atheists and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities can "read it"??

I think so...

======================


==============================

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.

==================

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

 

[Archivist]

Wonderful - so then John 1's reference to creation - is in fact a reference back to the Genesis 1-3 creation fact which also includes the fall man and explains the basis for the Gospel solution.

The point remains.

John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.

You are entitled to your interpretation, but please don't tell me that I have to share your interpretation to be saved. If you think that you are wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

c



Here again - a total lack of attention to detail in Romans 1 - has not helped your response to it.

OK, you win. If you have to be a Christian to find specific reference to Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity in Romans 1 then maybe I'm not one. But in the interest of evangelism, maybe you should explain it.

 

[Archivist]

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. I doubt that many would agree with you on that. Obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.

Hint - John 1 comes after Genesis 1 - where we are told that God created everything.

Is your argument that John was not aware of Genesis 1 or that John assumed all of his readers rejected Genesis 1?

What "creation" event or account is John 1 referencing -- for those who "imagine" that John did not know about Genesis 1?

Let us see just how seriously you take your own wild speculation.

 

[BobRyan]

So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. .

Sadly for you I am not the one posting wild speculation about John not being informed about the Genesis 1 fact that God created everything.

 

[BobRyan]

intelligent design as in what we see in Romans 1.. you know... the obvious in this case... Paul says it is sooo incredibly obvious that even godless pagans with no Bible at all - can "clearly see it".

My question for you is - do you unwittingly take the atheist route on that while claiming to be Christian - to deny what even the godless pagans can clearly see?

Or do you hold to the Christian view of Romans 1??

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

That fact-vacuous aversion-to-detail response to the Romans 1 detail - illustrates the problem with the faith-in-evolutionism argument being made on this thread.

But since there is nothing in Romans about irreducible complexity or specified complex information

Here again - a total lack of attention to detail in Romans 1 - has not helped your response to it.

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.

But you and I both know that Christians do know what I am talking about.

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.

That's pretty funny!! pre-trib rapture????

OK, you win. If you have to be a Christian to find specific reference to Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity in Romans 1 then maybe I'm not one. But in the interest of evangelism, maybe you should explain it.

You respond to Romans 1 as if you never read it.

Are you claiming to be an atheist anglican or an atheist or an anglican in your own profile statement? Is it your argument that we should assume that anglicans are atheists and try to evangelize them??

Try taking your own argument seriously - if you really imagine that Romans 1 does not show non-Bible-aware pagans seeing the intelligent design attribute in nature so clearly as to see the attributes of God himself in the "THINGS that have been MADE" just when blind-faith-evolutionism would have it "things that have EVOLVED" -- then show that your wild speculation will work in the actual text without bible-bending-eisegesis that all T.E.'s need when opening their Bibles.

 

[Archivist]

Atheists will say they prefer the religion of blind-faith-evolutionism to the Bible - I think we all would agree on that.

So what about the rest of us?

What does the "text" say??

hmm... let's see

is the text "so glaringly obvious" that even all the atheists and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities can "read it"??

I think so...

======================


==============================

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.

==================

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

Quoting Professor Bart over and over really doesn't help your case. Guess that must be all you have.

You have yet to show anything that proves that belief in the Genesus salvation stories is required for salvation.

 

[Speedwell]

is the text "so glaringly obvious" that even all the atheists and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities can "read it"??

Is anybody currently involved in this discussion arguing in favor of a "day-age" theory? For my part, it seems clear to me that the author(s) of Gen 1 were referring to regular 24 hour days.

 

[Archivist]

Sadly for you I am not the one posting wild speculation about John not being informed about the Genesis 1 fact that God created everything.

What wild speculation? I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.

 

[BobRyan]

I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.

What you have not shown is that John is not informed by Genesis 1, does not accept it... does not think his readers are informed by it... assumes they reject... will let you just 'make up what you wish'.

Notice that John 1 is not blind faith evolutionism - just as Genesis 1 is not.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

And "yes" John knew of Ex 20:11 so also did his readers

 

[Speedwell]

[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 70055454, member: 235244" ]


You respond to Romans 1 as if you never read it.[/QUOTE]

I have read it a number of times and again today looking for anything that could be interpreted as a reference to Irreducible Complexity or Complex Specified Information

Are you claiming to be an atheist anglican or an atheist or an anglican in your own profile statement? Is it your argument that we should assume that anglicans are atheists and try to evangelize them??

Indeed , it is clear that you have already assumed that, but are making no effort to evangelize.

Try taking your own argument seriously - if you really imagine that Romans 1 does not show non-Bible-aware pagans seeing the intelligent design attribute in nature so clearly as to see the attributes of God himself in the "THINGS that have been MADE" just when blind-faith-evolutionism would have it "things that have EVOLVED".

How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed in that era? Can you really believe that a 1st century pagan ever looked at nature and said, "Aha! That's Irreducible Complexity!"

 

[BobRyan]

Is anybody currently involved in this discussion arguing in favor of a "day-age" theory? For my part, it seems clear to me that the author(s) of Gen 1 were referring to regular 24 hour days.

Is it your argument that Genesis is an account of the 7 day creation - Moses gives this to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at Sinai - tells them the world was made in 7 day and they all say "ohhh... you really mean darwinian evolutionism"???

 

[Speedwell]

Is it your argument that Genesis is an account of the 7 day creation - Moses gives this to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at Sinai - tells them the world was made in 7 day and they all say "ohhh... you really mean darwinian evolutionism"???

Why would they? No doubt they were all satisfied that it took seven days.

 

[BobRyan]

How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

 

[BobRyan]

Is anybody currently involved in this discussion arguing in favor of a "day-age" theory? For my part, it seems clear to me that the author(s) of Gen 1 were referring to regular 24 hour days.

Is it your argument that Genesis is an account of the 7 day creation - Moses gives this to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at Sinai - tells them the world was made in 7 day and they all say "ohhh... you really mean darwinian evolutionism"???

Why would they? No doubt they were all satisfied that it took seven days.

I appreciate the fact that you are not addressing the "are you an atheist Anglican" question after having stated this as a matter of evangelism.

in your evasive post above - you accept that both the author's intent and the understanding of his primary intended reader is a literal 7 day creation week.

which means we both agree on the exegetical meaning of the text and we can dispense with all the nonsense about "just you bible believing Christians can see that the text is promoting a literal 7 day creation week - as intended by the author and as intended for the primary readers to believe".

At least we make it to the easy and obvious -- step 1.

So then - are you going for a "Bible is lying" solution in defense of blind-faith-evolutionism or just "Bible writers are clueless and the Bible should not be accepted as the Word of God"?? --

Which non-Christian position are you promoting in that case??

In either case - you and I would both agree that this is also how atheists would view it.

 

[Speedwell]

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute but the proposition that nature reveals the work of an intelligent creator, a proposition I agreed to at the beginning of the discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

So then - are you going for a "Bible is lying" solution in defense of blind-faith-evolutionism or just "Bible writers are clueless and the Bible should not be accepted as the Word of God"?? --

LOL! Do you still beat your wife?