Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[TalwinStark]

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. Many fall somewhere between these two positions. Sometimes discussion here gets fairly heated.

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?

I would think that it would be a salvation issue. Everything in the OT points to Christ crucified, we need to know that everything that was said and done happened.

If we believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is our road map to salvation then everything in it would be vital to salvation

 

[TalwinStark]

By the way good to see you again Archivist

 

[Archivist]

By the way good to see you again Archivist

You too!

 

[Speedwell]

Actually you are wrong here. Inspiration was fully accepted by the early church. The apostles believed in the inspiration of the OT and they themselves claimed inspiration of their writings and teachings.

Yes, The divine inspiration of scripture has always been accepted by Christians, and by the Jews before them. And, the major branches of Christianity, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Oriental churches, Copts, Ethiopians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, etc. still believe in the theories of inspiration they have always believed in. Even mainstream Protestants have stuck pretty close, despite other differences.

The words you mention are definitions of inspiration used to try and explain it to a more modern man who decided inspiration writing from God wasn't what it was accepted to be from the early church. Its obvious from the writings that the apostles believed exactly what I believe in that the OT was literal. It wasn't until a long time later that men began to move away from that and claim it wasn't.
Inspiration was accepted by the early church and apostles as God telling man to write actual literal truth and happenings. Real events and how God dealt with people in those real events revealing who God was. THAT was the accepted belief of the apostles and early church.
The verbage you use in your question came about to counter the thought process that had crept into the scholarly world that inspired didn't mean literal and it didn't mean the events actually happened by were metaphors and allegory.

That is nothing but self-serving nonsense. Do you belong to some cult, or what?

 

[Archivist]

We know that Jesus taught using parables. Do His words have any less meaning if the was not an actual good Samaritan, if there was not an actual sower, not an actual prodical son? Do His words mean any less if there was not an unjust steward or an unjust judge or if the gardener and the barren fig tree didn't actually exist? If not, why does there have to be a literal Garden, why did everything have to be created in six 24-hour days? Why can't the creation stories be seen as allegories showing that God created everything?

 

[rjs330]

Yes, The divine inspiration of scripture has always been accepted by Christians, and by the Jews before them. And, the major branches of Christianity, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Oriental churches, Copts, Ethiopians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, etc. still believe in the theories of inspiration they have always believed in. Even mainstream Protestants have stuck pretty close, despite other differences.



That is nothing but self-serving nonsense. Do you belong to some cult, or what?

Really, how is it nonsense? Do you see any of the words you use in the bible? Of course not, because they weren't used until way later to try and describe what inspired scripture was. Why? Because men began looking at the bible differently and started calling the OT nothing but a bunch of metaphors and allegory. Meaning it wasn't true. It was full made up fairy tails inspired by God. Utter nonsense, especially when Jesus statements and the apostles letters clearly state otherwise. And other scriptures verify the truth of the OT. Not just spiritual truth but factual truth that it is accurate. And quite frankly you owe me an apology. Asking me if I belong to a cult because I have the ability to,point to scripture and church history to show where you err? Its insulting and demeaning.

You have bought into a lie. Or perhaps better stated an untruth. I don't doubt that some of the more modern scholars have good intentions in trying to be scholarly and all that and aren't trying to,lead people away from the truth. But they are and folks like you have fallen for it. I've been a believer for 50 years or so and like I said have a degree in Bible Literature from a recognised university. My professors who were PHDS would call out anyone who believed such nonsense and take them to task over the scriptures pointing out how scripture utterly goes against the kind of thinking that would claim it being allegory and not actual factual events.

So please apologise for your inappropriate remark. You chastised me for getting snarky. Now it's my,turn.

 

[rjs330]

We know that Jesus taught using parables. Do His words have any less meaning if the was not an actual good Samaritan, if there was not an actual sower, not an actual prodical son? Do His words mean any less if there was not an unjust steward or an unjust judge or if the gardener and the barren fig tree didn't actually exist? If not, why does there have to be a literal Garden, why did everything have to be created in six 24-hour days? Why can't the creation stories be seen as allegories showing that God created everything?

Because the bible claims it,happened that way. Verified by other scriptures. Jesus using parables and metaphors were very obvious and he usually explained the,meaning of it. There is no reason biblically to believe that Genesis is not literal. None.

Now if you wish to,point to science and,say science disproves the literalness of Genensis, then by all means do so. And believe science over scripture If you wish. That's your perogative. But don't claim that the bible doesn't make the claim that Genesis is literal and the the OT isn't history. Because the bible does claim the,literalness of Genesis and the rest of the OT.

 

[Speedwell]

Really, how is it nonsense? Do you see any of the words you use in the bible? Of course not, because they weren't used until way later to try and describe what inspired scripture was. Why? Because men began looking at the bible differently and started calling the OT nothing but a bunch of metaphors and allegory. Meaning it wasn't true. It was full made up fairy tails inspired by God. Utter nonsense, especially when Jesus statements and the apostles letters clearly state otherwise. And other scriptures verify the truth of the OT. Not just spiritual truth but factual truth that it is accurate. And quite frankly you owe me an apology. Asking me if I belong to a cult because I have the ability to,point to scripture and church history to show where you err? Its insulting and demeaning.

You have bought into a lie. Or perhaps better stated an untruth. I don't doubt that some of the more modern scholars have good intentions in trying to be scholarly and all that and aren't trying to,lead people away from the truth. But they are and folks like you have fallen for it. I've been a believer for 50 years or so and like I said have a degree in Bible Literature from a recognised university. My professors who were PHDS would call out anyone who believed such nonsense and take them to task over the scriptures pointing out how scripture utterly goes against the kind of thinking that would claim it being allegory and not actual factual events.

So please apologise for your inappropriate remark. You chastised me for getting snarky. Now it's my,turn.

I just asked you a question. I apologize if it upset you. I'm concerned for you because your head seems stuffed with such misinformation about the history of the Church. I can't imagine a recognized university teaching such nonsense.

 

[RickG]

Now if you wish to, point to science and, say science disproves the literalness of Genensis, then by all means do so. And believe science over scripture If you wish.

However, what you seem to not recognize is that the entire contents of the bible were written down by fallible men, while on the other hand, what we find in the earth, God's creation, do not agree "with literal interpretation" of Genesis. So what are we supposed to believe, the fallible writings of man about God's creation or the physical God's creation itself?

 

[Speedwell]

Because the bible claims it,happened that way. Verified by other scriptures. Jesus using parables and metaphors were very obvious and he usually explained the,meaning of it. There is no reason biblically to believe that Genesis is not literal. None.

Now if you wish to,point to science and,say science disproves the literalness of Genensis, then by all means do so. And believe science over scripture If you wish. That's your perogative. But don't claim that the bible doesn't make the claim that Genesis is literal and the the OT isn't history. Because the bible does claim the,literalness of Genesis and the rest of the OT.

I don't know why you keep coming back to science (by which you mean the theory of evolution, I suppose). Of all the reasons not to believe your Bible doctrine, evolution isn't even near the top of the list. Think of the Copts, for example. They have no use for evolution nor for your Bible doctrine, either.

 

[Archivist]

Because the bible claims it,happened that way. Verified by other scriptures. Jesus using parables and metaphors were very obvious and he usually explained the,meaning of it. There is no reason biblically to believe that Genesis is not literal. None.

The fact that there are two creation stories and they differ is sufficient evidence to me.

Now if you wish to,point to science and,say science disproves the literalness of Genensis, then by all means do so. And believe science over scripture If you wish. That's your perogative. But don't claim that the bible doesn't make the claim that Genesis is literal and the the OT isn't history. Because the bible does claim the,literalness of Genesis and the rest of the OT.

But I do believe in Genesis. I simply read it as an allegory.

 

[rjs330]

I just asked you a question. I apologize if it upset you. I'm concerned for you because your head seems stuffed with such misinformation about the history of the Church. I can't imagine a recognized university teaching such nonsense.

As I told you my church history professor was one of the best. Not merely relying on previous research but actually provided his own original research from the field itself traveling Europe and reading original texts. He was fluent in Latin, Greek and hebrew among other languages. He was amazing.

Anyway you might be,interested in this.

http://creation.mobi/benno-zuiddam-interview-church-history
http://www.icr.org/article/early-church-defended-creation-science/

The majority of The early church fathers did believe in the literalness of Genesis. And my professors showed how the apostles did too. And so far you have failed to show how they did not. I would,make the,claim they hold a higher authority than any scholar today.

 

[rjs330]

<Staff Edit>
Why? Belief in a six day creation is not a requirement of salvation. It is a matter of proper biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.

 

[rjs330]

The fact that there are two creation stories and they differ is sufficient evidence to me.



But I do believe in Genesis. I simply read it as an allegory.

The two accounts are easily reconciled through proper hermeneutics and exegesis.

 

[Archivist]

As I told you my church history professor was one of the best. Not merely relying on previous research but actually provided his own original research from the field itself traveling Europe and reading original texts. He was fluent in Latin, Greek and hebrew among other languages. He was amazing.

Anyway you might be,interested in this.

http://creation.mobi/benno-zuiddam-interview-church-history
http://www.icr.org/article/early-church-defended-creation-science/

The majority of The early church fathers did believe in the literalness of Genesis. And my professors showed how the apostles did too. And so far you have failed to show how they did not. I would,make the,claim they hold a higher authority than any scholar today.

Of course the early church fathers and apostles believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. They knew nothing else. The early church fathers and in all probability the apostles also believed in a geocentric universe.

 

[Archivist]

The two accounts are easily reconciled through proper hermeneutics and exegesis.

No, the order is different.

 

[rjs330]

<Staff Edit>
What factors? Proper hermeneutics and exegesis? Or factors of who's saved and who isn't.

 

[rjs330]

I just asked you a question. I apologize if it upset you. I'm concerned for you because your head seems stuffed with such misinformation about the history of the Church. I can't imagine a recognized university teaching such nonsense.

Apology accepted. Now take back the,cult comment.[emoji3]

The fact that there are two creation stories and they differ is sufficient evidence to me.



But I do believe in Genesis. I simply read it as an allegory.

 

[Speedwell]

Apology accepted. Now take back the,cult comment.[emoji3]

I just asked a question, and I still don't know the answer. If you don't belong to a cult you shouldn't be insulted, but for all I can tell from your posts, you might even be one of those pre-trib rapture dispensationalists--they believe in YEC, too, as far as I know.

 

[rjs330]

I just asked a question, and I still don't know the answer. If you don't belong to a cult you shouldn't be insulted, but for all I can tell from your posts, you might even be one of those pre-trib rapture dispensationalists--they believe in YEC, too, as far as I know.

Why would I ask,for an apology if I was in a cult? And why shouldn't I feel insulted if I'm not in a cult but being accused or suspected of being in one?

My "take back the cult comment" statement was supposed to be an attempt at humor. Hence,the smiley face. I guess I need to work on my humor a bit more.

So no I'm not in a cult and I'm not a pre-trib guy.

Let me help you with an apology. It should to go,like this. "I'm sorry I shouldn't have done that."
It's not that hard.

You know I was going to tell you that I was looking forward to meeting you in heaven where we'll know who was correct. We'd give each other high fives and laugh about our conversation. The dude who was mistaken would admit his error and the other dude would just shake it off as no,big deal. After all it wouldn't matter any more.

Your starting to get jerkish here. And you still can't defend your point biblically. I beginning to wonder if that's why you are headed down the accusatory route. Your getting frustrated at the fact you can't defend your stance biblically and so you resort to attacks like questioning of I'm in a cult or something.

Anyway, when you are ready to discuss this more, in a nicer manner, then I am ready too.