Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Archivist]

Belief in the creation account as described in Genesis it is essential for salvation because rejection of it is tantamount to calling our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ a liar and anyone who has that low opinion of Jesus doesn't view him as the Christ and accepting him as Christ is essential to salvation.

So you cannot accept Christ as your Lord and Savior if you view the Genesis creation stories as being allegories?

Oh, and which of the two creation accounts must you believe in order to view Jesus as the Christ?

 

[Archivist]

That's the example I was talking about. The entire "Lord's Prayer" doesn't even appear anywhere in the Gospel of John. In fact, John tells a very different account of Jesus' ministry that differs substantially from the other three Gospel accounts. John doesn't describe the temptation of Christ, Jesus' transfiguration, the last supper, the sermon on the mount, or Jesus casting out demons. John also describes several occasions in which Jesus visited Jerusalem prior to the passion week, which are not mentioned in the synoptic Gospels.

So for some experts, it is arguable the Book of John was not written contemporaneously with the rest of the Gospel, or at the very least it represents a considerably different view of the story of Christ. Since it deals with Jesus' early Galilean ministry, which is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke), it could be a "prequel" style account of Jesus' ministry that wasn't actually written until sometime after the Synoptic Gospels were written. Nobody really knows for sure.

Then we have the "Apocrypha", the books of "Esdras, The Wisdom of Solomon, Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus" (along with seven other booklets), which were published in the original King James Bible in 1611 and were believed then to be part of the Old Testament, which were later separated from the Old Testament by Martin Luther and given their own place between the Old and New Testament, but which have always appeared in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible , and are later completely omitted from later versions of Bibles as being non-canonical, or "Apocrypha".

Of course, lets not forget to mention the "other" testimony of Jesus Christ represented by the Book of Mormons. Ever read that one ? It's a pretty unconventional read.

So the question is, to which of the many edited, appended and transliterated versions from the original Hebrew and Greek text do you refer to when you claim a "complete and correct" understanding of what is written in the Bible is so essential to our salvation ???

I'm just curious, because it appears to me no one will know what is "complete, or correct" until the Second Coming of Christ occurs.

But that is different from your earlier claim that the Lord's Prayer was added years later. Now you are saying that the Gospel of John was a later addition.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

I don't think belief in a literal 6 day creation 5776 years ago is necessary for salvation. I believe in the creation account because that is how I was raised. I have always believed it and I have never had any reason to doubt it. I might also tend to believe some of the 'thousand-year-day' variants; which in this case end make the days last even longer.

I don't see the historical, faith-based, biblical account of creation conflicting with the applied methodology of Evolution. I also think trying to blend the two is dangerous, and that science should not inform us about our faith. It basically sets a precedent that if something the bible says is disproved by scientific methodology then a compromise must be made in order to make them compatible. This misses the point behind faith as well as the point behind science.

On the one hand, I have a theory and methodology which is applied to various sciences and provides us a relative scale of measurements which may be used to predict future events. Using these rules we can essentially date the universe to an effective point in time. On the other hand I have the Word of God telling me that He created the world in six days. I don't really see a conflict between the two.

Faith is true and universal. Faith acts as the foundation upon which we function and in which we exist. Science is but a method used to discover what we may perceive to be inductive laws about the universe, and which are always inherently subject to God.

Should Evolution and Science be worshiped as the core and reason of our existence?
Is God and our faith in Him a tool to be used as a means to an end?

 

[Speedwell]

Belief in the creation account as described in Genesis it is essential for salvation because rejection of it is tantamount to calling our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ a liar...

No, it isn't. And it is grievously insulting for you to present us with such a shallow and obvious sophistry, one which I cannot possibly credit that you are so stupid as to believe in yourself. Clearly you have no respect for our intelligence.

 

[stephen583]

But that is different from your earlier claim that the Lord's Prayer was added years later. Now you are saying that the Gospel of John was a later addition.

I've heard all these claims advanced by various Bible scholars. There is a claim the entire "Lord's Prayer" was added to the Gospel around 300 A.D. Another expert claims it existed earlier, but not In it's final form. There is also some controversy about when the Gospel of John was written in relation to the Synoptic Gospels and why it differs so much from these other accounts. These commentaries are documented on-line, all you have to do is google them. It's not like it's a Big Secret.

 

[stephen583]

Belief in the creation account as described in Genesis it is essential for salvation because rejection of it is tantamount to calling our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ a liar

As far as I know Jesus wasn't the author of Genesis. Nor do I find anywhere in the Gospel where Jesus suggests there is a right, or a wrong way to interpret Genesis. If I'm mistaken on either of these points, please enlighten me.

 

[rjs330]

so

That's the example I was talking about. The entire "Lord's Prayer" doesn't even appear anywhere in the Gospel of John. In fact, John tells a very different account of Jesus' ministry that differs substantially from the other three Gospel accounts. John doesn't describe the temptation of Christ, Jesus' transfiguration, the last supper, the sermon on the mount, or Jesus casting out demons. John also describes several occasions in which Jesus visited Jerusalem prior to the passion week, which are not mentioned in the synoptic Gospels.

So for some experts, it is arguable the Book of John was not written contemporaneously with the rest of the Gospel, or at the very least it represents a considerably different view of the story of Christ. Since it deals with Jesus' early Galilean ministry, which is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke), it could be a "prequel" style account of Jesus' ministry that wasn't actually written until sometime after the Synoptic Gospels were written. Nobody really knows for sure.


Then we have the "Apocrypha", the books of "Esdras, The Wisdom of Solomon, Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus" (along with seven other booklets), which were published in the original King James Bible in 1611 and were believed then to be part of the Old Testament, which were later separated from the Old Testament by Martin Luther and given their own place between the Old and New Testament, but which have always appeared in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible , and are later completely omitted from later versions of Bibles as being non-canonical, or "Apocrypha".

Of course, lets not forget to mention the "other" testimony of Jesus Christ represented by the Book of Mormons. Ever read that one ? It's a pretty unconventional read.

So the question is, to which of the many edited, appended and transliterated versions from the original Hebrew and Greek text do you refer to when you claim a "complete and correct" understanding of what is written in the Bible is so essential to our salvation ???

I'm just curious, because it appears to me no one will know what is "complete, or correct" until the Second Coming of Christ occurs.

Look the vast majority of scriptures have been verified by ancient manuscripts. There's very little that is under question at this point.

As far as the gospel of John is concerned remeber that he proclaimed that there was a lot of things,Jesus said and did that are not recorded. So obviously it would,not be surprising to find every gospel not having everything in it. In fact we shouldn't expect it based on that statement.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

By being hand in hand with trusting another god instead of Yhwh.

I don't think trusting another God is the issue for a lot of creation by evolution Christians. They believe in the God of the bible, but don't believe in the,literal creation. I think the bigger issue on that is they become the arbiter of biblical truth instead of letting scripture be the final,say. But like I,said there is no addition to,salvation other than what is proclaimed in the NT.

If you do believe in some other God then of course you have no,salvation.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think trusting another God is the issue for a lot of creation by evolution Christians. They believe in the God of the bible, but don't believe in the,literal creation.

"Evolution Christians?" I suppose you mean Christians who don't follow a literal Genesis because of evolution. What about the Christians who reject a literal Genesis for other reasons?

I think the bigger issue on that is they become the arbiter of biblical truth instead of letting scripture be the final,say.

And you think YECs should be the arbiters of Biblical truth--what the scriptures "say."

 

[Archivist]

I've heard all these claims advanced by various Bible scholars. There is a claim the entire "Lord's Prayer" was added to the Gospel around 300 A.D. Another expert claims it existed earlier, but not In it's final form. There is also some controversy about when the Gospel of John was written in relation to the Synoptic Gospels and why it differs so much from these other accounts. These commentaries are documented on-line, all you have to do is google them. It's not like it's a Big Secret.

Forum rules require that you provide evidence to support you claim. I would like to see evidence that the Lords Prayer was not originally on Scripture. Don't just tell me that I can find it on the Internet. I agree that the doxology was possibly a later addition, but not the prayer itself. Evidence please.

 

[rjs330]

"Evolution Christians?" I suppose you mean Christians who don't follow a literal Genesis because of evolution. What about the Christians who reject a literal Genesis for other reasons?



And you think YECs should be the arbiters of Biblical truth--what the scriptures "say."

Lol I couldn't think of the word to describe those who believe God created by evolution. [emoji1]

I think the bible should speak for itself. Not any particular group. Let scripture interpret scripture.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

Lol I couldn't think of the word to describe those who believe God created by evolution.

Right, but that doesn't really answer the question. What about Christians who accept evolution as a plausible theory because they never had any scriptural reason not to--rather than abandoning a literal Genesis because of the theory of evolution?

I think the bible should speak for itself. Not any particular group. Let scripture interpret scripture.

You realize, I hope, that what you are describing is an interpretive stance peculiar to Fundamentalist Protestants. It has not a very long history within Christendom nor is it widely shared by other Christians--whether they accept the theory of evolution or not..

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[rjs330]

Right, but that doesn't really answer the question. What about Christians who accept evolution as a plausible theory because they never had any scriptural reason not to--rather than abandoning a literal Genesis because of the theory of evolution?

You realize, I hope, that what you are describing is an interpretive stance peculiar to Fundamentalist Protestants. It has not a very long history within Christendom nor is it widely shared by other Christians--whether they accept the theory of evolution or not..

I disagree with you completely. Church history has always let scripture interpret scripture first and foremost. Just take a look at the writing of the apostles. They used scripture to explain themselves at times since they,acknowledged they too were,writing scripture. They used their own writings to interpret the OT at rimes,as well, again recognizing their own scripture writing.

During the time of Catholicism illiteracy was rampant and Latin was the language of the bible. This the people depended on the church to interpret scripture which was not the original intent.

How do we know this? The prophets and the law were written to the people and were to be read to them publicly as specified by God. Also the NT writings were written primarily,to churches as a whole and not specifically meant for,one person with the exception of books like Timothy.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree with you completely. Church history has always let scripture interpret scripture first and foremost. Just take a look at the writing of the apostles. They used scripture to explain themselves at times since they,acknowledged they too were,writing scripture. They used their own writings to interpret the OT at rimes,as well, again recognizing their own scripture writing.

During the time of Catholicism illiteracy was rampant and Latin was the language of the bible. This the people depended on the church to interpret scripture which was not the original intent.

How do we know this? The prophets and the law were written to the people and were to be read to them publicly as specified by God. Also the NT writings were written primarily,to churches as a whole and not specifically meant for,one person with the exception of books like Timothy.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Of course Scripture has always been used to interpret Scripture. Your new idea is that it should be the only thing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you do believe in some other God then of course you have no,salvation.

A person for a while might not believe the incontrovertible fact that satan designed evolution in direct opposition to the Bible, and satan made it popular or even available (since it is putrid garbage with a stench that reaches to heaven, how satan convinced anyone of evolution who says they believe the Bible is true is only evidence of how easily people are made to look utterly foolish in the light of God's Word and still think they can call on God for blessings) ..
but no one abiding in Jesus maintains that anything other than the Bible account is true.

 

[Speedwell]

"I am the resurrection and the life," saith the Lord. "He that believeth in me and the literal inerrancy of Genesis, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And he that liveth and believeth in me and the literal inerrancy of Genesis shall never die."

--from the Gospel according to the Fundamentalists

 

[dad]

So you cannot accept Christ as your Lord and Savior if you view the Genesis creation stories as being allegories?

Oh, and which of the two creation accounts must you believe in order to view Jesus as the Christ?

You can't believe there were 2 accounts that offered different orders of creation. To be saved doesn't mean one is clever. Nor does it mean they are belief superstars or scholars. If a believer accepts Jesus, then they realize the old testament and Moses were very true. Even the New testament refers to creation. There is no way creation can be taken to mean anything but the literal record of creation we have in Scripture. One cannot have a big bang or the evolution of life as the origin of life. That is unbelief. It is very lukewarm and putrid and sickening to have a 'believer' trying to justify science claims, and claim God was on the sidelines while the universe created itself, and life evolved in imagined long ages with no apparent help from God.

 

[Speedwell]

You can't believe there were 2 accounts that offered different orders of creation.

I can't? So who is going to stop me? You? I'd like to see you try it, Bozo.

That is unbelief. It is very lukewarm and putrid and sickening to have a 'believer' trying to justify science claims, and claim God was on the sidelines while the universe created itself, and life evolved in imagined long ages with no apparent help from God.

And that is malicious slander. Threats and slander--you're doing really good with this, Slick, and I'll bet you think Jesus loves you for it, too.

 

[dad]

I can't? So who is going to stop me? You? I'd like to see you try it, Bozo.

No one needs to stop you. No more than we need to stop people that think the universe sailed out of the rear end of a turtle passing gas.

And that is malicious slander. Threats and slander--you're doing really good with this, Slick, and I'll bet you think Jesus loves you for it, too.

That was the truth actually. It is a question of believing Scripture, such as Jesus did, and the prophets did, and the apostles did, etc..or not. To claim Jesus did not really created the world and heavens is to oppose the bible. It doesn't matter if you use the word bozo or not.