• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi all,

One of the other kernels of Scripture that I'm constantly aware of in the discussion of this topic is God's claim that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise.
Debate tactic used when one has nothing valid to say--simply offer insults. I can't find anything in any of your statements in this posts that shows me that this is a salvation issue, therefore I obviously cannot understand "simple things." Please keep your insults to yourself. I try to be polite on CF, it is unfortunate that you apparently cannot be polite.

Hi archivist,

God has claimed that He shall make foolish the wisdom of the wise.

No, what I said was that you didn't understand my response to you. That was in reference to the immediately preceding discussion regarding your understanding that there are two creation accounts and that we must therefore pick one and you asked me which one I picked. Then when I didn't pick one, but explained that they were speaking of the same event, but that God's intentions in what He was conveying to us was different - one being how He created everything and the other being His more specific work with mankind - you claimed that I had picked one. I believe all that is written in both Genesis chapters one and two. The claim had nothing whatsoever to do with your not being convinced by any of my argument that our understanding of the creation account as having any value towards our salvation. To that, my only reply was a simple 'sorry'. What I was referencing as your possibly not understanding as 'simple' is the creation account itself.

Hopefully that will clear up any misunderstanding.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,012
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟46,332.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
For me, it's not Ussherite teaching. I believed the literal and simple biblical account from very early on in my new life.
Then why did you determine the Ussher version is correct without even bothering to find out about anything else?

miamited said:
I didn't even know who Ussher was until several years later in dialog with others.
I'll believe that. However, you were told to believe exactly the written record in the King James Version of the Bible, with no other thoughts and without input from anyone else. How do I know? The same way I know what Marine Corps boot camp was like.

miamited said:
What in the world would even have given you some understanding that I even have any 'non-questioning assumptions' based on Ussherite teachings?
Because I'm not the stupid non-believing atheist with whom you have confused me. Do you think this is the first time I've heard this same nonsense?

Ted, you're a nice guy and I'm fairly sure you are Christian. But your bias is overwhelming. You are so afraid (of perhaps losing your salvation? Or just 'standing' with the other YEC types?) you cannot even consider alternatives.

John 8:31-32 speaks of truth and freedom. [/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then why did you determine the Ussher version is correct without even bothering to find out about anything else?

I'll believe that. However, you were told to believe exactly the written record in the King James Version of the Bible, with no other thoughts and without input from anyone else. How do I know? The same way I know what Marine Corps boot camp was like.

Because I'm not the stupid non-believing atheist with whom you have confused me. Do you think this is the first time I've heard this same nonsense?

Ted, you're a nice guy and I'm fairly sure you are Christian. But your bias is overwhelming. You are so afraid (of perhaps losing your salvation? Or just 'standing' with the other YEC types?) you cannot even consider alternatives.

Hi archie,

What makes you think that I did determine that the Ussher version is correct. All I can say, is that his idea that we can make a reasonable estimation of the age of this created realm through the genealogical accounts of the sons and fathers in the Genesis record is, I agree, a correct understanding. Now, am I in agreement with the number that he came up with. I don't know. What number did he come up with? Why in the world would you think that I haven't considered anything else. I'm 61 years old you know. I wasn't born yesterday and I don't consider myself so closed minded as to not at least look at opposing evidence. The fact that I don't agree with one position or another really has nothing to do with not having weighed all the available evidence. That's an assumption that you're making apparently based on nothing more than the fact that I am not in agreement with you as to the age of the creation or the value that God might place on our believing what He has told us.

No! I was not ever told to believe what is in the KJV of the Scriptures. I'm not particularly fond of that version as the best translation of God's revelation to His created. When I was born again at the age of 40 or so, one of my first prayers was that God give me an unquenchable thirst to know and understand His Scriptures. For about three years I read only the Scriptures and reread them and studied them and pored over them. God did answer my prayer and for three years I had an unquenchable thirst to know and understand His word.

Prior to my being born again, yea, I was one of those people who would tell others that I was a christian. I always checked off the block on the census that my faith was 'christian'. Any time I was filling out some form or another that asked about my faith, I always checked off 'christian'. Once I was born again, though, I understood that I was living a lie. I was raised all my life in fellowship on Sunday mornings. My mother and father sang in the choirs of the various fellowships with which we were members as I grew up. My grandfather was a minister his entire life. He graduated from seminary and preached pretty much every Sunday of his life. But I knew that my claim to faith was an outright lie, once I was born again. You see, a lot changes when one is born again. One's worldview swings to a far different point on the pendulum.

Before I was born again I actually believed just as you believe. I believed all that the 'scientific experts' were telling me about how they had 'proved' all that they know about the universe and the evolution of life, etc. And, you know what,it wasn't until long after I came to understand the truth of the creation that I ever heard of this guy Ussher. I honestly have no understanding of why you continue to insist that my worldview is a product of Mr. Ussher. My worldview is a product of God's enduring truth.

I certainly don't think that you're a non-believing atheist. But, I'm not convinced that you know the truth, just as you aren't convinced that I do.

Finally, you're really very careless in your understanding of what it means to 'consider alternatives'. What possible evidence can you produce from what I've written in these posts that would give you some assurance that I haven't considered alternatives. Is it really just because you believe that it would be impossible for anyone to consider the alternatives and still hold my understanding as the truth? Why is that? Yes, I must admit that statements and claims such as you are making about my not having considered alternatives from the evidence that I have posted in this thread would seem to be the sign of someone who regularly fights with 'claims not in evidence'. You just can't understand that someone might have considered the alternatives and still keeps to their understanding of the truth. You think that it's because I'm trying to impress other YECs. I don't care what other YECs think. My goal is not to believe them or please them. My goal is to believe God and please Him.

What I read in your statement: But your bias is overwhelming. You are so afraid (of perhaps losing your salvation? Or just 'standing' with the other YEC types?) you cannot even consider alternatives.

How in the world do you come to this understanding that I am afraid to consider alternatives? What I read in that statement is 'well, if you had considered the alternatives you wouldn't believe as you do'. Friend, you're just wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Revealing Times

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2016
2,845
420
61
Clanton Alabama
✟123,106.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
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?
Yes, it matters, if we do not believe God, then he can not call us to Him. God says in Genesis that Abraham believed God, therefore it was counted as Righteousness unto him. The same with believing on Jesus. But we can not believe that creatures created themselves, and still say God created us. There are many verses that say God created us, and tat Adam named all the animals. Being confused about the Creation of the universe is understanding, in that the English translations say it was 6 Days, when in reality it was 6 Eras, the Hebrew language had 4000 words or a little under, compared to 400, 000 word for the English language. So words like YOM had many meanings, Period of time, Day, warm or Hot, and in verse 5 where it says God called the Light day, it can also read God called the Illumination warm or hot. The the First day would be the Evening (400 million years of Darkness after the Inflation) and the Light or Stars bringing Warmth, Hotness. The first YOM (Period of Time had to last 9.2 Billion years, because Earth formed at 4.5 Billion years BC, so 13.7 - 9.2 = 4.5. So as you see, I am not an inside the box thinker, but the evolution theory is bogus, and without any merit or facts or proof.

Because evolution is not only supported beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence, but is critical to many of the technologies that run our modern world. B

I will try to make these shorter answers....It never works, LOL. Evolution is not and has never been a proven fact. Adaption within species is a given, but the evidence Darwin said must needs be there, is not and will never be there, because God created all things as he intended. And Man is only 6000 years old. What about the fossils that show an older man you might ask ? My belief is God at the 500 million BC mark, or close, created the Sea Creatures and Birds and He created many during this span of time or ERA/YOM, which a day can be called, but a YOM can also be an indefinite period of time. Then at the 250 Million BC mark, God starting creating the land animals of which many died out at the 70 Million BC mark when the asteroid hit. God continued creating until He finally created man IN HIS IMAGE at the 6000 year BC Mark. Now there might have been, probably was an animal, just like man, that lived a long time, but which did not have the SPIRIT OF GOD in him, which of course God did at the 6000 BC Mark, when He said let US (Jesus/Father/Holy Spirit) make man in OUR image and in OUR likeness. This is why we only have 6000 some odd years of recorded history, but proof of animals that looked like men, but acted like animals. THEY WERE ANIMALS.

Creationists, if that's not your main concern, or if I misstated it, please correct me.
Nope, we preach the Gospel of the true God, and He created all things, just as he said, the real problem is men have such a small capacity to understand complex things, they are all to often wrong, but too stubborn to admit this fact. It is evident that we were created, PATTERNS/DNA/etc.

I think the concerns raised above can be (indeed, must be) ignored by any Christian today. Why? Because that train has left the station long ago. Christians today already take large portions of scripture non-literally - portions that have a stronger claim to a literal reading than Genesis. Christians today can already read larger portions non-literally without any problem with calling fundamental doctrines into question.
Dis gonna be fun.........Christians who don't read the bible as literal, (except for Jesus' parables, think the have to give up their beliefs for a lack of evidence, but as you are aware, a lack of evidence in no wise proves ANYTHING, if that was the case hen the world would not exist because scientist do not know how we got here any more than some Christians, via only their Faith. In essence, all scientist have is much faith, they cling to maybes like the Multi-verse theory (because the chance of our Universe forming against all odds was proving more and more to be a ridiculous argument, so they invented a Multi-verse theory, lol), which can never be proven, etc. etc.


Which sections? Many. Some examples:
Literally dozens of sections of scripture make it undeniably clear that a literal reading of the Bibles gives a flat earth under a hard sky dome. There is a much stronger case for biblical globe-denial than there is for evolution denial. You can see some of them in post #32 here:
The bible clearly says the Universe had a BEGINNING time and time again, all Scientist 100 years ago said the Universe was eternal. The bibles says the Universe was expanding, God spreadeth out the skies, something scientist just recently figured out. The bible says the Earth is a Circle. Case Closed here.


Jesus' return by the 3rd century. There is a much stronger case for Jesus' return before 200 AD than there is for evolution denial. Large sections of scripture, and many of Jesus' own words, are taken non-literally by nearly all Christians today on this topic.
Read John chapter 20, this clearly proves Jesus returned after ascending to Heaven. Jesus told Mary, Don't touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. He then appeared to the Disciples, Thomas was not there, so he doubted. 8 Days later Jesus appeared again, and told Thomas to put his fingers in his wounds. Jesus has Returned and probably many, many times.


Acceptance of slavery. There is a much stronger case for biblical support of slavery than there is for evolution denial. Large sections of scripture - including the 10 commandments, are taken non-literally (or just outright ignored) by nearly all Christians today on this topic.
Evolution is just no a fact as you guys present it, juxtaposing it against anything, doesn't change the facts. In Gods OT Law, he forbid any Israeli from capturing a man and enslaving him, it was punishable by DEATH. But men could sale themselves into servitude, which is called slavery, but really isn't, because its a contract between two people. When the SERVANT LEAVES, they were to be given grain, a percentage of the flock, money etc. etc. Sorry, Slavery ain't getting it here.

A lower status (as property) of women. There is a much stronger case for biblical sexism than there is for evolution denial.

Woman had her place and man had his place. Let me spell it out. Just because this world has perverted this, means nothing, the whole world was basically the same. Women are supposed to nurture children, we have a huge problem with Kids in America not getting the guidance they need, via divorces etc. etc. Men were supposed to be providers. God thought it was best that way, this in no wise diminishes who a woman is.


and so on. In the near future, as we move past many other outdated beliefs, new sections will join this growing list of topics where we Christians move past a literal reading of our scripture. Some of these are already pretty clear. Within a few decades the condemnation of homosexuality will likely be seen in the same way as slavery and sexism. The same goes for spanking children. Adding evolution to the list above will be easy and inevitable - especially since one can make a good case for a non-literal reading (much more so than any of these other topics).

Within a few years, Jesus Christ will be ruling in his 1000 year reign. All of the sill notions will be destroyed. The Anti-Christ is in the world today, I was shown that in a vision 30 years ago. So very soon, you will get the proof you have been dying to see.
 
Upvote 0

Revealing Times

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2016
2,845
420
61
Clanton Alabama
✟123,106.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Jesus simply said "unless you change and become like a little child, you can never enter the kingdom of heaven".So, "salvation" is simple, as for a little child.
A little child or baby, never questions their parents, as a baby we trust in full, we have no option. I think this was Jesus' point. We must trust in all things. Jesus also told Nicodemus you must be born again.

Is the one who teaches that the account as written and simply understood can't possibly mean that God did create the heavens and the earth in six days, a faithful and true servant?
That's not what God says, that is what men have come up with, via bad translations.
Don't forget that Revelation mentions the new creation so if you have trouble believing light before the sun in Genesis then you have to deal with the same problem with light without the sun in Revelation.
Why is light before the Sun a problem ? The first stars were created at the 400 Million year mark, way before the Sun existed. So there was Darkness on the face of the Deep (400 Million years of DARKNESS) followed by Stars that started forming at the 400 Million year mark. So it was the Evening (Darkness) and the Morning (Light)

CMB_Timeline75.jpg

Isn't that what this NASA Map shows ? Inflation, Afterglow, 400 MILLION YEARS OF DARKNESS...Just like God Said (there was Darkness on the face of the Deep) then the Light came after the Darkness, hence the Evening First, and then the Morning.

HELLO ...Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The real problem is mans understanding, our small intelligence compared to Gods vast knowledge is our problem. But if we seek God, He reveals his Secrets to us, IN DUE TIME. (Without this WMAP/NASA Map,) I would have never figured this out. We have to use true science, not this fake Evolution which is in reality, a joke. A deception of Satan, imho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

Geralt

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2016
793
259
GB
✟67,832.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
it does matter. it's simply taking God at his word, and therefore a question of faith.

you and i both know even in our lifetime no one will be able to resolve what really happened in the beginning of things simply because not one of us, nor any of humanity was there to witness or record it.

we cannot take man for his word, it will only be an endless cycle of theories, extractions, etc..

we can only take God for his word and have the assurance that even though we cannot fathom the mystery of creation, we have one full assurance we know Who.


Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

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?
 
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,347
8,145
42
United Kingdom
✟95,479.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I used to believe in God and believe evolution was true. To me i believed that one of Gods days in that was millions of years. Because it all logically fits.

Now I believe in it more literally and don't believe in evolution. Why because I am stuck in awe at just how powerful God is. Seeing as he can listen to millions of prayers daily and answer them. Concentrate on looking after so many of us.

How intricate every cell every cell and how complicated the interaction of proteins within us in our dna? Wow. It kinda makes me see how the chicken and egg thing is kind of impossible. So I am more willing to think of the beginning half of genesis as a lot more literal than I used to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,347
8,145
42
United Kingdom
✟95,479.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And to answer the question is it a salvation issue. Yes and no.

It is if you are looking at it and removing God from the scenario. If you are doubting God then yes.

If you are a little misguided but are walking in the light regardless then Jesus still knows you and you have God's salvation. Because God has forgiven much more in people. Just don't let pride get in the way and start condemning others else you make it an issue where you might be condemned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,915
17,131
Canada
✟287,108.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And to answer the question is it a salvation issue. Yes and no.

It is if you are looking at it and removing God from the scenario. If you are doubting God then yes.

If you are a little misguided but are walking in the light regardless then Jesus still knows you and you have God's salvation. Because God has forgiven much more in people. Just don't let pride get in the way and start condemning others else you make it an issue where you might be condemned.
In the end the Scriptures are our guide. In Hebrews 1, in the middle of a passage where the glory of the Son of God and His purging of sin at the Cross are in view, there is the statement: 'By Whom also He made the world'.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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?

1. The bible starts with this key reference doctrine - see Genesis 1-2
2. The Law of God contains this key reference doctrine - see Exodus 20:8-11
3. The Gospel starts with this key reference doctrine - see John 1:1-6
4. The final judgment of mankind points to this key reference doctrine - see Rev 14:7

The entire concept of the fall of man and the Gospel is predicated on the 7 day event of Genesis 1-2 and the literal fall of man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In the end the Scriptures are our guide. In Hebrews 1, in the middle of a passage where the glory of the Son of God and His purging of sin at the Cross are in view, there is the statement: 'By Whom also He made the world'.

So then ... not the "book of urantia".
Not atheism.
Not naturalism


But rather --- the Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

stephen583

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
2,202
913
68
Salt lake City, UT
✟39,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Belief in a literal interpretation of the Creation story of Genesis has ABSOLUTELY nothing whatsoever to do with SALVATION. Nada, zip, nothing. Fundamentalists who try to make this argument are trying to "elasticize" (stretch) the Scripture way beyond anything explicitly stated. Nowhere does the Scripture say, "interpret these words literally, or risk damnation". Nor does the Scripture indicate the Word of God is infallible to the point of its' being incapable of being distorted by man, in fact, it says the exact opposite is the case, (2 Timothy 4:3).

"For I testify to every man that heareth the prophecy of this book, if any man shall ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18, KJV).

Clearly, man can distort and rewrite what the Bible teaches. Otherwise, these warnings would not exist.

The Genesis creation may only have ever been intended to be understood as allegorical stories. That's what I believe. Why ? I believe that because the Bible says the meaning of the Word of God is understood and revealed according to the "natural" world, not myths.

"For the invisible things of him are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE"... (Romans1:20, KJV).

This is one of the principles of the scientific method of "OBSERVATION". If you want to understand God's Word, look to the "natural" world for explanations... It's the only one you are going to get until you meet God face to face.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,439
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟617,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Belief in a literal interpretation of the Creation story of Genesis has ABSOLUTELY nothing whatsoever to do with SALVATION. Nada, zip, nothing. Fundamentalists who try to make this argument are trying to "elasticize" (stretch) the Scripture way beyond anything explicitly stated. Nowhere does the Scripture say, "interpret these words literally, or risk damnation". Nor does the Scripture indicate the Word of God is infallible to the point of its' being incapable of being distorted by man, in fact, it says the exact opposite is the case, (2 Timothy 4:3).

"For I testify to every man that heareth the prophecy of this book, if any man shall ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18, KJV).

Clearly, man can distort and rewrite what the Bible teaches. Otherwise, these warnings would not exist.

The Genesis creation may only have ever been intended to be understood as allegorical stories. That's what I believe. Why ? I believe that because the Bible says the meaning of the Word of God is understood and revealed according to the "natural" world, not myths.

"For the invisible things of him are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE"... (Romans1:20, KJV).

This is one of the principles of the scientific method of "OBSERVATION". If you want to understand God's Word, look to the "natural" world for explanations... It's the only one you are going to get until you meet God face to face.

I agree. Like you, I read the Genesis creation stories (which do not agree) as allegories. They tell us that God createde everything. How God accomplished that is explained by science.

None of the posts in this thread have yet to provide a valid reason as to why or how a belief in the creation stories is a salvation ssue.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Belief in a literal interpretation of the Creation story of Genesis has ABSOLUTELY nothing whatsoever to do with SALVATION.

Until you read the actual Bible noting "the details".

1. The bible starts with this key reference doctrine - see Genesis 1-2
2. The Law of God contains this key reference doctrine - see Exodus 20:8-11
3. The Gospel starts with this key reference doctrine - see John 1:1-6
4. The final judgment of mankind points to this key reference doctrine - see Rev 14:7

The entire concept of the fall of man and the Gospel is predicated on the 7 day event of Genesis 1-2 and the literal fall of man.

Nowhere does the Scripture say, "interpret these words literally, or risk damnation".

hint - you are assailing the "virgin-birth-ists" and the "bodily-resurrection-ists" and the "bodily ascension of Christ - ists" and all Christians who actually believe the Bible - not just the Bible-creation-ists.

The book of Urantia does take your view - but not the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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)
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,439
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟617,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
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)

This is getting off topic. We are not discussing whether faculty members in Old Testament studies believe in a literal 6-day creation, but rather whether belief in the Biblical creation stories is a salvation issue.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The point is "what does the Bible say" and "does rejecting the Bible affect salvation".

And the obvious point about "what does the Bible say" is so clear - even atheists can see it. Attempting to insert smoke and mirrors there - does not fly.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,439
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟617,196.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The point is "what does the Bible say" and "does rejecting the Bible affect salvation". And the obvious point about "what does the Bible say" is so clear - even atheists can see it. Attempting to insert smoke and mirrors there - does not fly.

But you have not answered the topic under discussion--is it a salvation issue?

Oh, and if it is so clear why are there two creation stories in the Bible and why do they disagree?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Blind faith evolutionism says "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but are not science".

Which is essentially atheist naturalism.

But Bible Christianity says "in legal code" - "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." - Ex 20:11

the attacks against the Bible when it comes to Genesis 1 and 2 are the same as attacks against virgin-birth-ism and bodily-resurrection-of-Christ-ism and bodily-ascension-of-Christ-ism and miracles-of-Christ-ism and miracles-of-the-Bible-ism.

And as we see in genesis - the creation account is the foundation and basis for understanding the fall of man in Genesis 3.

What is more - it is the basis and starting point of the Gospel in John 1:1-4 as already noted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.