Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Revealing Times]

You just wasted 30 minutes of your time preaching to the choir. I already know the Genesis flood was a local regional event, (that probably took place in and around the Black Sea around 6,000, or 7,000 years ago). The whole idea of a global worldwide flood taking place during that time frame is pure FANTASY. It NEVER happened. The natural world says it didn't happen.

If every creature that survived the flood by riding it out in the ark, exited the ark in the same place and replenished the Earth from there, then there would be kangaroos in Asia and Europe, polar bears and penguins in the Mediterranean Sea, Grizzly Bears in New Zealand, and African lions in the Americas. Even African elephants and camels, are different from Asian elephants and camels... Why ? Because they evolved separately in different parts of the world, that's why.

Personally, I knew the flood story in Genesis was a local event when Noah sent out a dove, and it returned with an olive branch plucked off a tree in its' beak. Olive trees don't live under hundreds of feet of salt water. I'm sure Noah himself came to the same conclusion, which sort of explains why after the flood, he planted a vineyard and became a notorious drunk.

As for all of humanity being wiped out in the flood, except Noah's family.. I sort of doubt that happened either. Based on what science knows about genetics and genetic diseases, it's impossible for a group of people that small to have procreated and replenished the earth. Within a few generations, Noah would have been burying his last great grandson.

In fact, when God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:26), he commanded them to be fruitful and REPLENISH the earth, (Genesis 1:28). To my knowledge, the word "replenish" means to "fill up again something that was previously full and has been diminished". For me, this is the "smoking gun" statement that proves there were "other" humans before Adamic man, (homo sapien, sapiens). Creatures modern science calls "homo sapiens", "early hominids", such as Neanderthals and CroMagnon man, which were diminished and had to be REPLENISHED.

Since the Biblical flood was only a local event, the descendants of these creatures would have survived the flood as well.

I didn't waste time I answered a question so to speak about my beliefs and the evidence.

 

[Archivist]

I should call you a a fibber for pretending I don't think Dinos ever existed, the guy that says the first day is 9.2 Billion years in length. You just made that up out of whole cloth, and you type does this to try and smear other people as backwards and dumb, but it don't work here bud. You little Alinsky type tactics have no effect on me, it only shows what you are about.

See, you knew a guy like me, who wouldn't discuss anything 100 Million years old.NOW...Let me quote from one of my other posts above, that you no doubt did not read or you wouldn't be making yourself look so bad. FROM POST # 55

" YOM no doubt means a set period of time, an ERA, an Evening and a Morning or beginning and ending.
1.) First Day = 9.2 Billion years, MY REASONING IS, the Second day began with the Heavens above the Earth and the Earth having water. (God divided the Waters) So 13.7 Billion years until 4.5 Billion years is an ERA (YOM/DAY) of 9.2 Billion years. BUT....Does it fit ? Is it logical ? The answer is yes, when you look at NASA's WMAP map (see post #26 to see the WMAP map), it shows EXACTLY what the Bible says, a period of Darkness for 400 million years ( Darkness was on the face of the Deep, then Light came next !! ). 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 Earth was not formed yet, CLEAR AS DAY, and the DARKNESS came first CLEAR AS DAY, then the Light came next, CLEAR AS DAY, the Stars started forming after 400 Million years of Darkness, God, as always, is 100 percent correct."


So you should apologize for misrepresenting the facts, but your type rarely does.

correct." What you really mean is the kids are getting indoctrinated into lies and half truths. There are no links and never will be, and you will find this out on Judgment day, you will be scratching your head, I will not. Evolution is preposterous on its face, no one has proven it and never will be able to prove it, because it is a lie from the pits, via Satan. The biggest problem I see is prideful men, who in no wise can ever admit they were duped.

Again with the insults, we are stupid because we believe God and do not believe a lie. LOL. Our children are getting brainwashed into Socialism too, that may be to your liking also, but it really doesn't matter in the end, what you think is not going to change how God thinks or what the truth is. So I really don't take anything you have to say too seriously.

this thread is not about whether evolution is a lie. It isn't, but that is a topic for a different thread. This thread is certainly not about socialism. Stay on point!

 

[Revealing Times]

this thread is not about whether evolution is a lie. It isn't, but that is a topic for a different thread. This thread is certainly not about socialism. Stay on point!

I have answered your question, so does that mean I have to go away ? I mean really, if you are getting no other answers, besides mine, then the thread needs closing down. Everything is not so simplistic. You asked if the bible creation story was literal and therefore a Salvation Issue, well if there was Evolution then it was not literal, so I call evolution a lie, and if you believe it I think it is a Salvation Issue. So when I call Evolution a lie do you want me to ad-on because it is a Salvation Issue after I say it every time ? Do you want me to do like Jepardy and ad your question at the end ?

Because it is not off topic, either evolution is true or a lie, and either it is a salvation issue or isn't. I don't feel the need to ad your OP question to my point every time I post, I think even Stephen understands my point. It is a general question, but it can't be restricted to a yes or a no answer. Else why have a discussion. So since I have answered your question, If you desire me to leave the thread, I will abide your request. Let me know.

God Bless.

 

[Archivist]

I have answered your question, so does that mean I have to go away ? I mean really, if you are getting no other answers, besides mine, then the thread needs closing down. Everything is not so simplistic. You asked if the bible creation story was literal and therefore a Salvation Issue, well if there was Evolution then it was not literal, so I call evolution a lie, and if you believe it I think it is a Salvation Issue. So when I call Evolution a lie do you want me to ad-on because it is a Salvation Issue after I say it every time ? Do you want me to do like Jepardy and ad your question at the end ?

Because it is not off topic, either evolution is true or a lie, and either it is a salvation issue or isn't. I don't feel the need to ad your OP question to my point every time I post, I think even Stephen understands my point. It is a general question, but it can't be restricted to a yes or a no answer. Else why have a discussion. So since I have answered your question, If you desire me to leave the thread, I will abide your request. Let me know.

We aren't here to debate the specifics of evolution. If you want to show why a belief in evolution will prevent one from achieveing salvation that is on point. We certainly aren't here to debate the teaching of socialism, which you raised.

 

[stephen583]

What you speak of is some bone some goofball professor digs out, calls it a link, only to find out its a jaw-bone to a pig later. Or they place Lucy in a St. Louis exhibition, and even though they found no hands or feet, they create a drawing and show what looks like human hands and feet. LOL, its called deception.

If you knew, really knew about this stuff, you would understand, if we had common ancestors, it would be an easy find. We wouldn't have to see people faking stuff. Its really funny.

You make it very clear in post #75 you think evolution and anthropology is pseudo-science with no credible links. So yes, you fit the fundamentalist stereotype, and no, I won't apologize for who you are and what you believe. That's for you to do.. not me.

 

[Revealing Times]

You make it very clear in post #75 you think evolution and anthropology is pseudo-science with no credible links. So yes, you fit the fundamentalist stereotype, and no, I won't apologize for who you are and what you believe. That's for you to do.. not me.

I see, you lied about what I believe but that's OK, I see what you are all about. I repeat if you belive in evolution, I think you will wind up in hell. That is my belief.

We aren't here to debate the specifics of evolution. If you want to show why a belief in evolution will prevent one from achieveing salvation that is on point. We certainly aren't here to debate the teaching of socialism, which you raised.

Don't worry, I will not return to this thread, nor any thread you ever post again.

 

[Smidlee]

The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography .

And here's where you theory goes out the window. According to how long people lived before the flood according to the scripture and the growth rate in the last few centuries how many people do you think was on the planet? I remember reading of an old source mention something about Adam and Eve had over 50 children.
There would be anywhere between 5 million on the extremely low end to 10 billion people on the high end on the planet at the time of the flood.
It's very possible that man covered the whole planet.
Since Psalm 104 were obviously written after the flood it could have easily be referring to Noah's flood. It's the same the "cedars of Lebanon" is mention in v16 in reference to the time that Psalm was written.
The idea that Noah's flood was local is very modern.

Another serious problem is how to have a local flood to cover hills and mountains for hundreds of days? If you going to make the "flood" sound very scientific then this is a serious problem. A miracle would be required to keep USA for example under water while Canada and Mexico dry. If the flood is by the Hand of God then why just believe as it's written.

 

[stephen583]

For now we see through a glass, DARKLY; but then face to face: Now I know in PART; but then shall I know, even as also I am known", (1 Corinthians 3:12).

Anyone who tells you they know exactly how to correctly interpret every word of Scripture, and they know everything and exactly how it happened, and how everything is going to happen in the future, is totally full of himself and has no idea what he's talking about. In fact, this kind of attitude indicates this individual has never even read the entire Scripture, or they wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements.

"...but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (1 Corinthians 13:8).

Absolutely NO ONE totally understands the mind of God. It's impossible. So if our "salvation" depends on our ability to know precisely what every word of Scripture means... We are all going to burn in the lake of fire.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Wrong. In Yhwh's Word it is written who understands the mind of Yhwh.
He doesn't let evolution believers understand, and Yhwh explains why all through Scripture.
He doesn't let those who don't believe Him understand, and Yhwh explains why(to believers; not to unbelievers).
All through Scripture.

Evolution was designed and propagated by hasatan to destroy families and individuals and to prevent them from finding the kingdom of Yhwh,
and
multitudes of people have fallen because of it. There's no excuse though,
since
anyone, anywhere, who seeks Yhwh, and keeps seeking His Kingdom, finds Him, and Yhwh heals them;

but those who "consider sin" in their heart, Yhwh says He does not even hear their prayer.

ONly those who whole-heartedly seek Him and turn to Him to be saved.

 

[stephen583]

Wrong. In Yhwh's Word it is written who understands the mind of Yhwh.
He doesn't let evolution believers understand, and Yhwh explains why all through Scripture.
He doesn't let those who don't believe Him understand, and Yhwh explains why(to believers; not to unbelievers).
All through Scripture.

The preceding post is a prime example of the kind of self aggrandizing gibberish I described earlier. In psychological terms it's called "projection". A situation where someone denies a fault of their own, while erroneously projecting it onto others. It presupposes "mind reading" as genuinely existing, and is quite a common human device designed to deflect one's own blame. It is closely associated with the psychological disorder "megalomania", (the belief that someone is himself God, or knows everything God knows).

In TRUTH, according to the Bible, God "chooses" whomsoever he will to impart his understanding to, (Romans 9:18). God even chooses those who appear to the world to be foolish things, in order to put those who believe themselves to be wise to shame, (1 Corinthians 1:27). Nowhere is this more apparent than in God's selection of Saul of Tarsus (who was a persecutor of Christians), to become the Apostle Paul, one of the most inspired teachers and leaders of the early Church.

So anyone who would truly become a priest of God and who would minister to others, must first recognize his own faults and humble himself before others. God loves a repentant sinner, and he despises pretentious piety. You'll find that all throughout the Gospel as well.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some feel it is, not just because they assume the Bible is literally true history, but also because they believe the creation story accounts for sin. Mainline Christians tend to believe that sin is accounted for in human experience, and they tend to reject the idea we are born guilty of Adam's sin anyways, so it's not a "salvation issue" for them.

I don't think it's a "salvation issue", personally.

 

[rjs330]

How can it be a salvation issue? I don't find anywhere in scripture where is says "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and Moses' account of the creation and thou shalt be saved." It's no more a matter of salvation than believing that the baptism in the Holy Spirit must include speaking in tongues is a salvation issue.

I personally believe in a 6 day creation. It is VERY dangerous to cherry pick the scriptures and believe the parts you want to believe and disbelieve the parts you don't want to believe. You become the final arbiter of what scriptures are true an which ones aren't true. I don't believe your scriptures and you don't believe mine. The bible is truth or it isn't. One can say it contains truth, but is not true. Again you become the final arbiter of which parts are the "contains truth" parts and which parts are truth.
But even that does not necessarily stop ones salvation. Unless you decide not to believe in the parts that state that faith in Jesus is the only way of salvation. I mean if you can pick and chose what you think is truth and what is not, perhaps the parts that state Jesus is the only way are not truth.

Anyway, I still maintain that belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is not necessary for salvation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How can it be a salvation issue?

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

 

[Archivist]

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

Exactly how is not believing in a literal six-day creation not trusting God?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Theory Of Evolution Was Created By Satan/Shaitaan! MUST SEE ...
▶ 2:30

Feb 10, 2010 - Uploaded by DawahToIslam
This man explains how satan created and taught the theory of evolution to charles darwin himself. this shows ...
The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be ...
shoebat.com › Featured › General
Walid Shoebat

Jun 11, 2014 - The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be ..... It's the Nazis and the Communists who invented "social darwinism" to ...
The satanic origin of the Theory of Evolution — ADvindicate
advindicate.com/articles/2986
Mar 12, 2013 - This was to be accomplished through the introduction of the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley were chosen by Satan to ...

 

[Archivist]

Theory Of Evolution Was Created By Satan/Shaitaan! MUST SEE ...
View attachment 180188▶ 2:30

Feb 10, 2010 - Uploaded by DawahToIslam
This man explains how satan created and taught the theory of evolution to charles darwin himself. this shows ...
The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be ...
shoebat.com › Featured › General
Walid Shoebat

Jun 11, 2014 - The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be ..... It's the Nazis and the Communists who invented "social darwinism" to ...
The satanic origin of the Theory of Evolution — ADvindicate
advindicate.com/articles/2986
Mar 12, 2013 - This was to be accomplished through the introduction of the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley were chosen by Satan to ...

This guy needs to take a very long vacation.

 

[stephen583]

The bible is truth or it isn't. One can say it contains truth, but is not true. Again you become the final arbiter of which parts are the "contains truth" parts and which parts are truth.

From my studies, I've concluded some things in the Bible are literally TRUE, and others are not so much the Truth. In an earlier post, I already covered the problem with the King James Bible (a 17th Century creation) being scientifically up to date when it arbitrarily chose the words, God created the "great whales" from the original Hebrew text which actually says, "great, or terrible sea creatures" and has been transliterated in more modern versions of the Bible as "sea monsters". Obviously, there is a lot of liberty being taken in translating the original Hebrew far beyond what is actually stated. Should the Bible only be read in the strict context of the language it was originally written in, such as Hebrew or Greek, or does it matter we are reading selective and sometimes arbitrary translations ?

Experts also claim the "Lord's Prayer" was actually written and added to the Scripture several hundred years after the time of Jesus, probably around 300 A.D. Does that make the "Lord's Prayer" any less important as a mechanism of salvation ? Do we fault God for editing or adding a post script to the first edition of his book, when we accept this as routine by human authors ?! Why so ?

Does anyone seriously believe the events of the Tribulation Period will not be recorded by believers and be added to the existing text of the Bible ? The Second Coming of Christ isn't going to appear in Post Tribulation Bibles ?! Seriously ?

 

[Archivist]

From my studies, I've concluded some things in the Bible are literally TRUE, and others are not so much the Truth. In an earlier post, I already covered the problem with the King James Bible (a 17th Century creation) being scientifically up to date when it arbitrarily chose the words, God created the "great whales" from the original Hebrew text which actually says, "great, or terrible sea creatures" and has been transliterated in more modern versions of the Bible as "sea monsters". Obviously, there is a lot of liberty being taken in translating the original Hebrew far beyond what is actually stated. Should the Bible only be read in the strict context of the language it was originally written in, such as Hebrew or Greek, or does it matter we are reading selective and sometimes arbitrary translations

Experts also claim the "Lord's Prayer" was actually written and added to the Scripture several hundred years after the time of Jesus, probably around 300 A.D. Does that make the "Lord's Prayer" any less important as a mechanism of salvation ? Do we fault God for editing or adding a post script to the first edition of his book, when we accept this as routine by human authors ?! Why so ?

Does anyone seriously believe the events of the Tribulation Period will not be recorded by believers and be added to the existing text of the Bible ? The Second Coming of Christ isn't going to appear in Post Tribulation Bibles ?! Seriously ?

Who are these experts who claim that the Lord's Prayer was a later addition? I under that the doxology portion of the prayer--"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen"--was a later addition but not the prayer itself. What evidence do you have on this claim?

 

[stephen583]

so

Who are these experts who claim that the Lord's Prayer was a later addition? I under that the doxology portion of the prayer--"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen"--was a later addition but not the prayer itself. What evidence do you have on this claim?

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.

 

[Radrook]

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.