Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Hieronymus]

I hope that is an error you have fallen into on your own. It would dismay me to learn that such a thing was actually being taught as doctrine by any Christian church.

Fortunately, millions of Christians know better.
f

You believe it is better to doubt Scripture then, because unfortunately for you it is simply what Scripture says.
The creation narrative portrays only itself: the creation.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

They don't disagree, though i think it's a good question anyway.
I think i'll open a topic about it, because i'm interested in the answers people may bring forth.
But in all, there's just very little Scripture to go by.

 

[Speedwell]

You believe it is better to doubt Scripture then, because unfortunately for you it is simply what Scripture says.
The creation narrative portrays only itself: the creation.

I don't doubt scripture, but I certainly doubt the conclusion you have drawn from that part of it.

And the argument in support of it??? Oy vey!

"Jesus would only quote Genesis if he agreed with me that it was 100% accurate literal history. Jesus quoted Genesis.
Therefore, He agrees with me that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history."

And then, having insulted our intelligence with that exercise in sophistry, you go on to dictate to God why he wrote Gen 1 in the first place.

 

[Archivist]

No, it's not allegorical to evolution.
Just read it.
it says that He made everything, every kind of organism to reproduce after its kind.
Then He formed man in his image from the dust of the earth and blew the breath of life in his nose.
Who knows if there was this good Samaritan one day in history?
Indeed, the story is told to portray what loving your neighbour means.
But Genesis 1 is the narrative of the beginning of our reality, the beginning of time and matter, formed and filled to get what was finished on the 7th day.
It doesn't portray or symbolize anything else than that.
It is only referred to as actual history throughout the Bible.
Now i really don't know how long those first days were, but it had been evening and it had been morning every day of that week.
The 7th day God rested and sanctified that day, the sabbath.

No, Genesis 1 is an allegory that shows that God created everything. It is not history.

 

[Archivist]

They don't disagree, though i think it's a good question anyway.
I think i'll open a topic about it, because i'm interested in the answers people may bring forth.
But in all, there's just very little Scripture to go by.

Actually they do disagree. The order of creation differs.

 

[Hieronymus]

The question is clear. "Is belief in the craetion story a salvation issue?" Can't get much more clear than that. You are apparently unable to provide a simple answer. If you are not going to answer the question then please get out of the thread.

There are milliosn of Christians who believe the Bible but see the two different creation stories in Genesis as being allegories, not factual. We are not talking about "atheist naturalism."

We are though, when we realise that ToE, to which you choose to subscribe is "atheist naturalism".
Where is God in evolution theory? He is not there.
And the case for evolution is very loud, but not strong at all, yet you choose this "atheist naturalism" idea.

I just don't understand, because you must have been pointed towards the case against it and / or the case for creation.
And since God creating has ever so much more explanatory power than dead unconscious processes outperforming allof humanity, why would you stick with it?

 

[Hieronymus]

No, Genesis 1 is an allegory that shows that God created everything. It is not history.

A statement without any explanation or motivation.

 

[Archivist]

We are though, when we realise that ToE, to which you choose to subscribe is "atheist naturalism".
Where is God in evolution theory? He is not there.
And the case for evolution is very loud, but not strong at all, yet you choose this "atheist naturalism" idea.

I just don't understand, because you must have been pointed towards the case against it and / or the case for creation.
And since God creating has ever so much more explanatory power than dead unconscious processes outperforming allof humanity, why would you stick with it?

Theistic evolution and atheist naturalism are two different things.

 

[Hieronymus]

Actually they do disagree. The order of creation differs.

Indeed so it seems, but in the garden also plants and trees were created again, and apparently so were the animals, so that Adam could see God's Greatness and name the animals.
It's off-topic here, but okay...
But, among the animals Adam could not find him a help, though God saw Adam was alone before He created animals in the garden (big garden obviously).
Well, you can read the rest for yourself.

But anyway, when in your view does Genesis start to be historical narrative?
You should know that the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) is authoritative in that field of science, for example.

 

[Speedwell]

A statement without any explanation or motivation.

The creation stories resemble, in structure, the creation myths of surrounding regional cultures. They were written in that format on purpose to be accessible to the people in order to introduce radical new theological ideas, monotheism being the most important, in an otherwise familiar form. That is their most important purpose, as has been recognized by legitimate Christian and Jewish scholars for millennia.


The notion that the only purpose of Genesis is to give us factually accurate details about our origins, or that we even need such a thing, smells to high heaven of Darbyism.

 

[Hieronymus]

Theistic evolution and atheist naturalism are two different things.

So then where is God then in your scientific model?
I mean, you say that science can explain how the organisms came to be the different kinds, including us.

 

[Archivist]

So then where is God then in your scientific model?
I mean, you say that science can explain how the organisms came to be the different kinds, including us.

God was the force that caused it all to happen.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

Because He claims it repeatedly.

 

[Hieronymus]

God was the force that caused it all to happen.

Not according to the scientific theory you believe, which by the way has poor evidence and huge gaps and lacks explanatory power.

 

[Archivist]

Because He claims it repeatedly.

Really? Second creation story doesn't say creation in six 24-hour days.

 

[Hieronymus]

So anyway, i was checking out the whole topic because Archivist told me i should so i could see explanation, but i ended up quoting messages of 3 weeks ago and found nothing that explains where God is in the attempted evolution model.
So i'll call it quits here.
Sorry to have bored or annoyed any of you.

 

[Archivist]

Not according to the scientific theory you believe, which by the way has poor evidence and huge gaps and lacks explanatory power.

Actually there is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution. Only those opposed to it claim that there is little or no evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, I'm suggesting otherwise so I guess that I, like the majority of Christians, am being absurd.

The ones who suggest Genesis can be mistaken for allegory. And this supposed majority of Christian Darwinians is a bigger myth then stone age ape men.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The explanatory power of a creating God is simply much stronger than ascribing it to dead unconscious processes. Isn't that obvious?

I find the power of God to orchestrate the making of a universe taking 13.74 billion years to date AND forming man literal out of the dirt of the Earth through the evolutionary process FAR stronger than simply crediting God with being a quick fingered, fast talking hedge wizard or prestidigitator as the YEC crowd demands.

Or do you have no knowledge of the universe and living nature in particular?

Probably as much as any observer and certainly far more than any YEC adherent.

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of the YEC faction. When presented with facts, evidence, arguments and logic, they always respond with "You don't really believe in God!"

Another constant from the YEC faction is "If the Genesis account isn't true (the way and ONLY the way I understand it) then the Bible isn't true."

Never once has any of the self-righteous, arrogant, smarmy YEC faction EVER said, "Perhaps I'm looking at this wrong?" NEVER.

Hieronymus, I will credit you with being more polite than most. But it simply does not occur to you the Ussherite doctrine to which you cling - seemingly for your salvation - might be in error (which it is). Of course, you refuse to deal the Isaiah 38:8 passage which 'proves' the Sun orbits the Earth; or Isaiah 40:22 which 'proves' the Earth is flat.

 

[Hieronymus]

Actually there is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution.

You haven't seen most of it debunked or put in proper perspective, because only fringe YEC goofs make themselves even less credible doing that.