Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[rjs330]

Any reading, in-depth or not, shows a different order.

No it doesn't. Perhaps another thread to explain this would be good.

 

[Archivist]

No show scripturally where Jesus,or,anyone else believed and taught it was an,allegory and not truth.

Sure. God created everything. Genesis shows that Gid created everything. Those citing it in the NT were reaffirming that. Jesus knew exactly how the world was created as all was created through Him.

 

[Archivist]

No it doesn't. Perhaps another thread to explain this would be good.

Yes it does. The order us different. That is the plain meaning of the words. If you would like to start another thread please do so as it is off topic in this thread, and we do need to get this thread back on topic.

 

[BobRyan]

You may not have claimed you were the only Christian on this board , but you have suggested - like Hieronymus - that anyone who does not believe the Genesis One account just exactly as you believe .

Your fiction that someone has to be a Bible-believing Christian such as me to see what the glaringly obvious story of Genesis is on the subject of 7 day literal creation - summarized as such by God in Exodus 20:11, was already fully debunked here -- and we both know it.

It is yet "another example" of a post where every detail is ignored in the emotional responses that follow.

=============================

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)

I don't understand why you keep re-posting that Barr quote. It doesn't really prove anything

i find the logic in that post "illusive" given the sequence above where the very point being disputed and debated is the nonsensical fiction that only Bible believing Christians notice that the Genesis 1-2 and Ex 20:11 text is describing a literal 7 day creation week.

Barr's quote utterly debunks that entire argument -- and so then you respond as if you simply are not noting the details in the discussion???

what is the point of that??

 

[BobRyan]

This is what people do when they have nothing better to say. .

We already noticed - your post speaks for itself.

 

[Archivist]

Your fiction that someone has to be a Bible-believing Christian such as me to see what the glaringly obvious story of Genesis is on the subject of 7 day literal creation - summarized as such by God in Exodus 20:11, was already fully debunked here -- and we both know it.

It is yet "another example" of a post where every detail is ignored in the emotional responses that follow.

=============================

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)



i find the logic in that post "illusive" given the sequence above where the very point being disputed and debated is the nonsensical fiction that only Bible believing Christians notice that the Genesis 1-2 and Ex 20:11 text is describing a literal 7 day creation week.

Barr's quote utterly debunks that entire argument -- and so then you respond as if you simply are not noting the details in the discussion???

what is the point of that??

This thread has drifted off topic, and I take partial responsibility for that. Let's get it back on topic. We are talking about whether belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue. Please limit posts to that topic.

 

[BobRyan]

I have never said, nor do I hold that someone has to be a Bible believing Christian to believe to the exclusion of everything else the Genesis one narrative. You say that.

It is not MY fiction, it is YOUR credo.

Your statement also indicates that ONLY a 'Bible-believing Christian' believes as you do. The implication is anything else is not a proper Bible belief.

already fully debunked in the quoted details you are diligently ignoring - in the case of the quote from James Barr proving that the text is so blatantly obvious - that it is NOT just Bible-believing Christians that "Notice the literal 7 day week" in the text of Gen 1--2 and Ex 20:11 but in fact every atheist and agnostic professor of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities.

They have no interest in Christianity and can STILL read the text for what it says!!! just when you pretend that only a Bible believing Christian can do it.

 

[BobRyan]

This thread has drifted off topic, and I take partial responsibility for that. Let's get it back on topic. We are talking about whether belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue. Please limit posts to that topic.

John 1 says it is.

There is no Gospel without Genesis 1-3 - literally true.

 

[BobRyan]

This thread has drifted off topic, and I take partial responsibility for that. Let's get it back on topic. We are talking about whether belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue. Please limit posts to that topic.

John 1 says the Bible creation fact is the basis for the Gospel.

1. What is the Bible Creation fact and the fall of mankind fact of Genesis 1-3? The James Barr quote proves that it is incredibly obvious not just to Bible believing Christians like me- but even to every atheist and agnostic professor of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities.

2. Does rejecting the Bible as a trustworthy document affect belief in the Bible-Gospel? only the most nonsensical sock-puppet creative story telling would even try to get around this point. Because once you have no actual Bible for the Creator God of the Bible, for Ex 20:11, for the fall of mankind - the only thing left is a creative hand-puppet roll-your-own storytelling session.

 

[Archivist]

John 1 says it is.

There is no Gospel without Genesis 1-3 - literally true.

No, John 1 says no such thing. It doesn't specifically reference Genesis.

 

[Archivist]

John 1 says the Bible creation fact is the basis for the Gospel.

1. What is the Bible Creation fact and the fall of mankind fact of Genesis 1-3? The James Barr quote proves that it is incredibly obvious not just to Bible believing Christians like me- but even to every atheist and agnostic professor of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities.

2. Does rejecting the Bible as a trustworthy document affect belief in the Bible-Gospel? only the most nonsensical sock-puppet creative story telling would even try to get around this point. Because once you have no actual Bible for the Creator God of the Bible, for Ex 20:11, for the fall of mankind - the only thing left is a creative hand-puppet roll-your-own storytelling session.

And I'm in no way rejecting the Bible. I am reading Genesis 1 and 2 as an allegory.

 

[BobRyan]

intelligent design as in what we see in Romans 1.. you know... the obvious in this case... Paul says it is sooo incredibly obvious that even godless pagans with no Bible at all - can "clearly see it".

My question for you is - do you unwittingly take the atheist route on that while claiming to be Christian - to deny what even the godless pagans can clearly see?

Or do you hold to the Christian view of Romans 1??

Another reminder of an example of a post where the emotional responses that follow - ignore every detail in the post.

The only "detail" in that post was you being snotty with your "do you still beat your wife?" style of questioning

That fact-vacuous aversion-to-detail response to the Romans 1 detail - illustrates the problem with the faith-in-evolutionism argument being made on this thread.

But since there is nothing in Romans about irreducible complexity or specified complex information

Here again - a total lack of attention to detail in Romans 1 - has not helped your response to it.

I will have to assume that what you mean by intelligent design is the general notion that God designed the universe. As to what you mean by a "Christian" view of Romans, I have have no way of telling.

But you and I both know that Christians do know what I am talking about.

Your Bible doctrine is too strange to me. You might even be one of these "pre-trib Rapture" people and so hardly a Christian at all.

That's pretty funny!! pre-trib rapture????

 

[BobRyan]

This thread has drifted off topic, and I take partial responsibility for that. Let's get it back on topic. We are talking about whether belief in the Genesis creation stories is a salvation issue. Please limit posts to that topic.

John 1 says the Bible creation fact is the basis for the Gospel.

1. What is the Bible Creation fact and the fall of mankind fact of Genesis 1-3? The James Barr quote proves that it is incredibly obvious not just to Bible believing Christians like me- but even to every atheist and agnostic professor of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities.

2. Does rejecting the Bible as a trustworthy document affect belief in the Bible-Gospel? only the most nonsensical sock-puppet creative story telling would even try to get around this point. Because once you have no actual Bible for the Creator God of the Bible, for Ex 20:11, for the fall of mankind - the only thing left is a creative hand-puppet roll-your-own storytelling session.

No, John 1 says no such thing. It doesn't specifically reference Genesis.

That is the sock-puppet option where you "pretend" that the creation reference in John 1 is not at all informed by the actual Bible creation account - but instead refers to whatever fiction you would like to make up on the spot as the writer-and-reader's context for Bible creation.

Such sock-puppets made-up-on-the-spot are not taken seriously by Bible-believing Christians.

You guys need a rational response that is factual and logical -- to be taken seriously. Making stuff up about John not knowing the Genesis account and his readers so totally rejecting the Bible account of origins that they would have divorced it from the creation reference in John 1 - is utter nonsense and we all know it.

 

[BobRyan]

So now - can we please have an informed logical response to this?

John 1 says the Bible creation fact is the basis for the Gospel.

1. What is the Bible Creation fact and the fall of mankind fact of Genesis 1-3? The James Barr quote proves that it is incredibly obvious not just to Bible believing Christians like me- but even to every atheist and agnostic professor of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities.

2. Does rejecting the Bible as a trustworthy document affect belief in the Bible-Gospel? only the most nonsensical sock-puppet creative story telling would even try to get around this point. Because once you have no actual Bible for the Creator God of the Bible, for Ex 20:11, for the fall of mankind - the only thing left is a creative hand-puppet roll-your-own storytelling session.

Those who choose to delete the Bible as of John 1 and start off as if John 1 is the first chapter in the Bible -- are basically telling everyone on the board that they do not take their own argument seriously.

Exegesis demands that we all admit that John and his readers are fully aware of the fact that Genesis 1-3 is the Bible basis and reference for the creation fact, for the origins fact as stated in the Bible. John is not rewriting it -- rather references and affirms it.

 

[rjs330]

Sure. God created everything. Genesis shows that Gid created everything. Those citing it in the NT were reaffirming that. Jesus knew exactly how the world was created as all was created through Him.

But Jesus never claimed it was an allegory. Neither did the apostles and neither did Moses. In fact the statements they make are to affirm Genesis not disavow it as truth.

There is NO reason biblically to deny the Genesis account biblically. It is only done because ungodly men decided that they had the answers as to how man and the world came,into being. And unfortunately too,many Christians put their belief in ungodly man made theories instead of what the bible says happened reaffirmed by Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Archivist]

John 1 says the Bible creation fact is the basis for the Gospel.

1. What is the Bible Creation fact and the fall of mankind fact of Genesis 1-3? The James Barr quote proves that it is incredibly obvious not just to Bible believing Christians like me- but even to every atheist and agnostic professor of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities.

2. Does rejecting the Bible as a trustworthy document affect belief in the Bible-Gospel? only the most nonsensical sock-puppet creative story telling would even try to get around this point. Because once you have no actual Bible for the Creator God of the Bible, for Ex 20:11, for the fall of mankind - the only thing left is a creative hand-puppet roll-your-own storytelling session.



That is the sock-puppet option where you "pretend" that the creation reference in John 1 is not at all informed by the actual Bible creation account - but instead refers to whatever fiction you would like to make up on the spot as the writer-and-reader's context for Bible creation.

Such sock-puppets made-up-on-the-spot are not taken seriously by Bible-believing Christians.

You guys need a rational response that is factual and logical -- to be taken seriously. Making stuff up about John not knowing the Genesis account and his readers so totally rejecting the Bible account of origins that they would have divorced it from the creation reference in John 1 - is utter nonsense and we all know it.

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. And name calling doesn't really help your argument.

 

[Archivist]

So now - can we please have an informed logical response to this?



Those who choose to delete the Bible as of John 1 and start off as if John 1 is the first chapter in the Bible -- are basically telling everyone on the board that they do not take their own argument seriously.

Exegesis demands that we all admit that John and his readers are fully aware of the fact that Genesis 1-3 is the Bible basis and reference for the creation fact, for the origins fact as stated in the Bible. John is not rewriting it -- rather references and affirms it.

Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? Don't think anyone has said anything if the sort.

 

[rjs330]

And I'm in no way rejecting the Bible. I am reading Genesis 1 and 2 as an allegory.

You are rejecting the Genesis account as real. Accepting it as an allegory is a nice way of saying I reject it because I don't believe it.

 

[Archivist]

But Jesus never claimed it was an allegory. Neither did the apostles and neither did Moses. In fact the statements they make are to affirm Genesis not disavow it as truth.

There is NO reason biblically to deny the Genesis account biblically. It is only done because ungodly men decided that they had the answers as to how man and the world came,into being. And unfortunately too,many Christians put their belief in ungodly man made theories instead of what the bible says happened reaffirmed by Jesus and the apostles.

The statements made elsewhere in scripture affirm that God created everything.

BTW, you have already said that it is not a salvation issue, which is the topic of discussion here. If you want to start a new thread to discuss links between the NT and Genesus please do so.

 

[Archivist]

You are rejecting the Genesis account as real. Accepting it as an allegory is a nice way of saying I reject it because I don't believe it.

That isn't the point of the thread. The topic of discussion is whether it is a salvation issue. You have already admitted that it is not.