Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Speedwell]

Because of the NT affirmations of the OT. Remember there was very,little skepticism until far later in history.

And there is,no reason to believe that Daniels story wasn't an inspiration for other fictional stories rather than the other way around.

There is enough scholarly material And archaeology finds to show the bibles history is accurate. At the very least we should say it's accurate history until proven otherwise. There is no reason at all to try and say it's not when there's enough evidence to say it is.

Hold on there. No one is arguing that the OT is not in some sense historical, nor that there isn't archaeological evidence to support some of it.

But your argument isn't about the historical events which are the basis of biblical narratives--it's about the text itself.
The claim that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration is a claim about the text, not about the events which the text describes. Showing that there are real historical events behind the biblical narratives does not further your claim.

 

[rjs330]

No it doesn't. You, cannot separate text from the things the text is telling you. There is a purpose,behind the text that God is trying to say. The inspiration covers the stories as well as the words. The OT is history all of it. It was written as a fact and as history.
Brothers and sisters, I want you to be sure of the fact that our ancestors were all under the cloud and they all went through the sea. All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. However, God was unhappy with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness. These things were examples for us, so we won’t crave evil things like they did. Don’t worship false gods like some of them did, as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and they got up to play . Let’s not practice sexual immorality, like some of them did, and twenty-three thousand died in one day. Let’s not test Christ, like some of them did, and were killed by the snakes. Let’s not grumble, like some of them did, and were killed by the destroyer. These things happened to them as an example and were written as a warning for us to whom the end of time has come.
1 Corinthians 10:1‭-‬11 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1co.10.1-11.CEB

Paul,and Jesus speak of the true history of Genesis as I've said before.

You cannot separate the text from the historical point from the text. It makes No logical sense to do especially in light of what Jesus and the apostles say.

 

[Speedwell]

No it doesn't. You, cannot separate text from the things the text is telling you. There is a purpose,behind the text that God is trying to say. The inspiration covers the stories as well as the words.

No, it doesn't follow.

I'm a Civil War buff, and do a lot of reading on the subject. Some of these historical works are very accurate, as far as the facts go, confirmed by archaeology, eye-witness accounts and so on.

Does that mean that I can conclude that these books are literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting?

One of my favorite Civil War history books is in fact a book-length poem, which strives to convey higher truths about the war than mere historical facts. There are some more or less accurate historical facts in it, but they were not the main concern of the author or the reader, so their exact accuracy is of no particular importance.

I suppose you must think that book is trash.

 

[Speedwell]

There is a purpose,behind the text that God is trying to say.

Purpose is important. Can you state succinctly what you think the purpose of the first two creation stories is, and how you know it?

Paul,and Jesus speak of the true history of Genesis as I've said before.

That argument doesn't hold water, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I believe that the Garden story is an etiological folk myth. Jesus used the Garden story in his preaching exactly as one is supposed to use an etiological folk myth in exhortation. So if you don't accept the Garden story as an etiology you are calling Christ a liar.

See how that works?

 

[rjs330]

No, it doesn't follow.

I'm a Civil War buff, and do a lot of reading on the subject. Some of these historical works are very accurate, as far as the facts go, confirmed by archaeology, eye-witness accounts and so on.

Does that mean that I can conclude that these books are literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting?

One of my favorite Civil War history books is in fact a book-length poem, which strives to convey higher truths about the war than mere historical facts. There are some more or less accurate historical facts in it, but they were not the main concern of the author or the reader, so their exact accuracy is of no particular importance.

I suppose you must think that book is trash.

The book does deal with facts does it not? Factual events to not always have to be written in prose do they? And because something is written in poetic form does not mean the story it's telling is not Factual and accurate does it?

Could I not write the factual accurate history of the Battle of the Bulge in poetry form?

And no you won't count the books written on the civil war as literal and inerrant etc. Why? Because they are not inspired by God. The bible isis, so whatever is written is literal inerrant etc.

 

[Speedwell]

The book does deal with facts does it not? Factual events to not always have to be written in prose do they? And because something is written in poetic form does not mean the story it's telling is not Factual and accurate does it?

Of course it doesn't. But if you do decide to write a poetic account, it is probably because the conveying of accurate facts is secondary to your purpose. And the degree to which an author allows facts to get in the way of a good poem (or a good historical narrative, for that matter) has varied considerably over the ages, and the work was still regarded by its audience as true.

And no you won't count the books written on the civil war as literal and inerrant etc. Why? Because they are not inspired by God. The bible is, so whatever is written is literal inerrant etc.

Does reasoning in circles like that make you dizzy?

 

[rjs330]

Purpose is important. Can you state succinctly what you think the purpose of the first two creation stories is, and how you know it?

That argument doesn't hold water, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I believe that the Garden story is an etiological folk myth. Jesus used the Garden story in his preaching exactly as one is supposed to use an etiological folk myth in exhortation. So if you don't accept the Garden story as an etiology you are calling Christ a liar.

See how that works?

Herein lies the problem with your idea. The bible lays out the chronology of events on earth starting with creation. It starts with creation and goes through to what happens eventually to the Jews. At what point does it move from fact to fiction and or vice versa and how do you know? Was creation as stated fiction but Abraham fact? If so, where did the text change? And how do you know?

To answer your question specifically the purpose use easy. To tell us how God created the earth And mankind. How do I know? In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Its not that difficult. That's the purpose. Read it for what it says. The obvious purpose of the two stories is one the first chapter gives a broad overview. How do I know? Because its a broad overview. Very little specific details are given. Just what God did and when he did it and how He did it. I just accept what it says as fact. No need to think differently.

Now chapter two focuses on man, and the fall of man and the beginning of sin in the world. How do I know? Because that's what it says happened. And the people in the story are stated to be actual people by Jesus and by Paul. As well as Cain and Abel. In fact Paul specifically mentions how sin came to be. He even uses Eve as The example to women as to why men are The head of the house. The very reading and flow is history as gives people from Adam on. This is confirmed in I Chronicles. No where is it even hinted at that this is a good fictional story. It is stated as fact.

 

[Speedwell]

Herein lies the problem with your idea. The bible lays out the chronology of events on earth starting with creation.

That is only an incidental purpose, and not an important one. Gen 1-11 is a prelude, a summary of prehistory. It starts with creation and goes through to the tower of Babel. One of the main purposes is to recast ancient origins stories to present radically new theological ideas (monotheism in particular) in a familiar form. The real history of the Jewish people begins with Abraham.

And the people in the story are stated to be actual people by Jesus and by Paul.

They may have been actual people, for all I know. But even if they were, that doesn't help your claims about the text of the stories.

I can use your argument, too:

"I believe that the Garden story is an etiological folk myth. Jesus used the Garden story in his preaching exactly as one is supposed to use an etiological folk myth in exhortation. So if you don't accept the Garden story as an etiology you are calling Christ a liar."

See how that works? What it boils down to is,

"Jesus wouldn't quote Genesis unless he agreed with my interpretation of it."
"Jesus quoted Genesis."
"Therefore, Jesus agrees with my interpretation."

You dizzy yet?

 

[rjs330]

Of course it doesn't. But if you do decide to write a poetic account, it is probably because the conveying of accurate facts is secondary to your purpose. And the degree to which an author allows facts to get in the way of a good poem (or a good historical narrative, for that matter) has varied considerably over the ages, and the work was still regarded by its audience as true.


Does reasoning in circles like that make you dizzy?

I'm not sure how saying history books written on the civil war,are not inspired but the bible is, is circular reasoning. Sorry.

So you are saying that Genesis 1 is true? If some of Genesis 1 is true and some if,its not true which is true and which is,not and how do you know which is which?

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not sure how saying history books written on the civil war,are not inspired but the bible is, is circular reasoning. Sorry.

I beg your pardon, I was attempting to make two distinct points in the same post, which probably confused you.

The first point was part of a longer discussion about the extent to which the writers of historical narratives allow the facts to get in the way of a good story, and how that has changed over time since the biblical narratives were written.

The second was that your argument is circular:

"And no you won't count the books written on the civil war as literal and inerrant etc. Why? Because they are not inspired by God. The bible isis, so whatever is written is literal inerrant etc."

What this boils down to is,

"Whatever is inspired by God must be literal and inerrant &c.
Therefore, the Bible is literal and inerrant &c because it was inspired by God."

So you are saying that Genesis 1 is true? If some of Genesis 1 is true and some if,its not true which is true and which is,not and how do you know which is which?

I can't even begin to answer that question. Our definitions of "true" are so far apart as to make it impossible.

 

[rjs330]

That is only an incidental purpose, and not an important one. Gen 1-11 is a prelude, a summary of prehistory. It starts with creation and goes through to the tower of Babel. One of the main purposes is to recast ancient origins stories to present radically new theological ideas (monotheism in particular) in a familiar form. The real history of the Jewish people begins with Abraham.

They may have been actual people, for all I know. But even if they were, that doesn't help your claims about the text of the stories.

I can use your argument, too:

"I believe that the Garden story is an etiological folk myth. Jesus used the Garden story in his preaching exactly as one is supposed to use an etiological folk myth in exhortation. So if you don't accept the Garden story as an etiology you are calling Christ a liar."

See how that works? What it boils down to is,

"Jesus wouldn't quote Genesis unless he agreed with my interpretation of it."
"Jesus quoted Genesis."
"Therefore, Jesus agrees with my interpretation."

You dizzy yet?

How do you know that's the purpose of,Genesis 1-11? Does it,say that anywhere? Lets look at Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. The purpose is plain. Its,to tell you God created the heavens and earth. There is,nothing in there to state it's purpose is to recast ancient origin stories. That's a supposition placed upon the text by men trying to make it say something it doesn't.

If I said my wife baked a cake and I told you when and how she did it. Why would you or anyone else make an assumption that I was giving you a folk myth?

And Jesus when he spoke parables he told us they were parables and it was obvious they were.

You can use my argument AlI you want, but the,difference is I am not interpreting anything. You are. I am merely saying the bible says what it says and means what it says as fact. You are saying the bible does not mean what it says and interpret it to mean something else. When Moses says God created is six days I,take it at face value. God created in six days. No,interpretation necessary. But those that say God didn't do that have to,use all kinds of interpretive gymnastics to get around that.

Same thing when Paul speaks of Adam, who is spefically mentioned in Genesis as the first man that God created. Again I don't have to interpret. But if you don't believe in it then you have to figure out a way to,make it mean something different than what it says.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know that's the purpose of,Genesis 1-11? Does it,say that anywhere? Lets look at Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. The purpose is plain. Its,to tell you God created the heavens and earth.

You make my point for me. The purpose was indeed to to relate what was then the revolutionary notion that the world was created by a single all-powerful God acting alone.

There is nothing in there to state it's purpose is to recast ancient origin stories.

Except for, among other things, the structural resemblance to those stories, which makes it a reasonable assumption. It is also a widely held view amongst the Peoples of the Book, and has been for a long time. Mind you, that in itself does not exclude the possibility that the stories are also literal and inerrant &c. but that remains a separate issue.

You can use my argument AlI you want, but the,difference is I am not interpreting anything. You are. I am merely saying the bible says what it says and means what it says as fact.

Which is an interpretation. It is impossible to read without interpretation, without some kind of interpretive framework.

Recently the notion was floated on this board (by you or somebody else, I can't remember) that the purpose of the Bible was to give us an accurate and complete historical timeline from Creation to the Last Trump. That appears to be your interpretive framework.

 

[Speedwell]

Same thing when Paul speaks of Adam...

But that is not definitive, as I have tried to explain to you. Paul uses the story of Adam as if it were an etiological folk myth. He also likely believed that it was a true story, but since those are overlapping categories, nothing can be made of it. The notion that Paul's use of the story gives credence to the view that he believed the story of Adam to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration is entirely without foundation.

 

[rjs330]

But that is not definitive, as I have tried to explain to you. Paul uses the story of Adam as if it were an etiological folk myth. He also likely believed that it was a true story, but since those are overlapping categories, nothing can be made of it. The notion that Paul's use of the story gives credence to the view that he believed the story of Adam to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration is entirely without foundation.

Actually your notion is the one on shaky ground not mine.

You remind me of a gentleman I spoke,with a while ago concerning the bible. He was an in believer and used the same arguments you are using. When sharing the gospel with him he said he just flat didn't believe in it when asked why he uses the same arguments you are using. It was all about interpretation he said. I said if I wrote you a letter,and in it said the pavement on the street was,black would I mean the street was black? He said no because it's a matter, of interpretation. I said so I didn't really mean what I said, I meant something,else?

He just kept going around and around refusing to admit that when the bible says,something you take it at face value. You interpret nothing. That's what you are doing. Interpreting everything while I take it at face value.

Just as through one human being sin came into the world, and death came through sin, so death has come to everyone, since everyone has sinned. Although sin was in the world, since there was no Law, it wasn’t taken into account until the Law came. But death ruled from Adam until Moses, even over those who didn’t sin in the same way Adam did—Adam was a type of the one who was coming. But the free gift of Christ isn’t like Adam’s failure. If many people died through what one person did wrong, God’s grace is multiplied even more for many people with the gift—of the one person Jesus Christ—that comes through grace. The gift isn’t like the consequences of one person’s sin. The judgment that came from one person’s sin led to punishment, but the free gift that came out of many failures led to the verdict of acquittal. If death ruled because of one person’s failure, those who receive the multiplied grace and the gift of righteousness will even more certainly rule in life through the one person Jesus Christ. So now the righteous requirements necessary for life are met for everyone through the righteous act of one person, just as judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person. Many people were made righteous through the obedience of one person, just as many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person. The Law stepped in to amplify the failure, but where sin increased, grace multiplied even more. The result is that grace will rule through God’s righteousness, leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, just as sin ruled in death.
Romans 5:12‭-‬21 CEB
http://bible.com/37/rom.5.12-21.CEB

Note that Paul says Adam was,person. And through that person sin entered the world. He uses the same,language for Jesus calling him a person. He was NOT using a folk myth. There is no language in this passage to indicate that Paul was using myth. He spoke as fact. The myth is your interpretation and it is,not supported by scripture.

 

[rjs330]

You make my point for me. The purpose was indeed to to relate what was then the revolutionary notion that the world was created by a single all-powerful God acting alone. Except for, among other things, the structural resemblance to those stories, which makes it a reasonable assumption. It is also a widely held view amongst the Peoples of the Book, and has been for a long time. Mind you, that in itself does not exclude the possibility that the stories are also literal and inerrant &c. but that remains a separate issue.



Which is an interpretation. It is impossible to read without interpretation, without some kind of interpretive framework.

Recently the notion was floated on this board (by you or somebody else, I can't remember) that the purpose of the Bible was to give us an accurate and complete historical timeline from Creation to the Last Trump. That appears to be your interpretive framework.

I dont,agree I make your,point. The purpose was to tell that God created and how He created and how long it took. The fact that it flies in the face of other ancient notions is not the actual purpose. Unless you can find something in it that that states the purpose was to counter act myths of other ancient cultures. It indeed does counter act the myths as a result of the account of truth. Just like landing on the moon resulted in countering a myth the moon was made of,cheese. But that wasn't the purpose of the moon landing.

Countering a myth with another myth makes no sense and is illogical. God created everything, but now I am going to give you a myth on how He did it. How does that make any sense at all?

Remember the Sabbath day and treat it as holy. Six days you may work and do all your tasks, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. Do not do any work on it—not you, your sons or daughters, your male or female servants, your animals, or the immigrant who is living with you. Because the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them in six days, but rested on the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:8‭-‬11 CEB
http://bible.com/37/exo.20.8-11.CEB

God created in six days. It is indicated as fact, not myth. It is provided as a reason why the Sabbath is holy. There is no indication of myth here.

I Chronicles lists the genealogy of Israel beginning with Adam. He is,not listed as a myth nor is there any indication of a myth in genealogy. Unless all the figures are mythological persons.

It would be deceptive of God to portray such a thing without letting us know.

 

[Speedwell]

Note that Paul says Adam was,person. And through that person sin entered the world. He uses the same,language for Jesus calling him a person. He was NOT using a folk myth. There is no language in this passage to indicate that Paul was using myth. He spoke as fact. The myth is your interpretation and it is,not supported by scripture.

You do understand, I hope, that calling a story a "myth" makes no statement about whether there is an historical basis for the story, one way or another. Further, that the way to invoke an etiology is exactly the same as the way one would invoke a story known to be historical. The point I was trying to make was not that the Garden story in the Bible has no basis in fact, but that your "Calling Christ (or Paul) a liar" argument is not convincing.
So let us stipulate that Adam was a real person; I think so, anyway. What we are discussing is not whether there was a real Adam, or whether there is any real history behind the story, but whether the text of that story is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Your "Calling Christ a liar" argument fails.

I would like your response to a remark I made in my last post:

Recently the notion was floated on this board (by you or somebody else, I can't remember) that the purpose of the Bible was to give us an accurate and complete historical timeline from Creation to the Last Trump. That appears to be your interpretive framework.

So I get it, you don't think you have an interpretive framework, because you don't think you interpret, but do you agree or not with that statement of purpose?

 

[rjs330]

If it's a,myth it's fiction. It never happened. There is a genre called historical fiction. I've read those books. Very fun reading. But even though they are based around a time that acually existed the story itself is fiction. Greek mythology is based on Greek times, but the story is not true.

Saying Genesis is myth is saying that in history there may have been a time of beginning in history, but the story itself is false. God may have created the heavens and earth, but he did not do it the way the Bible claims he did. In fact the bible says nothing about how he did it. Just that he did. So the bible isn't being honest with us about how God did it, it's being deceptive.

The purpose of the,bible is to give us the history of the world, particularly focused on Israel and Gods working in the lives of his people and what happened to them. Including the giving of the law. A strict history books purpose is to give strict history and that's it. The bible is history with a purpose. The history is to show the ultimate purpose of God. That man is fallen and in need of repentance and redemption. See as God inspires it, it's not just some dried up history textbook you get in school. Its actual factual history of God moving on this earth, creating, choosing his people, providing the law, leading, guiding, blessing andbpunishing his people and ultimately providing Jesus to,save us.

Whatever was written in the past was written for our instruction so that we could have hope through endurance and through the encouragement of the scriptures.
Romans 15:4 CEB
http://bible.com/37/rom.15.4.CEB



But you must continue with the things you have learned and found convincing. You know who taught you. Since childhood you have known the holy scriptures that help you to be wise in a way that leads to salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing mistakes, for correcting, and for training character, so that the person who belongs to God can be equipped to do everything that is good.
2 Timothy 3:14‭-‬17 CEB
http://bible.com/37/2ti.3.14-17.CEB

Brothers and sisters, I want you to be sure of the fact that our ancestors were all under the cloud and they all went through the sea. All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. However, God was unhappy with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness. These things were examples for us, so we won’t crave evil things like they did. Don’t worship false gods like some of them did, as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and they got up to play . Let’s not practice sexual immorality, like some of them did, and twenty-three thousand died in one day. Let’s not test Christ, like some of them did, and were killed by the snakes. Let’s not grumble, like some of them did, and were killed by the destroyer. These things happened to them as an example and were written as a warning for us to whom the end of time has come.
1 Corinthians 10:1‭-‬11 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1co.10.1-11.CEB

 

[Speedwell]

If it's a,myth it's fiction. It never happened. There is a genre called historical fiction. I've read those books. Very fun reading. But even though they are based around a time that acually existed the story itself is fiction. Greek mythology is based on Greek times, but the story is not true.

Well, if those are your working definitions of "myth" and "true" I see no sense in trying to disabuse you of them. I'll just have to take it into account.

But you must understand that those definitions are not widely shared outside of your world, even amongst non-YEC Christians. You should be prepared for some misunderstandings to arise.

 

[rjs330]

Well, if those are your working definitions of "myth" and "true" I see no sense in trying to disabuse you of them. I'll just have to take it into account.

But you must understand that those definitions are not widely shared outside of your world, even amongst non-YEC Christians. You should be prepared for some misunderstandings to arise.

Please read my full response above. I wasn't finished when you responded.

 

[rjs330]

Well, if those are your working definitions of "myth" and "true" I see no sense in trying to disabuse you of them. I'll just have to take it into account.

But you must understand that those definitions are not widely shared outside of your world, even amongst non-YEC Christians. You should be prepared for some misunderstandings to arise.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

I think I am right in line with myth and true. A myth is something that is not true. Its a story, take, fable. It is NOT true.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true

True, means it actually happened,and is a fact. Its an actual state of affairs.

So forgive me if I don't follow you. My "world" as you put it seems to fit the actual definitions. Is there another definition that would make a mythical story actually true? Or perhaps a definition that makes something that actually happened a myth that's not true?