Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Speedwell]

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?

Yes, that is popular usage, but we need to look at a definition more in line with serious literary scholarship.

"Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." (emphasis added)

Designating a story a "myth" is based on internal structure and how the story is used. It makes no statement as to the story's historicity.

A similar situation arises with the term "random." In popular usage, "random" can mean "without purpose." This gives some Creationists trouble when they consider the theory of "evolution by random variation and selection." However in such usage, the meaning of "random" is strictly limited to the scientific definition, which makes no mention of purpose.

Random: Predictable by no known algorithm.

As I said, you will use whatever definition suits you, I'm sure, but be prepared for some confusion if you discuss the matter with those who do not share your definition.

 

[rjs330]

Well according to that definition Jesus is also a myth. Do you believe that?

Genesis is not myth it is fact and it is history. I received a degree in Bible Literature, so I know all about literary scholarship. My professors (PHDs) were very clear on literary scholarship and I will tell you that they did not hold that Genesis was myth because myth is not truth. Genesis is truth and true And because it is true It is therefore history.

 

[Speedwell]

Well according to that definition Jesus is also a myth. Do you believe that?

Genesis is not myth it is fact and it is history. I received a degree in Bible Literature, so I know all about literary scholarship. My professors (PHDs) were very clear on literary scholarship and I will tell you that they did not hold that Genesis was myth because myth is not truth. Genesis is truth and true And because it is true It is therefore history.

You miss my point. You no doubt went to an institution operated by or otherwise congenial to your own faith community. You cannot assume that the terms and concepts you learned there are necessarily shared by other faith communities. Who's right? Who knows? But the fact is, if you are going to interact with members of those communities you must be ready to recognize the differences.
Let me give you an example: I said before that I considered the Garden story an etiology. When I say that, I do not consider that I am making any statement about the historicity of the story, one way or another. If you said it, you would be declaring the story to have no basis whatever in historical fact. If you assume that when I say it I am also declaring the story to have no historical basis, we will have failed to communicate.

 

[rjs330]

You miss my point. You no doubt went to an institution operated by or otherwise congenial to your own faith community. You cannot assume that the terms and concepts you learned there are necessarily shared by other faith communities. Who's right? Who knows? But the fact is, if you are going to interact with members of those communities you must be ready to recognize the differences.
Let me give you an example: I said before that I considered the Garden story an etiology. When I say that, I do not consider that I am making any statement about the historicity of the story, one way or another. If you said it, you would be declaring the story to have no basis whatever in historical fact. If you assume that when I say it I am also declaring the story to have no historical basis, we will have failed to communicate.

I will,tell you this. Three of my professors were well renowned in their fields. My Hebrew teacher was well recognised as a Hebrew scholar. He was a frequently consulted by other scholars on Hebrew texts and literature. Another professor was renowned as a biblical historian who had traveled the world and had located ancient biblical texts thought long list and helped verify the legitimacy of current biblical text. His scholarship was second to none. My other professor was an expert in ancient Greek and an expert in Biblical literature in general.

So these guys knew what they were talking about. They were also great men of faith and godly men. Unlike many biblical scholars today who are not believers with no spirit leading them other than the spirit of the world.

Ok then let's get down to brass tacks. You say you using an etiology with no statement of historical fact. Do you believe Genesis is history or not? Etiolgy and poetry aside. Is it history or not? Did God create all there is in,six days or not?

And you didn't answer my question. Is the story of Jesus a myth?

 

[Speedwell]

Ok then let's get down to brass tacks. You say you using an etiology with no statement of historical fact. Do you believe Genesis is history or not? Etiolgy and poetry aside. Is it history or not? Did God create all there is in,six days or not?

No, and I don't think it matters. The important message is that the world was created by an all-powerful God acting alone.

And you didn't answer my question. Is the story of Jesus a myth?

No, the stories are a different form of literature entirely.

 

[rjs330]

Form of literature has nothing to do with the definition of myth that you presented.

Well I guess we are back to square one. You don't believe the bible is true. You believe there is truth in the bible, but don't believe it is true and accurate as written.

As I said it does matter a great deal. Not to you because you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and so because you don't believe in the bible as written it matters not to you. And I am glad that you are a believer.

But it matters a great deal to others as I have said. Unbelievers do not believe in the reliability and truth of scripture. And they use your arguments to proclaim why. So you and the unbelievers have a great deal in common on what they believe about scripture. Only they do take it a step farther than you. Because of their beliefs that you support, they can proclaim that the bible cannot by trusted as truth.

You still have not been able to explain how you know what is true and what is not in scripture and you have not been able to explain why other scriptures support the veracity and truthfulness of the OT yet you disbelieve it. All you have been able to do is present mans ideas while I have presented mans ideas AND scriptural support.

 

[Speedwell]

Form of literature has nothing to do with the definition of myth that you presented.

In this case it does. The Gospels are clearly not "traditional or legendary stories, usually concerning some being or hero or event, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." So they are clearly not myths.

Well I guess we are back to square one. You don't believe the bible is true. You believe there is truth in the bible, but don't believe it is true and accurate as written.

I believe it is all true and inspired by God. You believe that only historically accurate facts are true and your belief in scripture requires verification of those facts, dismissing divine inspiration as authentication.

 

[rjs330]

In this case it does. The Gospels are clearly not "traditional or legendary stories, usually concerning some being or hero or event, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." So they are clearly not myths.


I believe it is all true and inspired by God. You believe that only historically accurate facts are true and your belief in scripture requires verification of those facts, dismissing divine inspiration as authentication.

According to,your definition of myth the gospels are indeed legendary, traditional stories. It concerns a divine being and his phenomenal acts and miracles. After all he rose from the dead you know. So yes it fits.

Sorry but you don't believe it is all true. Because you don't believe in the six day creation and you don't believe in the history of Genesis. I believe it is all true. Every word. I don't just believe the historical facts are true, I believe it is all true. Whereas you do not. The verification of scripture IS proof that it's all true. Not every single scripture is verifiable by other scripture. But when scripture does verify itself it proves the truth in itself. Divine inspiration is the reason it's true. When the bible says something happened it really happened and God inspires the writer to write it down. God inspires the truth. That's why Paul verifies the truth because he was inspired by God to,do so. Jesus IS the truth and so every verification and clarification he makes is also truth. It is not myth.

Let me ask you this. Do you not believe because some scholars claim it's not true or do you not believe because some scientists say it's not true or perhaps both?

 

[Speedwell]

According to,your definition of myth the gospels are indeed legendary, traditional stories. It concerns a divine being and his phenomenal acts and miracles. After all he rose from the dead you know. So yes it fits.

Wrong again. They are not "traditional or legendary stories." They were written in known, historic time, within living memory of the events they describe. John, at least, was an eyewitness and depending on what you believe, Mark and Matthew were as well. "Traditional or legendary" means that the origins of the stories are lost in time, which is certainly not the case with the Gospels.

Let me ask you this. Do you not believe because some scholars claim it's not true or do you not believe because some scientists say it's not true or perhaps both?

Of course, I must rely on the expertise of scholars. I don't read ancient Hebrew, I don't know very much about ancient Hebrew literary forms, about extra-biblical ancient Hebrew or other ANE literature.
But I can read. When I read the Garden story, even in English, certain things stand out. It has all the earmarks of a "Just-so" story which has survived for a long time in oral tradition: The dramatic structure, the highly anthropomorphized non-human characters, puns and other wordplay, etc. I don't know if you are aware of the role of public storytellers in semi-literate societies, but I've been there and recognize the Garden story as ideally suited for them. You could even do it as a panto. A narrator, a few musicians and actors, masks and simple props, with local references and bawdy asides ad lib, all on a square of carpet rolled out in the souk. And at the end (fanfare!) the Angel of the Lord chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword to loud applause. I would certainly throw down a few coppers to see it.

And, supposing such an origin for the story does absolutely nothing to impeach its divine inspiration or authority.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong again. They are not "traditional or legendary stories." They were written in known, historic time, within living memory of the events they describe. John, at least, was an eyewitness and depending on what you believe, Mark and Matthew were as well. "Traditional or legendary" means that the origins of the stories are lost in time, which is certainly not the case with the Gospels.



Of course, I must rely on the expertise of scholars. I don't read ancient Hebrew, I don't know very much about ancient Hebrew literary forms, about extra-biblical ancient Hebrew or other ANE literature.
But I can read. When I read the Garden story, even in English, certain things stand out. It has all the earmarks of a "Just-so" story which has survived for a long time in oral tradition: The dramatic structure, the highly anthropomorphized non-human characters, puns and other wordplay, etc. I don't know if you are aware of the role of public storytellers in semi-literate societies, but I've been there and recognize the Garden story as ideally suited for them. You could even do it as a panto. A narrator, a few musicians and actors, masks and simple props, with local references and bawdy asides ad lib, all on a square of carpet rolled out in the souk. And at the end (fanfare!) the Angel of the Lord chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword to loud applause. I would certainly throw down a few coppers to see it.

And, supposing such an origin for the story does absolutely nothing to impeach its divine inspiration or authority.

You do,know that many scholars challenge the authorship and integrity of the gospels right? They challenge the so,called miracles,of,Jesus. Many challenge,the very existance,of Christ. Also using the same arguments you use for your myth of Genesis. The gospels were written well after Jesus was supposed to have existed. Challenge is John was written 100 years after Jesus was born.

And so what if there are "earmarks". That is,not proof that Genesis is false. The bible is filled with amazing stories of Gods interaction with man. That's what's so cool about the OT. What makes it even more awesome is that they are all true!

 

[Speedwell]

You do,know that many scholars challenge the authorship and integrity of the gospels right? They challenge the so,called miracles,of,Jesus. Many challenge,the very existance,of Christ.

Yes, they do. And you can't stop them with your interpretation of Scripture. In fact, you make it worse as there are many arguments against it in addition to those raised against the existence of Jesus

Also using the same arguments you use for your myth of Genesis.

Impossible. My arguments for Genesis do not apply to the Gospels, no matter how much you twist the genre definitions.

The gospels were written well after Jesus was supposed to have existed.

30 or 40 years after is not in the same class of "well after" as Genesis.

Challenge is John was written 100 years after Jesus was born.

It's possible, and does not particularly effect the integrity of the Gospels.

Face it: your argument that rejecting the literal, inerrant and perspicuous historicity of the Garden story is a "slippery slope" leading to the rejection of the Gospels is plausible only to the ignorant and weak-minded. I don't know why you bother with it.

 

[rjs330]

My point is a broad one I admit. But it's the same folks using the same type or argument that you use to discredit the gospels. They are not precisely the same but similar in nature. My broad point remains that by not believing You discredit the biblical accounts and it's own verification which allows the unbeliever to feel very comfortable disbelieving also. Once you open that door there is no closing it on any part of the bible. Its all myth and fable.

And you still have answer as to why it's counted as true by other scriptures if indeed it's not.

 

[Speedwell]

My point is a broad one I admit. But it's the same folks using the same type or argument that you use to discredit the gospels. They are not precisely the same but similar in nature. My broad point remains that by not believing You discredit the biblical accounts and it's own verification which allows the unbeliever to feel very comfortable disbelieving also. Once you open that door there is no closing it on any part of the bible. Its all myth and fable.

And you still have answer as to why it's counted as true by other scriptures if indeed it's not.

I have explained that repeatedly. You cannot tell by how Jesus and Paul used those stories whether they believed them to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration or not.

 

[rjs330]

I have explained that repeatedly. You cannot tell by how Jesus and Paul used those stories whether they believed them to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration or not.

Yes you can. I've shown you how. But you are just dead set against it. You've bought a lie and don't want to give it up.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes you can. I've shown you how. But you are just dead set against it. You've bought a lie and don't want to give it up.

So explain it to me.

The most I can extract from Paul's use of the Genesis stories is that he believed that the stories described real events.

How do you get from there to the proposition that he believed the texts of those stories in the Bible are the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration? That his use of those stories constitutes an endorsement of your Bible doctrine?

 

[rjs330]

Well if Paul believed that Genesis was a true story Nd Adam really existed as said in Genesis we have answered the literal part of your question. He believed is a literal Genesis. Since Paul was an apostle specifically chosen by Jesus I would find him credible. Also since he had received the deep things of God that has shared with us, his acceptance of a literal Genesis takes precedence over any scholar today.

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.
Romans 5:12‭-‬17 CEB
http://bible.com/37/rom.5.12-17.CEB

See how Paul speak of Adam? Just as through one person, one human being sin entered the world. He speaks it as fact. Further he goes on to speak of Adam to,Moses. One real person to another real person. He speaks of the difference between Christ and Adam showing how Adams failure affected the entire world, not an imaginary world but the one we live in. He contrasts it with Christ.

Now in answer to the rest of your question which refers to the inspiration of Genesis. I am wondering here why I need to defend that. It was my understanding that we agreed that Genesis was inspired. Was I wrong? For some reason I thought we agreed that Genesis was inspired but we disagreed on whether Genesis was literal or not. You take it as an inspired story, but not an actual, factual literal event. I take it as an actual factual literal event. If you believe it is inspired then I don't really need to go into why Paul does as well because we would all agree on that point.

 

[Speedwell]

Well if Paul believed that Genesis was a true story and Adam really existed as said in Genesis we have answered the literal part of your question.

No, you have only answered the "actual" part of my question. "Actual" refers to the events, and I stipulated for purposes of this discussion that Paul believed that the events recorded in the Garden story "actually" happened more or less as described.

He believed is a literal Genesis.

"literal" can refer only the text itself, and you have yet to explain how you know that Paul's use of the story authenticates the notion that the text is "literal."

See how Paul speak of Adam? Just as through one person, one human being sin entered the world. He speaks it as fact. Further he goes on to speak of Adam to,Moses. One real person to another real person. He speaks of the difference between Christ and Adam showing how Adams failure affected the entire world, not an imaginary world but the one we live in. He contrasts it with Christ.

Yes, he believed that Adam was a real person who lived in history. We agreed to that for purposes of this discussion, but you still haven't addressed the nature of the text.

Now in answer to the rest of your question which refers to the inspiration of Genesis. I am wondering here why I need to defend that. It was my understanding that we agreed that Genesis was inspired. Was I wrong? For some reason I thought we agreed that Genesis was inspired but we disagreed on whether Genesis was literal or not. You take it as an inspired story, but not an actual, factual literal event. I take it as an actual factual literal event. If you believe it is inspired then I don't really need to go into why Paul does as well because we would all agree on that point.

Yes, we agreed that the text is inspired. Except that "inspired" does not necessarily mean that the text is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. How does Paul's use of the text authenticate that proposition?

 

[rjs330]

Sorry you've lost me here. Literal is without metaphor or allegory. Actual is fact. If a text states a fact it is also Being literal. The actual is Adam existed and the actual and is he sinned along with Eve and brought death into the world just,like Genesis says then the story is not a metaphor or an allegory. It is literal.

If Genesis is inspired then it is inerrant. God doesn't make mistakes. A single book does not have to be self interpreting. Unless I mistake your meaning here. Or verify itself. However the bible does verify itself over and over with other books written by other authors over different time periods. In Genesis case it's inerrancy in the creation is verified in,Exodus. And it's verified by Jesus and Paul.

I don't get the hang up with all the verbage you use on the inspiration.
Please explain how the book of Romans could be,inspired but not inerrant and not perspicuous product of plenary verbal inspiration. Give me an example. Yes I meant Romans not Genesis. I want to,see how you determine these things

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry you've lost me here. Literal is without metaphor or allegory. Actual is fact. If a text states a fact it is also Being literal. The actual is Adam existed and the actual and is he sinned along with Eve and brought death into the world just,like Genesis says then the story is not a metaphor or an allegory. It is literal.

If Genesis is inspired then it is inerrant. God doesn't make mistakes. A single book does not have to be self interpreting. Unless I mistake your meaning here. Or verify itself. However the bible does verify itself over and over with other books written by other authors over different time periods. In Genesis case it's inerrancy in the creation is verified in,Exodus. And it's verified by Jesus and Paul.

I don't get the hang up with all the verbage you use on the inspiration.
Please explain how the book of Romans could be,inspired but not inerrant and not perspicuous product of plenary verbal inspiration. Give me an example. Yes I meant Romans not Genesis. I want to,see how you determine these things

No, it's up to you to do the explaining. Literal inerrancy, self-interpretation, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration are novelties which did not appear in Christian history until after the Reformation and are all but limited to the YEC community even now. How do you determine these things?

 

[rjs330]

Actually you are wrong here. Inspiration was fully accepted by the early church. The apostles believed in the inspiration of the OT and they themselves claimed inspiration of their writings and teachings. The words you mention are definitions of inspiration used to try and explain it to a more modern man who decided inspiration writing from God wasn't what it was accepted to be from the early church. Its obvious from the writings that the apostles believed exactly what I believe in that the OT was literal. It wasn't until a long time later that men began to move away from that and claim it wasn't. The verbage you use in your question came about to counter the thought process that had crept into the scholarly world that inspired didn't mean literal and it didn't mean the events actually happened by were metaphors and allegory.

Inspiration was accepted by the early church and apostles as God telling man to write actual literal truth and happenings. Real events and how God dealt with people in those real events revealing who God was. THAT was the accepted belief of the apostles and early church.

Like I said you've bought and paid for the lie. You need to get your money back.