Why is the literal view of Genesis 1 so critical for salvation in the view of many cr

laptoppop said:

Yes, the Fall and the flood at the time of Noah are very much two events. But if one is to deny that that there was a global flood, one is forced to use methods of interpreting Scripture that affect everything else, including the Fall.

Click to expand...

Not really, because there is nothing in the text of the flood account that says it was global, it is simply the traditional interpretation of h'erets as 'the earth' instead of its more common meaning 'the land'.

There is a connection between the flood and young earth creationism, but it is not a scriptural connection or anything to do with methods of interpreting scripture. YECs need a global flood to try to explain geological strata and fossil record of the history of the earth. But the bible never even hints at the idea that fossils were formed in the flood, the idea comes from creation science not scripture.

laptoppop said:

I've started a thread in the creationism subforum to gather some of the best evidence and arguments.

Yes, the Fall and the flood at the time of Noah are very much two events. But if one is to deny that that there was a global flood, one is forced to use methods of interpreting Scripture that affect everything else, including the Fall.

Click to expand...

And such methods are bad because...?

laptoppop said:

Yes, the Fall and the flood at the time of Noah are very much two events. But if one is to deny that that there was a global flood, one is forced to use methods of interpreting Scripture that affect everything else, including the Fall.

Click to expand...

But creationists themselves are hardly uniform in their interpretive methods. Why should they hold us to a more rigid way of interpreting the Scriptures than they themselves practice?

[requoting from http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36720368&postcount=13]

For a practical example, consider how creationists approach the Scriptures concerning geocentrism. Sarfati recognizes that:This allows him to not consider passages like Eccles. 1:5 and Psalm 93:1 in constructing his cosmogony, instead deciding that those passages were not written for the purpose of teaching cosmology. However he earlier on (mis)uses Isaiah 40:22 to argue that the sphericity of the Earth is compatible with the Bible:But I am sure that Isaiah, when he wrote these words, did not intend to convey to his readers what the Earth looked like from space! Or does the principle of "author's intent" only appear when dealing with Scriptures that contradict an already-established scientific worldview, but not before?