Creation theories, necessary?

No, it does not affect your salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith, alone!

However, that having been said, the first 11 chapters of Genesis form the basis for the entire redemptive plan: where we came from, why the world is in such a mess, why Jesus came to die, etc.,etc.

The question that has to be asked is: if the creation story is not to be taken at face value, then what are the answers to theses foundational questions? Where do you draw the line between literal truth and symbolic, interpretive truth?

If there was no Adam and Eve, where did sin come from? Did God create a world with death, disease, and deterioration and call it "good"?

Do we let science tell us where the line is drawn? Do we let the current wave of popular scientific opinion guide our interpretation? Keeping in mind that scientific theories are changed and altered as frequently as underwear.

The moment we set science up as the arbiter of biblical truth, we have placed God's word below man's word.

Why would God move the writers to paint a false picture that doesn't line up with what we observe (truly observe as opposed to infer or believe)? The answer that, "they just couldn't handle the truth of science" doesn't wash. There were lots of things Biblical authors wrote that they didn't understand at the time. It doesn't affect the truth of what they wrote.

Besides, think of how much faster science and technology would have progressed had God revealed the details of science. Even if they didn't understand it, it would have pushed the thinkers of the day to explore more. In fact, the most progress in science has taken place when a literal, Biblical worldview is taken as the starting point, as opposed to a strictly naturalistic worldview.


No it doesn't change or affect our salvation, but it does establish or destroy the foundation for that salvation.

 

The gospel begins with Christ the creator's "real role" in "real creation" John 1.

Christ is directly and immediately involved in the creation of everything that has come into being such that apart from His direct and immediate action - nothing came into being that exists today.

This is something atheist evolutionism can not tolerate for origins. God the Creator - God the Savior - immediately and supernaturally required to cause all to exist and to come into existence.
For atheist evolutionism (at least as Richard Dawkins describes it) the evolution story EXPLAINS the origin of how every thing that exists comes into existence -- and that story does not say "For in SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is".

By contrast the Gospel can not tolerate atheist evolutionism as the "origin" story. Atheist evolutionism shows via junk-science that all that we see today "evolved" from nothing. Starting with nothing - the origin of all life is fully included in the scope of the junk-science we know as "evolutionism" today.

It is a clear and obvious choice between the humanist model of naturalism for origins, vs God's model "FOR IN six days the Lord God MADE the heavens and the earth the sea AND ALL that is in them".

No contrast could be greater, more obvious, more clear. Exegetically this is open and shut.

However there are those that say that playing cut-and-paste with the Gospel in order to bend it to the junk-science whims of atheist evolutionism does no damage at all to the Gospel.

When they do so - they admit that the changes/edits they make to the Word of God are not made on the basis of exegesis - rather they admit they are freely eisegeting the junk-science of evolutionism into the text "as if" God was teaching evolutionism in the text of scripture.

The detailing the problem with that bogus approach is left as an exercise for the reader.

Pretending not to see it - is left as an exercise for the evolutionist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

marrying the junk-science of Evolutionism to the word of God and to real science is indeed the modern form of "the science of good mixed with evil".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Absolutely correct.

As we consider where to "draw the line" in other words, how to interpret and apply scripture, we must use everything we've got! Our reasoning powers, our faith, our sincere prayers to God and heeding His answers, research into what others have done, and then come to our answer.

And guess what. No matter what we do, somebody else will have also gone through the same earnest effort and come up with another answer.

It is perfectly consistent with the Bible to interpret the coming of death with Adam's sin to be a reference to death for Adam and his progeny, not a reference to the death of animals. There is a definate advantage in animal death, in that places are made for the next generation. There are many animals such as the shark and the lion that cannot eat without killing.

There are areas where science is still entertaining new ideas and there are areas where science is firmly established. Do you look for an alternate notion of the composition of water to come any day now, or are you satisfied it is H20 after all? I submit the science on that is settled, not subject to change. I further submit that the science behind the determination of the ancient age of the earth and the common descent of life is equally settled; however, that has not come to be as widely known yet.

Actually, what we have done is placed our interpretation of God's word on a par with our interpretation of the testimony of God's world. GOD MADE BOTH HIS WORD AND HIS WORLD and it is perfectly OK to use the evidence from His world to help inform our interpretation of His word.

Why doesn't it wash? God has clearly chosen in His word to provide a progressive revelation.

And a literal, Biblical worldview has historically oppossed scientific advances such s the upstart Copernican view that it is the earth that rotates as the cause of day and night instead of the sun's motion, which is literally the wording of Scripture, by the way.

And for my part, I fear that the opposition to known truth on the part of Christians casts a mixed message to the potential convert, asking him to make the impossible choice between giving up his knowledge of science or giving up his hope for salvation. I greatly fear that holding onto this false dichotomy is a temptation from our ancient enemy similar to the temptations he used on the pharasees to cause them to hate the teachings of that revolutionary minded carpenter from Nazarus.

 

Maybe you are right. Maybe God was wrong to start off with this subject in Gen 1-2:3 as if this is the basis for worship and for establishing our relationship to God.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the Gospel writer is wrong in John 1:1-4 when he makes this the basis for establishing who our Savior is...

Maybe that part just does not matter.

Maybe Paul is wrong in Romans 5 when he establishes the sin problem based on non-evolutionist beliefs about Creation and the fall in that chapter.

Maybe we can "just start with" somehow we evolved after enough time in disease, extermination, carnage and chaos. Then we found out that we are ALSO going to hell and need a savior of some type from some where.

But then again... maybe, just maybe the Bible is right.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh come on now - I thought the evolutionists here would love to jump in on this one and show how their trusted-details-are-optional view of the Gospel is going to work in the case outlined above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I fear this is a deeply personal issue. Not only in the sense that it is rather inflaming, but more importantly in the sense that it seems crucial to some folks and insignificant to others.
Personally I wouldn't lose any sleep if tomorrow absolute evidence would surface that the first chapters of Genesis are not to be taken literally, TP's baptist preacher on the other hand would probably loose a great deal of sleep.

 

I love it when "the details" of the John 1, Genesis 1-2:3, Exodus 20:8-11, Romans 5, Romans 8, Romans 1... problem for evolutionism from the standpoint of God's Word - are addressed so completely by those who believe it makes no difference what part of God's Word you accept.

In the end - that contrast is the whole point of this thread.

Thanks to all!

In Christ,

Bob

 

One of the very first things God reveals to us about Himself in the bible, the first thing He asks us to believe is that He is creator of all things. If we can't believe exactly what He says about Himslef in those first two chapters how can we believe anything else He reveals about Himself in scripture.
Faith without sight is believing in creation, believing in evolution is the need to see proof of God and His works in the universe, a misreading of so called 'facts', a complete misunderstanding of who God is.
I refuse to debate evolution becasue it is only an unproven theory, creation by God is a scriptural fact. Why should any christian have to disprove evolution when it has never been proven. Yet God Himself testifies that He is creator, and some how some christian have a hard time beleiveing Him.
To me c verses e is not about science, it's about faith. I don't need to see God create to beleive He did it, and no made up facts will make me doubt Him.

 

Well put!!!

 

It is obvious that we are going to have the two ways of approaching the scriptures among us for quite a while. It is perfectly feasible, contrary to the opinions expressed above, to regard the details of creation in Genesis 1-2 as non-literal while accepting the spiritual truths concerning God as creator and man as now fallen. However, as a doctrinal position, one can assert you can't do that, in the same way one can assert you can't worship on any day but Saturday; equally fruitlessly, because whatever you assert about that, people will go on doing it anyway.

 

Hmmm.

Yes God is "creator" He just did not actually create anything. "what's wrong with that?"


Yes Jesus is one with the Father and the creator of all - but He just did not "actually" create anything.

INSTEAD - we worship the God that kicked off the big bang and walked off to leave the univers in chaos and then given enough chaos, carnage, predation, extinction, disease and death - PRESTO you got HOMINIDS! And then given even more death and disease - voila! not-Adam and not-Eve living in not-Eden eating from not-the-tree-of-life.

Then they not-sinned by talking to the not-snake and eating from the not-tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And of course the not-Creator then kicked them out of the not-Garden.

And after all these not-true details were completed the REAL savior died for whatever it was that REALLY happened to save the people we see today!!

Really!!

I mean - surely that is all just about the same as what real Christians find in the real Bible reading the real story of Creation! Right?

Surely.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why are you giving mockery lessons to the enemies of Christ? Do they really need your help so much?

 

Quote by PoE, "It is perfectly feasible, contrary to the opinions expressed above, to regard the details of creation in Genesis 1-2 as non-literal while accepting the spiritual truths concerning God as creator and man as now fallen."

Why stop the trading of "literal truth" for "spiritual truth" at Gen. 1-11? I say its ok that Jesus didn't literally die and wasn't literally resurrected. After all, our science proves that that doesn't happen! Oh, and that virgin birth stuff was all spiritual as well, because "we now know" that science proves that reproduction doesn't happen that way.

If Adam didn't literally fall, then we aren't literally lost---there is no scriptural way around this, regardless of what your "science" tells you.

 

"Why stop the trading of "literal truth" for "spiritual truth" at Gen. 1-11? I say its ok that Jesus didn't literally die and wasn't literally resurrected. After all, our science proves that that doesn't happen! Oh, and that virgin birth stuff was all spiritual as well, because "we now know" that science proves that reproduction doesn't happen that way."

Where exactly does this happen? I would assert that science says that it cannot make any claims on resurrection or virgin birth because they were supernatural events. We take those to be true on faith. If you no longer do this, then you don't really have faith any more, do you?

Science can look at the record in the Creation itself and let us know about the four and a half billion year old earth and the common descent of life, however.

 

In Genesis 1 God created time, He marked the passage of time by days, 24 hour days. Then He told us He created in 6 24 hour days. Since God created, I am sure He knows what He is talking about, He tells us what a day is, sun, moon, first day and so forth, so according to what He says He created, He created in 6 24 hour days.

 

Hi DonnA, welcome to the discussions!
Jesus said, in one famous passage, that we cannot be his disciple unless we hate our mothers and our fathers.

The verse doesn't give a hint that it is not to be interpreted literally EXCEPT - it can't be literally true! We all know that God Himself ordered us to honor our father and our mother, and also we all know that Jesus said we are to love one another as He loved us!

Therefore, bringing this outside knowledge to that verse, I consider it to not be literally true.

I don't consider it a lie! I look for the spiritual lesson in Jesus' words!

And I consider the same thing to be true about creation. Starlight has travelled to reach our eyes for millions and millions of years from some places. Genetic and fossil evidence combine to show that all life is of common descent.

Nobody made God put the light in the sky by which we see the stars; He is responsible for that Himself! Nobody made God put the fossils in the ground; He did it on His own initiative!

Therefore I conclude we can trust the evidence God has given us to help us understand what is literally true and what is to be understood spiritually in Genesis 1 and elsewhere.

 

Very true DonnA. This is the clear and obvious meanging of the 6 "evenings and mornings".

Today with even more understanding we know that this is in fact 6 rotations of the planet with a single-sided light source.

In Exodus 20:8-11 God further confirms that clear and obvious meaning that you so quickly identified when HE says "FOR IN SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is IN them and rested the seventh DAY".

That is where God equates the DAY of Genesis 1 with the DAY of Exodus 20. Exact equivalence - same text, same author, same word, same context - PERFECT exegesis.

However if one insists that the atheist's great junk-science "hope" for a counter version of "origins" is the "real truth of life" and not that "Account" of "origins" given to us by God - well then - almost anything goes.

In Christ,

Bob