BibleTier 1Strongly AgreeStarted by Robert Williams - May 1, 2026 - 8 comments

I believe that YEC/OE, global/regional flood, evolution beliefs do not add or take away from one's salvation.

Discussing:

“The Bible is the infallible Word of God.”

Thread starter's perspective:

None of these have to do with the payment made for sin. They only argue whether or not EVERYTHING in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. However, about 80% (idk the exact amount) of the Bible is not intended to be taken literally or as history. This is because much of it is: - Psalms/songs/poetry - proverbs/wisdom literature - hyperbole - parables - symbolic imagery or idioms However, there is definitely history in it (including the miracle accounts).

Create account or sign in

8 comments

741

I think the gospel arc requires God to be a creator of the Earth. It provides his authority over us; his ownership. However, the method of creation I dont think really matters. The question is where do we draw the line? The line can't be "believability," that would rule out pretty much any supernatural encounter, and also has nothing to do with genre. I think we have to use internal evidence of the text. I personally have been convinced the creation story is not a literal account. (based off of not only external evidence in nature but also internal evidence of the writings we have of Genesis) The creation story specifically seems set apart from the rest of Genesis using poetic language in Hebrew that we might miss in English translation (ie. Adam just meaning "man," the format of the writing, etc.). but of course I don't say people who take it literally have missed the gospel message of Gods redemption of us. Example: Noahs flood, seems to be written narratively. Now it could be a real global flood, but how would the author know if the whole Earth was flooded if they didn't discover the whole Earth yet. To me, thats using internal evidence and hypothesis, basing an argument off scripture and history, and a valid interpretation. But if we start saying "Esther wasn't a historical account" we really have no basis for that. Or "Hosea didn't really communicate with God" we also have no basis for that. Or "the burning bush was just a metaphor because burning bushes don't exist in real life" we can't just say things didnt happen because they are unique or remarkable, because people probably chose to record it for a reason.

25d ago

869

My pastor likes to say that out of the entire Bible, Mark 10:21 is the one people are the least likely to take literally.

27d ago

303

While agreeing that this is not a top-tier doctrinal issue, and not one we should refuse to fellowship together over, I also think there is a danger in silo'ing certain doctrines as inconsequential to the whole. There are certainly takeaways from how you view the creation account, that effect your thoughts and views on the authority of God's word, the criteria for when to see allegory or symbolism in a text, the sovereignty of God etc, that will affect how you understand other doctrines. I can see a scenario wherein the choice to read the creation account as less than direct narrative, would have tangential effects on how you view other doctrines in a non-orthodox way, including salvation. I think the reasoning behind the view is not inconsequential. If perhaps someone says "95% of the Bible is figurative or hyperbolic, so accordingly the creation account is", then they could perhaps apply the same reasoning to Jesus' teaching on exclusivity, which is directly related to salvation. I'm not saying that they MUST make that conclusion, but that it could potentially (logically) follow. So I just wouldn't completely untether the understanding of a certain portion of scripture, to the understanding of the whole of it.

May 4, 2026

1.4k

Yeah one thing I've learned recently is the HUGE variation in how people interpret and use the word "literally" when interpreting the Bible. For example, in Genesis 7:17–20, someone can take a “literal” view and say the flood covered the entire earth in a modern sense being 100%. Someone else can also claim a “literal” reading but understand “whole earth” as the whole known world at that time. Both would say they’re being literal, but they lead to very different conclusions. That’s where a lot of the disagreement comes from. Same word, different assumptions behind it. But yeah in any case I believe I put strongly agree on this as well for "infallibility". Curious if you have some examples of things people take as history but you wouldn't put in that category.

May 1, 2026