I suppose that question might make sense to you,
but all it does for me is demonstrate your ignorance
of what Christian salvation is.
“good enough for salvation” indeed... A basic error. Noone and nothing is “good enough for salvation”.
““good enough for salvation” indeed... A basic error. Noone and nothing is “good enough for salvation”.”
I do agree with you, but I was using it in the ironic sense.
“Creation Science” exists on the very premise that Genesis is not only true, but literally true, and then seeks to find (or make up) evidence based on what they claim is science to back it up.
So if you say (and I agree) that the literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is not necessary for salvation, then my ironic question was - if it is necessary for “creation science”, then why wouldn’t it be necessary for salvation.
Your logic, which I accept, will send you to hell if you believe the most fundamentalist creationists, that includes virtually all of those who believe in “creation science”.