Jon, I’m hoping that you point to me something like:
if you say "the first hour of the whole earth Day-1 started in the evening can't be true" is true, then why ....
Thank you
1 Like
Good call!
Your detailed insights occasionally put the rest of us to shame.
Just as he doesn’t come out and say it but nevertheless operates on the principle that science has to agree with that interpretation of the Bible.
And he still hasn’t answered why he thinks the Bible teaches science.
I saw that diagram years ago at a conference seminar, though it lacked the final category. I still don’t think I fit any of the categories.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
It’s definitely dishonest when they refuse – or fail – to show where in the scriptures they get the idea that the scriptures have to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate. For my part, on an objective level if they can’t show that this principle (that is extremely important to them) comes from the Bible, then they can’t qualify as Bible-believing – they may see themselves that way, but unless that principle of interpretation can be shown to come from the Bible then they fail to believe the Bible at the very root of their position.
I find it odd to object to a label that a community actually uses for itself; a comparison comes to mind with the term “Lutheran” which was strenuously objected to until well after Luther’s death before the Evangelical Catholics gave up and started using the term themselves.
Including evidence of what the scriptures actually are.
And both issues serve to cripple the understanding of vast portions of the Bible.
1 Like
Actually that describes quite nicely one of my mom’s old friends! It just lacks “strongly identifies as Pro-Life”.
Or as a Baptist preacher of my acquaintance once put it, “brethren and sistren”? 
I reject their “forced understanding” on the basis of “the scriptures themselves” because the foundation of that forced understanding cannot be derived from the scriptures.
The tough part is that YECers are on occasional quite justified in their confidence about various areas of the scriptures, but they fail to see that it isn’t their basic standard that sustains that justification.
He keeps dodging that, doesn’t he? There’s a tolerably decent response for later days, but it doesn’t work with Day 1.
Hi Reko, thanks for your comment.
I must admit that being misrepresented on this site is becoming more than an occasional occurrence.
Where have I ever said that the Bible must be read literally?
Some clarification is definitely required here to ensure there can be no misunderstanding, and so I am not stereotyped then pigeon holed into some imaginary category by yourself and others…
I believe the various parts of the Bible are written to inform us of a great many things, that affect how we are to behave, think, and know the difference between right and wrong, that is witnessed to us through our own God given consciences, and the Holy Spirit so that we correctly understand what the Scriptures are telling us in Truth.
The Bible is written in a range of literary styles that include:
1.) Historical Accounts of real events, should of course be read literally, as in Genesis, Kings 1, Kings 2
2.) Poetry should be read as poetry; as in Psalms and
3.) Parables, (particularly in the New Testament), and
4.) Biographical Accounts as in the four Gospels, and
5.) Letters to the young Churches in the New Testament, and
6.) Prophecy as in Ezekiel, Isiaih, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Daniel, Malachi etc… and
7.) Apocalyptic Prophecy as in Revelation.
The Bible gives us principles of interpretation in 2 Corinthians 4:2 and Proverbs 8:8–9
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 2 Corinthians 4:2
All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge. Proverbs 8:8–9
Thus the Bible instructs us to read and comprehend the Scriptures in a plain or straightforward manner. This is usually what people mean when they say literal interpretation of the Bible.
I have no difficulty in determining what is being conveyed; that is one of the amazing things about the Bible, when it is read with a humble and contrite heart, the text conveys profound truths. The Bible is not like any other book. The Bible is the Word of God and is trustworthy and true.
As for Genesis, well certainly as it is written as an account of history, (what we today call historical narrative), it is definitely appropriate to read it plainly as written, or if you wish to be read ‘literally.’
Should you need more clarification on why Genesis should be read ‘literally’ as historical account of real events, you would do very well to read:
God Bless,
jon
Hi Ron, thus it appears there is a contradiction here.
You stated the following:
“Not only can stars form naturally apart from dark matter, given the basic laws of physics gravitational collapse is necessary and inevitable”.
I’m sorry, but if I understand you correctly in Post Number 369 you appear to be claiming that stars can form naturally without any need for dark matter or dark energy, yet in this recent post you appear to deny you said that???
So what is the answer to the question I raised, i.e., if you believe that dark matter and dark energy exist, how would you know they are not involved in any event in the universe?
God Bless,
jon
- Should Genesis be taken literally?
- "Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:
- Poetry
- Parables
- Prophecy
- Letters
- Biography
- Autobiography/testimony
- Authentic historical facts
==============
- "Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:
- LOL! That’s great news, then… Because I’m a Bible Believing Christian too. I just disagree with YECs on which parts are worthy of taking literally.
Hi Terry, thanks for your thoughts on this subject.
Yep, no doubt we will all have different understandings about various parts of Scripture.
Thus, we will just have to agree to disagree, but we should keep the differences in perspective.
And that means we need to keep the Lord God in full view in our day to day lives; the vital message of the Big Picture is that Jesus is both our Creator and our Saviour, on that at least I sincerely hope we agree.
God Bless,
jon
1 Like
But it wasn’t written as history at all. Historical narrative was not a literary type that even existed prior to the Hellenistic period and not really even then.
Same old deception. They deliberately exclude any actual ancient literary genres such as ‘royal chronicle’, temple inauguration, or mythologized history.
And the quote from Barr is also deceptive, as can be shown by a brief survey of articles and books by Hebrew scholars at major universities: most of them don’t regard the opening of Genesis as history, and most don’t think Moses existed.
1 Like
Oops… my mistake.
Because I read your respond which point out someone else who involve “literal”
Ok… I’m sorry for my mistake. Please forgive me.
I admit that you never said that the Bible must be read literally. So…
Maybe it’s because according to you: a Bible Believing Christian see Genesis as historical narrative, Jon.
So… the detail sentence from you is:
If you claim to be a Bible believing Christian, I do not understand why you see Genesis as NOT historical narrative.
Hi Reko, yes, it is clear to me that the Christian people that I know, read Genesis as a historical record of real events that occurred, and there are many eminent scholars of Hebrew who likewise attest that Genesis is written as an historical account.
From what I have seen in my life with my own eyes in Church congregations, as far as I know all of those people believe that Adam and Eve are real people who are our direct great, great, great, great,…etc grandparents, and they also believe that the flood in Noah’s day was a catastrophic Global event.
If the text of Genesis is written in the same format as history, and sounds like history and is reinforced as history by the Creator, Jesus Himself, then I see no reason whatsoever as to why anyone would think it is not history.
God Bless,
jon
1 Like
Hi Roymond,
if what you say is true, then WHY do 63 separate painstakingly carefully translated Bibles all have the text in Genesis written as a real historical event?
AND
Do you believe that our Creator, Jesus Who was there, is in error about the historical reality of Adam and Eve, as it is clear to me at least that He believed Adam and Eve are real people?
God Bless,
jon
- Why are you refusing or declining or failing to answer Reko’s question about time?
1 Like
Gravitational collapse can happen with or/and without dark matter. I honestly do not know how to express it any more clearly, so if that is not sufficient, let’s just drop it.
2 Likes
Hi Terry, why, who are you, the sites policeman?
Actually, I’ve only been back home a bit over about an hour and have spent about 10 minutes on this thread.
You don’t actually say what this mystery question is, so I’m a bit at a loss as to what you are talking about, perhaps you could let me know the question??? I haven’t had a lot of spare time lately to trawl through every word typed on this post. But will make an effort to answer whatever the question is that you are referring to.
God Bless,
jon
Yes… I also think like that, Jon. So we are all brothers and sisters.
Btw, can I borrow some money from you, brother ? 
(kidding)
But my point is not about our great great great grandma/grandpa, Jon.
I’m questioning about “day” in Genesis 1:1-5.
Yes. Agreed. I’m YEC too.
But the question is: in what kind of worldview it is written ?
My own answer: “flat earth”
Now, if you, Jon have a knowledge that earth rotates with shape spherical and day&night occur simultaneously on earth, then you write a letter exactly like the same in Genesis 1:1-5, do you mean that your writing is to tell the reader that “the first hour of the whole earth Day-1 started in the evening” ?
1 Like
Hi Reko, I do wonder why this questions is important for you to know. but as for me I am content to accept the historical account as what is to me a clear and straightforward account of the creation events in that first week about six thousand years ago.
I do believe that I have already answered this question of yours about when the first hour was:
God Bless,
jon
Dear James,
I just spotted this post, whilst going back over the topic.
Yet, another unmitigated slanderous and deceptive untruth!
If you’re a Christian, then you should be ashamed of such a falsehood.
I have never accused anyone including the scientific community of ever lying.
Yet I protest, James jammycakes McKay that you seem to insist on making false statements about me.
I believe that the difference is in our worldviews, I have made that point previously, and can see that our differences stem from our vastly disparate worldviews. But that is very different thing to “accusing the entire scientific community of flat-out lying”.
Please, back up your deceptive words with precise quotes of the “numerous times” where you claim I have “accused the entire scientific community of flat-out lying”???
God Bless,
jon
Here for starters:
(Emphasis mine.)
The entire scientific community teaches that evolution is a fact, Jon. Not only that, the entire scientific community teaches that evolution is one of the most rock-solid, fundamental facts in the whole of biology. (And no, there is no scientific controversy over it: the thousand or so signatories of the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” constitute less than 0.1% of the scientific community, and most of them are not experts in the subject anyway.)
This being the case, if you are calling evolution a “deceitful lie,” that is accusing the entire scientific community of flat-out lying. This would still be the case even if such an accusation were true.
2 Likes
It is not in anyway whatsoever.
Accusing anyone person or a group of people of lying is making an accusation. I have never accused anyone.
It is you that has created this false accusation against me, which doesn’t impress me one little bit.
I certainly believe that evolution is a deceptive lie that is misleading millions, but that is absolutely different to making a bald accusation of:
as you claim, which I have never done, nor would ever do.
I do not judge anyone, yet you are making false accusations about me and then accusing me.
This is a forum where I believed people could express what they honestly believe about Biblical matters, yet when I have done that, you misrepresent me and stand as an accuser, making false accusations about things I have never said.
Not a good witness for honest Christian behaviour!
God Bless,
jon