Seriously classy video, proper academics who are honestly reporting what they have found. This is an aspect of truth and how to discover truth. Its a pity than whenever the BBC talks about 'creationist' they use this as an opportunity to mock the bible because a vocal minority foist there dogmatic 'young earth' view. So, BBC next time you are talking about creationism, please cite these professional academic and their views rather than using your traditional mockery.
"a vocal minority" up until the 18th Century most of the Christian Church including the early Church, the reformers and the Puritans were unanimous regarding the true historicity of Genesis 1-3 - see Dr. Mortenson's book 'Great Turning Point'. Furthermore if you are denying God as creating the world over 6 (Hebrew 'Yom') days then your authority does not come from God, rather you have elevated man as your authority...
@@rajsahota5524 Not so, the whole tradition of reading scripture in Patristic times and I'm medieval Europe was to read it as allegory. Just look at what Origen (184-253AD) said about Genesis: 'And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[' This whole video is about how our understanding of texts has changed throughout history. The idea of taking creation narratives as a scientific truth is a post-enlightenment way of reading text through our way of reading history. Namely taking a text and believing that it conveys 'facts'
As a lay person, I enjoyed their take on this. However, it still appears to be almost apologetic. Regardless of the era, is it still a case of ... science continually tries to prove itself wrong, whereas religion continually tries to prove itself right?
All people interpret scripture. If I interpret the creation account as an historical account, it is still an interpretation. It is not necessarily the truth - but it certainly could be. Now, we have a method that has helped us to understand many things about our world and the universe: science. I'm sure we can all agree on this. After all, we are communicating through a medium that, without scientific inquiry, would be unlikely to exist. This method, when applied to geology, astronomy, and several other areas of study, calls into question the interpretation of an historical creation account. This does not mean the text is wrong or in error, simply that the interpretation is in error. To quote Augustine, "In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." And this is a really important point, for I hear many people argue that man's knowledge is inferior to God's knowledge, and I wholeheartedly agree. However, again an historical interpretation of the creation account is not an example of God's knowledge, but of the interpreter's knowledge. A person who insists on their own interpretation, despite evidence to the contrary, is placing their own human knowledge above others. So, is it possible to see in the creation account an interpretation that still reveals the truth of who God is, and yet is not at odds with what we have learned about the creation through other means? Yes. The idea of the creation as God's temple is one. There is also another interpretation that sees the creation account as a manifesto for monotheism. In a pagan world, nature is worshiped as divine. We see Sun and Moon worship, planets being worshiped as gods, animals being worshiped as gods and so on. Through this lens, the creation story is a rejection of the divinity of the natural world and a claim that all those things are simply the created works of the true God. Paul in Romans 1 emphasizes this point. But, really my issue is with those who would denounce as heretics those who hold a different interpretation. I believe young earth creationists are Christians, yet are merely wrong about their interpretation of Genesis. Our love for Jesus and our neighbors is not contingent on what we believe about Genesis. And certainly the love of Jesus for us is not contingent upon what we believe about Genesis. Let's not have a spirit of division and strife, but of unity in the Holy Spirit.
Good review. The problem is young earth disinformation holds christianity up to mockery. Why bother to read the bible if it teaches the earth is 6,000 years old, as I already know is not. Of course you and I know the bible says no such thing, but that is what some say. This is why Ive started to make myself a bit unpopular in certain circles as I now challenge young earth pseudoscience when I come across it. Does this generate conflict? Yes. Is it necessary conflict? Do let me know what you think?
Biblical studies and biblical theology are specialized and serious disciplines, with their own methodologies. Those who have no patience with any specialized discipline except the empirical sciences will not take seriously the advances that have been made in other fields of knowledge, even though these advances have often been based on empirical studies in linguistics, archeology, textual criticism, anthropology, psychology, ancient history, literary analysis, etc. To such people, to be "true" can only mean "to be literal in terms of the presuppositions of the empirical scientific method." So much the worse for them. Claiming to be wise, they remain fools. These twin fundamentalisms (Christian and atheist) are mirror images of the same Enlightenment error: namely, that the rationalistic mind of humankind is the measure of all things. The early Christians were neither Protestant fundamentalists not dogmatic secularists, and they did not approach sacred texts with such narrow presuppositions. They believed that there were more things between heaven and earth than either brand of fundamentalism could conceive.
When Creationists argue against evolution, they are really only expressing their fear that atheism will burst their bubble and take Jesus away from them.
Jerome Horwitz While you might be right in many (perhaps even most) cases, I think it wiser to attribute the best attitudes and motivations to those with whom we disagree. This is difficult to do, but I think it allows us to approach their arguments with greater objectivity and discourages us from making invalid ad hominem arguments. Anyway, how can we ever really know the inner motivations of others when we often don't even know our own?
rose white Scientists really want to understand how a natural process works, but Creationists only want to promote their religious ideology using any trick to persuade the gullible.
Kenneth Kitchen ("On the Reliability of the Old Testament") has some different things from this video to say in terms of the link/reliance/response of Genesis 1 to the creation myths spoken about here. He suggests (much more convincingly imho) that Genesis 1 is older than this video assumes - perhaps 1700BC. In which case it's not responding to those myths because it predates them. To assume Genesis is responding to them because they share some themes is not great scholarship.
Hey that's really honest and refreshing! I am a Christian believer and thank you for bringing some good old-fashioned common-sense. Contect is vital. If we as Christians are te read the Bible aright then we have to respect the Author and the recipients and their worldview. A LITERAL interpretation is what the recipients would have understood by the text and that couldn't have been 21st Century cosmology. Thank you Scepticanuck.
Back to the future - some comments posted here fail to see the significance of reaching out to the past so to understand the present and eternal theological significance of a creative story from the Almighty Creator, through the Scriptures i.e. we just don't take creation stories literally lest we undermine and perverse the creativity (like a symphony) of our Lord and maker (or composer) who is truly the most creative.
I totally agree that the creation account is saying alot more than surface reading. That doesn't change the truth that the true author of the WORD according to the WORD is the WORD, and HE can't lie. So therefore let HIM be true and every man a liar. I hate that truly learned men of GOD make arrangements to explain why the creation account doesn't line up with what man says about the creation. Professing yourselves wise you became fools. Rom 1:22. Also, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (knowledge) falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20 KJV
The changing voices just makes this a bucket harder to follow. Are they making the same point? Do they all agree? Just take the comments from 8:20 - Whatever point is being made there is difficult to grasp. Somehow we next end up with Beethovens symphony but what does it mean to play Genesis for all it's worth. Rather than a range of talking heads this would be a lot better with an interviewer who could just ask at certain times for clarification.
I did watch after posting the question. Though I understand and accept his point, I think that it is still important to know how the books were understood at the time. From what I gathered from his lecture, he seems to imply that the authors of Genesis understood it literally. Did you get that impression too?
Don't forget John Walton in the title of this video. I watched this video and got mad. Why didn't my Bible and theology professors tell me this. They broke down the view of inerrancy but I didn't get this far. Thank you, N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne, Allister McGrath and John Walton!
I understood that, and I agree. I take that approach with many books of the bible, such as Daniel, Job and Songs.But then, as you sad, it is important to understand how Christians historically interpreted Genesis. I know that during the first three centuries the literal interpretation was not a consensus, but do you know if there is any statistical studies on the available patristic authors and their beliefs regarding Genesis. And as I previously asked, any studies on how the apostles read it?
Cool. Here are verses that again confirm 6 day Creation Ex 31:17 | “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.” Ex 20:11 | “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. Ps 121:2 | My help comes from the LORD, Who made heaven and earth.
11:04 The account in genesis 1 was not intended to be an account of material origins. But no explanation as to why it isnt. I thought that was the point of the video to show it is not literal and why? yet it did nothing of the sort. Instead it lauds Concordism and practices Escapism (we have no need to defend genesis, because we apply esoteric meaning to it)
6 лет назад
What kind of bible is being used at 4:30 (I'm guessing it's the same bible being displayed in other parts of the video?)? Is it some kind of study bible?
ironically I'm 99% sure the book being closed at 0:07 is a Book of Common Prayer - which fits the theme of these three Anglicans interpreting Scripture!
Sorry if this seems glib, but which bits? I'm not a scientist (which field of study are you in?) but I do have a BA in Archaeology and Ancient History, though my studies very rarely touched on anything of a biblical nature.
does anyone have a citation for the "God resting/reigning" in historical texts aside from Genesis. It is a VERY solid point which I would like to follow up on. If NTW says it, I have no doubt that it has a solid pedigree. Thanks !
I'm not a christian, nor a believer in any deities, if people want to label me an atheist, so be it. But any ancient text, ANY ancient text has to be read within the context it was written. All creation myths seek to explain how things became to be in ways that the people they were written for could understand. And in the context of modern scientific discoveries, no one creation myth is any more valid than another. I never understand how that can be misunderstood.
200 years ago none of this was an issue, the bible is God's revealed word and truth. Today we know better so new explanations are necessary. What will it be 200 years from now? It ain't getten any better for the true believer!!!
What is a "true believer" exactly? Tell me where Jesus said we need to believe every aspect of the bible. The hebrew bible wasn't even compiled yet let alone what we have now. Faith is not a rejection of reality. Fundametalist Christians need to learn this. That is willed ignorance. Faith is the opposite of willed ignorance.
The Babylonian creation myth was the scientific truth of its time. Genesis is the proper interpretation of that truth, much as theistic evolution is the proper interpretation of our own generation's truth. It's not so much, "This is objective fact!" as it is, "This is the correct way to understand objective fact!"
Lol what? Why are you judging Ancient txt with your modern thinking? Your basically a racist. Gen 1-11 is a polemic. It is reponse to loosely based on the Babylon creation story. RUclips Michael Heiser if your serious about understanding more.
@@johndoe-ln4oi these ancient myths have a common root, that is proven by critical redaction and common sense. It doesnt make the message any less important. Psalm 104 as an example, apart from 4 changed words, is actually the ancient egyptian hymn to the Artun, the earliest recognised monotheistic god, worshipped by pharoh Tutenkamun! As Polkinghorne states, the bible is a library, taken and compiled from many sources...it doesnt lose its power because of that, quite the opposite!
"what parts of the new testament must we throw out? the miracles? all or some? where does it end?" I don't think anything has to be thrown out, its not an "all or nothing" concept. Considering the Bible is (give or take, on denomination) 66 books, written by 40 people, on three continents, in three languages, over a 1600y period. That being said each society/person would have a different writing style. Not to confuse the reader but to give a better representation of humanity for humanity.
I believe in the literal genesis & the Bible. I might add, however, that it is possible that the actual details surrounding the literal word of God may be far different from what we are able to imagine or artists can portray.
I am a scientist and a theologian. I know the theories of relativity and the Genesis story well. I understand the theories of evolution. There is No Clash. It is man who makes the clash. I waited on God for revelation about the six days of creation. He then spoke, and pointed me to the very first verse. 'He created in the beginning.'. He did not create in six days. When one sees that everything fell into place. The six days are the revelation of what God did to the mind of man (Psalm 92:2). Moreover the account is not chronological but what matters to God, just as we speak of lying on a beach on holiday before we speak of the journey to get there on the plane. Indeed how could He who is in eternity create spacetime in six days. He did it in a flash of revelation, from that was without form within Himself. Indeed the first day started with the word 'then' - 'Then God said let there be light.'. It is us who needs time to.understand it.
True, Genesis is not a science book but it is a history book and as such contains historical detail such as numbered days with evenings and mornings. If Genesis merely wanted to convey the 'Who' of creation it would stop after the first verse but it goes on to reveal historical detail. I'm not sure how reading it as history 'flattens it out'. Does a historical reading of the Gospels and resurrection 'flatten out' the account and rob it of it's deeper meaning of death defeated and God's gift of eternal life? Does Tom want us to believe that we are being unfaithful to the text if we see in it a real man rising from the dead after 3 days in a detailed historical setting? Is the truth of whether or not Jesus physically rose from the dead unimportant? If we read the Gospels in the same way then 'How' God made the gift of eternal life available to us (the historical account of the physical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) is irrelevant but only the 'Who' of eternal life matters ie God. Just as the solution to the problem of sin and death is of historical significance so is the origins of sin and death and their affect on God's good creation. Jesus' redemptive work on the cross to restore a creation that is in bondage to decay because of our rebellion against God is rendered meaningless if evolution is true. Evolution as a mechanism for creating life uses death, suffering and disease; is this what Jesus is seeking to restore!? Cosmological and biological evolution have no basis in science. They are beliefs about the past and hence disciplines of philosophy and religion: cosmological models are chosen due to philosophical considersations not observational ones; natural selection is a scientific observation but does not demonstrate fish to man evolution as animals speciate but remain within their kind ie dog kind, cat kind, horse kind, etc. Men, conscious of their guilt, create naturalistic explanations of origins in order to avoid being held accountable to God, their Creator, Lawgiver and Judge. Science is all about our observation of how the physical world operates in the present and our ability to accurately quantify, record and control it for our benefit. Science is part of the dominion God gave us over his creation. Unobserved events in the past cannot be quantified in the same way. How something works tells us nothing of how it came into being. We have no way of knowing the origins of man and the universe without eyewitnesses, Genesis is an eyewitness account of our origins so therefore it is history. Evolution has no eyewitnesses. The Bible's account of creation has God himself witnessing to what he has done and communicating to us clearly what he has done in regards to creation and redemption.
Occam's razor will allow us to simply rest on this one note from St. Paul from 1 Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV) "12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." If we're looking for hope, we'll find it in the risen Christ. If were looking for trouble, we'll find endless supply in man, which is exactly why Isaiah's record of man states the following in Isaiah 2:22: "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, of what account is he." Mankind for ALL TIME is seen in the history of this earth, from creation to the time "this corruptible must be made incorruptible, in a twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:52), as that which NEEDS forgiveness - Luke 23:43 - "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." We're blessed to be alive and made to see, fortunately, that which is unchangeable and true - the risen Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and all the days of our lives beyond realizing this truth should be lived in thanks and praise of him for showing the difference between our fallen, corrupted, temporary state, and that which is to come - thanks be to God: Romans 8:18: "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." In heaven, there will be no more again, the former things - to which we will not have to point and say - "See you were wrong here; or, I was right." No. We'll have God in our presence sustaining all things incorruptible, and we'll be forevermore pleased just to be thankful for it being so. The first thing a drowning man focuses on is usually NOT - how or why he came to be in a drowning state; rather, but on that which can rescue him. I have found this to be true in Christ - and that staying focused on him is the best way through this dying world.
Okay..... One minute in and already they completely miss the point!!! "-(Genesis) was not written TO us-"; what!? GOD certainly knew that HE would preserve this book through the ages, and as Jesus said, "-thy word is truth..." John-17:17 kjv. Jesus, however did not say, "-thy word is a seething cesspool of lies and metaphors and endless allegorical diatribe thats good for nothing..."!!! The churches in other countries and sects that have compromised secular religion and beliefs on origins dwindle on less than 10% church attendance. The so-called "scholars" need to realize the Scriptures are revelation, not just information.
These so called wise scholars are voicing same tired old arguments: 'The Bible's not a textbook blah blah blah...etc.." I go back to 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 where God says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world"? These scholars have elevated themselves as the authority and have become fools, end of.
@@ObjectiveBob exactly trying to use as a cook book and you cant then trying to use it to tell us how God created and you cant? what do I need it for then? let me throw out the gospels to if it don't tell you about how to receive eternal life
"the authors...understood Genesis literally..." I'm not sure about that, and some of the speakers in the vid imply they didn't (Wright, Louis). The person(s) who compiled Genesis must have seen contradictions between the texts they used, they couldn't have been literalists. I suspect that Genesis was written and compiled in a society that didn't have a tradition of exact historical narrative. By 'literal' I mean 'a physical and historical account of events'.
Yes I agree. Some bits of the Bible are history...... I am a Scientist by profession and should have mentioned that perhaps. So I am not offended by your honest comments and shouldn't be!
I find it most telling that N.T. says it's near perversity to "flatten out" the Creation narrative by looking at the details of what makes up the main point, but he essentially commits the same error in reverse by so emphasizing the general thematic thrust that he seems to say the details don't matter.
How many of these theologians have read Creationist explanations and Creationist critiques of the General Theory of Evolution? And read them as though they wanted to it to be true? I suspect very few. But can their current views be considered learned if they haven't done this? Or should we consider them theological experts who have have adjusted their views in theology because society led by the scientific academy has told them they should? If the latter is the case, they have put great faith in society and the scientific academy - not only have they adjusted their theology but they have become apologists for the scientific academy! Because they are NOT just saying "Genesis was written in another time and from another mindset and we need to understand the context to interpret it correctly. " (that part I agree with.) They are ALSO saying the meaning of Genesis 1-11 can be detacted unscathed from the question of whether or not these chapters are scientifically reliable. Some theologians do that with the Resurrection of Jesus too. In my view, the meaning of Genesis 1-11 and the Resurrection of Jesus are stupendously enhanced if they are literally true, and stupendously diluted if they are not literally true.
I would suggest all are acquainted with creationist explanations, which is but one reason that you can consider their views learned. Another would be that between them they can read, write and most probably converse in more dead languages than you and I can in the living ones. (Useful when looking for meaning in ancient texts) Another would be the extensive historical/archaeological detail these guys possess . (Again useful when trying to determine historical events) Add all that to the fact that they would all have read all of Darwin's work, and probably most other exponents of evolution from Zenophanes to Lamark and you have to admit that learnedness is brimming all over the place here. You can disagree with their thoughts, but you cant disagree on that. No christian theologian I am aware of "does that" with the resurrection. In a way, I understand you last sentence, and if you like the idea , go with it.
How have you obtained your great confidence that these academics have looked as objectively as they can at creationist explanations and critiques of (macro) Evolution?
Walla bea Generally, because of the fact that they are extremely well versed in their subject matter. Specifically, because the evidence leans towards an evolutionary explanation, and not the explanation that you are professing. I understand your viewpoint, I am christian myself, and I am sure we can both agree on the fact that God created the universe, and everything therein. We seem to disagree on the mechanism involved. St. Paul insists that we use our hearts, our souls....and our minds (our intelligence) to uncover truth. Whilst you visibly make use of your heart and soul, you seem to neglect the mind. Look at it this way. If the world were indeed only several thousand years old, we would know, given all the available scientific data, and if it were the case, we would have little choice but to believe in a "young earth" and consequently, in God. However, the bible tells us in many places that God will not force us to believe, one of His greatest gifts to us being the ability to choose, IE. free will.
Walla bea says: >>"In my view, the meaning of Genesis 1-11 and the Resurrection of Jesus are stupendously enhanced if they are literally true, and stupendously diluted if they are not literally true. " And you prefer the "enhanced" version, so it must be true. Playing Beethoven's 5th in the background does not make Genesis anything more than bronze age myth.
hisxmark, it's you - not me - saying "you prefer the 'enhanced' version, so it must be true." You want to believe all Christians are simplistic and irrational, 'so it must be true'. My point was addressed to those who believe/want to believe the Bible - not for those not interested in this question, like yourself. My point to them was: DON'T fall for liberal theology's assertion that taking certain Bible passages as only metaphorical DOESN'T significantly devalue those passages. If this liberal-theology assertion is accurate one needn't bother with the subsequent question "Is this or that Biblical account literally true?" I'm suggesting to other believers/seekers that the LT assertion is NOT acurate so that they will bother with the "Literaly true?" question. As an aside, I do believe the Universe was created Divinely in 6 days and that Jesus' was resurrected bodily - and, based on my own intensive investigation, I regard these conclusions as the most sound position possible. And I remain open to all available evidence. What more should I do, do you think?
Here's a way Genesis 1 could have made its alleged point about one God creating everything, without specifying details incongruent with scientific fact: [BEGIN CHAPTER] There is one God, who created everything. [END CHAPTER] 💁
and of course everyone has their own opinions and that I respect, but you do have to realize that the original Genesis was in Hebrew, and it has been translated through quite a few languages and into cultures that are very different and so maybe our staunch beliefs of what the text means based on an English version that is in a different culture altogether might not be what was originally intended.
I am quite inclined to read Genesis metaphorically, but my question is: how was it meant to be read when it was written? Was it meant to be read literally? Did the writer understood it literally? Did the apostles, and general Jews of the first century read it literally? That is an answer that would really help settle the debate.
Just as the Greeks read about their myths and the Sumerians, one of the first civilizations did too, so it fulfilled the role of myth for the Hebrews. The myth wants to tell a story, whether it is true or not. In fact, it has more to do with a cultural teaching than a natural fact.
All comes down to if you believe the Scriptures are God breathed that the Holy Spirit moved the authors to write what they did. Herbert Spencer a physicist who died in 1903 first came up with the idea of categories. That everything known or can be known is divided into 5 categories, time, force, action, space and matter. Scripture covers all 5 in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning (time), God (force), created (action), the heaven (space), and the earth (matter). You either believe the first 2 chapters of Scripture or you may as well throw the rest away.
Just my view on it. The Bible, imho, is a very intersting collection of literary works, but *science*? No. I'm sorry if this offends, but those individuals who espouse the Christian Bible as a literal history are completely missing the point of the collections as they pertain to the modern world, if they do indeed pertain to the modern world, but that's for everyone who has actually read it to decide for themselves. For me, it's like using Plato's works as a literal history and proof of Atlantis
The illogic and credulity of these very intelligent men is enormous! Its like listening to a child rationalizing something they can't deal with--creating a story that will have concord with their limited comfort zone. To be in a cocktail party with academics and have to admit that Genesis is true--must truly frighten the men who straddle the worlds of faith and the world.
I get the idea now. A few lectures by Bentley Hart and N.T Wright has shed some light on the matter to me. I have come to accept Genesis as a parable, that people eventually took much too seriously. But since literalism it was not a consensus within christianity and judaism I feel I am not bound by a unanimous tradition and it gives much interpretative freedom, and an honest and historical one imo. But we cannot agree that batman is awesome, because it is revealed truth that Iron man is cooler.
The sun and moon were finished before the 4th day, but light from the developing luminaries were allowed to shine through to the surface of the earth on the first creation day. God said "Let there be light". Not that he created the sun, moon and stars on that day.As you recall Darkness was upon the face of the earth. Then on the 4th day the cloud cover that caused the darkness on the face of the earth was removed and the Sun moon and stars could be seen. I believe these creation days were periods of creation times. Just like in Gen 2:4. In the day that God created the heaven and earth. It took 6 days but here it says it was a day.
Their are a couple meanings of Day Like Some Day, the Day of the Lord in the day of the King. But in Genesis they are qualified by the phrase thus the evening and morning the first day ECT. Which doesn't even mention day time at all. Only evening and morning Plus Genesis 1;14 says the Sun Moon and stars also will Govern Day and nights. And separate (divide) the light from the darkness. verse 18. The days were added much later by a Priestly writer concerned with the institution of the Sabbath.
The Christian faith is notable for its dependence on objective truth. For example 'if Christ were not raised we of all men are most miserable'. Genesis 1 does not have to be a scientific account but it is not unreasonable to expect the statements made to be objectively true. If you are happy with the methods of interpretation used by the speakers in this video ask yourself how you would feel if an airline followed a similar approach to 'truth' after you enquired as to whether the plane they were going to put you on was airworthy?
It seems most of the video commentators fail to understand that culture doesn't shape Scripture. Genesis and the whole Bible was written for all people, that's why we're Christian.
NT Wright said: "This world was made to be God's abode, God's home...". Acts 7:48-49: “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, Or what is the place of My rest"? Then further on in Acts 17:24-26: ""The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...". Wright is wrong!
The are both metaphorical and literal things in the Bible. It's that simple. The days of Genesis aren't even metaphorical, because "yohm", the Hebrew word used for days, is also used for ages. The more accurate translation, based on scientific data and analysis, is ages. There is no way around it. But I'm not saying God couldn't have done it in six days. Only that He did not.
/* our staunch beliefs of what the text means based on an English version */ I agree. Which is the the English version was translated directly from the Hebrew. This is why I don't view Genesis through the eye of post modern people who believe evolution is true. The text even says in Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven." This is the order/generations of Creation in chapter one.
If you believe that the earth is milliards of years old, then you actually say that God was a liar and that basically all Jews and Christians before the 19th/20th century believed in lies: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11)
Duke - SWT Mate Not liars. Just ignorant. Nothing wrong with being ignorant. We're all ignorant, in fact, especially about science. Science will look very differently, for example, 100 years from now. We'll be the ignorant ones.
+ObjectiveBob But it is God telling us that he created the heavens and earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Therefore we rest on every 7th day. It would not make any sense to say that God meant milliards of years when he talks about literal days. The Bible should speak for itself, what you do is eisegesis, not exegesis. There is no hint in the Bible that the earth is older than 6000-7000 years, therefore we must not interpret it by our evolutionist mind. There is no evolution, there are no 13.7 milliards of years. You should read the "95 Theses Against Evolution": www.0095.info/resources/95ThesisEngl_ffgtg12.pdf
Duke - SWT Mate I agree. The Bible says the world was created in 6 literal days. I'm not arguing that it doesn't say that. I'm arguing that Genesis 1 is mythical poetry and not history.
Duke - Where does the Bible say the earth is 6 or 7 thousands years old ? Also was Christianity better in the 19 th century because everyone believed the earth was six thousands years old , as you seem to think.?
I have no problem with Genesis in Gen 1:1 you get the original creation. In Isaiah you see the original creation was Perfect and Habitable. From Gen 1:2 on God relates to Moses the present earth. Isaiah told about Lucifer/ called the King of Tyre vs the Prince of Tyre that ruled Tyre. The King of Tyre was in the Garden of God at Eden/possiby Tyre - by not in. The King was created perfect until iniquity was found in him and he rebelled against God and great destrruction happened - "you caused the nations to crumble. I believe this is between Gen 1:1 and the recreation of the earth in Gen 1:2-on. Note that Gen 1:2 on God constructs a Garden at Eden and creates man and places man in the Garden. Adam did not walk around as Lucifer/the King of Tyre did having gems created everywhere he walked nor adorned with such a brilliant glorious clothes but naked, only clothed with the Glory of God which he and Eve lost after sinning against God - seeing themselves totally naked not covered with God's Glory -light. Thus something happened to the world causing it to be shrouded from the stars and all land covered with water and tohu/bohu becoming void not only of light but life, shrouded by debris from its destruction under Lucifer. The it only took 6 literal days or 6000 years for recreation/step by step fixing what was broken and restoring light then life. PS Several meteorites have been identified with microscopic creatures in them that came from earth, indicating great destruction, implying why there was no sun light nor life in the recreation until God cleaned things up and regenerated life, creating Adam in His Image hands on. This is called the Gap Theory. I also years ago and more recently ran across a video that postulated exactly what I did years ago called The Genesis Code which shows how the earth could be of OLD as is stated in the Bible. My calculations many years ago came up with millions of years whereas the video speaks of billions of years of age of the earth from the initial big bang which I called the big Creation. Some scriptures I found long ago stated creation starting before the Throne of God. in the great praise and worship of all the angels with the Trinity a cloud appeared before the Throne by the manifestation of God's Holy Spirit. In obedience to Father God the Word of God/Son of God (who took on flesh to save His Creation mankind from separation from God we know as Jesus) the Word spoke creation into existence. This does not give thousands to millions of years to different strata of the earth as evolution postulates ruling out one big cataclysm of the Noadic Flood as evolutionists want you to believe. Remember many layers similar to the strata of the earth were formed in weeks in a lake close to Mt St Helen after volcanic eruption. This is merely shifting of earth from the Flood. The oldest layer where life began was in the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian layer where life INSTANTLY appeared. Note also the so called layers of evolution have modern life captured as well as dinosaurs and whatever. Even the earliest forms of life like the Trilobites had highly sophisticated features like a form of eyes. Essentially the earth before life was void of life by the strata found. The concept of the earth being so old is QUITE SCIENTIFIC. Einstein proposed that speed determines how fast or slow things happen. He theorized, has been proven true, the faster you move through space the slower time passes yet on earth time goes on as normal. Remember a clock merely a reference to time. Essentially the faster you go the time you experience is accelerated greatly on the earth. The concept here of an old earth with top layers shifted by erosion and the Noadic flood still supports the former earth theory I proposed. How? Since Noah is only a few thousand years ago and shuffling of the surface of the earth is recently. What happened before that when Lucifer was the ruler simply may not have been discovered or the reforming of the earth into a ball after destruction of the earth, covering it with water, may have even older relics of times before man. Perhaps the former earth may have been a form of man who Lucifer ruled over and led to self destruction of self and world? Just theorizing. If the earth is of old according to a former Garden at Eden where Lucifer/the King of Tyre ruled may be only lets say 12000 or some more years ago. Time dilation is ell explained in the film Genesis Code which references time from God's perspective rather than man's. Initially at creation the expansion of the universe from the big Creation by God's standard on day 1 could have been millions, even billions of years of time as we know it. I do know this, by the time God described one of His days to Moses he said, "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years. Imagine a bullet traveling through the air, air as drag such as gravitic pull of stellar bodies and matter on other bodies and matter slowing it down. A bullet may leave a gun at 1500 feet per second. Its velocity is slowed down as it travels. Theoretically if you stood close to the gun the bullet could travel through you. However at the end of its travel before hitting the ground it possibly could bonce off your skin. In space the universe expands, the bullet does not stop and the further away from other gravitational bodies the slower it slows down. But from the initial speed its slowing is fast until less gravity slows it down. Look at the video for the science vs faith synopsis: ruclips.net/video/Iu3R47gH4CM/видео.html
THE EVENTS BEFORE THE "BIG BANG" AND SCIENCE. THe real story of Genesis could have not possibnly known to man unless it was revealed by God! Adam and Evwe however they were given lether tunics in order to be able to live away from God and new place (transfomed place) known to us as the ~Universe~ where the Grace of God was replaced with their gift of logic!. [Genesis 3:21] : 'Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. How do we know today about the events that took place before their exile? THE EVENTS BEFORE "BIG BANG" AND SCIENCE. The explanation of the word science in the English dictionary is very lucid 1 Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.2 Any of the branches of natural or physical science Science today attributes ~the presence of man and the absence of God~ to a cosmic event that they claim was accidental that was given the name “big bang”. The way however that Matter came into existance and was concentrated into the Mass that made the “big bang” possible, that was to eventually form planets and galaxies, that gave birth to life …did never concern science! The physical events that took place after the "big bang" can come theoretically under the study of science because they consist of hands on natural or physical phenomena of the material world that that can be studied through reason and logic. However the events that preceded the big bang can not be studied by the logic of man because there is no physical or material evidence to substantiate them. Eventhought if science did not have the proper evidence for God they shoul have been rensponcible to confirm a Divine Presence in the lives of men! This is why 1 Any mater that suddenly appears from nowhere with a “build in plan” to form planets and planetary systems that will eventually sustain life can not come into to being without a ~Preplanning Mind- that ordained it so. This (the Preplanning Mind) is what everybody knows or describes as God. 2 There is nothing known to man (science) that can appear from nowhere (a void) by its self in order to form millions of planetary systems and galaxies… unless they were created! This is why God (the Preplanning Mind) is also called a Creator. Scientists reject the idea of a God because they cannot comprehend (know Him) with their logic. They have been “trained” to understand that anything beyond their material way of understanding things is incomprehensible… there for is rejected! How ever there are those who know God personally (the Saints) who will tell you through their personal experiences that ~God is a PERSON- because He is known to talk to people ~person to PERSON- like He did when talking to Moses. There is a simple fact that is ignored by science and generally the rest of the world today and this is the fact that God reveals His Self…TO THOSE THAT HE WANTS TOO! The coming of Lord Jesus and the creation of the Church was to “set up” the right circumstances for man to be able to know God personally. After Pentecost and the descending of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles created Churches around the world using specific rules (given from above) that are known as the 85 Holy Apostolic Cannons. [aggreen.net/canons/canons.html]. The Church was created as a therapeutic institution in order for God to be able to reveal His self not in the mind of man (logic) but in the soul (heart). The heart is the place inside were God testifies to His Self, it the faculty of intuiting that gives man the axioms upon which to reason. (2 Corinthians: 4:6). “God makes His Light shine in our hearts, to bring us the knowledge of God’s glory shining in the face of Christ. There for the time ~before the big bang- does not belong to science it belongs to Theology. Science does not have the “eyes of the heart” by which to see and know Creator God through Revelation and so scientists are “condemned” to the type fantasy and speculation that is given birth to by the logic of man that will disallow them to seek or/and know God for the rest of all eternity! The question remains now. Does science want to know the events that took place before the big bang? The proof that Moses was the writer of the Pentsartefxos is overwhelming. creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis What Is the Orthodox Church? - Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick ruclips.net/video/95P744siC7U/видео.html
But the bible does speak of a material origin of the world and Christina have had to defend it against scientific evolution. I was hoping this video would offer an explanation of the existence of prehistorical men 200,000 years ago way before God's creation, and how those people connect with the people of Abraham. Are God's people a different species of Homo Sapiens? and if we were created in God's image, how does evolution fit in this creationist theory? Are we simply going to turn a blind eye to evolution when our ancestry basically because the bible doesn't explain it or are we going to accept the scientific claim that we came from an evolutionary process long before Adan and Eve and not from a pile of dust. How do we marry science with the through of being created in God's image when evolution says changes that occurred over millions of years took place randomly without God's intervention. I'm very disappointed to see there is no answer to this question.
Genesis=Ganesh=Ganesha=Ghana=Gene=Genie=Gunung=Guru Yang Agung=Mountain=Who Live more than human (50000 BC) Perspective of human, they can called knowledge or symbolize as Genie/ Who know anything/ Descriptive big as Elephant Hello I'm from Nusantara!! King of Kings
If there is unquestionable evidence, then there would be no evolution theory. If the text is supposed to be read literaly in every sentence of the bible, then I hope you tear your eyes off if you sin because of them, or make sure you find you place in Abraham´s bosom after you die. Oh, about the end of times; let´s all stare at the ocean all day waiting for a beast of several heads and horns , that would be a pretty conclusive sign. The text is clear and so is its meaning, if you let it speak.
I dislike that these religious biblical scholars dance around the question of the reliability and the historicity of the biblical events described in the text. I don't question their knowledge of the text, but it's being dishonest as a scholar and as a human to make empty statements along the lines of "we can't just read the text at face value, we need to try to dig deeper and find the theological implications of what god is trying to say to us." The reason this is so disgustingly dishonest is that they start with the presupposition that god already exists and then they bastardize that belief by pretending that these ancient writers were capturing that in a subtle and profound way. What a much more honest position to just say "these documents are the product of Iron Age superstition, egregiously exacerbated by centuries and centuries of transmission by men that are, at this point, lost to legend." Stop trying to keep your religious ideologies afloat in the modern day. Religion was useful at one point when the world needed an explanation for the mystery of nature and our existence. We understand now how the world works and anyone with a bit of education and honest examination has to put their belief in these ancient superstitions to rest. For good. These texts may be beautiful literature (some parts anyways) from the ancient world, but they're just that; nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry to hear you have such a shallow view of understanding truth, that just because something isn't literal it's automatically false and "Iron age superstition".The first few opening chapter's of Genesis itself is a testament of man trying to understand deeper truths through revelation. to get across though allegory that God shaped the universe and is it's ultimate source of being. And no, that interpretation is not just modern theologians and biblical scholars trying to keep "religious ideologies afloat in the modern day." For such evidence all you need to do is look at early church fathers such as St, Augustine of Hippo (354-386 C.E) and Origen of Alexandria (150-254 C.E) Both early biblical scholars and writers who didn't take all of Genesis literally. Unless of course you want to argue they had a time machine to see the discovery of modern scientific findings and changed their views as such. It really is amazing at times how much fundamentalist zealots and vapid atheist* share in common ..at least when it comes to understanding legitimate biblical research and understanding the cultural context in which these text were written in. Sorry, normally I'm just a lurker on these forums and find discussions of this matter pointless to pursue on RUclips comment sections, but felt compelled to reply to this one. Just so tired of people acting like fundamentalism and literalism are the only valid expressions of faith when it comes to Christianity as well as other religions and faiths. And anyone else that does otherwise is just a big faker or dishonest pretender. Whatever, the world isn't that black and white, the subject of these matters are no different. *(note that I said 'vapid' atheist, realize not all atheist are like this guy. Many are smart, well informed about these subjects as well. And although we disagree philosophically about the God question they know that these matters aren't so simply tossed aside because of a 3rd grader, Sunday school understanding of the text and theology in general.)
luk... the basis of this video is that there are believers that have either a hard time squaring their religious belief with science (possibly because people like you call them fools for having any religious belief at all) or they have a difficult time explaining their scientific 'belief' to some of their fellow believers that don't have much understanding of science. So generally, it's a discussion between believers as I see it. If you want to horn in and be offended because we choose to believe...have at it, I guess, but I'd suggest you just relax and enjoy the part of life that you spend being agitated about us. I don't think anyone is trying to get you or your ilk to convert, or even to consider it. I happen to believe that religion still is useful in many ways. But understanding how the cosmos (or earth for that matter) was formed is not one of it's big uses for me anymore - when I was a college student, getting that 'bit' of education you talk about I thought about cosmology a lot. Understanding the practicality of life and relationships is more important to me these days. And finding a little peace.
+luk2718 you honestly believe Homer thought Troy was conquered through the intervention of the Gods? Big answers to big quesions are complicated and difficult. People dont like it. People like simple narratives they can understand and portray in terms of black and white. When the truth just doesnt fit into such a narrative, people often react like you are reacting.
How did Jesus view the book of Genesis and the Apostles in the New Testament? Exactly how it reads in the text. Read the family of Jesus in Luke 3:38 "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Jews knew Adam was the first man created by God, created adult. Like the Universe. "And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE" I believe exactly like Jesus did.
If you are going to be reading Genesis, make sure you don't skip over Genesis 6:6. This verse shows that the god of the bible is too incompetent to be the creator of the universe and the source of life.
It is clear that God hammered home that it was 6 literal days. Evening and Morning, etc. Jesus said Himself that man was created "in the beginning" where evolution would state that it was at the very end. God also warned people to believe the words of Moses. It was stated right in the 10 commandments as well. Science confirms a young earth. There is no contradiction, unless you exchange observable science with junk science. God's first hand account of creation is of His greatest miracle.
Genesis is Science. Its how God Himself created all things in the beginning. What people call the sciecne today isn't science. In fact the origin of modern cosmology is not science but from Greek pagan philosophy. Democritus 460 BC - 370 BC "Democritus held that the Earth was round, and stated that originally the universe was composed of nothing but tiny atoms churning in chaos, until they collided together to form larger units-including the earth and everything on it." Sound familiar???
Nonsense. It seems none of them have read Hugh Ross's or an other Old Earth Creationist material and assume Genesis 1 is myth. The narrator is God and the narrative is factual. The days were longer periods of time then 24 hours and the sun and moon were created in verse one, not day/age 4. These liberal scholars haven't done their study of the Hebrew very well.
@@itisnow Obviously you are ignorant of Genesis one. Genesis 1:1 describes the Big Bang (ex hihilo), the creation of the "heavens" (stars, galaxies, sun, solar system) and the "earth." Then the initial conditions are described, the earth was formless and void with no life, covered with water and no sunlight reached the earth because of cloud cover. The perspective of the observer is stated as hovering (vivifying) over the surface of the water. Day/Age 1: The atmosphere was made translucent allowing light to reach the surface of the earth. Light is necessary for life which started in the oceans. Day/Age 2: A stable water cycle is made. Water above (clouds, rain) is spirited from the water below (seas). Day/Age 3: Land appears and continental drift is started along with the beginning of the creation of land plants after their kinds. Incests, trilobites etc. were also created. The Precambrian Explosion occurs. Day/Age 4: The atmosphere is made transparent. The sun, moon and stars which had already been made prior to day/age 1 become visible from earth. The visibility made it possible for higher forms of animals with biological clocks to be created. Day/Age 5: The creation of fish, birds, dinosaurs etc. Day/Age 6: The creation of mammals, hominids and last of all man in the image of God. Only man has the capability to have relationship with the unseen Creator. Day/Age 7: God rests from creation. The day is never closed out. We are in the 7th day/age presently and observe no new animals being created; however we observe many going extinct. So we see Genesis one matching perfectly what we observe in science.
@@itisnow I have no idea what Jews you are talking about but the Jews who wrote the Bible believed in creation ex nihilo as well as the miracles. The Jews at the time of Christ didn't understand scripture any more than you do. That's why they crucified their Christ. Christians didn't steal anything. The entire Old Testament shadowed Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of everything written and the church was what he came to build. The Gentile branch was grafted into the root and so we are considered part of God's "Israel." So the Scripture belongs to those who have faith, it belongs to all who follow Christ.
And I am not saying you are wrong, because I am certainly of no authority on the subject, but I am saying that unless you have read the original texts in their original languages with meanings relating to the culture and such, that we all (as in myself included) are relying on english or american translators, and there might have been some meanings lost in translation. So this might be misrepresentation, or accurate. Only God knows.
Don't unlearn anything. That's what heretics start with. What you do is analyse and test all claims equally and not chose one without looking at both sides first. You look at the intend of the author, his background, the subjects background, the culture, language etc. Do not take post-modernist views which no one in ancient Hebrew held. Like billions of years and the pagan Greek idea of evolution. Did not Jesus Himself take Genesis as beginning with Adam and Eve, Cain & Abel? Isn't He Creator?
/* Read/watch something from John Walton */ Why? Who's John Walton? He's not that clown who traveled with a cross on his back making a mockery of Christ? No thanks. I only want to read what the Bible says, and what all the great reformers say on the subject. /* He needs to "rest"? No, something is meant by this. */ Yes, it means God stopped all His work of Creation on the 7th day. He did not start again creating on the 8th Day. His work was finished. He created all Creation in 6 days.
Why is this even an issue ? If it weren't for atheist pseudo scientists we would not be having this debate. Before Darwin came to the scene, everybody and I mean everybody understood that God created the world in 6 24-hour days around 6000 years ago and rested of his work on the 7th day. The Book of Genesis ought to be interpreted literally as it relates to historic events, including the fall of man. The genealogy after Adam is very specific, with names and number of years the descendants of Adam lived. I don't know what people don't understand, the scripture is the most accurate account of historical events that took place many years ago, there are no other manuscripts out there that show ancient history around Israel. We do not need these theologians to interpret Genesis for us, we must with a childlike faith believe that God created the world in 6 literal days of 24 hours. each These intellectuals are absolutely teaching doctrines of devils. There is nothing that can lead somebody to believe that the bible is not a masterpiece of the history of mankind from Adam to Christ. With regard to natural science, I believe it must be in harmoyolny with scripture as it relates to the historic events mentioned in the bible, and if it doesn't it means we have false science. And this we know by faith, Hebrews 11:3. Beside Romans 1 teaches that it is self evident that God created the heavens and the earth, from observing the creation we know there is a Creator, even a man that didn't go to school can see this. Yet the intellectuals in this video give credence to pseudo scientists that teach evolution, when you do not need to go to school to know that this is a lie. There can be no harmony, when science is turned into magic, this science needs to be rejected because it is not science, i.e. the theory of the big bang and evolutionary biology are simply put, doctrines of demons, and need to be called for what they are. One thing they are not is scientists, these are quacks dressed as scientists, magicians disguised as scientists that have university degrees. Furthermore, these people want to put the Genesis story in historic perspective, i.e. the book is old and it was written for a different audience than today. Let it be clear the Word of God is as relevant today as it was thousands of years ago, furthermore the bible may have been written by different writers at different times, but it has one Author, God himself. God is the sole author of the entire new and old testament, yes we must acknowledge that different men wrote it over different time periods, but those men inspired by the holy spirit wrote timeless truths whose Author is none other than God. God is the sole author of the entirety of scripture, and the writers that were his servants and were inspired by God wrote historic events that are plain and clear and understandable by the man of God, and these theologians are perverting scripture when they refuse to accept the historic events that the Bible witnesses to.
@@monkibas Genesis 1:2 clearly teaches that there was day and night from day 1. God called the light day and the darkness night. It is irrelevant when the sun and the moon were created, there was light on the earth on day 1 before the sun and the moon were created. This is pre fall earth, and with the Son of God he provided the light before either the Sun or the Moon were created. There are no contradictions in the bible, in the new heavens and the new earth there may not be a sun because the light will be so radiant because the Son of God is light says the book of revelation at the end. So how the days were measured and how there was day and night as Genesis 1:2 teaches before God created the moon and the sun is not for us to inquire, but we should trust that God provided it in a supernatural way, without a moon or sun.
they make some valid points about interpretive bias and coming t9 the text with fresh eyes in light of writers intent and cultural context... the rest is very trendy assumed academic worldview that amounts to nose upturned elitist claptrap. I enjoyed some of it, but way too much hand waving.
This is a terrible misrepresentation of Genesis and real science. This is the classic example of Eisegesis. Taking person biases and reading them into the text and not allow the text to define its own meaning and context. If a person is a true Christian then they must believe in how Jesus believed Genesis, and He does quote from it as a real historic document. If you do not believe God created everything how He said He did then how can you call yourself Christian? Jesus is said to be "Creator"
You destroy the literal genesis & you weaken or destroy the need for Jesus Christ & His passion. You may imply that there was some other way to get mankind into sin other than the original one.
Hello Mr. Melson, Thank you for joining the conversation. But I'm neither a troll or ignorant. If I was ignorant of ancient history I would assume that Christian mythology was historical in nature. But through years of research I know otherwise. If you feel I'm in error please point me to some evidence that the accounts of the gospels and acts was anything more than just mythical narratives. Thank you, Jakub
Jakub Mosur While I do not find you to be either ignorant or a troll, I do wonder about your "years of research." The fact is that nearly every scholar involved in this discussion believes that at least parts of the Gospels and Acts are historical narrative. They agree not only with relevant extra-biblical writings of the day (e.g., Josephus), much of their content and claims can also be found in the Epistles (remember that all of these writings were only brought together later, so they should each be judged on their own merits, not together as the "New Testament"). A huge subject (if only in importance) is the resurrection of Jesus. I can give you more detail if you wish. I don't want to run this comment too long.
Evan Brown Because "absurd" seemed a bit too rude. Besides, the time and effort for the crew that made this piece is evident in the professional look of this video. The reason why I chose the word "cute" (id est: attractive, especially in a dainty way; pleasingly pretty) was my nod to the filmmakers and not the content.
What's hilarious about these people is that they have an "evolved" understanding that humanity now is supposedly understanding Genesis better than the Holy Spirit who inspired Mose to write it. Sad. Notice the words used here, "probably, most likely..." Believed in faith against Scripture. NT Wright contradicts himself at the end of the 10th minute.
This video almost gave Ken Ham a heart attack
You make a good point, its a pity Christianity is held up to mockery as a result of young earth noise.
Seriously classy video, proper academics who are honestly reporting what they have found. This is an aspect of truth and how to discover truth. Its a pity than whenever the BBC talks about 'creationist' they use this as an opportunity to mock the bible because a vocal minority foist there dogmatic 'young earth' view. So, BBC next time you are talking about creationism, please cite these professional academic and their views rather than using your traditional mockery.
"a vocal minority" up until the 18th Century most of the Christian Church including the early Church, the reformers and the Puritans were unanimous regarding the true historicity of Genesis 1-3 - see Dr. Mortenson's book 'Great Turning Point'. Furthermore if you are denying God as creating the world over 6 (Hebrew 'Yom') days then your authority does not come from God, rather you have elevated man as your authority...
@@rajsahota5524 Not so, the whole tradition of reading scripture in Patristic times and I'm medieval Europe was to read it as allegory. Just look at what Origen (184-253AD) said about Genesis:
'And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.['
This whole video is about how our understanding of texts has changed throughout history. The idea of taking creation narratives as a scientific truth is a post-enlightenment way of reading text through our way of reading history. Namely taking a text and believing that it conveys 'facts'
@@tr9809 Your statement ranks up there with the most ignorant concerning the understanding of Scripture.
As a lay person, I enjoyed their take on this. However, it still appears to be almost apologetic. Regardless of the era, is it still a case of ... science continually tries to prove itself wrong, whereas religion continually tries to prove itself right?
All people interpret scripture. If I interpret the creation account as an historical account, it is still an interpretation. It is not necessarily the truth - but it certainly could be.
Now, we have a method that has helped us to understand many things about our world and the universe: science. I'm sure we can all agree on this. After all, we are communicating through a medium that, without scientific inquiry, would be unlikely to exist.
This method, when applied to geology, astronomy, and several other areas of study, calls into question the interpretation of an historical creation account. This does not mean the text is wrong or in error, simply that the interpretation is in error.
To quote Augustine, "In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."
And this is a really important point, for I hear many people argue that man's knowledge is inferior to God's knowledge, and I wholeheartedly agree. However, again an historical interpretation of the creation account is not an example of God's knowledge, but of the interpreter's knowledge. A person who insists on their own interpretation, despite evidence to the contrary, is placing their own human knowledge above others.
So, is it possible to see in the creation account an interpretation that still reveals the truth of who God is, and yet is not at odds with what we have learned about the creation through other means? Yes. The idea of the creation as God's temple is one. There is also another interpretation that sees the creation account as a manifesto for monotheism. In a pagan world, nature is worshiped as divine. We see Sun and Moon worship, planets being worshiped as gods, animals being worshiped as gods and so on. Through this lens, the creation story is a rejection of the divinity of the natural world and a claim that all those things are simply the created works of the true God. Paul in Romans 1 emphasizes this point.
But, really my issue is with those who would denounce as heretics those who hold a different interpretation. I believe young earth creationists are Christians, yet are merely wrong about their interpretation of Genesis. Our love for Jesus and our neighbors is not contingent on what we believe about Genesis. And certainly the love of Jesus for us is not contingent upon what we believe about Genesis. Let's not have a spirit of division and strife, but of unity in the Holy Spirit.
Good review. The problem is young earth disinformation holds christianity up to mockery. Why bother to read the bible if it teaches the earth is 6,000 years old, as I already know is not. Of course you and I know the bible says no such thing, but that is what some say. This is why Ive started to make myself a bit unpopular in certain circles as I now challenge young earth pseudoscience when I come across it. Does this generate conflict? Yes. Is it necessary conflict? Do let me know what you think?
Great review
Biblical studies and biblical theology are specialized and serious disciplines, with their own methodologies. Those who have no patience with any specialized discipline except the empirical sciences will not take seriously the advances that have been made in other fields of knowledge, even though these advances have often been based on empirical studies in linguistics, archeology, textual criticism, anthropology, psychology, ancient history, literary analysis, etc. To such people, to be "true" can only mean "to be literal in terms of the presuppositions of the empirical scientific method." So much the worse for them. Claiming to be wise, they remain fools. These twin fundamentalisms (Christian and atheist) are mirror images of the same Enlightenment error: namely, that the rationalistic mind of humankind is the measure of all things. The early Christians were neither Protestant fundamentalists not dogmatic secularists, and they did not approach sacred texts with such narrow presuppositions. They believed that there were more things between heaven and earth than either brand of fundamentalism could conceive.
When Creationists argue against evolution, they are really only expressing their fear that atheism will burst their bubble and take Jesus away from them.
Jerome Horwitz While you might be right in many (perhaps even most) cases, I think it wiser to attribute the best attitudes and motivations to those with whom we disagree. This is difficult to do, but I think it allows us to approach their arguments with greater objectivity and discourages us from making invalid ad hominem arguments. Anyway, how can we ever really know the inner motivations of others when we often don't even know our own?
billybagbom The motives of Creationists are certainly not scientific.
rose white Scientists really want to understand how a natural process works, but Creationists only want to promote their religious ideology using any trick to persuade the gullible.
well said
4:05-The flood narrative in Ashurbanipal's library does originate with the Sumerians, but it is Assyrian/Akkadian.
N. T. Wright has a beautiful voice. I love British accent.
Kenneth Kitchen ("On the Reliability of the Old Testament") has some different things from this video to say in terms of the link/reliance/response of Genesis 1 to the creation myths spoken about here. He suggests (much more convincingly imho) that Genesis 1 is older than this video assumes - perhaps 1700BC. In which case it's not responding to those myths because it predates them. To assume Genesis is responding to them because they share some themes is not great scholarship.
Hey that's really honest and refreshing! I am a Christian believer and thank you for bringing some good old-fashioned common-sense. Contect is vital. If we as Christians are te read the Bible aright then we have to respect the Author and the recipients and their worldview. A LITERAL interpretation is what the recipients would have understood by the text and that couldn't have been 21st Century cosmology. Thank you Scepticanuck.
Back to the future - some comments posted here fail to see the significance of reaching out to the past so to understand the present and eternal theological significance of a creative story from the Almighty Creator, through the Scriptures i.e. we just don't take creation stories literally lest we undermine and perverse the creativity (like a symphony) of our Lord and maker (or composer) who is truly the most creative.
I totally agree that the creation account is saying alot more than surface reading. That doesn't change the truth that the true author of the WORD according to the WORD is the WORD, and HE can't lie. So therefore let HIM be true and every man a liar. I hate that truly learned men of GOD make arrangements to explain why the creation account doesn't line up with what man says about the creation. Professing yourselves wise you became fools. Rom 1:22. Also, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (knowledge) falsely so called:
1 Timothy 6:20 KJV
The changing voices just makes this a bucket harder to follow. Are they making the same point? Do they all agree? Just take the comments from 8:20 - Whatever point is being made there is difficult to grasp. Somehow we next end up with Beethovens symphony but what does it mean to play Genesis for all it's worth. Rather than a range of talking heads this would be a lot better with an interviewer who could just ask at certain times for clarification.
I did watch after posting the question. Though I understand and accept his point, I think that it is still important to know how the books were understood at the time.
From what I gathered from his lecture, he seems to imply that the authors of Genesis understood it literally. Did you get that impression too?
Don't forget John Walton in the title of this video.
I watched this video and got mad. Why didn't my Bible and theology professors tell me this. They broke down the view of inerrancy but I didn't get this far. Thank you, N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne, Allister McGrath and John Walton!
I understood that, and I agree. I take that approach with many books of the bible, such as Daniel, Job and Songs.But then, as you sad, it is important to understand how Christians historically interpreted Genesis. I know that during the first three centuries the literal interpretation was not a consensus, but do you know if there is any statistical studies on the available patristic authors and their beliefs regarding Genesis. And as I previously asked, any studies on how the apostles read it?
It seems that between 9:05 and 9:13 N.T. Wright quickly put his jacket on without missing a beat in what he was saying.
And he changed his shirt, too.
Cool. Here are verses that again confirm 6 day Creation
Ex 31:17 | “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
Ex 20:11 | “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Ps 121:2 | My help comes from the LORD, Who made heaven and earth.
11:04 The account in genesis 1 was not intended to be an account of material origins.
But no explanation as to why it isnt. I thought that was the point of the video to show it is not literal and why? yet it did nothing of the sort. Instead it lauds Concordism and practices Escapism (we have no need to defend genesis, because we apply esoteric meaning to it)
What kind of bible is being used at 4:30 (I'm guessing it's the same bible being displayed in other parts of the video?)? Is it some kind of study bible?
ironically I'm 99% sure the book being closed at 0:07 is a Book of Common Prayer - which fits the theme of these three Anglicans interpreting Scripture!
thank you; i think i'm on the right track now. whew, what a ride:)
I agree, rationality is restored
Sorry if this seems glib, but which bits? I'm not a scientist (which field of study are you in?) but I do have a BA in Archaeology and Ancient History, though my studies very rarely touched on anything of a biblical nature.
does anyone have a citation for the "God resting/reigning" in historical texts aside from Genesis. It is a VERY solid point which I would like to follow up on. If NTW says it, I have no doubt that it has a solid pedigree. Thanks !
Life and theology are much easier to negotiate with the help of polkinhorne and Mecgrath...thank you revd gentlemen!
Why cant you read Genesis as literal and believe 6 literal days as the TEXT says?
yes, i do tend to have an all or nothing attitude; thanks for slowing me down a bit:)
I'm not a christian, nor a believer in any deities, if people want to label me an atheist, so be it. But any ancient text, ANY ancient text has to be read within the context it was written. All creation myths seek to explain how things became to be in ways that the people they were written for could understand. And in the context of modern scientific discoveries, no one creation myth is any more valid than another. I never understand how that can be misunderstood.
200 years ago none of this was an issue, the bible is God's revealed word and truth. Today we know better so new explanations are necessary. What will it be 200 years from now? It ain't getten any better for the true believer!!!
What is a "true believer" exactly? Tell me where Jesus said we need to believe every aspect of the bible. The hebrew bible wasn't even compiled yet let alone what we have now.
Faith is not a rejection of reality. Fundametalist Christians need to learn this. That is willed ignorance. Faith is the opposite of willed ignorance.
The Babylonian creation myth was the scientific truth of its time. Genesis is the proper interpretation of that truth, much as theistic evolution is the proper interpretation of our own generation's truth. It's not so much, "This is objective fact!" as it is, "This is the correct way to understand objective fact!"
Just read: www.0095.info/resources/95ThesisEngl_ffgtg12.pdf
Genesis is not based on a myth from Babylonia. That is ravingly ridiculous.
Lol what? Why are you judging Ancient txt with your modern thinking? Your basically a racist.
Gen 1-11 is a polemic. It is reponse to loosely based on the Babylon creation story.
RUclips Michael Heiser if your serious about understanding more.
@@johndoe-ln4oi these ancient myths have a common root, that is proven by critical redaction and common sense. It doesnt make the message any less important. Psalm 104 as an example, apart from 4 changed words, is actually the ancient egyptian hymn to the Artun, the earliest recognised monotheistic god, worshipped by pharoh Tutenkamun! As Polkinghorne states, the bible is a library, taken and compiled from many sources...it doesnt lose its power because of that, quite the opposite!
@Bobby Bobbie That's not true, even a cursory knowledge of the subject is enough to know that they had scientific curiosity.
"what parts of the new testament must we throw out? the miracles? all or some? where does it end?"
I don't think anything has to be thrown out, its not an "all or nothing" concept. Considering the Bible is (give or take, on denomination) 66 books, written by 40 people, on three continents, in three languages, over a 1600y period. That being said each society/person would have a different writing style. Not to confuse the reader but to give a better representation of humanity for humanity.
Augustine certainly didn't read Genesis literally, and he was late 4th and early 5th century.
All of the early church fathers did, and Jesus most likely did.
@@jonathaneidering5401 how do you know? As far as I can make out seventh day creationism is 19th century American invention.
@@jonathaneidering5401The person you're trying to reach no longer exists
I believe in the literal genesis & the Bible. I might add, however, that it is possible that the actual details surrounding the literal word of God may be far different from what we are able to imagine or artists can portray.
So basically, you don't have a clue. What is the reason for simply believing something without the proper and sufficient evidence?
I am a scientist and a theologian. I know the theories of relativity and the Genesis story well. I understand the theories of evolution. There is No Clash. It is man who makes the clash. I waited on God for revelation about the six days of creation. He then spoke, and pointed me to the very first verse. 'He created in the beginning.'. He did not create in six days. When one sees that everything fell into place. The six days are the revelation of what God did to the mind of man (Psalm 92:2). Moreover the account is not chronological but what matters to God, just as we speak of lying on a beach on holiday before we speak of the journey to get there on the plane. Indeed how could He who is in eternity create spacetime in six days. He did it in a flash of revelation, from that was without form within Himself. Indeed the first day started with the word 'then' - 'Then God said let there be light.'. It is us who needs time to.understand it.
You're just conflating two separate texts that have no real relation to each other. That's not evidence of anything.
Oh thank you, I'm glad God told you, that clears it up
True, Genesis is not a science book but it is a history book and as such contains historical detail such as numbered days with evenings and mornings. If Genesis merely wanted to convey the 'Who' of creation it would stop after the first verse but it goes on to reveal historical detail. I'm not sure how reading it as history 'flattens it out'. Does a historical reading of the Gospels and resurrection 'flatten out' the account and rob it of it's deeper meaning of death defeated and God's gift of eternal life? Does Tom want us to believe that we are being unfaithful to the text if we see in it a real man rising from the dead after 3 days in a detailed historical setting? Is the truth of whether or not Jesus physically rose from the dead unimportant? If we read the Gospels in the same way then 'How' God made the gift of eternal life available to us (the historical account of the physical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) is irrelevant but only the 'Who' of eternal life matters ie God. Just as the solution to the problem of sin and death is of historical significance so is the origins of sin and death and their affect on God's good creation. Jesus' redemptive work on the cross to restore a creation that is in bondage to decay because of our rebellion against God is rendered meaningless if evolution is true. Evolution as a mechanism for creating life uses death, suffering and disease; is this what Jesus is seeking to restore!? Cosmological and biological evolution have no basis in science. They are beliefs about the past and hence disciplines of philosophy and religion: cosmological models are chosen due to philosophical considersations not observational ones; natural selection is a scientific observation but does not demonstrate fish to man evolution as animals speciate but remain within their kind ie dog kind, cat kind, horse kind, etc. Men, conscious of their guilt, create naturalistic explanations of origins in order to avoid being held accountable to God, their Creator, Lawgiver and Judge. Science is all about our observation of how the physical world operates in the present and our ability to accurately quantify, record and control it for our benefit. Science is part of the dominion God gave us over his creation. Unobserved events in the past cannot be quantified in the same way. How something works tells us nothing of how it came into being. We have no way of knowing the origins of man and the universe without eyewitnesses, Genesis is an eyewitness account of our origins so therefore it is history. Evolution has no eyewitnesses. The Bible's account of creation has God himself witnessing to what he has done and communicating to us clearly what he has done in regards to creation and redemption.
the video image is too poor, you need to fix it more
would you happen to have a link that has all seasons all episodes to watch back to back? i could experience them all one more time:-)
Occam's razor will allow us to simply rest on this one note from St. Paul from 1 Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV)
"12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
If we're looking for hope, we'll find it in the risen Christ. If were looking for trouble, we'll find endless supply in man, which is exactly why Isaiah's record of man states the following in Isaiah 2:22:
"Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, of what account is he."
Mankind for ALL TIME is seen in the history of this earth, from creation to the time "this corruptible must be made incorruptible, in a twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:52), as that which NEEDS forgiveness - Luke 23:43 - "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
We're blessed to be alive and made to see, fortunately, that which is unchangeable and true - the risen Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and all the days of our lives beyond realizing this truth should be lived in thanks and praise of him for showing the difference between our fallen, corrupted, temporary state, and that which is to come - thanks be to God:
Romans 8:18: "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."
In heaven, there will be no more again, the former things - to which we will not have to point and say - "See you were wrong here; or, I was right."
No. We'll have God in our presence sustaining all things incorruptible, and we'll be forevermore pleased just to be thankful for it being so.
The first thing a drowning man focuses on is usually NOT - how or why he came to be in a drowning state; rather, but on that which can rescue him.
I have found this to be true in Christ - and that staying focused on him is the best way through this dying world.
Okay..... One minute in and already they completely miss the point!!! "-(Genesis) was not written TO us-"; what!?
GOD certainly knew that HE would preserve this book through the ages, and as Jesus said, "-thy word is truth..." John-17:17 kjv.
Jesus, however did not say, "-thy word is a seething cesspool of lies and metaphors and endless allegorical diatribe thats good for nothing..."!!!
The churches in other countries and sects that have compromised secular religion and beliefs on origins dwindle on less than 10% church attendance. The so-called "scholars" need to realize the Scriptures are revelation, not just information.
"Not to us" meaning not to our generation, but to ancient israelites. They would view genesis differently than we do today
These so called wise scholars are voicing same tired old arguments: 'The Bible's not a textbook blah blah blah...etc.."
I go back to 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 where God says:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world"?
These scholars have elevated themselves as the authority and have become fools, end of.
So Genesis tells us nothing of how we got here then what do I need a Bible for?
Genesis also tells us nothing about how to make brownies. Useless! Toss it out!
@@ObjectiveBob exactly trying to use as a cook book and you cant then trying to use it to tell us how God created and you cant? what do I need it for then? let me throw out the gospels to if it don't tell you about how to receive eternal life
Just like that any perceived differences with Sci vs Bible evaporate
"the authors...understood Genesis literally..."
I'm not sure about that, and some of the speakers in the vid imply they didn't (Wright, Louis). The person(s) who compiled Genesis must have seen contradictions between the texts they used, they couldn't have been literalists. I suspect that Genesis was written and compiled in a society that didn't have a tradition of exact historical narrative.
By 'literal' I mean 'a physical and historical account of events'.
Yes I agree. Some bits of the Bible are history...... I am a Scientist by profession and should have mentioned that perhaps. So I am not offended by your honest comments and shouldn't be!
I find it most telling that N.T. says it's near perversity to "flatten out" the Creation narrative by looking at the details of what makes up the main point, but he essentially commits the same error in reverse by so emphasizing the general thematic thrust that he seems to say the details don't matter.
How many of these theologians have read Creationist explanations and Creationist critiques of the General Theory of Evolution? And read them as though they wanted to it to be true? I suspect very few. But can their current views be considered learned if they haven't done this? Or should we consider them theological experts who have have adjusted their views in theology because society led by the scientific academy has told them they should? If the latter is the case, they have put great faith in society and the scientific academy - not only have they adjusted their theology but they have become apologists for the scientific academy!
Because they are NOT just saying "Genesis was written in another time and from another mindset and we need to understand the context to interpret it correctly. " (that part I agree with.) They are ALSO saying the meaning of Genesis 1-11 can be detacted unscathed from the question of whether or not these chapters are scientifically reliable. Some theologians do that with the Resurrection of Jesus too. In my view, the meaning of Genesis 1-11 and the Resurrection of Jesus are stupendously enhanced if they are literally true, and stupendously diluted if they are not literally true.
I would suggest all are acquainted with creationist explanations, which is but one reason that you can consider their views learned. Another would be that between them they can read, write and most probably converse in more dead languages than you and I can in the living ones. (Useful when looking for meaning in ancient texts) Another would be the extensive historical/archaeological detail these guys possess . (Again useful when trying to determine historical events)
Add all that to the fact that they would all have read all of Darwin's work, and probably most other exponents of evolution from Zenophanes to Lamark and you have to admit that learnedness is brimming all over the place here.
You can disagree with their thoughts, but you cant disagree on that.
No christian theologian I am aware of "does that" with the resurrection.
In a way, I understand you last sentence, and if you like the idea , go with it.
How have you obtained your great confidence that these academics have looked as objectively as they can at creationist explanations and critiques of (macro) Evolution?
Walla bea Generally, because of the fact that they are extremely well versed in their subject matter. Specifically, because the evidence leans towards an evolutionary explanation, and not the explanation that you are professing.
I understand your viewpoint, I am christian myself, and I am sure we can both agree on the fact that God created the universe, and everything therein. We seem to disagree on the mechanism involved.
St. Paul insists that we use our hearts, our souls....and our minds (our intelligence) to uncover truth. Whilst you visibly make use of your heart and soul, you seem to neglect the mind.
Look at it this way. If the world were indeed only several thousand years old, we would know, given all the available scientific data, and if it were the case, we would have little choice but to believe in a "young earth" and consequently, in God. However, the bible tells us in many places that God will not force us to believe, one of His greatest gifts to us being the ability to choose, IE. free will.
Walla bea says: >>"In my view, the meaning of Genesis 1-11 and the Resurrection of Jesus are stupendously enhanced if they are literally true, and stupendously diluted if they are not literally true. "
And you prefer the "enhanced" version, so it must be true.
Playing Beethoven's 5th in the background does not make Genesis anything more than bronze age myth.
hisxmark, it's you - not me - saying "you prefer the 'enhanced' version, so it must be true."
You want to believe all Christians are simplistic and irrational, 'so it must be true'.
My point was addressed to those who believe/want to believe the Bible - not for those not interested in this question, like yourself. My point to them was: DON'T fall for liberal theology's assertion that taking certain Bible passages as only metaphorical DOESN'T significantly devalue those passages. If this liberal-theology assertion is accurate one needn't bother with the subsequent question "Is this or that Biblical account literally true?" I'm suggesting to other believers/seekers that the LT assertion is NOT acurate so that they will bother with the "Literaly true?" question.
As an aside, I do believe the Universe was created Divinely in 6 days and that Jesus' was resurrected bodily - and, based on my own intensive investigation, I regard these conclusions as the most sound position possible. And I remain open to all available evidence. What more should I do, do you think?
Here's a way Genesis 1 could have made its alleged point about one God creating everything, without specifying details incongruent with scientific fact:
[BEGIN CHAPTER] There is one God, who created everything. [END CHAPTER]
💁
and of course everyone has their own opinions and that I respect, but you do have to realize that the original Genesis was in Hebrew, and it has been translated through quite a few languages and into cultures that are very different and so maybe our staunch beliefs of what the text means based on an English version that is in a different culture altogether might not be what was originally intended.
I am quite inclined to read Genesis metaphorically, but my question is: how was it meant to be read when it was written?
Was it meant to be read literally? Did the writer understood it literally? Did the apostles, and general Jews of the first century read it literally? That is an answer that would really help settle the debate.
Just as the Greeks read about their myths and the Sumerians, one of the first civilizations did too, so it fulfilled the role of myth for the Hebrews. The myth wants to tell a story, whether it is true or not. In fact, it has more to do with a cultural teaching than a natural fact.
All comes down to if you believe the Scriptures are God breathed that the Holy Spirit moved the authors to write what they did. Herbert Spencer a physicist who died in 1903 first came up with the idea of categories. That everything known or can be known is divided into 5 categories, time, force, action, space and matter. Scripture covers all 5 in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning (time), God (force), created (action), the heaven (space), and the earth (matter). You either believe the first 2 chapters of Scripture or you may as well throw the rest away.
Just my view on it. The Bible, imho, is a very intersting collection of literary works, but *science*? No. I'm sorry if this offends, but those individuals who espouse the Christian Bible as a literal history are completely missing the point of the collections as they pertain to the modern world, if they do indeed pertain to the modern world, but that's for everyone who has actually read it to decide for themselves. For me, it's like using Plato's works as a literal history and proof of Atlantis
The illogic and credulity of these very intelligent men is enormous! Its like listening to a child rationalizing something they can't deal with--creating a story that will have concord with their limited comfort zone. To be in a cocktail party with academics and have to admit that Genesis is true--must truly frighten the men who straddle the worlds of faith and the world.
I get the idea now. A few lectures by Bentley Hart and N.T Wright has shed some light on the matter to me. I have come to accept Genesis as a parable, that people eventually took much too seriously. But since literalism it was not a consensus within christianity and judaism I feel I am not bound by a unanimous tradition and it gives much interpretative freedom, and an honest and historical one imo.
But we cannot agree that batman is awesome, because it is revealed truth that Iron man is cooler.
The sun and moon were finished before the 4th day, but light from the developing luminaries were allowed to shine through to the surface of the earth on the first creation day. God said "Let there be light". Not that he created the sun, moon and stars on that day.As you recall Darkness was upon the face of the earth. Then on the 4th day the cloud cover that caused the darkness on the face of the earth was removed and the Sun moon and stars could be seen. I believe these creation days were periods of creation times. Just like in Gen 2:4. In the day that God created the heaven and earth. It took 6 days but here it says it was a day.
Their are a couple meanings of Day Like Some Day, the Day of the Lord in the day of the King. But in Genesis they are qualified by the phrase thus the evening and morning the first day ECT. Which doesn't even mention day time at all. Only evening and morning Plus Genesis 1;14 says the Sun Moon and stars also will Govern Day and nights. And separate (divide) the light from the darkness. verse 18. The days were added much later by a Priestly writer concerned with the institution of the Sabbath.
The Christian faith is notable for its dependence on objective truth. For example 'if Christ were not raised we of all men are most miserable'. Genesis 1 does not have to be a scientific account but it is not unreasonable to expect the statements made to be objectively true. If you are happy with the methods of interpretation used by the speakers in this video ask yourself how you would feel if an airline followed a similar approach to 'truth' after you enquired as to whether the plane they were going to put you on was airworthy?
Yeah! Chads the man" I believe the voice actor did the voices for Vader in some of the Star Wars games like Force Unleashed XD
thanks brother; i'll take a look.
It seems most of the video commentators fail to understand that culture doesn't shape Scripture. Genesis and the whole Bible was written for all people, that's why we're Christian.
NT Wright said:
"This world was made to be God's abode, God's home...".
Acts 7:48-49: “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, Or what is the place of My rest"?
Then further on in Acts 17:24-26:
""The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...".
Wright is wrong!
The world was made by human hands?
The are both metaphorical and literal things in the Bible. It's that simple. The days of Genesis aren't even metaphorical, because "yohm", the Hebrew word used for days, is also used for ages. The more accurate translation, based on scientific data and analysis, is ages. There is no way around it.
But I'm not saying God couldn't have done it in six days. Only that He did not.
Found many things I could agree with among most of these individuals however, I perceive John Walton to be sort of a hack.
What do you mean by 'hack'?
/* our staunch beliefs of what the text means based on an English version */
I agree. Which is the the English version was translated directly from the Hebrew.
This is why I don't view Genesis through the eye of post modern people who believe evolution is true.
The text even says in Genesis 2:4
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."
This is the order/generations of Creation in chapter one.
These folks in the video don't realise their own built in biases. Countermeasure to other creation myths indeed.
If you believe that the earth is milliards of years old, then you actually say that God was a liar and that basically all Jews and Christians before the 19th/20th century believed in lies: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11)
Duke - SWT Mate
Not liars. Just ignorant. Nothing wrong with being ignorant. We're all ignorant, in fact, especially about science. Science will look very differently, for example, 100 years from now. We'll be the ignorant ones.
+ObjectiveBob But it is God telling us that he created the heavens and earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Therefore we rest on every 7th day. It would not make any sense to say that God meant milliards of years when he talks about literal days. The Bible should speak for itself, what you do is eisegesis, not exegesis. There is no hint in the Bible that the earth is older than 6000-7000 years, therefore we must not interpret it by our evolutionist mind. There is no evolution, there are no 13.7 milliards of years. You should read the "95 Theses Against Evolution": www.0095.info/resources/95ThesisEngl_ffgtg12.pdf
Duke - SWT Mate
I agree. The Bible says the world was created in 6 literal days. I'm not arguing that it doesn't say that. I'm arguing that Genesis 1 is mythical poetry and not history.
Duke - Where does the Bible say the earth is 6 or 7 thousands years old ? Also was Christianity better in the 19 th century because everyone believed the earth was six thousands years old , as you seem to think.?
this too is one of the stupidest things I have read
I have no problem with Genesis in Gen 1:1 you get the original creation. In Isaiah you see the original creation was Perfect and Habitable. From Gen 1:2 on God relates to Moses the present earth. Isaiah told about Lucifer/ called the King of Tyre vs the Prince of Tyre that ruled Tyre. The King of Tyre was in the Garden of God at Eden/possiby Tyre - by not in. The King was created perfect until iniquity was found in him and he rebelled against God and great destrruction happened - "you caused the nations to crumble. I believe this is between Gen 1:1 and the recreation of the earth in Gen 1:2-on. Note that Gen 1:2 on God constructs a Garden at Eden and creates man and places man in the Garden. Adam did not walk around as Lucifer/the King of Tyre did having gems created everywhere he walked nor adorned with such a brilliant glorious clothes but naked, only clothed with the Glory of God which he and Eve lost after sinning against God - seeing themselves totally naked not covered with God's Glory -light.
Thus something happened to the world causing it to be shrouded from the stars and all land covered with water and tohu/bohu becoming void not only of light but life, shrouded by debris from its destruction under Lucifer. The it only took 6 literal days or 6000 years for recreation/step by step fixing what was broken and restoring light then life. PS Several meteorites have been identified with microscopic creatures in them that came from earth, indicating great destruction, implying why there was no sun light nor life in the recreation until God cleaned things up and regenerated life, creating Adam in His Image hands on. This is called the Gap Theory.
I also years ago and more recently ran across a video that postulated exactly what I did years ago called The Genesis Code which shows how the earth could be of OLD as is stated in the Bible. My calculations many years ago came up with millions of years whereas the video speaks of billions of years of age of the earth from the initial big bang which I called the big Creation. Some scriptures I found long ago stated creation starting before the Throne of God. in the great praise and worship of all the angels with the Trinity a cloud appeared before the Throne by the manifestation of God's Holy Spirit. In obedience to Father God the Word of God/Son of God (who took on flesh to save His Creation mankind from separation from God we know as Jesus) the Word spoke creation into existence.
This does not give thousands to millions of years to different strata of the earth as evolution postulates ruling out one big cataclysm of the Noadic Flood as evolutionists want you to believe. Remember many layers similar to the strata of the earth were formed in weeks in a lake close to Mt St Helen after volcanic eruption. This is merely shifting of earth from the Flood. The oldest layer where life began was in the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian layer where life INSTANTLY appeared. Note also the so called layers of evolution have modern life captured as well as dinosaurs and whatever. Even the earliest forms of life like the Trilobites had highly sophisticated features like a form of eyes. Essentially the earth before life was void of life by the strata found.
The concept of the earth being so old is QUITE SCIENTIFIC. Einstein proposed that speed determines how fast or slow things happen. He theorized, has been proven true, the faster you move through space the slower time passes yet on earth time goes on as normal. Remember a clock merely a reference to time. Essentially the faster you go the time you experience is accelerated greatly on the earth.
The concept here of an old earth with top layers shifted by erosion and the Noadic flood still supports the former earth theory I proposed. How? Since Noah is only a few thousand years ago and shuffling of the surface of the earth is recently. What happened before that when Lucifer was the ruler simply may not have been discovered or the reforming of the earth into a ball after destruction of the earth, covering it with water, may have even older relics of times before man. Perhaps the former earth may have been a form of man who Lucifer ruled over and led to self destruction of self and world? Just theorizing.
If the earth is of old according to a former Garden at Eden where Lucifer/the King of Tyre ruled may be only lets say 12000 or some more years ago.
Time dilation is ell explained in the film Genesis Code which references time from God's perspective rather than man's. Initially at creation the expansion of the universe from the big Creation by God's standard on day 1 could have been millions, even billions of years of time as we know it. I do know this, by the time God described one of His days to Moses he said, "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years. Imagine a bullet traveling through the air, air as drag such as gravitic pull of stellar bodies and matter on other bodies and matter slowing it down. A bullet may leave a gun at 1500 feet per second. Its velocity is slowed down as it travels. Theoretically if you stood close to the gun the bullet could travel through you. However at the end of its travel before hitting the ground it possibly could bonce off your skin. In space the universe expands, the bullet does not stop and the further away from other gravitational bodies the slower it slows down. But from the initial speed its slowing is fast until less gravity slows it down.
Look at the video for the science vs faith synopsis: ruclips.net/video/Iu3R47gH4CM/видео.html
*I enjoyed your comment*
NT Wright,John Polkinghorne, and Allister McGrath lay out the case LIKE A BOSS!
Beautiful video
THE EVENTS BEFORE THE "BIG BANG" AND SCIENCE.
THe real story of Genesis could have not possibnly known to man unless it was revealed by God!
Adam and Evwe however they were given lether tunics in order to be able to live away from God and new place (transfomed place) known to us as the ~Universe~ where the Grace of God was replaced with their gift of logic!. [Genesis 3:21] : 'Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. How do we know today about the events that took place before their exile?
THE EVENTS BEFORE "BIG BANG" AND SCIENCE.
The explanation of the word science in the English dictionary is very lucid 1 Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.2 Any of the branches of natural or physical science
Science today attributes ~the presence of man and the absence of God~ to a cosmic event that they claim was accidental that was given the name “big bang”. The way however that Matter came into existance and was concentrated into the Mass that made the “big bang” possible, that was to eventually form planets and galaxies, that gave birth to life …did never concern science!
The physical events that took place after the "big bang" can come theoretically under the study of science because they consist of hands on natural or physical phenomena of the material world that that can be studied through reason and logic. However the events that preceded the big bang can not be studied by the logic of man because there is no physical or material evidence to substantiate them. Eventhought if science did not have the proper evidence for God they shoul have been rensponcible to confirm a Divine Presence in the lives of men! This is why
1 Any mater that suddenly appears from nowhere with a “build in plan” to form planets and planetary systems that will eventually sustain life can not come into to being without a ~Preplanning Mind- that ordained it so. This (the Preplanning Mind) is what everybody knows or describes as God.
2 There is nothing known to man (science) that can appear from nowhere (a void) by its self in order to form millions of planetary systems and galaxies… unless they were created! This is why God (the Preplanning Mind) is also called a Creator.
Scientists reject the idea of a God because they cannot comprehend (know Him) with their logic. They have been “trained” to understand that anything beyond their material way of understanding things is incomprehensible… there for is rejected!
How ever there are those who know God personally (the Saints) who will tell you through their personal experiences that ~God is a PERSON- because He is known to talk to people ~person to PERSON- like He did when talking to Moses. There is a simple fact that is ignored by science and generally the rest of the world today and this is the fact that God reveals His Self…TO THOSE THAT HE WANTS TOO!
The coming of Lord Jesus and the creation of the Church was to “set up” the right circumstances for man to be able to know God personally. After Pentecost and the descending of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles created Churches around the world using specific rules (given from above) that are known as the 85 Holy Apostolic Cannons. [aggreen.net/canons/canons.html]. The Church was created as a therapeutic institution in order for God to be able to reveal His self not in the mind of man (logic) but in the soul (heart). The heart is the place inside were God testifies to His Self, it the faculty of intuiting that gives man the axioms upon which to reason. (2 Corinthians: 4:6). “God makes His Light shine in our hearts, to bring us the knowledge of God’s glory shining in the face of Christ.
There for the time ~before the big bang- does not belong to science it belongs to Theology. Science does not have the “eyes of the heart” by which to see and know Creator God through Revelation and so scientists are “condemned” to the type fantasy and speculation that is given birth to by the logic of man that will disallow them to seek or/and know God for the rest of all eternity! The question remains now. Does science want to know the events that took place before the big bang?
The proof that Moses was the writer of the Pentsartefxos is overwhelming.
creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis
What Is the Orthodox Church? - Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick
ruclips.net/video/95P744siC7U/видео.html
But the bible does speak of a material origin of the world and Christina have had to defend it against scientific evolution.
I was hoping this video would offer an explanation of the existence of prehistorical men 200,000 years ago way before God's creation, and how those people connect with the people of Abraham. Are God's people a different species of Homo Sapiens? and if we were created in God's image, how does evolution fit in this creationist theory? Are we simply going to turn a blind eye to evolution when our ancestry basically because the bible doesn't explain it or are we going to accept the scientific claim that we came from an evolutionary process long before Adan and Eve and not from a pile of dust. How do we marry science with the through of being created in God's image when evolution says changes that occurred over millions of years took place randomly without God's intervention. I'm very disappointed to see there is no answer to this question.
Genesis=Ganesh=Ganesha=Ghana=Gene=Genie=Gunung=Guru Yang Agung=Mountain=Who Live more than human
(50000 BC)
Perspective of human, they can called knowledge or symbolize as Genie/ Who know anything/ Descriptive big as Elephant
Hello I'm from Nusantara!! King of Kings
If there is unquestionable evidence, then there would be no evolution theory.
If the text is supposed to be read literaly in every sentence of the bible, then I hope you tear your eyes off if you sin because of them, or make sure you find you place in Abraham´s bosom after you die. Oh, about the end of times; let´s all stare at the ocean all day waiting for a beast of several heads and horns , that would be a pretty conclusive sign.
The text is clear and so is its meaning, if you let it speak.
I dislike that these religious biblical scholars dance around the question of the reliability and the historicity of the biblical events described in the text. I don't question their knowledge of the text, but it's being dishonest as a scholar and as a human to make empty statements along the lines of "we can't just read the text at face value, we need to try to dig deeper and find the theological implications of what god is trying to say to us."
The reason this is so disgustingly dishonest is that they start with the presupposition that god already exists and then they bastardize that belief by pretending that these ancient writers were capturing that in a subtle and profound way. What a much more honest position to just say "these documents are the product of Iron Age superstition, egregiously exacerbated by centuries and centuries of transmission by men that are, at this point, lost to legend."
Stop trying to keep your religious ideologies afloat in the modern day. Religion was useful at one point when the world needed an explanation for the mystery of nature and our existence. We understand now how the world works and anyone with a bit of education and honest examination has to put their belief in these ancient superstitions to rest. For good. These texts may be beautiful literature (some parts anyways) from the ancient world, but they're just that; nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry to hear you have such a shallow view of understanding truth, that just because something isn't literal it's automatically false and "Iron age superstition".The first few opening chapter's of Genesis itself is a testament of man trying to understand deeper truths through revelation. to get across though allegory that God shaped the universe and is it's ultimate source of being. And no, that interpretation is not just modern theologians and biblical scholars trying to keep "religious ideologies afloat in the modern day." For such evidence all you need to do is look at early church fathers such as St, Augustine of Hippo (354-386 C.E) and Origen of Alexandria (150-254 C.E) Both early biblical scholars and writers who didn't take all of Genesis literally. Unless of course you want to argue they had a time machine to see the discovery of modern scientific findings and changed their views as such.
It really is amazing at times how much fundamentalist zealots and vapid atheist* share in common ..at least when it comes to understanding legitimate biblical research and understanding the cultural context in which these text were written in.
Sorry, normally I'm just a lurker on these forums and find discussions of this matter pointless to pursue on RUclips comment sections, but felt compelled to reply to this one. Just so tired of people acting like fundamentalism and literalism are the only valid expressions of faith when it comes to Christianity as well as other religions and faiths. And anyone else that does otherwise is just a big faker or dishonest pretender. Whatever, the world isn't that black and white, the subject of these matters are no different.
*(note that I said 'vapid' atheist, realize not all atheist are like this guy. Many are smart, well informed about these subjects as well. And although we disagree philosophically about the God question they know that these matters aren't so simply tossed aside because of a 3rd grader, Sunday school understanding of the text and theology in general.)
luk... the basis of this video is that there are believers that have either a hard time squaring their religious belief with science (possibly because people like you call them fools for having any religious belief at all) or they have a difficult time explaining their scientific 'belief' to some of their fellow believers that don't have much understanding of science.
So generally, it's a discussion between believers as I see it. If you want to horn in and be offended because we choose to believe...have at it, I guess, but I'd suggest you just relax and enjoy the part of life that you spend being agitated about us.
I don't think anyone is trying to get you or your ilk to convert, or even to consider it. I happen to believe that religion still is useful in many ways. But understanding how the cosmos (or earth for that matter) was formed is not one of it's big uses for me anymore - when I was a college student, getting that 'bit' of education you talk about I thought about cosmology a lot. Understanding the practicality of life and relationships is more important to me these days. And finding a little peace.
+luk2718 you honestly believe Homer thought Troy was conquered through the intervention of the Gods?
Big answers to big quesions are complicated and difficult. People dont like it. People like simple narratives they can understand and portray in terms of black and white. When the truth just doesnt fit into such a narrative, people often react like you are reacting.
How did Jesus view the book of Genesis and the Apostles in the New Testament?
Exactly how it reads in the text.
Read the family of Jesus in Luke 3:38
"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
Jews knew Adam was the first man created by God, created adult. Like the Universe.
"And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE"
I believe exactly like Jesus did.
Jesus simple man and his opinion is his opinion. We have another wiseman and maybe Jesus is wrong.
3:14 - Oh I'm sorry, I think you meant to say "very wrong understandings".
thanks again! oh and i like Chad Vader as well:)
If you are going to be reading Genesis, make sure you don't skip over Genesis 6:6.
This verse shows that the god of the bible is too incompetent to be the creator of the universe and the source of life.
Boring assertions are boring.
but i still love polkinghorne
Such a good vid.
It is clear that God hammered home that it was 6 literal days. Evening and Morning, etc. Jesus said Himself that man was created "in the beginning" where evolution would state that it was at the very end. God also warned people to believe the words of Moses. It was stated right in the 10 commandments as well. Science confirms a young earth. There is no contradiction, unless you exchange observable science with junk science. God's first hand account of creation is of His greatest miracle.
We've cultures in the world today operating against God.
i think im gonna do like paul and just go with "Christ and him crucified"........otherwise i will analyze things forever. thanks brother!
Genesis is Science. Its how God Himself created all things in the beginning.
What people call the sciecne today isn't science. In fact the origin of modern cosmology is not science but from Greek pagan philosophy.
Democritus 460 BC - 370 BC
"Democritus held that the Earth was round, and stated that originally the universe was composed of nothing but tiny atoms churning in chaos, until they collided together to form larger units-including the earth and everything on it."
Sound familiar???
Nonsense.
It seems none of them have read Hugh Ross's or an other Old Earth Creationist material and assume Genesis 1 is myth. The narrator is God and the narrative is factual. The days were longer periods of time then 24 hours and the sun and moon were created in verse one, not day/age 4. These liberal scholars haven't done their study of the Hebrew very well.
@@itisnow
Obviously you are ignorant of Genesis one.
Genesis 1:1 describes the Big Bang (ex hihilo), the creation of the "heavens" (stars, galaxies, sun, solar system) and the "earth." Then the initial conditions are described, the earth was formless and void with no life, covered with water and no sunlight reached the earth because of cloud cover. The perspective of the observer is stated as hovering (vivifying) over the surface of the water.
Day/Age 1: The atmosphere was made translucent allowing light to reach the surface of the earth. Light is necessary for life which started in the oceans.
Day/Age 2: A stable water cycle is made. Water above (clouds, rain) is spirited from the water below (seas).
Day/Age 3: Land appears and continental drift is started along with the beginning of the creation of land plants after their kinds. Incests, trilobites etc. were also created. The Precambrian Explosion occurs.
Day/Age 4: The atmosphere is made transparent. The sun, moon and stars which had already been made prior to day/age 1 become visible from earth. The visibility made it possible for higher forms of animals with biological clocks to be created.
Day/Age 5: The creation of fish, birds, dinosaurs etc.
Day/Age 6: The creation of mammals, hominids and last of all man in the image of God. Only man has the capability to have relationship with the unseen Creator.
Day/Age 7: God rests from creation. The day is never closed out. We are in the 7th day/age presently and observe no new animals being created; however we observe many going extinct.
So we see Genesis one matching perfectly what we observe in science.
@@itisnow
I have no idea what Jews you are talking about but the Jews who wrote the Bible believed in creation ex nihilo as well as the miracles. The Jews at the time of Christ didn't understand scripture any more than you do. That's why they crucified their Christ.
Christians didn't steal anything. The entire Old Testament shadowed Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of everything written and the church was what he came to build. The Gentile branch was grafted into the root and so we are considered part of God's "Israel." So the Scripture belongs to those who have faith, it belongs to all who follow Christ.
@@davidcole1475
So you believe in human evolution as a Christian?
@@thomas7571 Obviously you haven't read Hugh Ross or Old Earth Creationist material either or you wouldn't have asked that question.
@@davidcole1475
No, I haven’t. That’s why I asked that question.
And I am not saying you are wrong, because I am certainly of no authority on the subject, but I am saying that unless you have read the original texts in their original languages with meanings relating to the culture and such, that we all (as in myself included) are relying on english or american translators, and there might have been some meanings lost in translation. So this might be misrepresentation, or accurate. Only God knows.
Don't unlearn anything. That's what heretics start with. What you do is analyse and test all claims equally and not chose one without looking at both sides first.
You look at the intend of the author, his background, the subjects background, the culture, language etc. Do not take post-modernist views which no one in ancient Hebrew held. Like billions of years and the pagan Greek idea of evolution.
Did not Jesus Himself take Genesis as beginning with Adam and Eve, Cain & Abel? Isn't He Creator?
Finally we can close this waste of time debate between science and religion. Neither side lost, but we sure as heck didn't get anywhere.
/* Read/watch something from John Walton */
Why? Who's John Walton? He's not that clown who traveled with a cross on his back making a mockery of Christ?
No thanks.
I only want to read what the Bible says, and what all the great reformers say on the subject.
/* He needs to "rest"? No, something is meant by this. */
Yes, it means God stopped all His work of Creation on the 7th day. He did not start again creating on the 8th Day. His work was finished. He created all Creation in 6 days.
Anglican gang!
Faith is ego projection.
Powerful. Just Powerful.
Why is this even an issue ? If it weren't for atheist pseudo scientists we would not be having this debate. Before Darwin came to the scene, everybody and I mean everybody understood that God created the world in 6 24-hour days around 6000 years ago and rested of his work on the 7th day. The Book of Genesis ought to be interpreted literally as it relates to historic events, including the fall of man. The genealogy after Adam is very specific, with names and number of years the descendants of Adam lived. I don't know what people don't understand, the scripture is the most accurate account of historical events that took place many years ago, there are no other manuscripts out there that show ancient history around Israel. We do not need these theologians to interpret Genesis for us, we must with a childlike faith believe that God created the world in 6 literal days of 24 hours. each These intellectuals are absolutely teaching doctrines of devils. There is nothing that can lead somebody to believe that the bible is not a masterpiece of the history of mankind from Adam to Christ. With regard to natural science, I believe it must be in harmoyolny with scripture as it relates to the historic events mentioned in the bible, and if it doesn't it means we have false science. And this we know by faith, Hebrews 11:3. Beside Romans 1 teaches that it is self evident that God created the heavens and the earth, from observing the creation we know there is a Creator, even a man that didn't go to school can see this. Yet the intellectuals in this video give credence to pseudo scientists that teach evolution, when you do not need to go to school to know that this is a lie. There can be no harmony, when science is turned into magic, this science needs to be rejected because it is not science, i.e. the theory of the big bang and evolutionary biology are simply put, doctrines of demons, and need to be called for what they are. One thing they are not is scientists, these are quacks dressed as scientists, magicians disguised as scientists that have university degrees. Furthermore, these people want to put the Genesis story in historic perspective, i.e. the book is old and it was written for a different audience than today. Let it be clear the Word of God is as relevant today as it was thousands of years ago, furthermore the bible may have been written by different writers at different times, but it has one Author, God himself. God is the sole author of the entire new and old testament, yes we must acknowledge that different men wrote it over different time periods, but those men inspired by the holy spirit wrote timeless truths whose Author is none other than God. God is the sole author of the entirety of scripture, and the writers that were his servants and were inspired by God wrote historic events that are plain and clear and understandable by the man of God, and these theologians are perverting scripture when they refuse to accept the historic events that the Bible witnesses to.
@@monkibas Genesis 1:2 clearly teaches that there was day and night from day 1. God called the light day and the darkness night. It is irrelevant when the sun and the moon were created, there was light on the earth on day 1 before the sun and the moon were created. This is pre fall earth, and with the Son of God he provided the light before either the Sun or the Moon were created. There are no contradictions in the bible, in the new heavens and the new earth there may not be a sun because the light will be so radiant because the Son of God is light says the book of revelation at the end. So how the days were measured and how there was day and night as Genesis 1:2 teaches before God created the moon and the sun is not for us to inquire, but we should trust that God provided it in a supernatural way, without a moon or sun.
If Genesis 1 is whatever you want then, the gospels are whatever you want. Thats juat . ..stupid.
they make some valid points about interpretive bias and coming t9 the text with fresh eyes in light of writers intent and cultural context... the rest is very trendy assumed academic worldview that amounts to nose upturned elitist claptrap.
I enjoyed some of it, but way too much hand waving.
Bullshit. Genesis is literal in every sense. Yom means day in Hebrew.
This is a terrible misrepresentation of Genesis and real science.
This is the classic example of Eisegesis. Taking person biases and reading them into the text and not allow the text to define its own meaning and context.
If a person is a true Christian then they must believe in how Jesus believed Genesis, and He does quote from it as a real historic document. If you do not believe God created everything how He said He did then how can you call yourself Christian? Jesus is said to be "Creator"
Spot on...
You destroy the literal genesis & you weaken or destroy the need for Jesus Christ & His passion. You may imply that there was some other way to get mankind into sin other than the original one.
Soteriology101 Not true. You are American I guess?
The bible is extremely useful. It makes great kindling.
This is a cute video. I love learning about Christian mythology.
i love reading quotes by ignorant atheist trolls.
Hello Mr. Melson,
Thank you for joining the conversation. But I'm neither a troll or ignorant. If I was ignorant of ancient history I would assume that Christian mythology was historical in nature. But through years of research I know otherwise. If you feel I'm in error please point me to some evidence that the accounts of the gospels and acts was anything more than just mythical narratives.
Thank you,
Jakub
Jakub Mosur While I do not find you to be either ignorant or a troll, I do wonder about your "years of research."
The fact is that nearly every scholar involved in this discussion believes that at least parts of the Gospels and Acts are historical narrative. They agree not only with relevant extra-biblical writings of the day (e.g., Josephus), much of their content and claims can also be found in the Epistles (remember that all of these writings were only brought together later, so they should each be judged on their own merits, not together as the "New Testament"). A huge subject (if only in importance) is the resurrection of Jesus. I can give you more detail if you wish. I don't want to run this comment too long.
Why use the word "cute"?
Evan Brown Because "absurd" seemed a bit too rude.
Besides, the time and effort for the crew that made this piece is evident in the professional look of this video. The reason why I chose the word "cute" (id est: attractive, especially in a dainty way; pleasingly pretty) was my nod to the filmmakers and not the content.
What's hilarious about these people is that they have an "evolved" understanding that humanity now is supposedly understanding Genesis better than the Holy Spirit who inspired Mose to write it. Sad. Notice the words used here, "probably, most likely..." Believed in faith against Scripture. NT Wright contradicts himself at the end of the 10th minute.
Indeed. And Peter Enns is a clown. These liberals allegorize most of the bible.
rorshakks Was St. Augustine a liberal? He argued for allegory as well. Read some history and stop embarrassing yourself.
How does he contradict himself?
Did you listen to his words?
Joel Anthony Yes. Can you please share where you see a contradiction?
Sophistry
Science and Genesis???? 😂😂😂😂😂