A lot of the YECs under this video are using the same objections, so we addressed several of the here: ruclips.net/video/upoi9UIyDqQ/видео.html Also, YECs do not realize they are walking into a trap if they respond to my latest video. Let's remember YECs constantly claim theistic evolutionists have to add meaning to the Biblical texts, and they just take the plain reading. Well, in order to deal with the issues I brought up in the video they will have to add meaning to several of the passages I went over. For instance, they will try to reinterpret what Abraham said in Genesis 17:17, or they will try to add context to Jeremiah 4. Honestly, this is fine. I expected this and it is not bad, it is just standard hermeneutics. We cannot interview the original authors, so sometimes we have to employ interpretive methods when immediate comprehension fails. However, they will need to abandoned one of these chief claims, that they just take the plain reading of the text. In reality, they must do exactly what they accuse theistic evolutionists of doing, by interpreting passages in certain ways to make it fit with their young-earth model. When they accuse anyone else of doing this, it is basically the act of taking man's word over God's word, but when they will attempt to do it, they will just be trying to get at what the original authors meant. This is exactly what I want them to do, instead of pretending they just take the plain reading of the text. They cannot and no one can. So the next time they accuse me of talking man's word over God's by employing hermeneutics, I will bring up one of the passages I used in the video and make them do the same thing.
Apart from the Word of GOD, there isnt any evidence for evolution, and do theistic evolutionists take Genesis 1 not literally? How about Noah's Ark? Because people have actually found the remains of the ark. And there is plenty of evidence forna world wide flood. How do you think fossils form? If you lay a corpse in the wild, its gone by the month, but if you preserve it with mud, the bones will remain. If it was a local flood, then either youre going against what the Bible says because it says it covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven" (Genesis 7:19). Think about it. If waters rose up to a high hill, then it would, to even out, expand to other locations.
You claim to defend Christianity but fails to believe what Christ himself has said as the reason he came to save us from. Biblical Christianity doesn't allow you to separate creation from a histirical Adam to Fall to Christ. Besides, professing to believe in the Bible, you're siding with theistic evolution without presenting a single text that the Bible even implies evolution before trying to dismantle YEC creation narrative. Where are the conclusive evidences for the Big Bang, life coming out of inanimate matter, missing links etc. etc.? I mean, what kind of logic is it that requires you to believe side A but then agrees with side B on their core beliefs even without the evidence that side B apologists themselves can't produce?
based on this man's teaching Jesus could have just stayed in heaven because death was around long before adam sinned. there fore there would be no need for blood atonement to cover sins
@@twistedtitan5485 You are too carnally minded and dont think spiritually at all. Physical death is not a problem and never was, it is the spiritual death which is the problem. The wages of sin is death means the conseqences of sin is separation from God which means spiritual death or in a more presice way - Hell itself. So when Adam sinned, he got separated from God and was now heading to hell as were all the other people after him. God the Father however had a plan to rescue the humanity from hell by sending His Son to our world and by letting Him go to hell instead of us and then take the keys of hell from Satan to himself. So Jesus defeated SPIRITUAL death, meaning hell. You see, the whole salvation plan was to save us not from physical death, not at all but from spiritual death, from hell itself.
@@twistedtitan5485 this is a false message. It was already the plan of God to save us from sin through the faith in Jesus Christ Before God created Adam and Eve He already know that they would fall in sin. Dead came through Adam. Eternal life through Jesus. Dead was not there long before Adam. God made everything good..
This honestly makes me want to see a Fourfold debate with a Theistic Evolutionist, an Evolutionist, A Young Earth Creationist and an Old Earth Creationist.
Let's hear it for the theistic evolutionists!! Something that should make sense to both religionists and atheists. Common meeting ground, so to speak. Religion should be governed by common Sense, Universe realities, historical facts, emotional self control and moderation.
@@davidoverstreet2875 Transformist evolution is an absurdity. While certain changes make take place over time in a given species, one species never transforms into another. Anyone who has read Plato would know this. Every species is a reflection of a heavenly archetype, or form. The archetypes are immutable. The archetype of a horse will always be what it is, it will never morph into the archetype of a cow. The archetypes of the various apes are utterly separate from the archetype for man, and as the visible species are merely so many reflections of the archetypes, it goes without saying that one cannot morph into another over any period of time. As E.F. Schumacher said: "To call a man a 'hairless ape' makes as much sense as to call a dog a 'barking cabbage'". That is, it makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore the greater cannot come from the lesser, man cannot come from an ape and living organisms cannot develop out of some type of "primordial goo". The first man, far from being born out of the womb of an ape mother, descended from Heaven as a quasi-immaterial being, with a body quite like that Christ possessed after his resurrection.
@@Mike-md7op Mike, this will be confirmed when you resurrect in heaven. But you still have the power of free will to disbelieve it even then. But you're better off to use practical common sense and go ahead and accept scientific facts, which is nothing more than the out working material phenomenon of spiritual realities. First of all, let me say that local universe life is designed in Heavenly laboratories by celestial scientists, usually with minor improvements, and then implanted within a special plasm on a planet with a favorable atmosphere and saltwater environment. The special life plasm is then enlivened by the Holy Spirit, and contains all of the life patterns that will evolve over millions of years, mostly slowly, but sometimes, occasionally and suddenly, with Superior mutations, comprising a totally new creature species. A good example of this is the scientific fact of how birds evolved from reptiles. The sponge creatures were the great transformation turning point from plant to animal. This is known as Theologic Evolution, and the life plasm contains all of the world's life patterns, from the original smallest single-celled water-bound creatures to the pinnacle of the evolutionary scale, in the appearance of mankind. The 3 implantations on our world occurred in North America, Africa, and Australia, which explains the differentiation and the variation in life forms on each of those separate continents. The North American implantation evolved into mankind in Southwest Asia after our highly intelligent and extinct mid- mammal lemur ancestors crossed the Bering Land strait 2 million years ago. And so it is, that the greater must, can, and does come from the lesser, on the evolutionary worlds of time and space. Animals are incapable of rational reasoning and moral choice. Humans are, and the moment the newly evolved mortals make a moral decision, then the last two of the Seven Adjutant Mind Spirits indwells them, the Spirit of wisdom and the Spirit of worship, which is the spiritual phenomenon that sets newly evolved mankind apart from the animal world. Even within all of these species, we see variation mutations over time, including mankind, who, in the form of the colored races, mutated from the original neanderthal species of mankind. Many animal species are long extinct, while some new species continue to evolve, even to this day. And all of this sodium chloride form of life species mutations are quietly observed, manipulated and recorded, though without interference following the evolution of human beings, by our celestial supervisors.The spirit body Christ inhabited after his resurrection is known as the Morontia Form, and is a semi physical blueprint of our mortal body, and along with the spirit of God within our mind, comprises the mortal soul. This form can ONLY be obtained in the afterlife, to replace the Earth body we have left behind.
@@Mike-md7op actually, if you have common sense, it makes perfect sense. And no, I never joke about something as seriously important as the evolution of the species. And again, this is information that will be confirmed to you by angels in the afterlife.
There's a family friend of mine who is a geologist. They had a theory about the age of the earth but doesn't have any proof. Their personal theory is that if God created Adam and Eve as middle-aged adults instead of infants, then it stands to reason that God could create the world middle-aged as well. An interesting thought.
@RichardDuryea, I think he lied or have a memory lose when he said that in Genesis 12:4 Terah begat Abram at age of 130 years.. It has never said that in Genesis 12, but it says in Genesis 11:26 that Tehra was 70 years old when he begat Abram, Nahor and Haran.. He is unreliable, who can believe him now?
@@CAMPFelicity I think he lied or have a memory lose when he said that in Genesis 12:4 Terah begat Abram at age of 130 years.. It has never said that in Genesis 12, but it says in Genesis 11:26 that Tehra was 70 years old when he begat Abram, Nahor and Haran.. He is unreliable, who can believe him now?
Abraham was questioning being able to have a child at a hundred years old because he and Sarah had no kids at all whatsoever. So Abraham was questioning whether at 100 years old they would actually start having kids.
Abraham did have a child at that time. Ishmael with Hagar. However : Genesis 18:11 Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. Sarah was past the age of childbearing. We know a woman’s time for reproducing runs out long before a man’s. Abraham couldn’t have believed his time had run out, because after Sarah died years later, he gets married again and has six more sons. Since the Bible often only mentions the birth of sons, he might have also had some daughters. So, clearly he had plenty ability to reproduce. He was questioning Sarah's ability to have children not his own.
Well yeah but he does mention that in the video but he also mentions that most of the patriarchs didn't have children until after they were 100 years old I mean even Isaac didn't have Jacob until he was 60 That's not too far away from where Abraham was at this point I think that are the stronger point that he made was a little interpretation of Genesis 2 about the two becoming one flesh in fact, I think that's the single strongest argument that could be made against a literal interpretation
@@brick2392 Sorry, I am not completely clear on what you are trying to say. If you are referring to the ages most people "begot" somebody pre-flood and generations after the flood, we don't know when they had their firstborn. The "begots" throughout the Bible, are not necessarily their firstborn, but mostly the ones who are in the line of Noah and then in the line of Abraham to Jacob to Judah to David to Jesus. They may or may not have been the firstborn in the genealogy. I also cannot figure out why you are pointing out that patriarchs didn't have children until they were older. That shows they could wait longer because they lived longer even several generations after the flood. And one symbolic statement with an obvious meaning doesn't make the whole thing not literal. After all, Jesus makes reference to man and woman becoming one flesh as a way to demonstrate they are supposed to form an unbreakable bond and that God did not intend for people to get divorced. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” I hope that doesn't mean the teachings of Jesus are not literal or that Jesus is not literal.
@@farmtalk491 obviously I don't advocate for the literal teaching of two becoming one I'm just making a point when you start interpreting Genesis it's a slippery slope and you absolutely can't take the entire text. Literally word for word also my main point about the patriarchs Is that they had children well after 100 and I would have to say I disagree when they say begot That's their firstborn it's literally the first mention I mean literally the Bible mentions only males usually and it mentions the firstborn because of the significance also, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day I was just making a point that some people can interpret the text literally or non-literally I personally do not interpret Genesis literally and there's quite a lot of reasons why I mean in in the Bible where it talks about the four corners of the Earth I believe it's in Isaiah most people don't think the earth is a square or when it talks about the firmament in Isaiah most people don't believe there's a physical dome above us and at the Earth is flat I like what John Lennox teaches on the issue The Bible just doesn't say how old the Earth is and no matter which approach you take, you have to interpret it regardless
Use extreme caution when choosing what to accept literally and what to accept metaphorically. You are correct, metaphors are used. But there is usually a context that let's you know whether or not to use a literal interpretation.
It's almost like the bible was written by men with expectations of their reader based on assumptions subject to localisation and translational mutations.
@@Hoganply Yeah haha, I was trying to explain that to someone who said it was clearly stated in Romans 14 that women should be silent in the church and whoever disagrees is not accepted. I read the passage he quoted and immediately it struck me that my translation of it is different, as I had happened to read it a few days prior. Translation differences. That much can be explained to people, but to make a case about cultural and historical background playing a role is tougher. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue myself, I lean toward it's ok women to teach and preach even men, but the question is how exactly do we determine. Obviously the specific situation back then played a role. Women were uneducated and had unacceptable/un-Christian conduct. So that could've been said for two reasons - one, to keep order during that time of transition and two, for the same reasons Paul didn't immediately abolish slavery. The same way Paul teaches slaves how to act he also teaches women how to act, and for the same reasons. That seems VERY plausable to me. But again, I'm not a 100% sure on where I stand on this.
@@fawazr That's not how that works. There is a historical or scientific or cultural context. But somehow your choice of words makes me suspicious that you don't really care.
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." "and ALL that is in them"... that's a powerful statement. Exodus 20:11
There are two more possible explanations for Abraham's skepticism of having a child at age 100. He says that Sarah is 90 years old, but the genealogies before that only list the fathers. We don't know how old Abraham's mother was when he was born, or the mothers of any of the others who are mentioned in the lists. Likewise, the word "father" in Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean a literal father; it can also be used to mean "ancestor." In other words, a grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather, etc.
I agree we don't know what age the mother's were but obviously under 90 since Abraham thought women couldn't have children after a certain age. Romans 4:19 "And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead. When he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: he staggered not at the promis of God through unbelife; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able to perform. And therfore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
The literal translation of the phrase to describe the lineage is one would 'beget a son,' or his life brought forth a son. The word son is used in direct descendance in most examples of its usage. However, if you could find an example of its use in other forms, such as the use of grandchildren or more broadly of male descendants, then I could agree with your second assertion. As for your first one, I think the other reply gives proof enough to support this interpretation to be true.
@@hotwax9376 The copies of Matthew we often translate from are written in Greek: the term translated to son in Greek is often used to mean a more broad male offspring. However, we can use this as inferred evidence, as we can see that it was most likely a translated feature from the original Hebrew it was written in.
@@luxither7354 What about in the Old Testament when David is called the "father" of the various kings of Judah who were many generations removed from him? You can't say that this is a linguistic difference the New Testament, the OT was written in Hebrew rather than Greek.
First off, this is the first video I've watched of yours and it is really well done. From seeing what some of the titles are of your other videos it seems you are doing a lot of good. Second, I used to go to church with you at Epicenter, so apparently I have at least met a famous person! Thirdly, I believe you are my dear brother in Christ, and I hope, even though I don't know where you currently live we can strive in our respective spheres to further the cause of Christ. You are probably a more faithful Christian than I am. I created a running commentary on various points in your video. I myself am a YEC, but I associate and do ministry with those whose view on Genesis more closely mirror yours. 2:19 You overlooked Genesis 6:3 where God says man will only live to 120 years. We see the life spans rapidly get less and less preceding Abraham. I am sure Abraham saw his peers only living a much shorter span and had reason to believe the same thing about his own life. 4:20 It was saying the whole earth, except the highest peaks. In my opinion, people who support theistic evolution yet also believe the Bible is true have the tendency to take a rather obvious statement and then overcomplicate it to serve their purposes. 4:49 Again, you are playing gymnastics with a clear text to prove your view. Love ya though! 5:00 If the flood was local why did God have Noah build a boat and put 2 of each animal on it? That would be pointless. Why not have him hike a hundred miles to where it wouldn't flood? You probably have another video explaining what you believe about Noah building a boat and the animals getting on it, I haven't seen that yet. 5:33 Young earth creationists do not say there is NO allegory or NO figures of speech. I believe the Bible should be interpreted in its historical grammatical context. If a parable is being told, that is interpreted as a parable, if zoomorphism is being used to describe God, we don't actually believe God is a hen (Matt. 23:37). John Walton, and other "Biblical evolutionists" (I made that word up just now) tend to caricature YECs' views in a similar way to what you are doing here. 5:46 This is clearly a figure of speech The Genesis narrative is described, by the Biblical author, as something that actually happened. Genealogies and ages are listed to even further emphasize the historicity of what is being said, that seems pretty obvious to me. 7:25 you bring up a valid perspective 9:13 although I don't agree with your position, it is a compelling argument. In Genesis 1:27 God makes man in his own image. If this doesn't have anything to do with being God's special creation to be in relationship with him, then what does it mean? Most things we have ever learned about being made in God's image would need to be walked back. 11:37 To me this is a weak argument. Again, historical grammatical interpretation. Jeremiah is clearly talking in allegory, where as the Genesis account poses as historical narrative. 12:50 John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis one gives an answer I agree with to this objection: "Let there be light. It was proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures.54) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon." 14:11 Again, I disagree. Proverbs 12:10 says, "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." Therefore a man may subdue and rule over the animals and still be compassionate towards them 14:42 You disregard Genesis 9:3 at which point God gives man the right to kill and eat animals. Before that it, apparently was not the case. 15:52 again historical grammatical interpretation would lead anyone to believe David is using "heart" as a figure of speech, just as we still use it today. 18:01 Every single translation of the Bible into English says, "In the beginning". The people who make translations tend to be at the top of their field. Pretty sure at least one of them would have the wording you speak of if it were even remotely likely.
1. I don't think your explanation would result in Abraham laughing at God's suggestion that he would have a child at his age. Were I in Abraham's shoes and watching my ancestors die at rapidly shortening ages all around me, I would take God's word as a sign that perhaps He was going to increase lifespans again and I would probably be rejoicing. I would see the past generations quickly dying out as a sign of rapid deterioration and even a sign of the world ending especially if my own ancestors are alive to attest to the great ages of their fathers. This explanation also doesn't count for the fact that the ages specified don't seem like random numbers as we would expect with aging and seem to correspond more with theologically significant numbers. (7, 60, 12, etc. This is covered better in his Genesis 5 video.) 2 and 3. That's... what he said. And then the bird came back because, as was said 4 verses later, the waters were still on the face of the whole Earth. Either we need to conclude from this that the author of Genesis has severe short-term memory loss, or they're open to using language like "the whole Earth" non-literally. Since neither of us would believe the former, we conclude the latter is more likely. From there, it's just a question of _how_ non-literally. Granted I think this is one of the weaker points in the video as far as disproving YEC, but in terms of supporting theistic evolution I think it's a valid point. 4. While IP isn't directly addressing this point in the video, you make a valid argument in favor of a worldwide flood. However, it's not a conclusive one: there are definitely other ways to interpret this command. Perhaps God wanted to preserve the biodiversity of the area, especially if Eden (and the surrounding area) were a garden humanity was meant to nurture and tend to. Perhaps since livestock tended to be a representation of value in ancient times, God wanted Noah to have something of value to barter with the people in the land he ended up in. Either way though, I have yet to see a YEC produce good evidence that every animal comes from a 4000-year-old couple. Unfortunately, I think most YECs miss this point when they get excited about mitochondrial Eve, that if it can be shown all humans came from one ancestor several thousand years ago, a worldwide flood means that _every_ animal's ancestors should have come from two ancestors of their kind several thousand years ago. But I digress here: this isn't a video about science, this is about Biblical interpretation. 5. I agree with you here that I think IP is playing a semantics game here, his argument only goes to show that the chapters do contain non-literal statements. However, I'm not sure that this inherently justifies your claim that though the chapters do contain non-literal statements, the rest of the chapter is meant to be interpreted as a literal story. IP does have better content (like his Genesis 1 video) that goes into more detail on how the Creation story may be a story told to make a theological point and would've made sense when compared to other Near Eastern religious documents. Either way, it's an argument that only goes to show that yes, in fact, you cannot take the entire Bible "literally" because that would make no sense. 6 and 7. I'm pleased to be speaking to someone able to accept valid arguments against their position and point them out when they're made. Few people online are capable of this form of honesty. I'm not sure if the point about the Imago Dei was necessarily a response to the statement in the video but I don't want to pretend like I know exactly what the Imago Dei is myself so I'll skip past this point. 8. Though you still tout Genesis 1 as a historical narrative here which seems like begging the question, you do make a point of sorts. IP's argument requires that Jeremiah's allegory not use any form of hyperbole, but IP himself suggests that the Bible can use hyperbole at times. I would presume that IP is trying to go after a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible here though this is not a conclusive argument against YEC. It's very possible that Jeremiah is trying to be dramatic in saying that the Northern Kingdom has been "uncreated" with this allegory. 9. John Calvin's point seems to be (correct me if I am misstating it, older English writings are obviously worded differently from modern English) that God intentionally created the sun later to show that He is capable of lighting the universe without the help of the Sun and Moon. This is a fine interpretation, but you're arguing against one interpretation with another possible interpretation. I think IP's interpretation makes more sense from the perspective that the Bible is trying to say that God is giving order to the universe in Genesis 1 rather than creating it ex nihilo. 10. I doubt IP condones animal cruelty nor do I think God condones it, I think that what IP is trying to say is that the rulership God gives man over animals is not supposed to be one of benevolence the way God wishes for human rulership to be. Animals are not our equals and God has given us the right to use them for clothing and for meat. 11. I believe IP talks about this in the Genesis 9 video. 12. This is but one example given of the many provided, though I am not entirely sure that an ancient Israelite would've agreed that the word "heart" was meant figuratively. Many ancient people believed that the heart and/or the gut were the centers of emotional and rational thought before we better understood that the brain was the center of rational thought. (They weren't entirely wrong considering the gut contains a significant number of neurons to perform digestion and some have even suggested we humans have a "gut brain") The ancient Egyptians even believed the brain was a vestigial organ and would have it removed entirely during mummification. That being said I'm not going to stand here and boldly claim that every use of the word "heart" in the Old Testament was meant literally because of ancient beliefs regarding anatomy when I'm sure there are many uses that are better explained using the word to mean "soul" or "psyche" in a more figurative sense. 13. This is an argument from consensus and an argument from authority. Granted, it is a very compelling consensus given that it has existed over a long period of time, and sometimes an argument from a consensus of scholars is the best we can do when discussing philosophical, scientific, or theological truth. Even many apologetic arguments depend on an argument from the consensus of church leaders. However, I think you can see how this consensus may not be based in fact. And this is where I must issue a : Imagine trying to sell a Bible with that first verse changed... are you really going to fight with your potential buyers about the very first verse when they expect that verse to start with "In the beginning..." and there are much more important verses worth arguing about? If you happen to believe that everyone was a YEC at this time (a myth that IP also did a video on!) then other Bible translators probably would've _preferred_ to keep the classic beginning of the KJV rather than change something that people would a mountain out of a molehill of. However the consensus was created, Christianity has had consensuses before which we would now disagree with. The consensus before Martin Luther was that the Catholic Church was the one true church, that the elements of the communion became God's literal body and blood during communion, and that purgatory was a real place you could get your relatives out of by paying a priest to pray on their behalf. The "church authorities" before Christ believed that the Messiah would come to purge the Romans from Israel and make Israel a great Kingdom as in the OT. And yet, I hold not one of these beliefs and I doubt you do either. I would say that the consensus is right a lot of the time, but is also very capable of getting something very wrong. We need to have the boldness to challenge these consensuses and reevaluate them when evidence points in a new direction. My reasoning for evaluating your points was partially to see if what @pegasusjava69 was claiming is correct (that you were merely stating IP's opinions were wrong without ample reasoning) and though I found some of your points lacking I did find you managed to point out some flaws in IP's reasoning even if many of your objections were simply targeting points that I think were meant for those who claim to subscribe to a "totally literal" interpretation. This is perhaps a flaw in the selection of points that IP presented. Overall I don't find that the objections you've made undermine IP's overarching point and I still find his interpretation of Genesis to be an equally if not more valid interpretation than the YEC one, but I do appreciate that you've perhaps pointed out the flaws in his presentation as many times people make ineffective arguments because they compile a "counterargument soup" targeting many radical branches or strawmen of a belief (like the "totally literal interpretation of the Bible") without addressing the core of the belief.
Wow! I feel honored for such a well thought out response, not that you responded in order to honor me. I view Christians who take an old earth/evolutionary perspective as often choosing to interpret Scripture based on what the general consensus is scientifically. The problem I see with that is twofold. 1. Cosmology and origins of life is simply not a hard science (I'm thinking math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) As much as people who believe in the mainsteam explanations will demand it, they are not hard sciences. No one can prove the universe began 14.7 billion years ago, nor can anyone prove all life descended from a single living cell. Both young earth creationists and old earth evolutionists look at the same data set, but they are both using different presuppositions to interpret that data set. Young earth creationists are not denying the data set anymore than old earth/evolutionists are. The arguments I've heard from YECs, I believe, are more compelling than the counterparts'. 2. I think our attitude towards Scripture should be faith seeking understanding. I think we should seek to interpret Scripture in the historical-grammatical context, and trust, along with Jesus, that not a single jot or tittle shall pass away until all is accomplished. If we can turn 6 days into 14.7 billion years, and a flood that destroys the whole earth into an ANE phenomenon, what else can we fudge on? If someone in a white coat or with a PHD before their name says something opposed to Scripture, my first reaction should be, "Maybe I should see if there are any alternative explanations", rather than to change my view of Scripture with no pushback. That being said, I am sure many YECs get things wrong also, and probably some of the things old earth/ evolutionist Christians hold to may end up being right. In one way, I am glad there are Christians on both sides so that an inquirer can't really use the point to dismiss Christ. I like to say, "Well, I believe this, but my pastor believes this, either way, God made it." May you have a blessed day. @MajorTomFisher
@pegasusjava69 No, I don't think that was the intention, just to give plausible reasons/explanations to these questions. Both could be wrong, one could be right about a couple. Just answers to questions posed
According the Bible, looking at the words of Jesus there is lot comming to us. Also written in the book of Revelation. Heavy times are comming. Covid 19 is just the beginning and it has everything to do with te second comming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But He also encouraging us with the words:Don't be afraid, these things must happen
It is amazing how we try so hard to interpret the Word of God and still have many problems coming to a perfect conclusion. When I read the word, I pray so that the Holy Spirit reveals what I need to understand for the purpose of God. Everything else, is just a waste of time trying to explain what we our selves have a hard time understanding. When we use words like “it might, maybe, but, what if” and any other word, now instead of helping, it confuses more the small mind of ours. So the only thing I care about, is this. Love God with all of your heart, love your neighbor, accept his sacrifice and follow the rest of the commandments and you and I will succeed even with all the ugliness in the world. Let’s serve with purpose and honor our Creator and let’s stop trying to understand what can’t be understood.
Well... we don't need to know whether or not the Earth truly is 6000 years old, or whether Adam was the first man. So I don't find confusion in that area problematic. Plus, the state you're in when you're constantly digging, ready to learn more or be proven wrong, keeps you humble and supple. How God needs you.
We try so hard to interpret the word of god and still have many problems, problems arriving at a perfect conclusion, etc.. Makes one wonder if it really is the word of a god, doesn't it? Especially since it's supposed to be that particular god's personal message to us, and that that god wants all of us to understand it, to come to him, etc. ?
@@travisbicklepopsicle I've had a similar thought... but consider the mere act of seeking knowledge, digging deep and revising what you thought you knew for years (perhaps decades). It maintains in you a state of humility. Keeps you supple to the truth, and the only way to fully imbibe the truth is to be without a sense of ownership over it. If the Bible truly is the word of God then no matter how many mistranslations there are, no matter the confusion, we'll always be humble and supple enough to seek out the original word - even if it takes a lifetime. No great loss if we never find out the full truth anyway, it's more important that we're humble than knowledgeable.
I was always taught that the phrase "and the two shall become one flesh" was a metaphor for God authorizing the sexual relationship within marriage. Marriage first, then sex. Marriage being defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.
w The human being wrote the prophecies of the Bible but is not the author. DISPERSION: (Deutoronomy 64) "And the Lord will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end"(NO OTHER PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN DISPERSED LIKE ISRAEL) PRESERVATION (Isaiah 66) "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make will remain before me, says the Lord, so your offspring and your name will remain." ISRAEL WILL BE A NATION AGAIN: (Ezekiel 36) "And I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all lands, and bring you to your country." (prophecy fullfilled after WW2) I invite you to visit this channel of yotube to listen to the word of God,: Iglesia La Luz del Mundo - Ortodoxia
And I was taught it has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with man and woman joining as one flesh becoming what a are suppose to be. The ying to the yang.
While you haven’t convinced me that the young earth creationist view is incorrect, you have some excellent and thought provoking points. Thank you for your insight.
@@dissidentleathermonster The earth was created in six thousand years, it is not six thousand years old. Just like a pen. A pen is created in one day, but it is not one day old. If truly the earth were to be six thousand, it says that Adam was created in the sixth day, therefore since the earth is six thousand, Adam would be living amongst us, there is a difference between in and is
@Jonathan Sarfati I don't agree with all InspiringPhilosophy's opinions but this isn't attacking the historicity of Genesis. It is simply just bringing a contextual view so we see the literal meaning the Ancient Hebrews saw. I do literally believe God created the universe, but I also believe he brought order of of the chaos too.
I have been thinking a lot on the word “subdue” in Genesis. I had struggle with that being correlated with military conquest, but after pondering for a while I think that term is an interesting play on agriculture. We tend to use tools like sticks or tools to dig and strike the ground to make it useful. We yoke animals to plow fields, we chop down trees and vines to clear land for a safe and habitable living space. It feels a bit aggressive. Gods acts in Genesis seem to about taking chaos and making orderly so that life could thrive. Later on in the story God appoints humans to continue the subduing of chaos through agriculture and society.
The war interpretation goes too far to make the text about the eschatological war, in which the snake is killed and the end of the age harvest of the bread of life is in view or is the message of the text. Perhaps there is a hint of it, but the message is subjection and keeping down, or keeping under control. It is a message of stalemate rather than final victory. Or, better, increasing dominion over the natural forces of chaos and disorder. The harvest at the end of the age when the weeds are uprooted and thrown into the fire and the wheat is gathered into the barn and the labour pains give way to the new creation and the beast is killed is not at odds with the message of progressive increasing control over chaos, with the aid of the seed of the woman, the the woman’s male, born to rule. Man has the means and opportunity to rule the animals, but chooses not to, and he becomes the beast. Men become beasts, ruling each other instead of the animals. That story continues as God works towards reversing the direction, through the covenants, including the covenant of Noah made with the beasts and the New Covenant also made with the beasts (Hos. 2). In the eschatological war the beast is killed but the beasts do not drop out of the picture, instead they are made harmless and vegetarian (e.g. Is. 11), the same as they were to be in Gen. 1. The snakes are defanged, but they are still around. The eschatological narrative leads to Second Temple Israel as the beast killed, as the Fourth Beast of Dan. 7, as the kingdom destroyed along with the Second Temple in Dan. 9, and as the dragon in Revelation 12, which is ruled by the beast that rises from the Abyss in Rev. 11, as set out in Rev. 13.
The word to rule רדה (Radah) used in 1 Kings 5 : 16 and the context did not speak in any violent sense here it is "Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which *ruled over* the people that wrought in the work." Surely Solomon's workers did not rule over his people in any harmful manner at the time of Solomon especially !! So why to suppose Genesis 1 : 28 the word rule over or have dominion over fish of the sea and the earth , is speaking in a harmful sense? So i just proved it doesnt necessarily have to mean that.
@@christfollower5713 Solomon's character in the Bible, and his rule in particular, is not the kind of rule that man was commissioned over the animals. Solomon was a polygynous king, ruling over other men, rather than the animals. He is taken to task about it following his death resulting in the divided kingdom, and in Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Solomon repeats the sin of Gen. 3 in 1 Kings 3, where he reached out for the knowledge of good and evil to judge others.
Many OT scholars take the same view but ascribe it more broadly to the Genesis account. Humans discovering clothing, subduing the earth as they move from a hunter/gatherer to a more agricultural way of life. Nothing divine about it.
1. The ages of people after Adam gets incrementally less and less. Abraham is one of them. Notice he also marries his half-sister, which would later be forbidden under Moses' law. Obviously genetic purity lessened over time along with lifespans. 2. The waters were worldwide but taller mountains - created by the geographical upheaval caused by the flood - appeared in its cataclysmic duration. 3. Metaphor usages do not discount things being literal elsewhere. No one talks entirely in metaphor. In fact any talk about God has to be metaphorical because a Being subsisting beyond time and matter cannot be discussed without anthropomorphisms. 4. Creation was a miracle - God can order things as he wishes in whatever manner he pleases without having to subject himself to what we call scientific laws. 5. Trying to use reason where God is concerned is useless - 1 Corinthians 1:27. He purposefully uses stupidity to confound the wise. 6. God never said the earth was perfect (only very good) - God is perfect, if earth were perfect it wouldn't have fallen. The gap theory is the best argument against the young earth and you ignored it.
1.) Even with “genetic purity”, the math doesn’t add up. Nobody lived to 900s years. 2.) The Waters were not worldwide, there’s no evidence of a single, global flood. It was likely a massive regional flood in the Middle East, of which there is plenty of evidence to substantiate. 3.) Correct. We need to distinguish between Metaphor vs. Literalism, Young-Earth Creationists who misunderstand that. 4.) Genesis 1/2 isn’t talking about a material creation. The world is much older than 6,000 years. 5.) God gave us brains to reason, and we are capable of applying that to the most complex passages and not warrant an unscientific belief like Young Earth Creationism.
@@deus_vult8111 1) The math does add up - James Ussher is just one of many who calculated the dates. I'll tell you what doesn't add up - 4 billion years 2) Every fossil you ever saw is evidence of a global flood. Organic matter typically deteriorates without a trace unless preserved - which is exactly what the planetary rapid shifting of sediments did, from Australia and Argentina to Siberia and Spain. Pretty much every single culture on earth has a flood myth, a phenomena that forced Carl Jung to make it a segment of the collective unconscious, because such a fact defies coincidence. 3) The question is - is the creation account being metaphorical? I don't think it is - nor did the author of Exodus, who states very blatantly that in six days the earth was created (Exodus 31:17), which neatly reflected the six days of work Israelites lived by.
1. Still doesn't add up to Abraham's reaction. He was QUESTIONING GOD. He wouldn't have done it if it was something he deemed just extremely unlikely. 2. Here you're reading things into the text. The challenge IP poses is exactly that. 3. Yet you don't write in zig-zag between literal and metaphorical. If there are significant metaphorical passages, then you can't claim the text is completely literal which is what IP is arguing against. 4. That's not a counter argument to what he said about the Hebraic word for creation. 5. Don't see what you're trying to do here as well. 6. Yes, and IP never said that either. He's going against the YEC , many of them believe that. Here you're actually agreeing with IP.
@@Joleyn-Joy And calcium deteriorates in a few years in normal conditions, but what a coincidence that so much calcium has been so tidily preserved - worldwide.
For the first "problem" presented, you have to take the flood, and its aftermath, into account. Your own chart showing the ancestors' ages makes a great point. After the flood, humans born after the flood started living shorter lives. In Psalm 90:10, the psalmist says, “The length of our days is seventy years-or eighty, if we have the strength.” This is perfectly consistent the Genesis narrative all the way back to Gen 1:1
The numbers were also originally higher. The Septuagint preserves the original numbers, which make Eber, who outlives Abraham in the Masoretic Text, die 406 years before Abraham's death because, for some reason, the Masoretic Text subtracts a hundred years from the age of each of the members of the line of Shem. Pre-Masoretic manuscripts and dating show that the Septuagint numbers are correct. With the Septuagint numbers instead of the Masoretic ones, solving the problem is very easy. Abraham dies only 25 years younger than his father and grandfather. While this would not be a reason to be very happy during his death, it is clear that other people already lived shorter lives, so compared to other people of the era, Abraham was probably incredibly old. As for the idea that it is impossible for a man at 100 and a woman at 90 to have a child, it is clear that Abraham is not a descendant of firstborns only. His father had his oldest son, Haran, at seventy. While most of his earlier ancestors never had their son of the line of Abraham earlier than around 130, it is very likely that they had other sons or daughters at a much younger age. It is also possible that women lost their fertility earlier than men despite their longer lifespans. In that case, it would have still been unheard of for a man at 100 and a woman at 90 to not yet have any children. Abraham was still very much fertile, as he fathered many children after Sarah died with his concubine Keturah. Or maybe Abraham is not pointing out the age of infertility at all? Maybe he is just saying that a married couple of this age should already have children, yet Sarah's infertility, which is a birth defect, not anything associated with age, is keeping them from having children.
Might post a few times to help you out... Firstly Abraham's response was that of a 100 year old man who was barren! They had clearly tried for many a decade to have children. So when he mentioned their ages it was more along the lines of: "Seriously? We've had our dreams of children come and go, our hope in barring children lost and have no faith that such a thing can happen after all these year... Please don't come make promises you can't keep." after all they would have prayed many times in those years for that. His lack of belief was in having a child and not their age. So his punishment was fit for the sin, he spoke unbelief and was silenced till the birth of the child. As for saying that the age of each person was merely representing something else is strange. But hey believe what you must. I choose to think God is rather specific about detail in everything. If His word is so important to him that everything will pass away except His word then I doubt he would just let some random numbers make their way into it. But it reality those ages of each person were recorded fact, so I'd still rely upon them to as such. The Flood, well yes at first glance this seems so. The whole earth was flooded as he said, evedence for this world wide flood is supported in archeology. Yes sure after the 40 days of rain and the time past as discribed in the event when the ark came to rest on the mountain (ran a ground meaning the bottom of the ship came to rest on the ground) the water would still have been above the area where the landed. It simply just wasn't deep enough for the ship to float with all that cargo 😂 So yes even though some mountain tops could now be seen just popping up out the water does not mean the ground was dry enough to walk or live on yet. Hence the reason for sending out the dove, after all this would be his first time they experienced such an event. You'd think he would have asked God when the time to leave is right in stead of sending the dove out 3 times. Not sure if you've seen what things are like after a local flood, my guess is that one lasting as long at the biblical version might take considerably longer for land to be viable again. When it said the water dried from the earth it means just that... It didn't say All the water from All the earth. So if you reading a good story you pretty much understand it, right? You get the comedy, you get the seriousness, you get the tention, you get the sarcasm, you get what the saying, right? So if I tell you I'm like 40 years old you'd think I'm near or just over 40 but if I tell you I'm 40 then you'll think I'm 40?... So why would people alway try make something more or less out of the Bible... No 7: wow well done almost had me, but yes you are right. Well almost, see it sais there was No death before sin. It doesn't say their was immortality before sin, nothing had died yet, animals were not carnivores yet, again studies show that many of them were herbivores once. Only one tree was not to be eaten of, not 2 so sure we did most likely eat of the tree of life. If we were to carry on eating from that tree we would never die and continue to live in sin and then there would be no point to sending His Son Jesus.
No evidence has ever been supported to show the earth was flooded. That’s actually one of the biggest points made against the story of the ark. Nothing about the ark story is accurate or possible. And animals have always been some herbivores and some carnivore because we have evidence of that as well. No evidence shows that today’s carnivores were once herbivores. Even god himself contradicts himself many times in the stories in the Bible.
@DiscipleDave DotCom yeah.. the layers that are observed that we can dig or check out in the canyons that are plain to see with fossils that show no evidence of a flood because something like that would I’m fact leave behind things to be seen. Along with that your ark which could not of contained all those animals, bugs, and then what? They all survived reproduced and evolved into all the species-we have today that fast? And where was all the food for these animals kept? Elephants alone would need more food then they could store. What about all the shit? Did they just shovel that off the ship? No one or animal got a disease that whole time? Did the ark contain plants or seeds? Because all that vegetation a year submerged under salt water. Dead. Also the soil wouldn’t be able to support life for some time once the water went down. Also the bird that came back with a branch to show the water went down.. where did that come from because that’s not going to have survived the water. Also Noah couldn’t just look out the ship to see the water level? Lol had to send the birds. Also no fossil records on earth show a huge record of all these animals to exist in one area then spreading out into where they live today because you know they would need to exit the ark and then over time live and die on the land migrating to where they are today. That’s not a thing. Oh and the speed in which Noah would of needed to get the animals on the ship not possible. Or magically getting all the animals. And Insects. But yeah let’s move on to god. We don’t have to go very far for examples. The first few days creating everything.. let’s see he makes the heavens them earth the all the stars.. then a few days later makes the sun but.. the sun is a star so why wasn’t that popped into existence with all the other ones? Also is the sun was made until a few days later then there is no night and day cycle meaning no day one day two yet. Also if I remember correctly the moon wasn’t created until later either. But then a all powerful god needed rest after he was finished. Then we have the humans. Just two we started with right? So after eve and Adam get kicked out of the garden and have there kids. Where did all the other humans come from? The random hook ups never named for the kids. Also is Kane still alive? He was cursed right? Did everyone except Noah’s family die and the Juno started the human race again somehow? Oh wait Also god created the rainbow so he wouldn’t forget to never flood us again. How would he forget? He’s god. Also wouldn’t the rainbow already exist if there’s been rain and sun around this whole time? What about Abraham? Why did god need to test him four or five times to literally give him the same gift he already promised him the last several times he tested him? Or the fact god needed to come down and enter the town to see if there was a certain number of good doers before he nuked it. As if he couldn’t already all knowingly know? I mean the list really does keep going. Or how he plays favorites.
@DiscipleDave DotCom you guys hold on to gods magic is the answer every time lol just like it’s was Thor was angry so that’s why there thunder and lightning. Or the sun god raises so we must make the sacrifices so he keeps coming back. Just can’t accept it
The Gilgamesh flood story was handed down from the Sumerians who predated the Israelites by 8000 years. Their world may have been flooded, but their world was Mesopotamia, not the whole planet of which they had no understanding....their world was a flat disc with pillars supporting a dome.
@DiscipleDave DotCom Super Dave, they have psyc meds for schizophrenics who have auditory hallucinations. I pray to my God of positive thought that you will get your prescription.
"Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, 'Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child? Isn't it a little too soon to be thinking about kids?'"
@ASmithAllStars So simple that Noah reportedly lived another 350 years after the Flood (Gen 9:28), Abraham himself is said to have died at age 175, and a modern French woman lived to be 122 years old? Gen 6:3 more likely refers to how much longer God would "contend" (some interesting textual variants there) with man upon the earth, i.e., before sending the Flood, and not to hard-capping the human life span.
@ASmithAllStars No, we really don't. Abraham was born well after the Flood and lived significantly longer than 120 years. The first patriarch not to live beyond that supposed 'hard cap' was Joseph, who died at 110 (which ancient Egyptians considered a blessed old age btw). Moses might be the only one reported to have lived exactly 120 years, and the average 'biblical' life span continued to shrink. By the time of the united kingdom of Israel, man lives about 70 years, 80 if he is in great condition, according to Ps 90:10. To come back around to your humorless initial reply, of course the text implies he thought he was too old to have a child at age 100, but not because he 'knew' God wasn't allowing human beings to live any longer than 120 years.
Against my better judgment, here's my reply. Sperm is viable from puberty until the man dies of old age. He continually produces it unlike women with a set number of eggs. Barring any accidents to his baby making parts, yes, men in their 90s can have children. Of course, back in Abraham's day no one knew this. Abraham was a brilliant scientist and mathematician in his own right which caused him to be run from Ur.
I guess it could mean that too, but later on Sarah also laughs and says that she's too old to become pregnant. That would suggest IMO that Abraham felt that she was too old and not too young.
“Implies, implies, implies.” Stopped about 7 minutes in. If you are going to use literal reading of the Bible to debunk literal reading of the Bible, you can’t keep saying the text “implies” things it does not say.
"That's a sick skateboard!" "That's totally sick dude!" Since I used "sick" as an adjective to mean "cool" or "awesome," when I say, my mother is very sick, I mean that my mother is very cool! "Hur dur context!" I agree. A word can have multiple meanings, just like bara can have multiple meanings.
@@lilchristuten7568 But why do you choose to take one verse figuratively, and another literally? When Paul says in Galatians 3:28 that "there is no male or female", doesn't that mean it's okay to be trans? When Jesus says in Matthew 19:12, "Some people are born eunuchs from the womb, some people are made into eunuchs by men, and some people make themselves into eunuchs for the the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven", doesn't that mean it's okay to be gay? The plain reading of the text does not lead to Conservative Evangelical culture-war teachings, unless you're reading your own bias into it.
@@ChristianCatboy "Why do you choose to take one verse figuratively and another literally?" Come on say it with me... CONTEXT. Galatians 3:28 KJV [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. This verse very blatantly says what the context is. In Christ there is no difference between us in the eyes of God. Also if there is "no male and no female" then by definition there can be no trans. A eunuch is not a gay man. A eunuch is primarily a man who has been castrated so that he is unable to produce children. In context of Matthew 19, a eunuch who has "made himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" is a man who has chosen to remain celibate/unmarried; and therefore unable to produce children, for the sake of focusing all his efforts on the kingdom of God. Your questioning is completely illogical and has nothing at all to do with what is being spoken about.
@@lilchristuten7568 I don't know about that trans comment that the other guy made, but in terms of Genesis I do have a point on a literal translation. Genesis 1:14 Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens Genesis 1:17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens Wouldn't this show that the sun, moon and stars are in the literal sky, beneath the waters above the firmament?
I'm confused why you did the calculation at 2:38 when in Gen 11:26 it states that by the time Terah was 70, he had fathered Abram, Nahor and Haran. One doesn't need to assume that Abram left Haran after Terah died.
wow...honestly, i used to really enjoy this channel, but i think it (the video) might be one of the worst i've seen. this is pretty unsettling given the source that sent me over here...
v The human being wrote the prophecies of the Bible but is not the author. DISPERSION: (Deutoronomy 64) "And the Lord will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end"(NO OTHER PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN DISPERSED LIKE ISRAEL) PRESERVATION (Isaiah 66) "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make will remain before me, says the Lord, so your offspring and your name will remain." ISRAEL WILL BE A NATION AGAIN: (Ezekiel 36) "And I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all lands, and bring you to your country." (prophecy fullfilled after WW2) I invite you to visit this channel of yotube to listen to the word of God,: Iglesia La Luz del Mundo - Ortodoxia
@@caleb.lindsay your right. I don't know how wise this man appears to be within the first couple sentences he spoke he was already wrong saying that two of each animal were on the ark when it's actually seven clean and two unclean and then his timeline is completely wrong I don't know if he did it himself or not but I did it it took me 2 hours just to go from the flood to Abram mainly because I never made a timeline graph like this before I haven't use Microsoft Office in 10 years since I was in school but anyways nahor part genesis 11:24 says he lives 900 years then has terah then live another hundred and 19 years the time between the flood and Abram is over 2000 years
Book of Genesis is FACT. Please find below scientific/cosmological/archaeological/historical proof & explanation behind the Book of Genesis. The actual scientific explanation for the 7 days of creation is something like this; The universe is 7 days old at the point of creation( looking forward) and 13.8 billion years old (looking backwards at the point of creation). This is called space time dilation - the further you get from the point of creation - the older the age of the universe. Cross section of the universe is as per NASA WMAP diagram. map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/060915_CMB_Timeline600.jpg Gerald Schroeder PhD and Hugh Ross - Phd Astrophysicists have explained this further. a)Gerald Schroeder has even given the rough mathematical formula for the age of the universe. (and also the each day = x billion years long) (+/- factor of 10 error) geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53 ruclips.net/video/GjtHqxhwNgk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/_RuIVCm7pNc/видео.html (diff between HughRoss & GeraldS is minimal. The differences - GS used Olam(modern Hebrew) vs yom ) b) Hugh Ross gives very detailed explanations on the frames of reference God is talking from i) Gen 1.1 - at the point of creation(1st day/2nd day/3rd day), ii) Gen 1.2 from the surface of the earth iii) Gen 1.3 - Let there be light - the atmosphere become transparent iv) Age of man decreased from 1000 years to 120 years - Hugh Ross explains in his video how the explosion of the supernova about 100k years ago ( monoserotis ??) and that the cosmic radiation from this caused genetic degradation. this is why the age of the patriarchs decreased from 1000 years (adam to noah/shem) to 120ish around abraham. This radiation was x light years away and would have hit earth around the time of noah. ruclips.net/video/JlGVqUZo83s/видео.html - the 2 great lights (sun and moon) ruclips.net/video/SwNypNs0lW4/видео.html - testing genesis with science God created the universe in the divine Hebrew language. When all the numerical value of Hebrew names of the elements/planets/etc are graphed against their properties - it consistently produces a straight line. By Prof Haim Shore ruclips.net/video/noW-yHjaMVY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/QvKlP7hEo-Q/видео.html The creation of Adam & Eve After creation of Adam & eve, God entered the Sabbath/7th day ruclips.net/video/UfAyRixVfmE/видео.html Garden of Eden location is submerged between Persian gulf & straits of Ormuz ruclips.net/video/oqyez-PXDiY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/76PWWNDaMb4/видео.html Noahs Flood proof Heres the physical proof of Noahs flood : 12k years ago a meteorite hit the Greenland Hiawatha Glacier and created a crater 30km in diameter. ruclips.net/video/zfapz2F8Vz0/видео.html It flooded the Americas to Middle east. It was regional flood & not global flood. The sea level rose about a min of 50+ feet and low lying places settlements like sundaland(asia), black sea, Mediterranean basin were swallowed up by the sea. Africa was minimally affected. Thats why you find wooly mammoths remains from Americas to Siberia frozen in ice and mud with partially digested food in its stomach. American megafauna was wiped out (camelops, lions, cheetahs) Mammoth bones in Mexico - buried under 30feet of mud www.geologyin.com/2019/12/over-800-mammoth-bones-discovered-in.html Thats why Africa has wider genetic diversity than rest of the world. African genes stretch from Africa to India to Sentinelese ( andaman islands) to Papua new guinea + Australia & Japan(ainu). But you dont find indigenous black population in Americas or Europe. The Clovis people of the Americas suddenly went extinct. ruclips.net/video/vTr3VdGlFr8/видео.html ( crater for impact site at greenland ) ruclips.net/video/hMTTFLiOwX0/видео.html www.sciencealert.com/ancient-carvings-in-turkey-show-a-comet-hitting-earth-changing-civilisation-forever?fbclid=IwAR31PrxiKk1I3tl_ZPZ06sued-ApIEnaXPW--AyGvc-ptSiyWo8vG9XWlAw Triggers for Noahs flood & 13k years of climate stability The detailed science/data that documents the climate change over the last few million years. God truly tweaked the planet to enable us to live here. Tectonics, asteriod impacts etc that made the climate stable for the last 13k years for us to live in. The world we currently live in is a drop of stability in an otherwise highly unstable planet. Also, 13k years ago...an asteroid impact at Greenland ( Hiawatha glacier) triggered noahs flood. Noah got advance warning ruclips.net/video/siKSz1GRUUU/видео.html Noahs Ark by ron wyatt ruclips.net/video/TXGqIP0716Q/видео.html (1985 news report) ruclips.net/video/oQwfU7DvUyE/видео.html (ark location ) documents.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/noahsark-CIA.pdf ruclips.net/video/1O8wGjwyS7o/видео.html ( anchor stones found ) ruclips.net/video/_zsqxjqS8hg/видео.html ( aerial overview) Sodom and Gomorrah. ( see Ron wyatts videos) The chemical analysis of the brimstone ( sulphur balls) @ near 98% purity ( white) vs volcanic sulphur which is only 45% purity (yellow) A meteorite with high purity sulpur content vapourised/ionised the structures here. Theres melted sand, bone fragments and other proof ruclips.net/video/tZKBHyIBrHA/видео.html www.lifesitenews.com/news/archeologists-sodom-and-gomorrah-literally-destroyed-by-fire-and-brimstone? Joseph, Moses and red sea crossing ruclips.net/video/aBDbDeepyS4/видео.html (Josephs granary) The santorini volcano was the trigger for the 10 biblical plagues. (explained in the movie Exodus Decoded by James Cameron. Disregard the crossing site/mountain) Theres archaeological &video proof of coral encrusted chariot wheels & bone in the Red Sea @ Nurweiba crossing between Egypt and Saudi Arabia. ruclips.net/video/lSf0rOqJaSU/видео.html (Red sea crossing overview & land bridge topography) ruclips.net/video/QeX966OVxwU/видео.html (red sea crossing site) ruclips.net/video/Lzb4ekyX1kc/видео.html (Coral encrusted chariots wheel) ruclips.net/video/vaN2acVMGC8/видео.html (Solomons pillar marking crossing sites 3k yrs old) The parting of the red sea happened due to a strong easterly wind blowing @40mph + low tidal effect possibly due to tsunami & lunar position. Dr Gerald Schroeder quotes some studies done. ruclips.net/video/8y-uiccIiSY/видео.html (Forbidden footage of actual location of Red Sea Crossing & Mt. Sinai - (melted sand at nurweiba beach 21:45) Footage of Mount Sinai The top of Mount Sinai/Mount Horeb ( Jebel al Lawz) in saudi arabia has melted & blackened rock. when you break it...the inside is red. Its the only mountain in the area to be black...rest are reddish. ruclips.net/video/PE1W6sz24Dw/видео.html (Top of Sinai, altars,12 pillars, Elijahs cave) ruclips.net/video/VgdUoNrwkxk/видео.html (overview ) ruclips.net/video/A2widAV9wiE/видео.html ( drone footage @ Sinai - split rock) ruclips.net/video/TwCd4WQbSXM/видео.html&pbjreload=10 aerial view ruclips.net/video/K-eSRcr9CWw/видео.html (Ron Wyatt) ruclips.net/video/9ubKUip6pz0/видео.html Dr Kim pt 1 ruclips.net/video/52DKSvcZMPw/видео.html Dr Kim pt2 Apparition of Virgin Mary ruclips.net/video/GQnKS7YUE7Q/видео.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Ivory Coast) ruclips.net/video/0PPGuMmn6TQ/видео.html (Virgin Mary statue moving) ruclips.net/video/tVU8bhbQInw/видео.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Egypt) Eucharistic miracle.. ruclips.net/video/oogJ-cdi7yI/видео.html (Rome Reports) ruclips.net/video/HIh5hRlbttU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/qDiWc93Kp9k/видео.html ruclips.net/video/whbzLYi7cyc/видео.html (Lanciano) ruclips.net/video/6PJ8BORx1p8/видео.html Incorruptible bodies of saints ( due to the Eucharist) - only happens in the Catholic church. No other religion has this miracle ruclips.net/video/soCkftBBsBo/видео.html ( scientific evidence) ruclips.net/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/видео.html (Padre Pio)
Yeah, I would agree. The implication I get seems to be that Sarah was had reached an age at which most women had already passed menopause. Yet we know that men can (and often do) father children with much younger women well into their old age. (Just for one real-life example: my grandfather was 20 years older than my grandma, and when they had their first child together, he was 44 while she was 24. To put that in further perspective, he was only a year younger than my grandma's mother.) So while women lose the ability to become pregnant at a certain point, men generally don't lose the ability to impregnate women who are still menstruating.
+@@Raverraver9999 A BOOK could be written on the utter NONSENSE in this post - and I DO mean UTTER nonsense. Hugh Ross is NOT a source of BIBLICAL, reliable material on ANYTHING doing with Creation, the Flood and early mankind. I would NOT trust him even to comprehend salvation for his attacks on the BIBLE encompass EVERY Biblical Traditional thought, and teaches it corruptly. YOUR claims from HIM are utterly false and incoherent. "Incorruptible bodies of saints ( due to the Eucharist) - " NOTHING at all to do with the Eucharist 0- try finding that anywhere in the BIBLE - AIN'T there. Its BLASPHEMY writ large. "only happens in the Catholic church." NOTHING Godly ONLY happens in the catholic church. It's traditions and orthodoxies are in many place not just UNSCRIPTURAL but ANTI-Scriptural. "No other religion has this miracle" Its NOT a miracle - it's a DECEPTION. Its TRULY no worth the time to even watrch the VIDEO - its DECEPTION and counter to the GOSPEL. "ruclips.net/video/soCkftBBsBo/видео.html ( scientific evidence)" Scientific Evidence of WHAT? DO you UNDERSTAND the CONCEPT of EVIDENCE? It seems NOT! ruclips.net/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/видео.html (Padre Pio)" Talk about a list of almost every OCCULT sin that the BELIEVER is to reject and have NO part of - this list is pretty complete in this account of demons and ungodly activity, little of which can be confirmed to be even POSSIBLY from God. Superstition and deception are itemized . . . When GOD does a miracle - there's plenty of EVIDENCE for it.
I'm so glad this human mind who would not be able to create the universe, was able to explain the Bible to me. Where have you been my whole life? I now understand what's written in the book of life.
I have given you a thumbs up with the assumption you were mocking his lack of self awareness and further progression toward liberality. If not seek help. lol. You’ll be unsurprised that he’s a Catholic, which should be understood that he is a Roman propagandist even if he doesn’t know it. The Jesuits brought so much heresy into the Catholic education system that even if they got rid of Mary worship it would be a drop in the bucket at this point.
I believe in a young earth myself and think this video is entirely wrong about everything. However he does seem to be acting in good faith, so your tone is not the one I would have chosen.
Being a theistic evolutionist has not only saved but strengthened my faith in god and our lord Jesus. So I don’t see why we can’t just agree to disagree
@@snopespeerreview Amen! Evolution: ‘By death, man came into the world Bible: ‘By man, death came into the world’ Both cannot be right and I say let God be true and every man a liar.
@@lukemedcalf1670 If that were true life could never happen since you can’t have death without life. God is life, and everything in existence was created by him and for him.
Your Argument concerning the flood was especially unconvincing. For two reasons 1. You said since the top of the mountains were seen, it proves the entire earth wasn't covered by water. But this is fallacious, because this simply means the peak of high mountains wasnt covered by the water. You cant use this as a spri g board to argue for a *regional* flood 2. You said since the water dried from the earth, proves a regional flood. (since the the world is currently covered by water) But this too, is fallacious. Because when the bible says the water, its reffering to the flood. The water caused by it. Not every drop of water on the face of world. So you cant use it to imply the the flood was hyperbolic 3. Peter's interpretation of the event makes it clear, it was a global flood
Thank you for this post! I like IP, but many of his arguments, when it comes to OEC, theistic evolution, a regional flood, a figurative interpretation of Genesis, etc. are just eisegesis, him reading his own presuppositions into the scripture. He doesn’t seem to do that with scripture regarding the Gospel and salvation, as well as who God is, so that’s good.
Thank you for holding up your light in such a dark sad wretched place. I am so heart broken by this video. I really liked this teacher from what I knew, but.... Now I don't feel I can trust him. I have some mental issues and I just can't afford to listen to false teachers. This whole video made me cry so many times, I hate it with all my heart. This doesn't sit well in my Spirit. Every single point was Hitler sized deception and perversion. This hurt so much.
One doesn't even need to use deductive reasoning, or any kind of reasoning, to debunk the global flood claim since the evidence for it is insufficient enough to be dismissed out of hand.
@@frosty_soda Absolutely right. We find fossils where they definitely don't belong, some times on mountain peaks. Fossilization just doesn't naturally happen, and the fact that most dinosaurs are fossilized (and they way they were fossilized) is just even more evidence of a global flood.
Here are my debunks of each of your points in order (the numbers do not correspond to the numbers in the video) 1. The aging of people quickened resulting in shorter lives, based on the narrowing of the gene pool. Life recently has only gotten longer because of modern medical advancements 2. The mountain tops were seen, however this does not mean that there was enough time for any plants to grow that would have provided nesting for the birds, also the mountains being seen does not even mean that their peaks are above the water, just close. 3. The waters draining is in reference to the fact that they drained back to their presumable normal levels, or that they drained enough for the earth to be habitable again 4. The phrase "they shall become one flesh" is in reference to the fact that they become family, and that the offspring of them will be of one flesh, meaning lineage, family, etc. 5. God does not operate within the bounds of earth, it is very possible that decomposition was nonexistent before the curse. 6. You left out the part where they were kicked out of the garden and God said that the women would have pain in bearing children 7. It is only an idiom because Adam had been made immortal. You cannot use an idiom that didn't exist yet. 8. You can't use a habit of the Bible to denote what God will and will not have written 9. When we are talking about Creation when God says "all" of a particular thing He is laying the groundwork for the processes, not literally creating all of the certain creature or feature. 10. Scholars make many mistakes because we are human 11. If Adam was not the first why would God make him out of dust and then make Eve because he was alone? Genesis implies that man was originally intended to be a 1-of-a-kind creature 12. Why would God say 6 days if He did not mean 6 days. You have to look at the most likely scenario, not the possibility of a scenario that supports our claims 13. Jeremiah was comparing not directly relating the destruction of the kingdom to the Creation of the earth. 14. Days and Nights can exist if God decides it. We never claimed Creation was bound by Science or logic, because God is not bound by science or logic, He defines it however he chooses 15. If the sun and moon were not created by God where did they come from? 16. Humanity was to subdue the earth, because it was given to us FOR us by God 17. Taking a general term such as "subdue" and using every extent of it in every definition is a fallacy, because it was used more specifically in certain scenarios. 18. Hebrews 11:13 in the original text uses the term "ex nihilo" to reference God's creation and it literally means "out of nothing" 19. It is believed that the term "heart" was used for the core being of someone before the organ, and the organ was named after due to its necessity and importance. 20. I don't know what translation you used but Isaiah 65:18 says this (direct quote) "But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." This does not say he created Jerusalem, it says He created them a rejoicing. As in he created the rejoicing, not the city itself. 21. Nations don't arise over natural processes but by the hand of humans, and God did create the nation of Israel by naming Jacob Israel, and earlier by promising Abraham to be a father of many nations (in this case meaning people). 22. There was no such thing as a definite article in Hebrew, and no indefinite articles. They were the same 23. It is impossible for something to exist and be formless and void, that is an oxymoron. 24. Even if this was the case that the earth was already there, what about "formless and void" makes you think that there was already life or anything to be chaotic 25. If the God of the Bible was bound by our logic and universal rules, He would not be God 26. You gave no example of how the test indicates an extended period of time
Also can you really say that there are more plot holes in the idea of a young earth than in the idea that earth has been around for billions of years. Evolution is plagued by circular reasoning, and other fallacies, and contradictions to scientific laws that they hold to such as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things tend to disorder, for evolution things would have to actively build upon themselves and perfectly orchestrate new genetic information, which contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Three of the logical fallacies that evolution uses I noted in my video, on my yt channel (three points to discredit evolution)
Thank you for typing that out. I agree with just about all of it. Adam and Eve were punished by death. Before they were walking with God, and if we think about Moses being with God his face turned into light then Adam and Eve were also light. Until they ate of the fruit and then they were naked to their shame.
GOD bless you. I am afraid you havent understood these ten "problems" that i hope by the grace of GOD that i can explain. 10. Abraham wasnt saying its impossible for a 100 year old man and a 90 year old woman to have a child, he was talking about himself and Sarah. He literally had a kid at age 84 i believe but he had it with Hagar, a servant who was probably much younger than Sarah. Abraham also says, "And shall Sarah, who is 90 years old..." not "a 90 year old woman like Sarah", specifying on Sarah, which means that he was asking specifically about Sarah. Just because it doesnt make sense with the given information doesnt mean it isn't true, and we dont know the fertility of women at that era because the lifespan was decreasing so we cant use todays lifespan nor the pre-flood lifespan, since it's decreasing. And how is this a "top ten problems for young earth creationism"? It doesn't support old earth. 9. If you read the passage, it shows that the writer was speaking of the time the ark landed, then it goes back to explain in detail. Verse 6 says that "at the end of forty days" which means the 40 days and night that it was raining. It doesnt contradict at all. It's like Genesis 1 and 2, were there 2 creations? No its just restating what has occurred. 8. Just because one verse in Genesis 2 is metaphorical, doesnt mean the whole of Genesis is. You are saying because of one verse is metaphorical, then all of the Creation account shouldnt be taken seriously? Thats like saying because i got one question wrong on a test, then all of my test is wrong. What about the other verses? Literally most of Genesis is ought to be taken literally. Explain in Genesis 1 what "so the evening and the morning were the (first-sixth) day"? Is that metaphorical ? What does evening stand for then? Or morning? 7. So you're saying that death didnt enter into the world by sin? You have no evidence in the Bible to say that there was death before they sinned. Yeah they were mortal and had to eat from the Tree of Life to live forever but they didnt die so it doesnt disprove creationism, it actually supports it. If Adam and Eve had a few days alive, they wouldn't have died being mortal yet. But if the earth and creation took thousands of years, therefore Adam and Eve either would have been immortal, or lived at least 1000 years before the Fall which isnt supported. 6. In Genesis 2:4, it speaks of the generations of what? The heavens and earth. All the other 9 instances refer to a person, as decendants of those people, of Adam, Noah, sons of Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau and Jacob. In Genesis 2:4 it talks about the creatiom of the heavens and earth, not descendents or what goes after. And Genesis 2:7 says GOD formed man, not a man, and Genesis 1 is the creation account, what was made in 6 days, then Genesis 2:4 is talking about what happened in day six. There is no evidence in the Bible nor in archeology or anywhere ele that says that there were people before Adam. It's sad how you said that in Genesis 2:4 "probably" teaching the same idea as the other toledotes, so you base your truth on uncertainty to disprove something? 5. In Jeremiah 4:23-26 GOD is talking there, not Jeremiah. And by saying that GOD took a disordered cosmos and made it function properly, do you mean that there was already a made creation before the creation, that was destroyed? If so, that isnt supported in the Bible. 4. The light could have been another light source. And can GOD not make light without a source? In Revelation it speaks that we wont need a sun because GOD will be our Light source. And wait, youre saying that creationism not true because there can't be a sun a day after plants? But dont you believe the earth is old? Maybe that Creation took thousands of years? So a day is a thousand years no? So it took a thousand years for the sun in day 4 to exist after the plants in day 3? Thats more unbelievable than a day, right? And Genesis 1:14 isnt giving the sun and moon and stars a purpose, if so, they didnt have a purpose before? Why were they there then? 3. Genesis 1:28 is talking about the finished creation account, not your belief of people already existing and having dominion (or killing) animals. It can also apply agricultural work or taming. And if they had to kill animals, wouldmt they have clothes? But they were naked in the Garden of Eden? The earth wasn't chaotic before sin, GOD was given authority over mankind, to rule over it. 2. Bara means create, so make, it doesn't disprove creationism. Its obvious that GOD created the universe. And either way He had to start with nothing, right? Unless the earth was always there but thats not correct. 1. You said that the scholars said that it would "make more sense"? In what manner? More sense to support their claim? If so, thats changing the Word of GOD to one's convenience. And how does this disprove creationism? By what i heard in the video, it sounds like you support theories like evolution, which i hope you don't because there is no evidence of such process. But i hope you learn more from GOD's Word from GOD, the author and not from theologians who can be wrong. GOD bless you!
Also, I can't remember the exact verse, but God literally said that after the flood he would only let man live to around a hundred twenty years, and we see in Abraham's genealogy how the ages of people went down drastically.
@@sam_shrek exactly. Genesis 6:3. People born before the decree didn't really have any limit. After, though, people had a significant decrease in the life span. This decree directly coincides with the contraction of life span. The attributing of numbers to special meanings gets dangerous with mixing of gematria and kabbalah (pagan) mystical number practices. This video is pretty garbage.
+@@sam_shrek Geneticist John Sanford - Cornel professor . . . a former atheist and evolutionist - points out that anytime you see such a hockey stick graph as the ages of man produce when plotted shows a massive change in the environment - just as the flood would demonstrate. Those that accurately wrote down the message of creation and the flood had NO idea their narrative would be used by a geneticist to validate the two sides of this coin - the radical change in environment and the rapid declination of ages - BUT there they are - correct in every respect as one would expect from SCRIPTURE. Gen 6:3 "Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”" "Also, I can't remember the exact verse, but God literally said that after the flood he would only let man live to around a hundred twenty years, and we see in Abraham's genealogy how the ages of people went down drastically."
I'm so glad to see someone talking about this subject. I've heard so many people who doubt the Bible because they were only exposed to Young Earth Creation. I've never noticed the ages in the genealogy either, that was super interesting!
There's many things he got wrong, here's a few, we know that sin and death began because of Adam: Romans 5:12 King James Version 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: And we know that death comes from sin: Romans 6:23 King James Version 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Sin and death started from the transgression of Adam. Also your point about the tree of life is completely misinterpreted, the moment Adam ate the fruit of good and evil, he sinned, and death was his fate, so after being able to die after sinning, then God prevented Adam from eating of the tree of life to be immortal as he once was, he didin't need to eat it previously as he was already immortal.
I was old earth, billions of years all my life UNTIL I actually READ Genesis and let it say what it says. the author here is a desperate circus clown...as are ALL who are obsessed with a religious book they CLAIM they dont believe but are certainly spending a LOT of time reading it lmao.
Really I've never met one in real life and it's the opposite that I've experienced. But when u take a video like this in a vacuum then sure it could shake you if you don't have understanding and critical thinking.
Was raised on heavy young earth material. Some of these scholars seemed very smart to me, a middling-intelligent guy. But I've always been open to an old, old earth because I understand how poetry works, and Genesis is clearly extremely poetic. Cool video.
@@henrikibsen6258 Fair enough, but you specifically said it was the poetic aspect of Genesis that made you open to and old, old earth (i.e. deep time). A question I keep coming back to for those who maintain that the description of the creation week is not meant to mean normal days is just what exactly it would take in such an account to convey the concept of a normal day. I mean, if "evening, morning, Day One" and "evening, morning, Second Day" can't be taken as straightforward descriptions of normal days, it would seem that NOTHING would be accepted as saying normal days. That would be exemplar eisegesis.
@@itsamindgame9198 That's a good point. You'd probably have to steep yourself in Jewish history and the Hebrew language to distinguish whether the vibe is historical, poetic, symbolic, etc. But in English for example you could call a day a cycle, or you could call a year a cycle, or you could call doing the washing a cycle. I'm comfortable with a young earth though, it just doesn't make or break my faith in Christ.
I have to hand it to IP, you're probably the most intellectually honest Christian RUclips channel that I've come across. I realize that not every Christian is a YEC, but for many Atheists (especially on RUclips) it can seem like that is the vast majority. They tend to be the loudest voice of a small minority, so when we watch channels dedicated to debunking the claims of YEC, it can get lost in translation that they don't represent the views of all Christians. Anyway, sorry for the rant, just wanted to let you know I appreciate your content.
@z3k399 okay, maybe I should have specified the "majority of Christians that I've interacted with"... tbf that includes Catholics too (and I've heard there's some internal debate concerning whether they are Christians. I'm fine leaving that up to the individual reading this)
@@first3numbers No, YECs are a small minority. The Catholic Church, that holds the vast majority of all Christians, does not advocate a literal interpretation of the Bible, but a figurative one based on what we now consider the Speech-Act Theory. Your hyperliteralization of the Bible was considered a grievous heresy historically, and not a single Church Father or Church Doctor agrees with your interpretation, meaning the problem is not in Christian-sponsored scientific view that resulted in our current model of cosmology, but the problem is literally just You. EDIT: None of the other churches that still matter teach a literal interpretation either, not the Lutherans, not the Anglicans, probably not the Eastern Orthodox either, except maybe the FSB-affiliated Russian Orthodox Church, though I doubt that one holds onto your interpretation either. In short, nobody beyond your little clique affiliates with your heresy.
It's pretty tough to have a regional flood that goes up to almost the top of mountains. Were there relatively dry areas probably but as water levels it's self it would be across the whole earth
I forgot all about the mountain argument until I read your comment. The Ark runs aground on mount Ararat and Noah releases the dove and it returned because there was no dry land. Mount Ararat has a current elevation of 16,854 feet so the only other land that would be exposed that the dove could reach would be any other geographic surface at an elevation of roughly 17,000 feet. so other then a few if any mountain tops their is still a whole lot of water. Look up "Land Sequences" These are the uniform layers of sediment found globally at the same elevations. The global fossil record supports this as well.
He twisted the story. If you study it says that god created the mountains and gullies for the waters to flow into! First earth was different than modern earth. That’s why the continent’s fit together like a puzzle. Even modern scientists know that at one time all the continents where connected. Learned that in high school 40ys ago
And if you’re going to spend 100 years, give or take, building an ark to save all the animals, migration would quickly become an appealing and obvious alternative in a regional flood.
+@@brucegillingham2793 Since the mountains INCLUDING Ararat (NOT where the ark landed by the way) were FORMED by the flood tectonics - its hardly rational to assume the depth of the water was 17,000 feet - Mountain building is continuous but v slowing today - it was accelerated during and after the flood - Everest has ocean floor marine limestone on its peak. "I forgot all about the mountain argument until I read your comment. The Ark runs aground on mount Ararat and Noah releases the dove and it returned because there was no dry land. Mount Ararat has a current elevation of 16,854 feet so the only other land that would be exposed that the dove could reach would be any other geographic surface at an elevation of roughly 17,000 feet. so other then a few if any mountain tops their is still a whole lot of water. Look up "Land Sequences" These are the uniform layers of sediment found globally at the same elevations. The global fossil record supports this as well." Those uniform sedimentary layers are the RESULT of the flood - NOTHING else could set semi-uniform layers across the globe. And there is a LACK of uniformity in the sedimentary layers - many have been subject to upthrusting and tilting.
it’s also pretty tough to have a flood that masive in the first place! I’d think that if God could create a flood out of literally nowhere he could contain it
@@goodman4093 we been around for hundreds of years. We kill disease kill, disasters kill. Not everyone has a big family. That's why we only have 8 billion
Jeremiah 4:23-26 is a very interesting one. You are correct in much of what you are saying. For instance, the same words, "tohu" and "bohu", are used here, as in Genesis 1:2. There are a few ways we could interpret this. #1 that Jeremiah is using figurative language and therefore Genesis 1 is figurative language which is the position you take. Or we could see it as Jeremiah using Genesis 1 in a figurative way to describe what is happening to Israel at that time. That the desolation to come upon Israel will be like the desolation there was before God formed all things. I definitely agree that much of this in Jeremiah 4 is figurative language because the verse itself forces us to go in that direction. However, to automatically assume that everything in Genesis 1 is figurative because Jeremiah uses it in a figurative sense regarding the nation of Israel is not going to guarantee an accurate interpretation. Do I necessarily believe it was a literal 6 days as in 6 24 hour periods? I'm a bit unsure on that one but I reserve judgement.
Hello brother. I am a creationist (not necessarily young earth), I love your work, and I like to think I'm rather open minded about following the Scripture wherever it leads. However, I am honestly unimpressed by these points.
I'm a theistic evolutionist and I agree that some of these points aren't as impressing as I would've hoped. Love I.P. and all his work; I think the main issue is that he's not using other texts from that time and culture to base some of his arguments (as he usually does). Or maybe changing the title to address "literal" interpretation rather than young earth creationism. Anyhow, God bless you for being an open minded follower of Jesus and I.P. for producing this content for our benefit :)
@@lorenzomurrone2430 Just list. And please don't insert words into the Bible. I already had another commenter today totally make stuff up and force the Bible to say things it did not... and then only a couple sentences later he bashed old earth creationists and theistic evolutions for doing what he perceived to be the same thing... the double standard was astounding. I don't want to deal with that again.
Yep! Genesis 5! Also read Luke chapter 3. Going by that timeline, humanity is only 6000ish years old. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Could the "earth" be older? I suppose so. But humanity? 100% not. Impossible. Unless God is wrong, which is impossible, which makes it impossible!
@2 Corinthians 4:7-11 yes, "For IN HIM dwells ALL The fullness of God". Jesus is God, all of Him. To veer from that is to open the door to all kinds of confusion.
Why are you people always assuming the worst? He is giving his own interpretation witch suits him the most age of the earth doesn't really matter that much
I appreciate this guys work on a lot of topics around apologetics but there are other topics where his reading of the Bible is just all over the map. He takes some massive liberties and leaps with the text that is just very troubling imo.
@@JohnDove-d8d If you bother to actually read the text, its lays out exact genealogy from Adam to Jesus and counting of years that lay out 4000 years from Adams to Jesus.
@@ExperienceEric Ok but that leaves out too many people. The entire world's population is older than 4,000 years. So we're not human? According to the Bible? *No* . Obviously Adam is considered the ancestor of all men if you go by the Book, and if you go by Scientific, the timeline goes back further than 4,000 years meaning Adam is in fact, far, far, far older than 4,000 years.
Number 6 - I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I do know that different translations render toledot as "account" (NAS) and "history" (NKJV). So, it would appear to me that since the usage here isn't translated uniformly, it's possible that toledot with "heavens and earth" rather than an actual person *could* indicate a different meaning for this particular verse. The Jewish Tanak reads, "Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created." That's the beginning of verse 4, the Tanak separates it from the second half of the verse and so it starts, "When the LORD God created the heavens and the earth..." You know there are other respected Biblical scholars that would challenge Mr. Walton. "Is probably..." ? He takes up an imaginary journey that would make everything clear to him. But that isn't very scholarly to me. Mr. Hesler also makes an imaginary description based on the assumed localized meaning of "toledot." When you don't adhere to a plain reading of scripture, then your guess is as good as anyone's. And plain reading is coupled with context. Not just the immediate passage, but the entire Bible.
The second toledot in Genesis 5:1-2 ties Genesis 1 and 2 together, so the second toledot literally contradicts his conclusions about the first toledot. LOL
Truth. People get too hung up on things that aren't salvation issues. Is it interesting to discuss? Of course! But I've seen people actually become enraged discussing things like this. At that point, Christians are letting the debate become a stumbling block.
Homo sapiens have walked the earth for around 200,000 years after evolving from lower forms of hominids. That’s the truth. There was no Adam, there was no eve. Read a science book for chrissakes and learn something
@@capstore393 That we as human beings evolved from lower forms of life is a fact. All forms of life of a vote from lesser forms of life. These are facts and I know they fly in the face of your little book of myths and legends but too bad.
@Chad Andersoh that's a good point too. It's not just I'm 70 and she's 90 so "our ages are an issue" but that at that age we've been trying all our lives, now at 70 and 90 it will work out?
@Chad Andersoh I'm speculating with that, but a beautiful thing about the Bible is, when there is an apparent contradiction, if you have faith that the mistake is in your view and not the word, a discovery awaits like a buried treasure. Trying to fit the Bible into your world view instead of the other way around is a mistake. It's a habit that demonstrates more fear and respect for how society views you than for how you are viewed in the Lord's eyes.
In Genesis 6 v 3 God shortened the lives of men to 120 years. So after Noah the lives of people where shorter, and that is why they couldn’t have children at the older age.
I trust the Septuagint here more than the Masoretic text which probably got corrupted by the Rabbis (former known as Pharisees). To disprove that Jesus is the Messiah, a High priest like Melchisedek, without father nor mother they just changed the lifespans, the dates when someone fathered a child etc. So they could construct that Melchisedek and Shem are the same person and that's why Abraham gave him thev tent, accepted him as higher and got blessed by Melchisedek.
@@thinkaboutthatok8129 He also talked about the ark resting on mount Ararat, it DID NOT say (to my knowledge) Ararat was the highest mountain. This means a wrong view/ understanding of that part after the flood.
I am a yec and here are my arguments: 1. Abrahams laugh was probably laugh of joy not disbelief. 2.the flood: if the flood was regional than what was the point of the ark they would have just traveled if it was regional. 3. most yec's including me read the Bible litererelly witch means that we know when the Bible is being literal and poetic 4.when God finished creating everything he called it all very good and when you consider that our good is like filthy rags to God, Gods standard of good is much better than our standard of good ,therefore there could not be death before the fall the Bible even says by man came death. 5.genesis 2 is not a recap 6.if you read genesis 1 it is clear that it is 6 normal days you are trying to find the littlest evidence to support a long period of time God is not a God of confusion if it was a long period of time it would say so 7.all you need for day and night is a rotating planet orbiting a light source and that light source does not need to be the sun and there was a light source for the first days of creation then God created the sun 8.subdue usually means take over not really war conquest 9.bara does not always mean create out of nothing but it does mean that in genesis God made the universe and he did it out of nothing 10.the people who translated the Bible where no dummies they know the proper words to use and if the other words mean the same things we can believe the in the beginning was the proper sentence. I am not trying to look down on your worldview, truly the heavens declare the glory of God.
Believing in YEC your essentially saying the Bible is false, you would have to disagree with all of science and all civilizations found older than 6000 years and you would have to say they all were actually more recent with no evidence. It’s a conflict.
This guy gets it. Too many false equivalencies in this video. Pulling single metaphor and saying therefore we have the right to interpret this all as metaphor is dishonest, at best.
There are idioms. So in chapters that are literal history To take a few obvious idioms and claim , we can make an idiom, of anything we want . This is poor understanding of the English language, and juvenile thinking .
Inspiring Philosophy, this all seems solid. However, I would appreciate more debates, and to see these points critiqued to their fullest by YECs. Thanks for all the hard work you put in.
Debates likely would not yield any results. Even Dr. William Lane Craig says that his debates have never convinced anyone to switch sides. I told my sister who is a Christian to watch Dr. Craig's videos for good information. She adamantly refused because she said that Dr. Craig wasn't debating but he was arguing, and she would not change her mind that Dr. Craig debates people but doesn't fight with people. So if a Christian, who agrees with someone, absolutely refuses to even concede that someone is debating versus arguing, what hope is there of convincing them to change their mind on YEC? About all you can really hope for, is to put out the information and let people choose to accept it or not.
GO to Creation.com and enter age of the earth - there are many many examples there that destroy this mythology. I THINK one of the links has 101 reasons why this is NOT so. Maybe my memory is failing me Its NOT new, its recycled. Its also rejected by many or MOST Biblical creationists. IT certianly seems at odds with the words of Jesus.
Although I'm truly thankful IP is a Christian, and I believe he is a powerful intellect in the apologetics debates (much greater than I), etc., I expected a great deal more when I watched this. I don't care what the truth is; I just want the truth. I'm not someone who tries to protect a pet doctrine, as I'll change my position(s) on the spot if need be. I found myself continuously thinking, maybe he's starting out with old, weak arguments and will progress to the really good, powerful stuff, but those powerful arguments never came. Lots of non sequiturs, which was extremely surprising to me, knowing how great IP is at making such strong, logical arguments for everything else. Not a single point in the entire top 10 disproves YEC (I used to be an OEC). There's such a push from Christians to make the Bible mesh with mainstream, secular science that they're willing to be less logical in this area (and many others). "Literal" means "according to the literature". So someone can easily say they take a text "literally" and yet not mean it in a wooden, "literal" sense. Where the text is poetic, take it poetically. Where it's prophetic, take it prophetically. Where it needs to be taken in a wooden/literal sense, take it "woodenly" (c'mon, that's funny!). Ultimately, this isn't a salvation issue, so we have to show patience, kindness, respect, and love towards one another. Salvation is only found through Christ, and when we're hugging in eternity, none of us are going to be saying, "I told you so! You were wrong and I was right!" We're simply going to be glad we trusted in Jesus, and we might even feel ashamed that we put each other down over such things. Much love to you all, and keep going, IP. We need you fighting the good fight.
It is impossible to reconcile Middle Eastern myth and legend with science. Science based on obsevation of natural phenomena and the interrelationship of everything can never be reconciled with long disproved old writings whether or not they were meant literally or metaphorically. What I find most remarkable is that people use the science of the internat to reject science.
Whether Genesis is literal or not has been talked about since ancient Christianity. This isn’t something new to have been fitted in with mainstream media. I used to be YEC but now I support an old Earth. Along with that evolution and everything else that follows.
When their appears to be a conflict between what is written and what is scientifically observed, it is always valuable to to make certain that we have properly understood what the Scriptures say. One method of this is linguistic analysis, a discipline I thoroughly enjoy. But this cannot be the end of our search for Scriptural meaning. Moreover, as we examine the Scriptures to understand them, we must look beyond the specific Scripture we are examining for other Scriptures often clear up the exact matter that is at issue. The age of the earth is not the vital issue and is not necessarily connected to the to the evolution/fiat creation theories. There is not way to establish with certainty when God created "the heavens and the earth." We know that some genealogies do not contain every generation, so that same principle could be applied to the early genealogies of Genesis. But what cannot be denied without overthrowing the gospel of Christ is that Adam was the first man made and that he stood in a unique relationship to the rest of humanity as our representative - that his conduct before God was applied to all of us. Romans 5 makes this clear. Secondly, it cannot be easily denied that God's work of creation covered a time-span of 6 days as we normally think of days - periods of time approximately 24 hours long. When giving the law of the Sabbath, Moses gave the reason for it with these words, "For in six days, God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is." It cannot be denied that that is a summary of Genesis 1. Considering that, to Moses hearers, "heavens and the earth" would mean "everything but God," or "the universe," and that the law being referenced was a law about calendar days, we are compelled to take Moses words to imply that things went from nothing but God existing to God plus the entire universe existing in its regular form over a period of six roughly 24-hour periods. Furthermore, that the basic from of creation came about, not by a succession of natural events, but by individual commands from God, we refer to Psalms which says, "He spoke and it came into being, He commanded and it stood frim." the "ex nihilo" nature of the biblical creation account is given in Hebrews 11, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." That later part is most important for it says that the visible universe was not brought into existence using things already in existence. It was not just a forming of a chaotic universe into and ordered one. The first few verses of the gospel of John firmly establish that this creation was accomplished through "The Word," and that nothing that has been brought into existence was brought into existence without The Word. So, even though the linguistic analysis of the Genesis passages can render other meanings than "six-day creation event culminating in a single human couple," comparison with the rest of Scripture leaves us no other option. But, we do not know just when that happened.
and no the Bible does not teach 6000 old earth The stars were created not on the 4th day made is past tense in Genesis, different from make or create hence proves the week is not literal Genesus 1 31 Genesis 3 1 Genesis 5 1 prove made is something God already done 4th day God put lights in the firmament,does not say first created lights This is God's creation week,not neccesarily a normal week You don't ever see a plant growing and producing fruit in 1 day Job mentions pleiades constellation which is 100m years old God's sabbath day isn't literal for God,he has finished his new creation and no longer is creating new things even to this dayso why should the other days be literal. Hence we can accept the Big Bang and old Earth Adam and Eve were not immortal since tree of life is there Why do snakes have poisonous fangs or other creatures like scorpions or why do venus fly traps have meat diet? Genesis 1 31 "Very good" does not mean perfect this context bc how come Adam was not immortal if perfect is flawless? Animals can not sin therefore Romans 8 applies to humankind God said "let the Earth bring forth creatures"" never commands animal marriage and sexual immorality exists Ephesians 5 11 God can not have the appearence of evil therefore animals can not sin and they can't commit sexual sin bc God can not tempt anyone to evil so predators aren't sinning when they kill each other God would have adressed the issue and said animal's are married but that doesn't happen,and he cant have the appearance of evil or tempt or command evil Hence Theistic Evolution is possible predators are not corruption made by Adam,sin entered the world through Adam and death sin to all men,not animals,animals can not sin but die For example when it says God created animals/beasts day 6 of Earth it can mean the beasts and all kinds(modern animals) have finished evolving before Adam and Eve. There may have been land animals before day 6 but Day 6 did not start until all the animals seen today have evolved to one point before Adam. Day 5 didn't start until whales appeared,so there may have been sharks before trees but Day 5 didn't start until the whales appeared 50m Years ago Day 3 began,trees appeared until Day 4 began. In that Day more constellations and lights formed that are seen in sky,such as Pleiades and more,until Day 5. When it says Adam was first man,it does not say first man of all humanity,it could be first man of group of people/tribe or something similar. Also Romans 8 20 evidence for death before fall,Adam rebelled on his own free will and he is creation,neither did Satan he only tempted Eve so God set up death before the fall,but not sin,Adam and Satan ,there was already death before the fall,so death would be a role on Earth until the new creation. Though Adam pretty much made the frustration even worse for humans. Though the diseases in evolution does not always come from Adam,when Job had diseases,God never blamed Adam and Eve for Job's diseases Seemingly on Earth,diseases can be used when God decides someone's time for the afterlife,all beings with no understanding go to Heaven,David confirms "he will not go to me i will go to him" all beings no understanding go to Heaven. Genesis 1:29 says the beasts also ate plants,however animals also eat each other,but they can not sin, venus fly traps eat meat,snakes as well,scorpions seemingly Genesis 1 29 refers to the food that beasts can also eat. Adam never ate from tree of life,later in Genesis when it says "from the day you eat from the tree you will die." It refers to spiritual death,not physical or loss of immortality. Also theory Noah's flood could have been a flood in the Black Sea 7500 years ago but that's another topic. It was not a global glood Genesis 8 13 clearly indicates a regional flood,it says water dried off Earth but the Earth still has 70% water,it clearly refers regional area.
@@Angle98411 So are there any parts of the Bible you do believe, or are you REALLY smarter than the Holy Spirit and His revelation? Talk about compromising the scriptures with the devil's nonsense. You cannot even find evidence to support what you read from the truth of Scripture.
+@@SugoiEnglish1 That is MANIFESTLY untrue - where do you get this NONSENSE? "No. The issue is there are texts that contradict a literal reading of the text. That is all." Nothing i n SCRIPTURE contradicts a LITERAL reading of the textual account - NOTHING - and the REST of SCRIPTURE reinforces it. YOU make a BLANKET statement of illiteracy without a shed of PROOF.
With the passage explaining how the dove kept coming back because there was no we’re no land to rest on what they were talking about was that there was no vegetation; nothing to eat, so it came back to the arc until there was real land and not just empty mountains tops like where the arc rested. Also it was in total a year on the arc. The waters did cover the entire globe but then slowly drained away. The arc didn’t immediately get lodged into a mountain side. The passages describe it taking a while.
Genesis 1:9 specifically says "But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark." I thought you guys believed in a literal interpretation.
"All the earth" refers to the entire globe but not necessarily to every square inch of ground. All people have two arms and two legs and two eyes, etc., but there are exceptions to this. "All" can mean literally all or it can mean all in a general sense, not an absolute sense. The waters covered the whole earth in a general sense. It allows for patches of land to show through.
I always understood that Abrams departure was not meant to be chronological after Terah's death. This fits in with how the other lives and deaths in Genesis 5 are recorded. It doesn't explicitly say that Terah fathered Abram at 130 years old, and I always thought Abram could have left Haran before his father was dead.
The reason Abraham laughed at the idea of he and Sarah becoming parents, is because he saw the degeneration of the human condition in his own time. He probably knew scores of people who died of natural causes - before their parents, with old man Shem still walking around. He would have known he was weaker stuff than his own dad.
Hi~! I believe that hearing (reading) from the protagonist themselves in Gen 18: 9-15 will for sure give us enough context to reason why they laughed. Interpreting bible with bible is a great rule of thumb. I hope it helps. Gracefully also Issac the son's name means laughter.
The idea that people degenerated over the timeline of Genesis is a relatively novel exegetical idea. It's not stated anywhere in Scripture. The idea only arises as a result of medieval theologians trying to reconcile the bizarre ages cited in Genesis, after the numerological understanding of these ages was lost to time. It's only after people began interpreting the ages literalistically that they came to the conclusion that human lifespans declined gradually over time. So in other words, your argument is circular. You're starting from the presupposition that the events described in Genesis are all completely literal, and using a natural conclusion of that literalism to justify your presupposition that the events are completely literal. That's not to say it isn't internally consistent. I'm not trying to say a circular argument must be false. There are plenty of cases where two true (but not obvious) things genuinely support each other. That's the case with so much about Jesus, and realizing that mutual and even circular support is not intrinsically falacious was a big part in overcoming my motivated skepticism and accepting that the Resurrection is historical fact. So, it's possible that the ages are literal. When I first converted, despite my education in natural sciences I was really inclined to take the same view. After all, if we can't trust their plain reading, what's the point of venerating these books in the first place? But the literalist hypothesis is so strongly disconfirmed by physical evidence, and there's now scholarly research indicating that a numerological interpretation of the ages is more plausible. So I have to take the tropological view with respect to the ages, irrespective of Abraham. Abraham's incredulity at the idea of a one-hundred year-old man fathering children is just a tiny supporting detail for the tropological view. It's not the bedrock on which the theory stands. The bedrock would be the overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old planet and the biological phenomena associated with evolution by natural selection.
Doesn’t your theory contradict this passage? “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-” Romans 5:12 NIV And later in Romans 5: “For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.” Romans 5:17-18 NIV Or this “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 NIV Seems as though we have a sort of lineage of sin brought from our two progenitors, Adam and Eve.
@@jeremysmith7176 Nonsense. Even if you interpreted the creation of man formed from the dust metaphorically, you leave no possibility for him coming from the flesh of a primate.
@@peterlangbroek3323 Let me restate my point. We can consider the question of the Earth's age separate from the question of are all humans the descendents of one individual.
8. Talk about a stretch. Your argument is that because Kent Hovind said he believes the chapter "literally" that this a problem for the straightforwardness of other things stated? Here's the thing, and its why cherrypicking verses causes trouble. There is explanatory context to the overall story elsewhere in the Bible that backs the story up. Exodus 20:11 is in the context of God reminding the Israelites of the weekly Sabbath and this verse goves the very specific reason as to why. God created everything in 6 days and rested the seventh and hallowed it. So by this verse we know that the creation week was a week, God himself literally said so.
IP, I really like your videos, all the work and research put into them, and how they help me think deeper and in different ways about topics! Two things to note though, at 4:21 just based on what you said, the waters could be over the face of the whole earth, in that all the earth is connected with the same flood water still, but as it goes down the mountains are beginning to show. One could even say waters being over the whole earth was hyperbole in a sense. You go on to mention that the water drying up from the whole earth, if taken literally, should mean all the oceans and rivers should dry up. I would say, knowing the context, the waters are clearly talking about the flood waters, not all the water on the earth. For an example, if I have an aquarium in a room and I say, "Water spilled from my aquarium to the floor earlier today, but don't worry, all the water dried up." You don't freak out thinking my fish are all dead because the water in the aquarium dried up. You understand I'm letting you know the water that spilled dried up. Not only that but, it seems like you chose to say that the author must be speaking in hyperbole when he says the water covered the whole earth, but you say it must be taken literally when he says all the waters dried up. One could just as easily say it could be taken as hyperbole that all the water dried up means that just a lot of water dried up, thus leaving oceans and the like intact. Thank you again IP for doing the work you do!
You have challenged my confidence in YEC. I’ll have to continue researching your and YEC’s claims. Whatever I’ll find the truth to be I am thankful to God and to you for the opportunity to research and know the truth.
10. Abraham had kids well after 100 yrs old. After the death of his wife in 2145AM (AM=Anno Mundi aka year of the world aka year of creation) Abraham remarried and had multiple children. Abraham was at least 137 yes old during this time. Him questioning if he could have children at 100 yrs old coupled with the fact that he indeed himself had children at and well after the age of 100 would imply that it was unorthodox and uncommon during that time for an old man to have kids and that it might be difficult at that age to raise a kid. Many in the Bible pose questions in this style/tone and while some imply impossibility (John 3:4), others simply imply an uncommonality (John 4:9). Oldest claimed father James E. Smith (U.S) was 101 yrs old in 1951 and more recently Ramjit Raghav in 2012 at age 96. Only 4 yrs older than when Abraham begged that question. 9. The cretaceous layer confirms the Biblical, Summerian, Egyptian and Aztec account of a worldwide flood. The biblical description of the earth is that of a flat earth. The surface area of my flat house can be flooded up to my kitchen table, the entire, "face" of my house is still flooded. It's all encompassing in that way. Gradually declining flood levels does not mean my house isn't still flooded and if a layer was to form all over my house one could only assume the event happened at the same time if not simultaneously because my house has a flat surface. Just saying. 8. When a man enters a woman carnally they become "one flesh". We know this because he is literally inside her and they are connected. Plus, women retain 100% of the DNA of every man that ejaculates in them. Male DNA has even been found in the brain. Looking at the use of the word "flesh" is simply a matter of context and depth. The same word in a text could have an all encompassing meaning. Gen 6:12 "all flesh had corrupted his way". We know that flesh corrupting his way is sin but it is also amalgamation (gene editing, gene splicing, dna sequencing, etc .). The implicition of which fits hand in hand with Gen 2:25 "one flesh". 7. Not sure what that had to do with anything. 6. In Gen 10:5,20,31,32 the generations are mentioned after the fact. 5. Common sense would tell us that if God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void, then God created the earth without form and void. Gen 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them". That's exactly what that means. 6 literal days supported by the evening and the morning of each day (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). Gen 22:8 and John 1:29 both talk about lambs, one is literal the other is symbolic. Happens many times throughout the Bible. It doesnt mean that the symbolic should be used to literally explain the literal or else we'd be worshipping lambs. These tend to most definitely correlate in scripture though. 4. The Bible does not support the globe model 3. Any botanist, gardener, etc will tell you that sometimes you will have to subdue the vegetation to make it do what you want. Especially if it is in rich abundance. Gardener is indeed the first occupation in the Bible and this task is given to Adam in a garden God already planted which Adam did not have to subdue. By giving dominion God crowns Adam king of the earth and the different orders of being that inhabit it. Just like God has dominion over all things. It was a type of himself hence we are created in his image. 2. Inconclusive based on context of the biblical text 1. Conjecture
@טמוצ'ין בורג'יגין “If you listen to constructive criticism, you will be at home among the wise. If you reject discipline, you only harm yourself; but if you listen to correction, you grow in understanding. Fear of the LORD teaches wisdom; humility precedes honor.” -Proverbs 15:31-33
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hello! Can I please borrow your time and say some words? First, I want to thank you for your videos. I've never seen such a profound analysis of Scripture. Things that made little sense before making much more sense after you've explained them, considering the biblical and ancient near eastern contexts. Second, I want to ask for your forgiveness... When I first saw you're an evolutionist and have a playlist about Genesis, I automatically concluded you distort God's Word and make stupid interpretations like ''Well, it says it was created in 6 days, but a day is actually billions of years''. When I saw you posted this video, I was outraged. For some reason, I didn't even consider the option you actually have excellent arguments. Until I actually watched it. I was shocked. Such an attitude is of pride and ignorance and prevents one from being exposed to the truth. I'm sorry before you and God for it. If anyone is now reading it and haven't watched IP's videos out of a similar attitude, I can't recommend you enough to put your pride aside and watch them. They will shock you. I'm a native Hebrew speaker, but for some reason, I've never realized what the text actually says to me - ''*When God began to* create...'', not ''In the beginning''. It's an excellent demonstration of the power Man's tradition has to distort God's Word. Third, I have 2 questions for you: 1) It seems Exodus 20:8-11 clearly parallelizes between the regular work week and the creation week, thus it seems we have a good reason to believe we should take the Bible literally when it says the World was created in 6 regular days. But, I won't be surprised if you have a super-counter-argument... Do you? 2) How does the conventional history of the world fit with God's perfection, love, and goodness? How can a God of perfection create a world full of disease and death? How can a God of harmony create a system where everyone is enemies and rivals trying to kill each other? On the surface, it's a strong argument against theistic evolution, and the only answer I can think of is, ''Maybe there's no other way the universe can work. But, maybe there is. We don't know''. It's quite an unsatisfactory answer... Maybe you have a better answer? Thanks for reading and answering. I pray for you and your ministry and thank God for these.
This is a good video. I personally hold a Young earth view because I think that makes the most sense. And I can rationalize it theologically and scientifically, so no need to jump through hoops. I easily, easily could be wrong, but these are my counter-arguments to the 10 arguments in this video 😃 10. Abraham didn’t mean it was literally physically impossible to have a kid at the age of 100. He had been married for 75 years “trying” to have a kid with Sarah, and it never happened. It could be read as “I’m 100 years old, and I’ve been trying for over 70 years to have a kid. How could it happen now, that I am so much older than when we began?” 9. I don’t see how the flood could be regional. There are so many verses that communicate that the whole earth was flooded. And Peter in the New Testament relates the flood to the coming judgment. Is the judgment local? 8. I don’t think anyone would seriously take every verse in Genesis 1-2 literally. They might say they do, but just in general. That’s a dumb argument lol 7. Genesis 3:22 is a good argument. But it also is self defeating. If man needed to continuously eat from the tree of life to live forever, then why does God need to stop them from eating it after they sin? It would just wear off like it did before sin. Adam and Eve probably never ate from the tree of life before they sinned, so God didn’t want them to eat from it afterwards, and live forever. 6. I don’t think Genesis 2 is a recap of chapter 1. I think chapter 1 is the overall outline, and chapter 2 is the detailed description, in which the rest of the story continues in the same way. And I therefore reject everything else he says about Adam being “selected”… the rest of this is really nonsense to me. 5. I don’t understand this argument. Couldn’t Jeremiah just as easily mean to show that the northern kingdom is in chaos and bareness, being the opposite of what God intended for them? Comparing it to genesis 1 would just be like saying “this is what it is like without God, just as the beginning was empty and void until the Lord stepped in”. 4. Good argument. But It doesn’t rule out the possibility that God could have been the light source for the first few days. Or had another light source. 3. First of all, “subdue and have dominion” easily could mean control and have authority. Second, the very next verse specifies what is for food. Why would God say (imply) “rule over and eat these animals” and then in the next verse say “now i give you plants for food”? Why not lump it all together and say rule over the plants and animals, and eat as you have dominion, or something like that. There’s clearly a difference between having dominion over and having food, and that’s clearly implied in the two verses. 2. Whether God created out of nothing has nothing to do with the age of the earth, at least no real significance. If the earth was there before Genesis 1, it was still barren and void, which means there was nothing to even measure age. So it wouldn’t matter anyway. When i hear age of the earth, I think age of life on the earth. Also with that, God clearly made everything out of nothing, because he is the uncaused first cause (Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16). Just because Genesis 1 doesn’t say he made it out of nothing doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. The rest of the Bible CLEARLY states God is the author of everything, including the universe and all that is in it. He made it, and it had to be out of nothing. 1. Same with the last argument. If you change it to “when” god made the heavens and earth, it literally wouldn’t change anything. Just the way you tell the story of HOW he made it. It doesn’t say when it happened, so it wouldn’t change when it happened.
Rationalize it scientifically? Explain please how you get around the universal constant of the speed of light and the estimation of distant galaxies. Some suggest science just estimates those distances, but they would need to be off by a factor of 100,000X at least to get anywhere near that light traveling that far in 6 to 14 thousand years
@@raymondgwinn7069 I believe when God said “let there be light” he didn’t wait 10 billion years for it to get there. He created it already there. He made the stars for recognizing time, so he created it to be ready to do so.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus i think you’re in the wrong place. This channel and all these comments believe in a creation based facts and reasoning. No one is basing their beliefs or “feelings” on emotions, but on evidence. Maybe you should not assume things because that’s a terrible assumption to make
@@timothyvenable3336 No I’m not. You don’t dictate where and what I comment on, keep your assumptions to yourself. _Where’s your evidence to support god magically poofing everything into existence from nothing?_ You’ve made several unsupported claims on this thread about god. Yet you’ve given nothing to support them other than your personal feelings and beliefs. Thanks for proving me right 😇
When a man and woman copulate, there is a transfer of cells and they in fact do become one. It's a phenomenon known as microchimerization. So it is possible that a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 is possible. When we think we know more than God's word, we later find out every word in it is true.
@@robertc5325 I don't even know if I would call that a metaphor. Hyperbolic...maybe, but it is pretty clear what it is talking about. You cannot use that passage to justify a complete metaphorical interpretation of the whole passage.
@@robertc5325 Not true. No metaphors needed. Quite literally cells from the woman live in the man, and cells from the man live in the woman indefinitely. They have become one flesh with cells from their partner living inside of the other. This is literally them becoming one flesh. Meaning the man is no longer just a man's cells, and the woman is no longer just a woman's cells. Their flesh, though in two separate bodies is now identical in composition as they are genetically a part of each other. So if a married man walks up to you, you would be literally correct to address him as his and his wife's name, and vice versa for his wife, seeing as they are both housed in each body. The Bible is telling us stuff that science is just now finding out. To become one flesh, you don't have to sew two different WHOLE bodies together. Parts will suffice to fulfill all of the definitions of the terms in "be one flesh," and the literal fusion of the two. To illustrate, you can merge two companies and they become one company, but they have a minimum of two locations now. Do we say that they are not literally the same company because they are in two locations? No, your logic isn't consistent here because the English language does not adopt your personal presuppositions on the terms, yet more universally accepted ones. You are confusing bodies with flesh is my only guess. The body is made of flesh, but flesh is not necessarily made of bodies. Flesh can be made up of parts of bodies too. They could just cut a piece of each other off, hold them together until it dries together and the phrase would be literally fulfilled. Another example, say we find a way to chimerize animals together. If you pick up a slab of Porken (pork and chicken muscles that are uniformly fused together in a single animal prior to death) from the grocery store, would that be one flesh? Yes it would because there is an actual homogeneous physical union. So too then is the literal physical union of a man and a woman after copulation. The woman's flesh has become a part of the man's body, and his flesh has become part of hers. In his body they have become one flesh. In her body they have become one flesh. Plus the act of copulation is eluded to in the text you cite, "cleave unto his wife." You only cleave if you are being intimate or trying to shelter them. Since shelter isn't eluded to, what is the ultimate intimacy of husband and wife? I rest my case.
The waters can still be covering the whole earth while the mountain tops are visible. Go to the beach, wade out into the water up to your waist, and look down. You will see the bottom of the ocean. Same for the mountaintops here. They were underwater, but close enough to the surface to be seen.
No when it tells us the whole earth was covered it was. After the flood the whole earth shifted and plate tectonic happened. Mount Everest or mount Ararat where not as high as they are now .after the flood they became higher than before. That’s why on Mount Everest you find sea shells.
The flood narrative qualifies that the flood covered all the high mountains. Genesis 7:19 BSB [19] Finally, the waters completely inundated the earth, so that all the high mountains under all the heavens were covered.
Keep in mind, and I had to beat this out of myself, that how the Earth was created is not the crux of Christianity. Christianity is not about if or if not God created the Earth with Evolution or not, it's about God coming down in the flesh to save us.
Sir Isaac Newton, 1642 - 1747 "About the times of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
+@@mr8282humble The TRINITY did NOT exist as a teaching in CHRISTENDOM til 358 at the council of Constantinople. FUNNY they turned the WORLD upside down for CHRIST without the doctrine of the TRINITY! "Yeah Newton rejected the Holy Trinity so you know whatever" Being a TRINITARIAN has NO bearing on your being a CHRISTIAN or preaching correct doctrine. There are 40 MILLION Onesness folk in the world today all loving Jesus as much as you do, if not more, and just as certain of their salvation.
Keep in mind that unless you can read hebrew, you're reading a translation. It's also old as can be and languages change. You're being extremely critical of a super old text that was translated many many years later. And that translation is now hundreds of years old.
Yeah, and he even ignored the fact that the text has changed repeatedly as seen by the archeological finds of 100-300 AD versions of the four gospels where jesus was close to a feminist, keeping many women (including courtesans and widows) close to him and treating them as equals to men. Very different from versions that were popular between 400 AD and 1850 AD (that viewed women in the same way as the quran).
@@angrydragonslayer I an somewhat if a scholar of Biblcal history. None of your post rings true. While the HEBREW exists in two quite different forms is true there is not much factual variation But the last authorities book in the NT was at the end of the first century. Following that came a raft of fiction, heresy and utter nonsense. Not worthy of the Christian church and NOT authored or endorsed by God. Can you care a SINGLE authorities source for your claims?
@@angrydragonslayer The various discovered NT texts are in all substantive ways exactly the same as we have today. I think you are quite confused about both inspiration and transmission of Scripture
@@paulrobinson9318 that's funny, using a word created by the orthodoxy to discredit the orthodoxy As for sources, if i were to follow your premise that anything after 100 AD is "heresy", all current christian churches would be heretical so i just won't bother
+@@angrydragonslayer Really" Did you think before posting that nonsense? " @Paul Robinson that's funny, using a word created by the orthodoxy to discredit the orthodoxy" Define 'the' otrhodoxy . . . "As for sources, if i were to follow your premise that anything after 100 AD is "heresy"," is that the way I put it or are you putting words in my mouth to make a case? "all current christian churches would be heretical so i just won't bother " That of course is utter rubbish - almost all GODLY churches constrain their INSPIRED works to the standard 66 books with a variation or two. YOUR claim that inspired books - Books we can look to with certainty and agree upon for perfect examples of GOD's relationship with man need to be supplemented with fantasy and fiction and imaginary events - is NONSENSE. WHO besides YOU has that opinion? OK - I understand some small mid-eastern sects have added some books for their own CULTURE - books NEVER accepted by ANY NT Christian council of teacher - but they are NOT SCRIPTURE any more than Alice in wonderland is. I have TAUGHT Church history - YOU tell me WHEN those books were accepted by the mainstream Christian CHURCH as inspired . . . OR any serious Bible scholar today who accepts them . . . They are like the many SDA books supposedly but not FACTUALLY written By E G WHITE - using CHRISTIAN words but NOT teaching Christian doctrines. Best considered fiction. I'll wait.
I acctully thought they would make me rethink creationism, but I think they just made my faith in it stronger. I'm gonna need somthing more solid then that.
I agree. I thought there were some good points, but they also cause many more problems. Also, some points ignored other truths such as exodus 20:11. Plus, I think the scientific evidence in favor of a young earth is growing rapidly. There is a high correlation between scientists who believe the earth is old, believe humans are causing catastrophic global warming, and thought the vax worked. I disagree with all of them.
You missed the point of the video! The entire video is an argument FOR creationism and AGAINST "young-earth creationism" on the grounds that it is unbiblical!
I understand that. I guess I just merged old earth in with Darwinism, that's where the idea originates from. I guess I shouldn't do that, but they are indistinguishable to me.
If the point of the whole bible is to re-establish connection and relationship with God through Jesus Christ, why not ask Him yourself what the truth is? Instead of listening to what everyone else says, why not ask Him if your faith is absolutely required to be 100 percent a literal interpretation of the bible or if perhaps some nuance is indeed required. As an aside, why does Jesus refer to Herod as fox yet nobody thinks Herod was indeed a fox? Why is Jesus allowed to teach using stories and parables to explain deeper messages, yet the Old Testament is not granted the same literary lenience? Is it fair to expect a collection of books that predate the modern concept of science to be 100% historically accurate and scientific at all times and in all circumstances? Could it be that there is more to truth than a story needing to be historically and scientifically accurate? Is there not deep wisdom and truth in a parable, even though it's a story constructed with the sole purpose of transferring fundamental truth across generations? If you are a legalist and therefore a Pharisee, the answer is no. For the Pharisee, the bible must absolutely be 100 percent correct because their whole salvation is based on religious law instead of relationship with Christ. Jesus Himself took great pains to point out that law without relationship, compassion, humility and humanity is heartless. Why does it never occur to modern Pharisees, who spend so much time shrieking about the devil being under every bush, that the only beings more legalistic than themselves are the very demons they claim to be aligned against? Did Jesus not repeatedly point out that the legalistic attitude of the Pharisee is in league with the demonic? But if your faith is based on an actual relationship with God through Jesus Christ, then the accuracy of the bible in all situations and in all circumstances is not so critical. That's because if the bible vanished completely, the relationship would remain. The relationship is not dependent on the book. The point of the book is to help explain the relationship.
@@globallatitude-dmacorporat5886 you don't have to believe it if you don't what to. Sciance supports the Bible and other historians back it up also. I think our God is big enough to use real life to teach his lessons, he could use a fictional story but why do that when he can just make it happen in real life. Jesus used practical examples that people could understand to explaine things like salvation, and the stories and parables could have easily happen in life too. The Bible is a collection of stories of real people going through life with God or some times running and disobeying him. The stories are about the relationship with him and how to make that relationship thrive. The Bible could go away and we could still build that relationship but Why not use his word to better understand him. Unless it's not his word and it's all made up as dawinisam would suggest.
This video shouldn’t be called “top ten problems for biblical creationists” but “top ten verses to twist scripture to align with my preconceived ideas.”
Interesting takes, but for #7, where mortality may have already been present before the fall - how do you reconcile that with Romans 5:12? Genuinely curious.
I agree its not reconcilable. my bigger problem with this list is, its all been addressed by YEC. I find it frustrating that i have yet to have found a good discussion from one of my brother's in Christ, who beleives in an old earth, that addresses the arguments YEC research has presented.
It's possible that Romans 5:12 is referring to spiritual death because of Adam's disobedience, and not the first death, which is death of the physical body
With this kind of hermeneutics and how subjective it is, I feel empowered to employ the same interpretive methods to modern "science" textbooks to fit whatever ideas I please! That way I can accept the "science" without actually changing my paradigm. 'They don't *really* mean millions of years, they just mean a long time, which in my paradigm must mean a few thousand years...' 'They don't *really* mean creatures evolved over time, that's just a metaphor for societal and technological advancements throughout history...' 'They don't *really* mean the sun is a burning gaseous orb in a vacuum ... That doesn't even work! It must be a metaphor for something...'
Yes, I love interpreting two totally separate genres of literature with the exact same techniques with no regard for authorial intent or cultural context!
@@gerbiljohnson8190 The Bible incorporates multiple genres, it's not all poetry and it's not all history or anything else. Regarding the authorial intent and cultural context of the scriptures, rather than interpreting them however is most convenient to fit our paradigm (like believing in evolution) was *exactly* my point. No one would read Genesis and suppose the things suggested in this video unless they felt like they had to in order to make sense of it based on their preconceived ideas about creation before opening the text.
Just a reminder of the centrality of the cross in bible. The creation account should, as with all scripture, be viewed/interpreted in light of the cross. Any argument that tends to undermine and not magnify the cross should be rejected.
@@marvalice3455 I believe that this video is making a very good point to all those souls who are slightly more intelligent than an average folk and has looked into the evidence for the earth being old and the evidence for the Big bang and evolution and can no longer deny it as rubbish like simple minded people do. So this video is mostly for them which explains that you dont have the ultimatum before you, you dont have to choose either God OR science, no, you can and should choose both God and science since they do not contradict each other.
@@nikokapanen82 exactly! I'm a profoundly curious person. I'm compelled to look into everything and see what the evidence is. I'm personally convinced that both the world is extremely old, but that there is also something more than the mundane physical reality.
@@nikokapanen82 though I prefer not to make value judgements against people who put their priorities in other things. sure, a lot of people are really dumb, but more people are just more concerned about their own lives than they are about science and philosophy, and the fact that they don't put as much thought into it as I do doesn't make them less smart, just a person with a different focus.
@@marvalice3455 YECs are the ones who put emphasis on literal 7-day mythology while leaving the Cross as a detail. Christianity is all about dinosaurs to them.
The example of Genesis 1:1 you presented makes perfect sense, seeing that God can take "nothing and make something", as in, redeem and restore what is chaotic. God bless you, brother. Love your channel.
Exodus 20:11 KJV 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. Before these literal six days of creation and the seventh day of rest (that seventh day of rest was not millions or billions of years) Romans 5:12 KJV Wherefore, as by one man ( Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. There was no death before Adam's original sin...no millions of years of disease and death before Adam. Believing in death before original sin is not scriptural.
I’m not defending the young earth theory (I actually agree with you). However, Abraham’s father didn’t have him at 130 years old. The genealogy from Shem to Abraham is found in chapter 11:10-32, and we read that “Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram...”.
Terah, the father of Abraham was born in 1878AM (AM=Anno Mundi aka year of the world aka year of creation) (Gen11:24) and is the 10th generation from Noah. Terah lived 205 yrs (Gen11:32) and died in 2083AM. That same year, Abraham is called by God to leave his father's house (Acts7:4). Abraham is 75 yrs old when God calls him (Gen12:4) which means he was born in 2008AM, 2 years after Noah died. Terah was 130 yrs old when Abraham is born.
@@sovereignhero9496 Gen 11:24 is about Terah's father Nahor (its not about Abraham). The verse says that Nahor lived 29 years and begat Terah. Then verse 25 says that Nahor lived for another 119 years after Terah was born. Then verse 26 says that Terah lived (from the time that Nahor begat him in verse 24) for 70 years when he begat Abraham. Acts 7:4 says that God called Abraham out of his father's house (meaning he was still alive when Abraham was called). It was sometime after he went into the land of Canaan that his father died, and he had his body moved into the promised land to be buried. The Scriptures never say how long Abraham had been in the land, and nothing in Acts 7:4 implies that he died the year that Abraham was called. Actually, the verse says the opposite: Abraham was called into the land, and then his father died.
@@scottpostma6392 But you're going off of assumptions. The text clearly says Terah lived 70 years and then begat Abram, Nahor (named after his grandfather), and Haran. There's nothing else written in the Scriptures that suggests they were born at different times. So the logical conclusion, based solely on what is revealed in the text itself, is that they were either triplets, or Terah had 3 wives (there's no mention of wives until Abram & Nahor take wives in 7:29. Also, we know that there is indeed Biblical precedent for polygamy (remember, Jacob had 4 wives). Either way, the text clearly says that Terah was 70 when he begat 3 sons, and Abram is listed first.
@@JasinBoggs Gen 11:24 is simply a timestamp based on the chronology of the Bible to the year 1875AM when Terah was born. Simple math from Adam to Noah and Noah to Terah. Let's start from Act 7:2; "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran". Clear enough right? Act 7:3 "Get thee out of the country.....into the land which I shall shew thee". Also pretty clear. Act 7:4 "Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans (Mesopotamia) and dwelt in Charran (Haran) AND FROM THENCE (meaning after) WHEN HIS FATHER WAS DEAD (meaning WHEN IT HAPPENED) he removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell (Land of Canaan)". Abraham was 75 yrs old when he left Haran (Gen 12:4), Terah died at the age of 205 yrs old (Gen 11:32). If Terah had Abraham at 70 yrs old, Abraham would have to be 135 yrs old in the year of his father's death (2083AM) 60 yrs older then when God would have called him.
I started my religious view when I heard about the Lake Missoula flood. The fun part is when I get into discussions about the flood. They say the same things that the geological community said in the 1920s.
3:40 The very tips of the mountains could be seen protruding out of the water (and possible the tips were underwater, but just by a few feet, effectively making them visible above water. There has to be a reason we find marine life on mountaintops all over the world...
@@ea-tr1jh all fossils would be absolutely demolished in the creation of mountains by that logic, not perfectly intact like they are found Mountains are supposedly created with such force it mixes countless different soils together as one, similar to the effects seen after an ice age So fossils would be brittle dust mixed in with the other soil if your argument was true, but there are not suggesting they become fossilized on the mountain top, ie during a flood
Number 8 is the only one I paid attention to before turning the video off. 10 had my attention for about 10 seconds before it was entirely unauthoritative. 8 is literally marriage, and the only place two people are allowed to do the exact thing you're missing the point of. Have sex (i.e., 'become one flesh'). Like an electrical circuit, it is no longer two separate circuits when you plug the male-like rod into a female-like outlet. It becomes one circuit. No, that's not a metaphor. That is pretty literal. Even if it WAS a metaphor, does one, single, obvious and well understood metaphor really mean the entirety of a text is inaccurate or uninformative? That's like if NatGeo used a metaphor in one of their articles and all of you instantly disregarded that specific article as informative for life. You can be highly informative and still use a metaphor. And pretending not to understand exactly what that metaphor means is not an excuse for ignorance. You're either very dishonest and grabbing for straws here, or you're actually too illiterate to be trusted explaining what any English text means to anybody.
I don’t think he’s saying that genesis is inaccurate, but it’s one giant beautifully written poem that God gave us to help us understand the role that He played in creation in a way that is easy for us to interpret and understand.
The argument is pretty clear. Why is Genesis 2:24 clearly a metaphor and not literal? If it is a metaphor why is it ok for YECs to pick a chose when to read literally and metaphorically, but not Old Earth Creationist to do the same? Furthermore, why are YEC's allowed to elevate the age of the earth to the level of orthodoxy when it wasn't a stated church doctrine for any denomination until the 1900's? The vast majority of Church history allowed for grace and variety on this issue, but for YECs over the last 100 years it's a matter of doubting someone's faith if they disagree.
@@zackattack366 Nobody doubts one's faith for disbelief in a young earth. It wasn't a topic of discussion 100 years ago among most people. If it was a metaphor, we'd be able to tell that it was a metaphor due to the fact that metaphors are easily distinguishable from non metaphors. Calling it a metaphor doesn't make it one, and saying it isn't a metaphor doesn't mean it isn't. It either is or isn't based on what we understand about human languages.
They want to destroy God and force upon the earth a big bang hypothesis - It is not a theory as it is baseless without merit. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: Meaning they had no evidence to begin with and pulled it out of their arse. Too many discoveries in soft tissue , DNA, and bone marrow in dinosaurs bones if millions of years old are not not possible to exist today.
You do inspire me to think more deeply about the Word. As Chuck Missler said when asked if he took the Bible "literally, " I, would also say, I take the Bible "seriously."
10. Abraham had kids well after 100 yrs old. After the death of his wife in 2145AM (AM=Anno Mundi aka year of the world aka year of creation) Abraham remarried and had multiple children. Abraham was at least 137 yes old during this time. Him questioning if he could have children at 100 yrs old coupled with the fact that he indeed himself had children at and well after the age of 100 would imply that it was unorthodox and uncommon during that time for an old man to have kids and that it might be difficult at that age to raise a kid. Many in the Bible pose questions in this style/tone and while some imply impossibility (John 3:4), others simply imply an uncommonality (John 4:9). Oldest claimed father James E. Smith (U.S) was 101 yrs old in 1951 and more recently Ramjit Raghav in 2012 at age 96. Only 4 yrs older than when Abraham begged that question. 9. The cretaceous layer confirms the Biblical, Summerian, Egyptian and Aztec account of a worldwide flood. The biblical description of the earth is that of a flat earth. The surface area of my flat house can be flooded up to my kitchen table, the entire, "face" of my house is still flooded. It's all encompassing in that way. Gradually declining flood levels does not mean my house isn't still flooded and if a layer was to form all over my house one could only assume the event happened at the same time if not simultaneously because my house has a flat surface. Just saying. 8. When a man enters a woman carnally they become "one flesh". We know this because he is literally inside her and they are connected. Plus, women retain 100% of the DNA of every man that ejaculates in them. Male DNA has even been found in the brain. Looking at the use of the word "flesh" is simply a matter of context and depth. The same word in a text could have an all encompassing meaning. Gen 6:12 "all flesh had corrupted his way". We know that flesh corrupting his way is sin but it is also amalgamation (gene editing, gene splicing, dna sequencing, etc .). The implicition of which fits hand in hand with Gen 2:25 "one flesh". 7. Not sure what that had to do with anything. 6. In Gen 10:5,20,31,32 the generations are mentioned after the fact. 5. Common sense would tell us that if God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void, then God created the earth without form and void. Gen 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them". That's exactly what that means. 6 literal days supported by the evening and the morning of each day (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). Gen 22:8 and John 1:29 both talk about lambs, one is literal the other is symbolic. Happens many times throughout the Bible. It doesnt mean that the symbolic should be used to literally explain the literal or else we'd be worshipping lambs. These tend to most definitely correlate in scripture though. 4. The Bible does not support the globe model 3. Any botanist, gardener, etc will tell you that sometimes you will have to subdue the vegetation to make it do what you want. Especially if it is in rich abundance. Gardener is indeed the first occupation in the Bible and this task is given to Adam in a garden God already planted which Adam did not have to subdue. By giving dominion God crowns Adam king of the earth and the different orders of being that inhabit it. Just like God has dominion over all things. It was a type of himself hence we are created in his image. 2. Inconclusive based on context of the biblical text 1. Conjecture
I think Heiser is right when he explains how many fundamentalists believe the Bible should be interpreted as if the first impressions that pop into a modern reader's head when he reads a text should be the presumed interpretation, and that some people insist on applying a kind of naive literalism to Bible study that would sound neurotic if applied to everyday conversation. That isn't the way language works.
@Jonathan Sarfati 1. Who said anything about a flat Earth? 2. Maybe Heiser leaves open the possibility that the author intended "day" to be understood as an age or indefinite period of time (an OEC literalist approach). I personally find that exegesis eccentric and strained. Modern scientific belief should have no influence on directions taken in biblical theology, and I think Heiser would agree, but I doubt one could arrive at the day-age interpretation, self-honestly, without angling to reconcile biblical literalism with at least a few fields of modern science (astronomy, geology, most if not all paleontology) by mining a word's semantic range for 'technically possible', formally acceptable but contextually improbable meanings. So, nothing against day-agers, but I think it's a stretch. 3. Even when they did not take the creation narratives as literal and linear chronological histories, the church fathers had no compelling reason to doubt the relative youth of the cosmos, especially in the face of Aristotle's view that the universe and its forms were eternal and beginningless. Patristic interpretations of the creation week are also much deeper and richer, multi-layered and more inspired than the perspicuity literalism of the modern YEC movement. The fathers weren't afraid to compound literal and allegorical readings of the text.
@Jonathan Sarfati YECs completely contradict Saint Augustine, one of the most respected church fathers, who wrote a wonderful treatise called "The Literal Meaning of Genesis". Saint Augustine affirmed that 24 hour days are nonsense because that unit of measurement wouldn't have even existed until the 4th "day." You can't delete my comments here, big boy
Doesn’t matter much I feel God told us just enough for us to know what’s important! And definitely the gospels and revelation is fundamental, as we see many foretold events unfolding right in front of our eyes !
Jesus held to recent creation (Lk. 11:50,51; Mk. 10:16; Mk. 13:19-20). We should "follow in his steps" and take the same view (1 Peter 2:21). assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v8/n3/ComingToGrips-Ch11.pdf
@@Fairwrites I have stated here that old earth does not equal heresy: adamslostdream.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-heresy-of-older-planet.html I have written 2 books defending a youthful world from history & science: totalyouth.us/ Jesus held to recent creation (Lk. 11:50,51; Mk. 10:16; Mk. 13:19-20). We should "follow in his steps" and take the same view (1 Peter 2:21): assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v8/n3/ComingToGrips-Ch11.pdf
@@Fairwrites It does matter a LOT. As what YECs say, to imply that death occurred before the fall ruins the purpose of salvation. If this is disproven though, such as said in the video, then old-earth creationism may very well be true.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT I agree with you, but I don't think we should fight about it. You are never going to convince the other side (irrespective of what side you are on). I think it's important because I have a huge problem with Christians seemingly changing their view of Scripture based on current scientific theories. The science isn't settled and Christians shouldn't be like reeds in the wind.
Your first assumption was off, the times of Noah have changed everything… Earlier in Scripture we read: Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” Genesis 6:3 Not having children later in life was the result of sins that happened BEFORE Abraham.
This guy doesn't know his Bible. When someone pulls possible contradictory texts from the Bible... only to try to prove it is invalid. Makes himself invalid when he doesn't study all of it. I can say since 3x+1 has no mathematical answer... all math is wrong. I would be invalid in that statement.
As an Anthropologist and a Christian with theological training I like this channel's approach. It ultimately comes down to what the scriptures actually are communicating.
@@luizh.5951 he just the beginning of the field.. arm chair anthropologist before they dis actual hands on research. Cool stories in his book The Golden Bough though his theories are mostly defuncted. Liberal Christians liked his views of religion.
@@Liminalplace1 I don't think even a Christian, even a liberal, would like James Frazer's vision, because in his book, he says that he thinks Jesus is a plagiarism of other gods, and etc.
@@luizh.5951 it's secular research into culture and religion, a writers opinions is not the research. Frazier is just a resource of travellers stories. Most anthropologists disregard his theories. Early anthropologist have been accused of racism also. Victor Turner is a good example of an major anthropologist turned Christian (although catholic)
Addressing the first two: Addressing number 10: The genealogies from Shem to Abraham show a decline (E.g. Shem was able to have a kid at 100, while Abraham's father 70, which mind you was 20 years younger than Sarah). You have to keep in mind that other descendants of Noah lived in that area, so with the evidence of Shem to Abraham lower child rates, many other families would experience the same thing. Many women can be fertile until around 50, and humans typically live to be 80. Addressing Number 9: Different levels of flood across the Earth. When it says mountains are seen but also not, it was referring to the region, the whole purpose of the dove was to see if Noah and them could get out around the area the Ark was floating.
The genealogies in Genesis were direct shots at the Babylonian Kings lists. No one from that context would have read that as "literal history" because they didn't even have that category. That's an invention of the modern materialistic mind.
@Jonathan Sarfati I'm not denying history. I'm denying the modern materialistic religion of historicity. If you can't see the difference, I'm OK with that.
@@GeoffBosco To be fair, if a flood occurred and everyone carried the same oral ideas and myths, and travelled across the world, then you would expect similar flood, creation, and genealogical mediums in other areas, especially around Iran.
I never stopped to think about the fact that Abraham's close relatives were "over 100 years old" according to the text. It's so obvious these are not literal ages. Thank you so much for making this clear.
@@randomfandom33 Watch this, it explains what the OP means: ruclips.net/video/VI1yRTC6kGE/видео.html He gets to the point after some minutes in, but watch from the beginning.
You use these words a lot for someone trying to make a scientific argument: Maybe, probably, implying, which implies, the implication is, this seems unlikely, supposedly, suggests, seems to suggest, it might not even, doesn’t necessarily mean, one could assume, more likely refers to, etc. Also, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a theory, and can’t be used as law when making comparisons between the two. Let’s be real though. 6 billion years, 6000 years, 30 trillion... if your focus is on how long it took to create the universe, you’ve completely missed the point.
As for the Abraham thing, it's' also possible that they tried and tried and tried and tried for decades with no success having a kid. I think most people would be skeptical.
Interesting and challenging. Some of these are was aware of but some of these objections I’ve never heard. Always need to temper faith with sound reasoning. Will definitely be picking up some of John Walton to read. He has some interesting insights. Thank you for your work IP 🙏 Christ is Lord
Why does Rom 5:19 say: "For as through the one man's disobedience many were made sinners", or 1 Cor 15:21 "For since death came by man"? Why does 1 Tim 2:14 say: "Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman"? Were the Apostles YEC?
We inherited Adam's sin (the original sin), that's why we became sinners because of his disobedience. Death doesn't necessarily mean physical death, but death of the spirit. You don't physicaly die because of sin, you die spiritualy because each sin sets you further away from God. Because man was convinced, no deceived. The serpent deceived the woman into sin and the woman conviced the man to sin. The woman was deceived into believing that there was no problem in disobeying an order from God, man was convinced and decided himself into disobeying.
@@BitsGamerfication Thank you for the reply. While things may be as you said, the focus of my question was not exactly there. What I meant was: * Why was there a physical death before falling into sin, in a Creation not corrupted by Adam's sin? And possibly there was a lot of pain in the world, too? * If the text talks about Mankind in general, why should all women be deceivable and men not? Why do Adam and Eve behave so much like individuals?
No, it is not that he doubted having a child after a hundred years of age. He laughed because he and Sarah had not achieved a pregnancy over their period of being married, thus having accepted the possibility of being infertile... hence he could not believe this...
He laughed because Sarah was past the age where she could naturally become pregnant, not because he was too old to father a child. He'd already sired Ishmael in his old age, and we read later in Genesis that he fathered more children with his second wife after Sarah died.
FACTS! I wish this guy would spend more time trying to prove God's word is legit. he would probably end up figuring out that it is vs trying to find every way possible to attack it
@@thewaltermittystudios He's not attacking Scripture; he's simply explaining why the Young Earth Creationist interpretation is not necessarily the most accurate.
As a lifelong believer in the scriptures who’s also had a lifelong fascination with the sciences, I often have found myself trying to rationalize certain undeniable scientific facts against what is said to have occurred in the scriptures. For example: How can Earth only be 6,000 years old when we’ve discovered archeological sites such as Gobekli Tepe that are known to be 12,000 years old and older? I’ve never believed that the sciences must necessarily contradict the scriptures, but rather that they confirm each other. Two things can be true…
that issue was already answered long ago, they are not "known to be" at that age, the reason why those dates appear so long ago is because they used a highly innacurate dating method (radiocarbon dating) which always adds a much longer period than what it really is, for example some volcanic rocks that were only a few days old from an eruption a few decades ago, were dated to be millions of years old (which was obviously false), or another case someone's baby tooth that came out was taken to a radiocarbon dating and it was dated to the 5th century... even though that person was only like 8 years old when he took the tooth to be dated (it was intentional to show how innacurate that method is)
but whether the earth is 6000 or older that is not really much of an issue since the genesis account fits with either interpretation, whether "young" (well 6000 is still very old) or old earth or even some middle form
It's really simple, the historical "known" data is a guess. Even current historical data that people can verify because they were actually there is often gotten wrong.
For one, If Adam and Eve were created on a literal sixth day, then they were made fully mature on thier first day (though they were maybe around 25ish years old). Likewise, the trees and animals likely could have been created fully mature too, not as seeds or as new borns. So it makes sense, following that logic, that the earth (and the all the universe) could also have been created mature. In that case, from day one (or week one) they could be thousands, or millions, even billions of years old.
science doesnt contradict scriptures, science is just sometimes wrong. if you look at your example, the way they got that number of 12000 years, (correct me if im wrong) is carbon dating, the way carbon dating works is they look at how long it takes for an atom to turn into another atom through radiation, and then they're like "oh look this % of atoms turned into this atom, so that mustve taken around 12000 years", well, how do they know it takes 12000 years, did they measure the time? its just a guess. this is just one example of how science can be wrong
A lot of the YECs under this video are using the same objections, so we addressed several of the here:
ruclips.net/video/upoi9UIyDqQ/видео.html
Also, YECs do not realize they are walking into a trap if they respond to my latest video. Let's remember YECs constantly claim theistic evolutionists have to add meaning to the Biblical texts, and they just take the plain reading. Well, in order to deal with the issues I brought up in the video they will have to add meaning to several of the passages I went over. For instance, they will try to reinterpret what Abraham said in Genesis 17:17, or they will try to add context to Jeremiah 4. Honestly, this is fine. I expected this and it is not bad, it is just standard hermeneutics. We cannot interview the original authors, so sometimes we have to employ interpretive methods when immediate comprehension fails.
However, they will need to abandoned one of these chief claims, that they just take the plain reading of the text. In reality, they must do exactly what they accuse theistic evolutionists of doing, by interpreting passages in certain ways to make it fit with their young-earth model. When they accuse anyone else of doing this, it is basically the act of taking man's word over God's word, but when they will attempt to do it, they will just be trying to get at what the original authors meant. This is exactly what I want them to do, instead of pretending they just take the plain reading of the text. They cannot and no one can. So the next time they accuse me of talking man's word over God's by employing hermeneutics, I will bring up one of the passages I used in the video and make them do the same thing.
Apart from the Word of GOD, there isnt any evidence for evolution, and do theistic evolutionists take Genesis 1 not literally? How about Noah's Ark? Because people have actually found the remains of the ark. And there is plenty of evidence forna world wide flood. How do you think fossils form? If you lay a corpse in the wild, its gone by the month, but if you preserve it with mud, the bones will remain. If it was a local flood, then either youre going against what the Bible says because it says it covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven" (Genesis 7:19). Think about it. If waters rose up to a high hill, then it would, to even out, expand to other locations.
Again, I addressed this: ruclips.net/p/PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi
@@InspiringPhilosophy Is there evidence for evolution?
SRY, the excuse is lame . . . And SCIENCE does NOT support long ages . . .
Safarti responded to your claims - I note it went unrefuted.
You claim to defend Christianity but fails to believe what Christ himself has said as the reason he came to save us from. Biblical Christianity doesn't allow you to separate creation from a histirical Adam to Fall to Christ.
Besides, professing to believe in the Bible, you're siding with theistic evolution without presenting a single text that the Bible even implies evolution before trying to dismantle YEC creation narrative.
Where are the conclusive evidences for the Big Bang, life coming out of inanimate matter, missing links etc. etc.?
I mean, what kind of logic is it that requires you to believe side A but then agrees with side B on their core beliefs even without the evidence that side B apologists themselves can't produce?
Wether or not you’re young earth or old earth, remember that the only thing truly important is what we do with “ Who is Jesus?”
It is important to know the Truth when God created heaven and earth.
based on this man's teaching Jesus could have just stayed in heaven because death was around long before adam sinned.
there fore there would be no need for blood atonement to cover sins
@@twistedtitan5485 I agree with you but it’s not worth quarreling and dividing over.
@@twistedtitan5485
You are too carnally minded and dont think spiritually at all.
Physical death is not a problem and never was, it is the spiritual death which is the problem.
The wages of sin is death means the conseqences of sin is separation from God which means spiritual death or in a more presice way - Hell itself.
So when Adam sinned, he got separated from God and was now heading to hell as were all the other people after him. God the Father however had a plan to rescue the humanity from hell by sending His Son to our world and by letting Him go to hell instead of us and then take the keys of hell from Satan to himself.
So Jesus defeated SPIRITUAL death, meaning hell. You see, the whole salvation plan was to save us not from physical death, not at all but from spiritual death, from hell itself.
@@twistedtitan5485 this is a false message. It was already the plan of God to save us from sin through the faith in Jesus Christ
Before God created Adam and Eve He already know that they would fall in sin. Dead came through Adam. Eternal life through Jesus. Dead was not there long before Adam. God made everything good..
This honestly makes me want to see a Fourfold debate with a Theistic Evolutionist, an Evolutionist, A Young Earth Creationist and an Old Earth Creationist.
Let's hear it for the theistic evolutionists!! Something that should make sense to both religionists and atheists. Common meeting ground, so to speak. Religion should be governed by common Sense, Universe realities, historical facts, emotional self control and moderation.
@@davidoverstreet2875 Transformist evolution is an absurdity. While certain changes make take place over time in a given species, one species never transforms into another. Anyone who has read Plato would know this.
Every species is a reflection of a heavenly archetype, or form. The archetypes are immutable. The archetype of a horse will always be what it is, it will never morph into the archetype of a cow. The archetypes of the various apes are utterly separate from the archetype for man, and as the visible species are merely so many reflections of the archetypes, it goes without saying that one cannot morph into another over any period of time. As E.F. Schumacher said: "To call a man a 'hairless ape' makes as much sense as to call a dog a 'barking cabbage'". That is, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Furthermore the greater cannot come from the lesser, man cannot come from an ape and living organisms cannot develop out of some type of "primordial goo".
The first man, far from being born out of the womb of an ape mother, descended from Heaven as a quasi-immaterial being, with a body quite like that Christ possessed after his resurrection.
@@Mike-md7op Mike, this will be confirmed when you resurrect in heaven. But you still have the power of free will to disbelieve it even then. But you're better off to use practical common sense and go ahead and accept scientific facts, which is nothing more than the out working material phenomenon of spiritual realities. First of all, let me say that local universe life is designed in Heavenly laboratories by celestial scientists, usually with minor improvements, and then implanted within a special plasm on a planet with a favorable atmosphere and saltwater environment. The special life plasm is then enlivened by the Holy Spirit, and contains all of the life patterns that will evolve over millions of years, mostly slowly, but sometimes, occasionally and suddenly, with Superior mutations, comprising a totally new creature species. A good example of this is the scientific fact of how birds evolved from reptiles. The sponge creatures were the great transformation turning point from plant to animal. This is known as Theologic Evolution, and the life plasm contains all of the world's life patterns, from the original smallest single-celled water-bound creatures to the pinnacle of the evolutionary scale, in the appearance of mankind. The 3 implantations on our world occurred in North America, Africa, and Australia, which explains the differentiation and the variation in life forms on each of those separate continents. The North American implantation evolved into mankind in Southwest Asia after our highly intelligent and extinct mid- mammal lemur ancestors crossed the Bering Land strait 2 million years ago. And so it is, that the greater must, can, and does come from the lesser, on the evolutionary worlds of time and space. Animals are incapable of rational reasoning and moral choice. Humans are, and the moment the newly evolved mortals make a moral decision, then the last two of the Seven Adjutant Mind Spirits indwells them, the Spirit of wisdom and the Spirit of worship, which is the spiritual phenomenon that sets newly evolved mankind apart from the animal world. Even within all of these species, we see variation mutations over time, including mankind, who, in the form of the colored races, mutated from the original neanderthal species of mankind. Many animal species are long extinct, while some new species continue to evolve, even to this day. And all of this sodium chloride form of life species mutations are quietly observed, manipulated and recorded, though without interference following the evolution of human beings, by our celestial supervisors.The spirit body Christ inhabited after his resurrection is known as the Morontia Form, and is a semi physical blueprint of our mortal body, and along with the spirit of God within our mind, comprises the mortal soul. This form can ONLY be obtained in the afterlife, to replace the Earth body we have left behind.
@@davidoverstreet2875 Well, that has to the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read. Are you in fact joking?
@@Mike-md7op actually, if you have common sense, it makes perfect sense. And no, I never joke about something as seriously important as the evolution of the species. And again, this is information that will be confirmed to you by angels in the afterlife.
There's a family friend of mine who is a geologist. They had a theory about the age of the earth but doesn't have any proof. Their personal theory is that if God created Adam and Eve as middle-aged adults instead of infants, then it stands to reason that God could create the world middle-aged as well. An interesting thought.
Like an artist and painting.
Because it still wouldn’t align with evidence we have of humans prior to the creation.
@RichardDuryea, I think he lied or have a memory lose when he said that in Genesis 12:4 Terah begat Abram at age of 130 years.. It has never said that in Genesis 12, but it says in Genesis 11:26 that Tehra was 70 years old when he begat Abram, Nahor and Haran..
He is unreliable, who can believe him now?
@@CAMPFelicity
I think he lied or have a memory lose when he said that in Genesis 12:4 Terah begat Abram at age of 130 years.. It has never said that in Genesis 12, but it says in Genesis 11:26 that Tehra was 70 years old when he begat Abram, Nahor and Haran..
He is unreliable, who can believe him now?
@@reynaldodavid2913Jo It also said Terah was 205 when he died, and seemingly after that Abram leaves his home, at 75 years old. 205-75=130.
Abraham was questioning being able to have a child at a hundred years old because he and Sarah had no kids at all whatsoever. So Abraham was questioning whether at 100 years old they would actually start having kids.
💯
Abraham did have a child at that time. Ishmael with Hagar. However :
Genesis 18:11 Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing.
Sarah was past the age of childbearing. We know a woman’s time for reproducing runs out long before a man’s. Abraham couldn’t have believed his time had run out, because after Sarah died years later, he gets married again and has six more sons. Since the Bible often only mentions the birth of sons, he might have also had some daughters. So, clearly he had plenty ability to reproduce. He was questioning Sarah's ability to have children not his own.
Well yeah but he does mention that in the video but he also mentions that most of the patriarchs didn't have children until after they were 100 years old I mean even Isaac didn't have Jacob until he was 60 That's not too far away from where Abraham was at this point I think that are the stronger point that he made was a little interpretation of Genesis 2 about the two becoming one flesh in fact, I think that's the single strongest argument that could be made against a literal interpretation
@@brick2392 Sorry, I am not completely clear on what you are trying to say. If you are referring to the ages most people "begot" somebody pre-flood and generations after the flood, we don't know when they had their firstborn. The "begots" throughout the Bible, are not necessarily their firstborn, but mostly the ones who are in the line of Noah and then in the line of Abraham to Jacob to Judah to David to Jesus. They may or may not have been the firstborn in the genealogy.
I also cannot figure out why you are pointing out that patriarchs didn't have children until they were older. That shows they could wait longer because they lived longer even several generations after the flood.
And one symbolic statement with an obvious meaning doesn't make the whole thing not literal. After all, Jesus makes reference to man and woman becoming one flesh as a way to demonstrate they are supposed to form an unbreakable bond and that God did not intend for people to get divorced.
Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
I hope that doesn't mean the teachings of Jesus are not literal or that Jesus is not literal.
@@farmtalk491 obviously I don't advocate for the literal teaching of two becoming one I'm just making a point when you start interpreting Genesis it's a slippery slope and you absolutely can't take the entire text. Literally word for word also my main point about the patriarchs Is that they had children well after 100 and I would have to say I disagree when they say begot That's their firstborn it's literally the first mention I mean literally the Bible mentions only males usually and it mentions the firstborn because of the significance also, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day I was just making a point that some people can interpret the text literally or non-literally I personally do not interpret Genesis literally and there's quite a lot of reasons why I mean in in the Bible where it talks about the four corners of the Earth I believe it's in Isaiah most people don't think the earth is a square or when it talks about the firmament in Isaiah most people don't believe there's a physical dome above us and at the Earth is flat I like what John Lennox teaches on the issue The Bible just doesn't say how old the Earth is and no matter which approach you take, you have to interpret it regardless
Use extreme caution when choosing what to accept literally and what to accept metaphorically. You are correct, metaphors are used. But there is usually a context that let's you know whether or not to use a literal interpretation.
It's almost like the bible was written by men with expectations of their reader based on assumptions subject to localisation and translational mutations.
@@Hoganply Yeah haha, I was trying to explain that to someone who said it was clearly stated in Romans 14 that women should be silent in the church and whoever disagrees is not accepted. I read the passage he quoted and immediately it struck me that my translation of it is different, as I had happened to read it a few days prior. Translation differences. That much can be explained to people, but to make a case about cultural and historical background playing a role is tougher. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue myself, I lean toward it's ok women to teach and preach even men, but the question is how exactly do we determine. Obviously the specific situation back then played a role. Women were uneducated and had unacceptable/un-Christian conduct. So that could've been said for two reasons - one, to keep order during that time of transition and two, for the same reasons Paul didn't immediately abolish slavery. The same way Paul teaches slaves how to act he also teaches women how to act, and for the same reasons. That seems VERY plausable to me. But again, I'm not a 100% sure on where I stand on this.
Exactly! It is, except for when it isn't. And we know when it isn't because a cosmic voice in our skulls reveals it as such.
@@fawazr That's not how that works. There is a historical or scientific or cultural context. But somehow your choice of words makes me suspicious that you don't really care.
1 John 1 proves that the creation account needs to be taken metaphorically
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." "and ALL that is in them"... that's a powerful statement. Exodus 20:11
There are two more possible explanations for Abraham's skepticism of having a child at age 100. He says that Sarah is 90 years old, but the genealogies before that only list the fathers. We don't know how old Abraham's mother was when he was born, or the mothers of any of the others who are mentioned in the lists. Likewise, the word "father" in Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean a literal father; it can also be used to mean "ancestor." In other words, a grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather, etc.
I agree we don't know what age the mother's were but obviously under 90 since Abraham thought women couldn't have children after a certain age. Romans 4:19 "And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead. When he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: he staggered not at the promis of God through unbelife; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able to perform. And therfore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
The literal translation of the phrase to describe the lineage is one would 'beget a son,' or his life brought forth a son. The word son is used in direct descendance in most examples of its usage. However, if you could find an example of its use in other forms, such as the use of grandchildren or more broadly of male descendants, then I could agree with your second assertion. As for your first one, I think the other reply gives proof enough to support this interpretation to be true.
@@luxither7354 What about when Jesus is called the "son of David"? Jesus wasn't literally David's son, he was merely a descendant.
@@hotwax9376 The copies of Matthew we often translate from are written in Greek: the term translated to son in Greek is often used to mean a more broad male offspring. However, we can use this as inferred evidence, as we can see that it was most likely a translated feature from the original Hebrew it was written in.
@@luxither7354 What about in the Old Testament when David is called the "father" of the various kings of Judah who were many generations removed from him? You can't say that this is a linguistic difference the New Testament, the OT was written in Hebrew rather than Greek.
First off, this is the first video I've watched of yours and it is really well done. From seeing what some of the titles are of your other videos it seems you are doing a lot of good.
Second, I used to go to church with you at Epicenter, so apparently I have at least met a famous person!
Thirdly, I believe you are my dear brother in Christ, and I hope, even though I don't know where you currently live we can strive in our respective spheres to further the cause of Christ. You are probably a more faithful Christian than I am.
I created a running commentary on various points in your video. I myself am a YEC, but I associate and do ministry with those whose view on Genesis more closely mirror yours.
2:19 You overlooked Genesis 6:3 where God says man will only live to 120 years. We see the life spans rapidly get less and less preceding Abraham. I am sure Abraham saw his peers only living a much shorter span and had reason to believe the same thing about his own life.
4:20 It was saying the whole earth, except the highest peaks. In my opinion, people who support theistic evolution yet also believe the Bible is true have the tendency to take a rather obvious statement and then overcomplicate it to serve their purposes.
4:49 Again, you are playing gymnastics with a clear text to prove your view. Love ya though!
5:00 If the flood was local why did God have Noah build a boat and put 2 of each animal on it? That would be pointless. Why not have him hike a hundred miles to where it wouldn't flood? You probably have another video explaining what you believe about Noah building a boat and the animals getting on it, I haven't seen that yet.
5:33 Young earth creationists do not say there is NO allegory or NO figures of speech. I believe the Bible should be interpreted in its historical grammatical context. If a parable is being told, that is interpreted as a parable, if zoomorphism is being used to describe God, we don't actually believe God is a hen (Matt. 23:37). John Walton, and other "Biblical evolutionists" (I made that word up just now) tend to caricature YECs' views in a similar way to what you are doing here.
5:46 This is clearly a figure of speech The Genesis narrative is described, by the Biblical author, as something that actually happened. Genealogies and ages are listed to even further emphasize the historicity of what is being said, that seems pretty obvious to me.
7:25 you bring up a valid perspective
9:13 although I don't agree with your position, it is a compelling argument. In Genesis 1:27 God makes man in his own image. If this doesn't have anything to do with being God's special creation to be in relationship with him, then what does it mean? Most things we have ever learned about being made in God's image would need to be walked back.
11:37 To me this is a weak argument. Again, historical grammatical interpretation. Jeremiah is clearly talking in allegory, where as the Genesis account poses as historical narrative.
12:50 John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis one gives an answer I agree with to this objection:
"Let there be light. It was proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures.54) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon."
14:11 Again, I disagree. Proverbs 12:10 says, "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." Therefore a man may subdue and rule over the animals and still be compassionate towards them
14:42 You disregard Genesis 9:3 at which point God gives man the right to kill and eat animals. Before that it, apparently was not the case.
15:52 again historical grammatical interpretation would lead anyone to believe David is using "heart" as a figure of speech, just as we still use it today.
18:01 Every single translation of the Bible into English says, "In the beginning". The people who make translations tend to be at the top of their field. Pretty sure at least one of them would have the wording you speak of if it were even remotely likely.
Thank you...
so pretty much your stating he's wrong and your right.
1. I don't think your explanation would result in Abraham laughing at God's suggestion that he would have a child at his age. Were I in Abraham's shoes and watching my ancestors die at rapidly shortening ages all around me, I would take God's word as a sign that perhaps He was going to increase lifespans again and I would probably be rejoicing. I would see the past generations quickly dying out as a sign of rapid deterioration and even a sign of the world ending especially if my own ancestors are alive to attest to the great ages of their fathers. This explanation also doesn't count for the fact that the ages specified don't seem like random numbers as we would expect with aging and seem to correspond more with theologically significant numbers. (7, 60, 12, etc. This is covered better in his Genesis 5 video.)
2 and 3. That's... what he said. And then the bird came back because, as was said 4 verses later, the waters were still on the face of the whole Earth. Either we need to conclude from this that the author of Genesis has severe short-term memory loss, or they're open to using language like "the whole Earth" non-literally. Since neither of us would believe the former, we conclude the latter is more likely. From there, it's just a question of _how_ non-literally. Granted I think this is one of the weaker points in the video as far as disproving YEC, but in terms of supporting theistic evolution I think it's a valid point.
4. While IP isn't directly addressing this point in the video, you make a valid argument in favor of a worldwide flood. However, it's not a conclusive one: there are definitely other ways to interpret this command. Perhaps God wanted to preserve the biodiversity of the area, especially if Eden (and the surrounding area) were a garden humanity was meant to nurture and tend to. Perhaps since livestock tended to be a representation of value in ancient times, God wanted Noah to have something of value to barter with the people in the land he ended up in. Either way though, I have yet to see a YEC produce good evidence that every animal comes from a 4000-year-old couple. Unfortunately, I think most YECs miss this point when they get excited about mitochondrial Eve, that if it can be shown all humans came from one ancestor several thousand years ago, a worldwide flood means that _every_ animal's ancestors should have come from two ancestors of their kind several thousand years ago. But I digress here: this isn't a video about science, this is about Biblical interpretation.
5. I agree with you here that I think IP is playing a semantics game here, his argument only goes to show that the chapters do contain non-literal statements. However, I'm not sure that this inherently justifies your claim that though the chapters do contain non-literal statements, the rest of the chapter is meant to be interpreted as a literal story. IP does have better content (like his Genesis 1 video) that goes into more detail on how the Creation story may be a story told to make a theological point and would've made sense when compared to other Near Eastern religious documents. Either way, it's an argument that only goes to show that yes, in fact, you cannot take the entire Bible "literally" because that would make no sense.
6 and 7. I'm pleased to be speaking to someone able to accept valid arguments against their position and point them out when they're made. Few people online are capable of this form of honesty. I'm not sure if the point about the Imago Dei was necessarily a response to the statement in the video but I don't want to pretend like I know exactly what the Imago Dei is myself so I'll skip past this point.
8. Though you still tout Genesis 1 as a historical narrative here which seems like begging the question, you do make a point of sorts. IP's argument requires that Jeremiah's allegory not use any form of hyperbole, but IP himself suggests that the Bible can use hyperbole at times. I would presume that IP is trying to go after a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible here though this is not a conclusive argument against YEC. It's very possible that Jeremiah is trying to be dramatic in saying that the Northern Kingdom has been "uncreated" with this allegory.
9. John Calvin's point seems to be (correct me if I am misstating it, older English writings are obviously worded differently from modern English) that God intentionally created the sun later to show that He is capable of lighting the universe without the help of the Sun and Moon. This is a fine interpretation, but you're arguing against one interpretation with another possible interpretation. I think IP's interpretation makes more sense from the perspective that the Bible is trying to say that God is giving order to the universe in Genesis 1 rather than creating it ex nihilo.
10. I doubt IP condones animal cruelty nor do I think God condones it, I think that what IP is trying to say is that the rulership God gives man over animals is not supposed to be one of benevolence the way God wishes for human rulership to be. Animals are not our equals and God has given us the right to use them for clothing and for meat.
11. I believe IP talks about this in the Genesis 9 video.
12. This is but one example given of the many provided, though I am not entirely sure that an ancient Israelite would've agreed that the word "heart" was meant figuratively. Many ancient people believed that the heart and/or the gut were the centers of emotional and rational thought before we better understood that the brain was the center of rational thought. (They weren't entirely wrong considering the gut contains a significant number of neurons to perform digestion and some have even suggested we humans have a "gut brain") The ancient Egyptians even believed the brain was a vestigial organ and would have it removed entirely during mummification. That being said I'm not going to stand here and boldly claim that every use of the word "heart" in the Old Testament was meant literally because of ancient beliefs regarding anatomy when I'm sure there are many uses that are better explained using the word to mean "soul" or "psyche" in a more figurative sense.
13. This is an argument from consensus and an argument from authority. Granted, it is a very compelling consensus given that it has existed over a long period of time, and sometimes an argument from a consensus of scholars is the best we can do when discussing philosophical, scientific, or theological truth. Even many apologetic arguments depend on an argument from the consensus of church leaders. However, I think you can see how this consensus may not be based in fact. And this is where I must issue a : Imagine trying to sell a Bible with that first verse changed... are you really going to fight with your potential buyers about the very first verse when they expect that verse to start with "In the beginning..." and there are much more important verses worth arguing about? If you happen to believe that everyone was a YEC at this time (a myth that IP also did a video on!) then other Bible translators probably would've _preferred_ to keep the classic beginning of the KJV rather than change something that people would a mountain out of a molehill of.
However the consensus was created, Christianity has had consensuses before which we would now disagree with. The consensus before Martin Luther was that the Catholic Church was the one true church, that the elements of the communion became God's literal body and blood during communion, and that purgatory was a real place you could get your relatives out of by paying a priest to pray on their behalf. The "church authorities" before Christ believed that the Messiah would come to purge the Romans from Israel and make Israel a great Kingdom as in the OT. And yet, I hold not one of these beliefs and I doubt you do either. I would say that the consensus is right a lot of the time, but is also very capable of getting something very wrong. We need to have the boldness to challenge these consensuses and reevaluate them when evidence points in a new direction.
My reasoning for evaluating your points was partially to see if what @pegasusjava69 was claiming is correct (that you were merely stating IP's opinions were wrong without ample reasoning) and though I found some of your points lacking I did find you managed to point out some flaws in IP's reasoning even if many of your objections were simply targeting points that I think were meant for those who claim to subscribe to a "totally literal" interpretation. This is perhaps a flaw in the selection of points that IP presented. Overall I don't find that the objections you've made undermine IP's overarching point and I still find his interpretation of Genesis to be an equally if not more valid interpretation than the YEC one, but I do appreciate that you've perhaps pointed out the flaws in his presentation as many times people make ineffective arguments because they compile a "counterargument soup" targeting many radical branches or strawmen of a belief (like the "totally literal interpretation of the Bible") without addressing the core of the belief.
Wow! I feel honored for such a well thought out response, not that you responded in order to honor me. I view Christians who take an old earth/evolutionary perspective as often choosing to interpret Scripture based on what the general consensus is scientifically. The problem I see with that is twofold. 1. Cosmology and origins of life is simply not a hard science (I'm thinking math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) As much as people who believe in the mainsteam explanations will demand it, they are not hard sciences. No one can prove the universe began 14.7 billion years ago, nor can anyone prove all life descended from a single living cell. Both young earth creationists and old earth evolutionists look at the same data set, but they are both using different presuppositions to interpret that data set. Young earth creationists are not denying the data set anymore than old earth/evolutionists are. The arguments I've heard from YECs, I believe, are more compelling than the counterparts'.
2. I think our attitude towards Scripture should be faith seeking understanding. I think we should seek to interpret Scripture in the historical-grammatical context, and trust, along with Jesus, that not a single jot or tittle shall pass away until all is accomplished. If we can turn 6 days into 14.7 billion years, and a flood that destroys the whole earth into an ANE phenomenon, what else can we fudge on? If someone in a white coat or with a PHD before their name says something opposed to Scripture, my first reaction should be, "Maybe I should see if there are any alternative explanations", rather than to change my view of Scripture with no pushback. That being said, I am sure many YECs get things wrong also, and probably some of the things old earth/ evolutionist Christians hold to may end up being right. In one way, I am glad there are Christians on both sides so that an inquirer can't really use the point to dismiss Christ. I like to say, "Well, I believe this, but my pastor believes this, either way, God made it." May you have a blessed day. @MajorTomFisher
@pegasusjava69 No, I don't think that was the intention, just to give plausible reasons/explanations to these questions. Both could be wrong, one could be right about a couple. Just answers to questions posed
When 2020 couldn't get any weirder, IP becomes a top tens list channel.
WatchMojoPhilosophy
Ha!
Where
According the Bible, looking at the words of Jesus there is lot comming to us. Also written in the book of Revelation. Heavy times are comming. Covid 19 is just the beginning and it has everything to do with te second comming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But He also encouraging us with the words:Don't be afraid, these things must happen
@@jeruzalem1 look at post melinnealism revelation
It is amazing how we try so hard to interpret the Word of God and still have many problems coming to a perfect conclusion. When I read the word, I pray so that the Holy Spirit reveals what I need to understand for the purpose of God. Everything else, is just a waste of time trying to explain what we our selves have a hard time understanding. When we use words like “it might, maybe, but, what if” and any other word, now instead of helping, it confuses more the small mind of ours. So the only thing I care about, is this. Love God with all of your heart, love your neighbor, accept his sacrifice and follow the rest of the commandments and you and I will succeed even with all the ugliness in the world. Let’s serve with purpose and honor our Creator and let’s stop trying to understand what can’t be understood.
love God and love people as ourselves that's Jesus' 2 commandments to simplify everything. Excellent.
Well... we don't need to know whether or not the Earth truly is 6000 years old, or whether Adam was the first man.
So I don't find confusion in that area problematic.
Plus, the state you're in when you're constantly digging, ready to learn more or be proven wrong, keeps you humble and supple. How God needs you.
We try so hard to interpret the word of god and still have many problems, problems arriving at a perfect conclusion, etc..
Makes one wonder if it really is the word of a god, doesn't it? Especially since it's supposed to be that particular god's personal message to us, and that that god wants all of us to understand it, to come to him, etc.
?
@@travisbicklepopsicle I've had a similar thought... but consider the mere act of seeking knowledge, digging deep and revising what you thought you knew for years (perhaps decades). It maintains in you a state of humility. Keeps you supple to the truth, and the only way to fully imbibe the truth is to be without a sense of ownership over it.
If the Bible truly is the word of God then no matter how many mistranslations there are, no matter the confusion, we'll always be humble and supple enough to seek out the original word - even if it takes a lifetime. No great loss if we never find out the full truth anyway, it's more important that we're humble than knowledgeable.
@@kwameoluwasomi yeah, true. Keep on learning 👍
I was always taught that the phrase "and the two shall become one flesh" was a metaphor for God authorizing the sexual relationship within marriage. Marriage first, then sex. Marriage being defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.
Ya. I interpreted it as procreation. I still do.
It may not metaphorically fit well with marriage but procreation.
Your child is you and your wife becoming one exact flesh!
That’s his point, you have to realize when metaphors are used
w
The human being wrote the prophecies of the Bible but is not the author.
DISPERSION: (Deutoronomy 64)
"And the Lord will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end"(NO OTHER PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN DISPERSED LIKE ISRAEL)
PRESERVATION (Isaiah 66)
"For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make will remain before me, says the Lord, so your offspring and your name will remain."
ISRAEL WILL BE A NATION AGAIN: (Ezekiel 36)
"And I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all lands, and bring you to your country."
(prophecy fullfilled after WW2)
I invite you to visit this channel of yotube to listen to the word of God,: Iglesia La Luz del Mundo - Ortodoxia
And I was taught it has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with man and woman joining as one flesh becoming what a are suppose to be. The ying to the yang.
While you haven’t convinced me that the young earth creationist view is incorrect, you have some excellent and thought provoking points. Thank you for your insight.
@@dissidentleathermonster
The earth was created in six thousand years, it is not six thousand years old. Just like a pen. A pen is created in one day, but it is not one day old. If truly the earth were to be six thousand, it says that Adam was created in the sixth day, therefore since the earth is six thousand, Adam would be living amongst us, there is a difference between in and is
I look forward to your video series on the Exodus! I hope you'll also make videos on Daniel and it's historicity.
ICHIGOAT!!!! Nice avi fullbringer arc? Cultured man underated Bleach arc lol
@Jonathan Sarfati I don't agree with all InspiringPhilosophy's opinions but this isn't attacking the historicity of Genesis. It is simply just bringing a contextual view so we see the literal meaning the Ancient Hebrews saw. I do literally believe God created the universe, but I also believe he brought order of of the chaos too.
I have been thinking a lot on the word “subdue” in Genesis. I had struggle with that being correlated with military conquest, but after pondering for a while I think that term is an interesting play on agriculture. We tend to use tools like sticks or tools to dig and strike the ground to make it useful. We yoke animals to plow fields, we chop down trees and vines to clear land for a safe and habitable living space.
It feels a bit aggressive.
Gods acts in Genesis seem to about taking chaos and making orderly so that life could thrive. Later on in the story God appoints humans to continue the subduing of chaos through agriculture and society.
The war interpretation goes too far to make the text about the eschatological war, in which the snake is killed and the end of the age harvest of the bread of life is in view or is the message of the text. Perhaps there is a hint of it, but the message is subjection and keeping down, or keeping under control. It is a message of stalemate rather than final victory. Or, better, increasing dominion over the natural forces of chaos and disorder.
The harvest at the end of the age when the weeds are uprooted and thrown into the fire and the wheat is gathered into the barn and the labour pains give way to the new creation and the beast is killed is not at odds with the message of progressive increasing control over chaos, with the aid of the seed of the woman, the the woman’s male, born to rule.
Man has the means and opportunity to rule the animals, but chooses not to, and he becomes the beast. Men become beasts, ruling each other instead of the animals. That story continues as God works towards reversing the direction, through the covenants, including the covenant of Noah made with the beasts and the New Covenant also made with the beasts (Hos. 2).
In the eschatological war the beast is killed but the beasts do not drop out of the picture, instead they are made harmless and vegetarian (e.g. Is. 11), the same as they were to be in Gen. 1. The snakes are defanged, but they are still around.
The eschatological narrative leads to Second Temple Israel as the beast killed, as the Fourth Beast of Dan. 7, as the kingdom destroyed along with the Second Temple in Dan. 9, and as the dragon in Revelation 12, which is ruled by the beast that rises from the Abyss in Rev. 11, as set out in Rev. 13.
The word to rule רדה (Radah) used in 1 Kings 5 : 16 and the context did not speak in any violent sense here it is "Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which *ruled over* the people that wrought in the work."
Surely Solomon's workers did not rule over his people in any harmful manner at the time of Solomon especially !! So why to suppose Genesis 1 : 28 the word rule over or have dominion over fish of the sea and the earth , is speaking in a harmful sense? So i just proved it doesnt necessarily have to mean that.
@@christfollower5713 Solomon's character in the Bible, and his rule in particular, is not the kind of rule that man was commissioned over the animals. Solomon was a polygynous king, ruling over other men, rather than the animals. He is taken to task about it following his death resulting in the divided kingdom, and in Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Solomon repeats the sin of Gen. 3 in 1 Kings 3, where he reached out for the knowledge of good and evil to judge others.
Many OT scholars take the same view but ascribe it more broadly to the Genesis account. Humans discovering clothing, subduing the earth as they move from a hunter/gatherer to a more agricultural way of life. Nothing divine about it.
Excellent point!
1. The ages of people after Adam gets incrementally less and less. Abraham is one of them. Notice he also marries his half-sister, which would later be forbidden under Moses' law. Obviously genetic purity lessened over time along with lifespans.
2. The waters were worldwide but taller mountains - created by the geographical upheaval caused by the flood - appeared in its cataclysmic duration.
3. Metaphor usages do not discount things being literal elsewhere. No one talks entirely in metaphor. In fact any talk about God has to be metaphorical because a Being subsisting beyond time and matter cannot be discussed without anthropomorphisms.
4. Creation was a miracle - God can order things as he wishes in whatever manner he pleases without having to subject himself to what we call scientific laws.
5. Trying to use reason where God is concerned is useless - 1 Corinthians 1:27. He purposefully uses stupidity to confound the wise.
6. God never said the earth was perfect (only very good) - God is perfect, if earth were perfect it wouldn't have fallen.
The gap theory is the best argument against the young earth and you ignored it.
1.) Even with “genetic purity”, the math doesn’t add up. Nobody lived to 900s years.
2.) The Waters were not worldwide, there’s no evidence of a single, global flood. It was likely a massive regional flood in the Middle East, of which there is plenty of evidence to substantiate.
3.) Correct. We need to distinguish between Metaphor vs. Literalism, Young-Earth Creationists who misunderstand that.
4.) Genesis 1/2 isn’t talking about a material creation. The world is much older than 6,000 years.
5.) God gave us brains to reason, and we are capable of applying that to the most complex passages and not warrant an unscientific belief like Young Earth Creationism.
@@deus_vult8111
1) The math does add up - James Ussher is just one of many who calculated the dates. I'll tell you what doesn't add up - 4 billion years
2) Every fossil you ever saw is evidence of a global flood. Organic matter typically deteriorates without a trace unless preserved - which is exactly what the planetary rapid shifting of sediments did, from Australia and Argentina to Siberia and Spain. Pretty much every single culture on earth has a flood myth, a phenomena that forced Carl Jung to make it a segment of the collective unconscious, because such a fact defies coincidence.
3) The question is - is the creation account being metaphorical? I don't think it is - nor did the author of Exodus, who states very blatantly that in six days the earth was created (Exodus 31:17), which neatly reflected the six days of work Israelites lived by.
@@CharlesDickens111 Fossils are not made of organic matter. It's calcium for heaven's sake.
1. Still doesn't add up to Abraham's reaction. He was QUESTIONING GOD. He wouldn't have done it if it was something he deemed just extremely unlikely.
2. Here you're reading things into the text. The challenge IP poses is exactly that.
3. Yet you don't write in zig-zag between literal and metaphorical. If there are significant metaphorical passages, then you can't claim the text is completely literal which is what IP is arguing against.
4. That's not a counter argument to what he said about the Hebraic word for creation.
5. Don't see what you're trying to do here as well.
6. Yes, and IP never said that either. He's going against the YEC , many of them believe that. Here you're actually agreeing with IP.
@@Joleyn-Joy And calcium deteriorates in a few years in normal conditions, but what a coincidence that so much calcium has been so tidily preserved - worldwide.
For the first "problem" presented, you have to take the flood, and its aftermath, into account. Your own chart showing the ancestors' ages makes a great point. After the flood, humans born after the flood started living shorter lives. In Psalm 90:10, the psalmist says, “The length of our days is seventy years-or eighty, if we have the strength.” This is perfectly consistent the Genesis narrative all the way back to Gen 1:1
The numbers were also originally higher. The Septuagint preserves the original numbers, which make Eber, who outlives Abraham in the Masoretic Text, die 406 years before Abraham's death because, for some reason, the Masoretic Text subtracts a hundred years from the age of each of the members of the line of Shem. Pre-Masoretic manuscripts and dating show that the Septuagint numbers are correct.
With the Septuagint numbers instead of the Masoretic ones, solving the problem is very easy. Abraham dies only 25 years younger than his father and grandfather. While this would not be a reason to be very happy during his death, it is clear that other people already lived shorter lives, so compared to other people of the era, Abraham was probably incredibly old. As for the idea that it is impossible for a man at 100 and a woman at 90 to have a child, it is clear that Abraham is not a descendant of firstborns only. His father had his oldest son, Haran, at seventy. While most of his earlier ancestors never had their son of the line of Abraham earlier than around 130, it is very likely that they had other sons or daughters at a much younger age. It is also possible that women lost their fertility earlier than men despite their longer lifespans. In that case, it would have still been unheard of for a man at 100 and a woman at 90 to not yet have any children. Abraham was still very much fertile, as he fathered many children after Sarah died with his concubine Keturah. Or maybe Abraham is not pointing out the age of infertility at all? Maybe he is just saying that a married couple of this age should already have children, yet Sarah's infertility, which is a birth defect, not anything associated with age, is keeping them from having children.
Might post a few times to help you out...
Firstly Abraham's response was that of a 100 year old man who was barren! They had clearly tried for many a decade to have children. So when he mentioned their ages it was more along the lines of: "Seriously? We've had our dreams of children come and go, our hope in barring children lost and have no faith that such a thing can happen after all these year... Please don't come make promises you can't keep." after all they would have prayed many times in those years for that.
His lack of belief was in having a child and not their age. So his punishment was fit for the sin, he spoke unbelief and was silenced till the birth of the child.
As for saying that the age of each person was merely representing something else is strange. But hey believe what you must. I choose to think God is rather specific about detail in everything. If His word is so important to him that everything will pass away except His word then I doubt he would just let some random numbers make their way into it.
But it reality those ages of each person were recorded fact, so I'd still rely upon them to as such.
The Flood, well yes at first glance this seems so. The whole earth was flooded as he said, evedence for this world wide flood is supported in archeology.
Yes sure after the 40 days of rain and the time past as discribed in the event when the ark came to rest on the mountain (ran a ground meaning the bottom of the ship came to rest on the ground) the water would still have been above the area where the landed. It simply just wasn't deep enough for the ship to float with all that cargo 😂
So yes even though some mountain tops could now be seen just popping up out the water does not mean the ground was dry enough to walk or live on yet. Hence the reason for sending out the dove, after all this would be his first time they experienced such an event. You'd think he would have asked God when the time to leave is right in stead of sending the dove out 3 times.
Not sure if you've seen what things are like after a local flood, my guess is that one lasting as long at the biblical version might take considerably longer for land to be viable again.
When it said the water dried from the earth it means just that... It didn't say All the water from All the earth. So if you reading a good story you pretty much understand it, right? You get the comedy, you get the seriousness, you get the tention, you get the sarcasm, you get what the saying, right? So if I tell you I'm like 40 years old you'd think I'm near or just over 40 but if I tell you I'm 40 then you'll think I'm 40?... So why would people alway try make something more or less out of the Bible...
No 7: wow well done almost had me, but yes you are right. Well almost, see it sais there was No death before sin. It doesn't say their was immortality before sin, nothing had died yet, animals were not carnivores yet, again studies show that many of them were herbivores once.
Only one tree was not to be eaten of, not 2 so sure we did most likely eat of the tree of life. If we were to carry on eating from that tree we would never die and continue to live in sin and then there would be no point to sending His Son Jesus.
No evidence has ever been supported to show the earth was flooded. That’s actually one of the biggest points made against the story of the ark. Nothing about the ark story is accurate or possible. And animals have always been some herbivores and some carnivore because we have evidence of that as well. No evidence shows that today’s carnivores were once herbivores. Even god himself contradicts himself many times in the stories in the Bible.
@DiscipleDave DotCom yeah.. the layers that are observed that we can dig or check out in the canyons that are plain to see with fossils that show no evidence of a flood because something like that would I’m fact leave behind things to be seen. Along with that your ark which could not of contained all those animals, bugs, and then what? They all survived reproduced and evolved into all the species-we have today that fast? And where was all the food for these animals kept? Elephants alone would need more food then they could store. What about all the shit? Did they just shovel that off the ship? No one or animal got a disease that whole time? Did the ark contain plants or seeds? Because all that vegetation a year submerged under salt water. Dead. Also the soil wouldn’t be able to support life for some time once the water went down. Also the bird that came back with a branch to show the water went down.. where did that come from because that’s not going to have survived the water. Also Noah couldn’t just look out the ship to see the water level? Lol had to send the birds. Also no fossil records on earth show a huge record of all these animals to exist in one area then spreading out into where they live today because you know they would need to exit the ark and then over time live and die on the land migrating to where they are today. That’s not a thing. Oh and the speed in which Noah would of needed to get the animals on the ship not possible. Or magically getting all the animals. And Insects. But yeah let’s move on to god. We don’t have to go very far for examples. The first few days creating everything.. let’s see he makes the heavens them earth the all the stars.. then a few days later makes the sun but.. the sun is a star so why wasn’t that popped into existence with all the other ones? Also is the sun was made until a few days later then there is no night and day cycle meaning no day one day two yet. Also if I remember correctly the moon wasn’t created until later either. But then a all powerful god needed rest after he was finished. Then we have the humans. Just two we started with right? So after eve and Adam get kicked out of the garden and have there kids. Where did all the other humans come from? The random hook ups never named for the kids. Also is Kane still alive? He was cursed right? Did everyone except Noah’s family die and the Juno started the human race again somehow? Oh wait Also god created the rainbow so he wouldn’t forget to never flood us again. How would he forget? He’s god. Also wouldn’t the rainbow already exist if there’s been rain and sun around this whole time? What about Abraham? Why did god need to test him four or five times to literally give him the same gift he already promised him the last several times he tested him? Or the fact god needed to come down and enter the town to see if there was a certain number of good doers before he nuked it. As if he couldn’t already all knowingly know? I mean the list really does keep going. Or how he plays favorites.
@DiscipleDave DotCom you guys hold on to gods magic is the answer every time lol just like it’s was Thor was angry so that’s why there thunder and lightning. Or the sun god raises so we must make the sacrifices so he keeps coming back. Just can’t accept it
The Gilgamesh flood story was handed down from the Sumerians who predated the Israelites by 8000 years. Their world may have been flooded, but their world was Mesopotamia, not the whole planet of which they had no understanding....their world was a flat disc with pillars supporting a dome.
@DiscipleDave DotCom Super Dave, they have psyc meds for schizophrenics who have auditory hallucinations. I pray to my God of positive thought that you will get your prescription.
"Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, 'Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child? Isn't it a little too soon to be thinking about kids?'"
@roasted pancakes 😱
@ASmithAllStars So simple that Noah reportedly lived another 350 years after the Flood (Gen 9:28), Abraham himself is said to have died at age 175, and a modern French woman lived to be 122 years old? Gen 6:3 more likely refers to how much longer God would "contend" (some interesting textual variants there) with man upon the earth, i.e., before sending the Flood, and not to hard-capping the human life span.
@ASmithAllStars No, we really don't. Abraham was born well after the Flood and lived significantly longer than 120 years. The first patriarch not to live beyond that supposed 'hard cap' was Joseph, who died at 110 (which ancient Egyptians considered a blessed old age btw). Moses might be the only one reported to have lived exactly 120 years, and the average 'biblical' life span continued to shrink. By the time of the united kingdom of Israel, man lives about 70 years, 80 if he is in great condition, according to Ps 90:10.
To come back around to your humorless initial reply, of course the text implies he thought he was too old to have a child at age 100, but not because he 'knew' God wasn't allowing human beings to live any longer than 120 years.
Against my better judgment, here's my reply. Sperm is viable from puberty until the man dies of old age. He continually produces it unlike women with a set number of eggs. Barring any accidents to his baby making parts, yes, men in their 90s can have children. Of course, back in Abraham's day no one knew this. Abraham was a brilliant scientist and mathematician in his own right which caused him to be run from Ur.
I guess it could mean that too, but later on Sarah also laughs and says that she's too old to become pregnant. That would suggest IMO that Abraham felt that she was too old and not too young.
“Implies, implies, implies.”
Stopped about 7 minutes in. If you are going to use literal reading of the Bible to debunk literal reading of the Bible, you can’t keep saying the text “implies” things it does not say.
Thank you Michael. I have always felt this way, but never had the knowledge to be able to explain this to my young earth family
Evolution is impossible. Your young earth family is right.
"That's a sick skateboard!"
"That's totally sick dude!"
Since I used "sick" as an adjective to mean "cool" or "awesome," when I say, my mother is very sick, I mean that my mother is very cool!
"Hur dur context!" I agree. A word can have multiple meanings, just like bara can have multiple meanings.
Just like language can be used figuratively (like in Jeremiah) and literally (like in Genesis).
@@lilchristuten7568 But why do you choose to take one verse figuratively, and another literally? When Paul says in Galatians 3:28 that "there is no male or female", doesn't that mean it's okay to be trans? When Jesus says in Matthew 19:12, "Some people are born eunuchs from the womb, some people are made into eunuchs by men, and some people make themselves into eunuchs for the the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven", doesn't that mean it's okay to be gay? The plain reading of the text does not lead to Conservative Evangelical culture-war teachings, unless you're reading your own bias into it.
@@ChristianCatboy
"Why do you choose to take one verse figuratively and another literally?"
Come on say it with me... CONTEXT.
Galatians 3:28 KJV
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
This verse very blatantly says what the context is. In Christ there is no difference between us in the eyes of God. Also if there is "no male and no female" then by definition there can be no trans.
A eunuch is not a gay man. A eunuch is primarily a man who has been castrated so that he is unable to produce children. In context of Matthew 19, a eunuch who has "made himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" is a man who has chosen to remain celibate/unmarried; and therefore unable to produce children, for the sake of focusing all his efforts on the kingdom of God.
Your questioning is completely illogical and has nothing at all to do with what is being spoken about.
@@lilchristuten7568 I don't know about that trans comment that the other guy made, but in terms of Genesis I do have a point on a literal translation.
Genesis 1:14 Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens
Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens
Genesis 1:17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens
Wouldn't this show that the sun, moon and stars are in the literal sky, beneath the waters above the firmament?
@@mrdoginabog5499
Yes
I'm confused why you did the calculation at 2:38 when in Gen 11:26 it states that by the time Terah was 70, he had fathered Abram, Nahor and Haran. One doesn't need to assume that Abram left Haran after Terah died.
wow...honestly, i used to really enjoy this channel, but i think it (the video) might be one of the worst i've seen. this is pretty unsettling given the source that sent me over here...
You might like my reply here: ruclips.net/video/4n6KA8FyTho/видео.html
v
The human being wrote the prophecies of the Bible but is not the author.
DISPERSION: (Deutoronomy 64)
"And the Lord will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end"(NO OTHER PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN DISPERSED LIKE ISRAEL)
PRESERVATION (Isaiah 66)
"For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make will remain before me, says the Lord, so your offspring and your name will remain."
ISRAEL WILL BE A NATION AGAIN: (Ezekiel 36)
"And I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all lands, and bring you to your country."
(prophecy fullfilled after WW2)
I invite you to visit this channel of yotube to listen to the word of God,: Iglesia La Luz del Mundo - Ortodoxia
I think we know why.
@@caleb.lindsay your right. I don't know how wise this man appears to be within the first couple sentences he spoke he was already wrong saying that two of each animal were on the ark when it's actually seven clean and two unclean and then his timeline is completely wrong I don't know if he did it himself or not but I did it it took me 2 hours just to go from the flood to Abram mainly because I never made a timeline graph like this before I haven't use Microsoft Office in 10 years since I was in school but anyways nahor part genesis 11:24 says he lives 900 years then has terah then live another hundred and 19 years the time between the flood and Abram is over 2000 years
For the first point, I feel like the emphasis was on Sarah. Like women stop being able to have kids before men do.
Book of Genesis is FACT. Please find below scientific/cosmological/archaeological/historical proof & explanation behind the Book of Genesis.
The actual scientific explanation for the 7 days of creation is something like this;
The universe is 7 days old at the point of creation( looking forward) and 13.8 billion years old (looking backwards at the point of creation). This is called space time dilation - the further you get from the point of creation - the older the age of the universe.
Cross section of the universe is as per NASA WMAP diagram.
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/060915_CMB_Timeline600.jpg
Gerald Schroeder PhD and Hugh Ross - Phd Astrophysicists have explained this further.
a)Gerald Schroeder has even given the rough mathematical formula for the age of the universe.
(and also the each day = x billion years long) (+/- factor of 10 error)
geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53
ruclips.net/video/GjtHqxhwNgk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/_RuIVCm7pNc/видео.html (diff between HughRoss & GeraldS is minimal. The differences - GS used Olam(modern Hebrew) vs yom )
b) Hugh Ross gives very detailed explanations on the frames of reference
God is talking from
i) Gen 1.1 - at the point of creation(1st day/2nd day/3rd day),
ii) Gen 1.2 from the surface of the earth
iii) Gen 1.3 - Let there be light - the atmosphere become transparent
iv) Age of man decreased from 1000 years to 120 years - Hugh Ross explains in his video how the explosion of the supernova about 100k years ago ( monoserotis ??) and that the cosmic radiation from this caused genetic degradation. this is why the age of the patriarchs decreased from 1000 years (adam to noah/shem) to 120ish around abraham. This radiation was x light years away and would have hit earth around the time of noah.
ruclips.net/video/JlGVqUZo83s/видео.html - the 2 great lights (sun and moon)
ruclips.net/video/SwNypNs0lW4/видео.html - testing genesis with science
God created the universe in the divine Hebrew language. When all the numerical value of Hebrew names of the elements/planets/etc are graphed against their properties - it consistently produces a straight line. By Prof Haim Shore
ruclips.net/video/noW-yHjaMVY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/QvKlP7hEo-Q/видео.html
The creation of Adam & Eve
After creation of Adam & eve, God entered the Sabbath/7th day
ruclips.net/video/UfAyRixVfmE/видео.html
Garden of Eden location is submerged between Persian gulf & straits of Ormuz
ruclips.net/video/oqyez-PXDiY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/76PWWNDaMb4/видео.html
Noahs Flood proof
Heres the physical proof of Noahs flood : 12k years ago a meteorite hit the Greenland Hiawatha Glacier and created a crater 30km in diameter.
ruclips.net/video/zfapz2F8Vz0/видео.html
It flooded the Americas to Middle east. It was regional flood & not global flood.
The sea level rose about a min of 50+ feet and low lying places settlements like sundaland(asia), black sea, Mediterranean basin were swallowed up by the sea. Africa was minimally affected.
Thats why you find wooly mammoths remains from Americas to Siberia frozen in ice and mud with partially digested food in its stomach. American megafauna was wiped out (camelops, lions, cheetahs)
Mammoth bones in Mexico - buried under 30feet of mud
www.geologyin.com/2019/12/over-800-mammoth-bones-discovered-in.html
Thats why Africa has wider genetic diversity than rest of the world. African genes stretch from Africa to India to Sentinelese ( andaman islands) to Papua new guinea + Australia & Japan(ainu).
But you dont find indigenous black population in Americas or Europe.
The Clovis people of the Americas suddenly went extinct.
ruclips.net/video/vTr3VdGlFr8/видео.html ( crater for impact site at greenland )
ruclips.net/video/hMTTFLiOwX0/видео.html
www.sciencealert.com/ancient-carvings-in-turkey-show-a-comet-hitting-earth-changing-civilisation-forever?fbclid=IwAR31PrxiKk1I3tl_ZPZ06sued-ApIEnaXPW--AyGvc-ptSiyWo8vG9XWlAw
Triggers for Noahs flood & 13k years of climate stability
The detailed science/data that documents the climate change over the last few million years. God truly tweaked the planet to enable us to live here. Tectonics, asteriod impacts etc that made the climate stable for the last 13k years for us to live in. The world we currently live in is a drop of stability in an otherwise highly unstable planet.
Also, 13k years ago...an asteroid impact at Greenland ( Hiawatha glacier) triggered noahs flood.
Noah got advance warning
ruclips.net/video/siKSz1GRUUU/видео.html
Noahs Ark by ron wyatt
ruclips.net/video/TXGqIP0716Q/видео.html (1985 news report)
ruclips.net/video/oQwfU7DvUyE/видео.html (ark location )
documents.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/noahsark-CIA.pdf
ruclips.net/video/1O8wGjwyS7o/видео.html ( anchor stones found )
ruclips.net/video/_zsqxjqS8hg/видео.html ( aerial overview)
Sodom and Gomorrah. ( see Ron wyatts videos)
The chemical analysis of the brimstone ( sulphur balls) @ near 98% purity ( white) vs volcanic sulphur which is only 45% purity (yellow)
A meteorite with high purity sulpur content vapourised/ionised the structures here. Theres melted sand, bone fragments and other proof
ruclips.net/video/tZKBHyIBrHA/видео.html
www.lifesitenews.com/news/archeologists-sodom-and-gomorrah-literally-destroyed-by-fire-and-brimstone?
Joseph, Moses and red sea crossing
ruclips.net/video/aBDbDeepyS4/видео.html (Josephs granary)
The santorini volcano was the trigger for the 10 biblical plagues.
(explained in the movie Exodus Decoded by James Cameron. Disregard the crossing site/mountain)
Theres archaeological &video proof of coral encrusted chariot wheels & bone in the Red Sea @ Nurweiba crossing between Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
ruclips.net/video/lSf0rOqJaSU/видео.html (Red sea crossing overview & land bridge topography)
ruclips.net/video/QeX966OVxwU/видео.html (red sea crossing site)
ruclips.net/video/Lzb4ekyX1kc/видео.html (Coral encrusted chariots wheel)
ruclips.net/video/vaN2acVMGC8/видео.html (Solomons pillar marking crossing sites 3k yrs old)
The parting of the red sea happened due to a strong easterly wind blowing @40mph + low tidal effect possibly due to tsunami & lunar position. Dr Gerald Schroeder quotes some studies done.
ruclips.net/video/8y-uiccIiSY/видео.html (Forbidden footage of actual location of Red Sea Crossing & Mt. Sinai - (melted sand at nurweiba beach 21:45)
Footage of Mount Sinai
The top of Mount Sinai/Mount Horeb ( Jebel al Lawz) in saudi arabia has melted & blackened rock. when you break it...the inside is red. Its the only mountain in the area to be black...rest are reddish.
ruclips.net/video/PE1W6sz24Dw/видео.html (Top of Sinai, altars,12 pillars, Elijahs cave)
ruclips.net/video/VgdUoNrwkxk/видео.html (overview )
ruclips.net/video/A2widAV9wiE/видео.html ( drone footage @ Sinai - split rock)
ruclips.net/video/TwCd4WQbSXM/видео.html&pbjreload=10 aerial view
ruclips.net/video/K-eSRcr9CWw/видео.html (Ron Wyatt)
ruclips.net/video/9ubKUip6pz0/видео.html Dr Kim pt 1
ruclips.net/video/52DKSvcZMPw/видео.html Dr Kim pt2
Apparition of Virgin Mary
ruclips.net/video/GQnKS7YUE7Q/видео.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Ivory Coast)
ruclips.net/video/0PPGuMmn6TQ/видео.html (Virgin Mary statue moving)
ruclips.net/video/tVU8bhbQInw/видео.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Egypt)
Eucharistic miracle..
ruclips.net/video/oogJ-cdi7yI/видео.html (Rome Reports)
ruclips.net/video/HIh5hRlbttU/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/qDiWc93Kp9k/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/whbzLYi7cyc/видео.html (Lanciano)
ruclips.net/video/6PJ8BORx1p8/видео.html
Incorruptible bodies of saints ( due to the Eucharist) - only happens in the Catholic church. No other religion has this miracle
ruclips.net/video/soCkftBBsBo/видео.html ( scientific evidence)
ruclips.net/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/видео.html (Padre Pio)
This guy doesn't understand scripture.
@@MH-oh8rn Or Hebrew. I couldn't help but cringe when he tried to define Hebrew or argue against the Hebrew writing style
Yeah, I would agree. The implication I get seems to be that Sarah was had reached an age at which most women had already passed menopause. Yet we know that men can (and often do) father children with much younger women well into their old age. (Just for one real-life example: my grandfather was 20 years older than my grandma, and when they had their first child together, he was 44 while she was 24. To put that in further perspective, he was only a year younger than my grandma's mother.) So while women lose the ability to become pregnant at a certain point, men generally don't lose the ability to impregnate women who are still menstruating.
+@@Raverraver9999
A BOOK could be written on the utter NONSENSE in this post - and I DO mean UTTER nonsense.
Hugh Ross is NOT a source of BIBLICAL, reliable material on ANYTHING doing with Creation, the Flood and early mankind. I would NOT trust him even to comprehend salvation for his attacks on the BIBLE encompass EVERY Biblical Traditional thought, and teaches it corruptly. YOUR claims from HIM are utterly false and incoherent.
"Incorruptible bodies of saints ( due to the Eucharist) - "
NOTHING at all to do with the Eucharist 0- try finding that anywhere in the BIBLE - AIN'T there. Its BLASPHEMY writ large.
"only happens in the Catholic church."
NOTHING Godly ONLY happens in the catholic church. It's traditions and orthodoxies are in many place not just UNSCRIPTURAL but ANTI-Scriptural.
"No other religion has this miracle"
Its NOT a miracle - it's a DECEPTION. Its TRULY no worth the time to even watrch the VIDEO - its DECEPTION and counter to the GOSPEL.
"ruclips.net/video/soCkftBBsBo/видео.html ( scientific evidence)"
Scientific Evidence of WHAT?
DO you UNDERSTAND the CONCEPT of EVIDENCE? It seems NOT!
ruclips.net/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/видео.html (Padre Pio)"
Talk about a list of almost every OCCULT sin that the BELIEVER is to reject and have NO part of - this list is pretty complete in this account of demons and ungodly activity, little of which can be confirmed to be even POSSIBLY from God.
Superstition and deception are itemized . . .
When GOD does a miracle - there's plenty of EVIDENCE for it.
I'm so glad this human mind who would not be able to create the universe, was able to explain the Bible to me. Where have you been my whole life? I now understand what's written in the book of life.
I have given you a thumbs up with the assumption you were mocking his lack of self awareness and further progression toward liberality. If not seek help. lol. You’ll be unsurprised that he’s a Catholic, which should be understood that he is a Roman propagandist even if he doesn’t know it. The Jesuits brought so much heresy into the Catholic education system that even if they got rid of Mary worship it would be a drop in the bucket at this point.
I believe in a young earth myself and think this video is entirely wrong about everything. However he does seem to be acting in good faith, so your tone is not the one I would have chosen.
@@viperstriker4728no it’s not. You denying an old earth is you being wrong about everything.
Being a theistic evolutionist has not only saved but strengthened my faith in god and our lord Jesus. So I don’t see why we can’t just agree to disagree
So if you disagree with me on baptism does that mean the Bible has no value to me
@@snopespeerreview
Amen!
Evolution: ‘By death, man came into the world
Bible: ‘By man, death came into the world’
Both cannot be right and I say let God be true and every man a liar.
@@buddy_132 For there to be life, there has to be death
@@lukemedcalf1670
If that were true life could never happen since you can’t have death without life. God is life, and everything in existence was created by him and for him.
theistic evolution is not evolution
Poor IP, somewhere caught in between the crossfire of dogmatic YEC's and atheists XD
Story of my life
@@InspiringPhilosophy I appreciate that you're willing to challenge the YEC's in your audience even if your channel suffers for it.
Hey IP I was wondering what happened to Your debate against AP?? About if God exist?
@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 It got delayed on account of AP’s health problems, It’s been rescheduled for January 20th.
Yep, asked for it though didn't ya. No compasion here.
Your Argument concerning the flood was especially unconvincing. For two reasons
1. You said since the top of the mountains were seen, it proves the entire earth wasn't covered by water.
But this is fallacious, because this simply means the peak of high mountains wasnt covered by the water. You cant use this as a spri g board to argue for a *regional* flood
2. You said since the water dried from the earth, proves a regional flood. (since the the world is currently covered by water)
But this too, is fallacious. Because when the bible says the water, its reffering to the flood. The water caused by it. Not every drop of water on the face of world. So you cant use it to imply the the flood was hyperbolic
3. Peter's interpretation of the event makes it clear, it was a global flood
Thank you for this post! I like IP, but many of his arguments, when it comes to OEC, theistic evolution, a regional flood, a figurative interpretation of Genesis, etc. are just eisegesis, him reading his own presuppositions into the scripture. He doesn’t seem to do that with scripture regarding the Gospel and salvation, as well as who God is, so that’s good.
Thank you for holding up your light in such a dark sad wretched place. I am so heart broken by this video. I really liked this teacher from what I knew, but.... Now I don't feel I can trust him. I have some mental issues and I just can't afford to listen to false teachers. This whole video made me cry so many times, I hate it with all my heart. This doesn't sit well in my Spirit. Every single point was Hitler sized deception and perversion. This hurt so much.
One doesn't even need to use deductive reasoning, or any kind of reasoning, to debunk the global flood claim since the evidence for it is insufficient enough to be dismissed out of hand.
@@Hoganply you are kidding, right? Ther evidence for a global flood is simply astonishing. You quite literally have to willingly be ignorant of it.
@@frosty_soda Absolutely right. We find fossils where they definitely don't belong, some times on mountain peaks. Fossilization just doesn't naturally happen, and the fact that most dinosaurs are fossilized (and they way they were fossilized) is just even more evidence of a global flood.
Here are my debunks of each of your points in order (the numbers do not correspond to the numbers in the video)
1. The aging of people quickened resulting in shorter lives, based on the narrowing of the gene pool. Life recently has only gotten longer because of modern medical advancements
2. The mountain tops were seen, however this does not mean that there was enough time for any plants to grow that would have provided nesting for the birds, also the mountains being seen
does not even mean that their peaks are above the water, just close.
3. The waters draining is in reference to the fact that they drained back to their presumable normal levels, or that they drained enough for the earth to be habitable again
4. The phrase "they shall become one flesh" is in reference to the fact that they become family, and that the offspring of them will be of one flesh, meaning lineage, family, etc.
5. God does not operate within the bounds of earth, it is very possible that decomposition was nonexistent before the curse.
6. You left out the part where they were kicked out of the garden and God said that the women would have pain in bearing children
7. It is only an idiom because Adam had been made immortal. You cannot use an idiom that didn't exist yet.
8. You can't use a habit of the Bible to denote what God will and will not have written
9. When we are talking about Creation when God says "all" of a particular thing He is laying the groundwork for the processes, not literally creating all of the certain creature or feature.
10. Scholars make many mistakes because we are human
11. If Adam was not the first why would God make him out of dust and then make Eve because he was alone? Genesis implies that man was originally intended to be a 1-of-a-kind creature
12. Why would God say 6 days if He did not mean 6 days. You have to look at the most likely scenario, not the possibility of a scenario that supports our claims
13. Jeremiah was comparing not directly relating the destruction of the kingdom to the Creation of the earth.
14. Days and Nights can exist if God decides it. We never claimed Creation was bound by Science or logic, because God is not bound by science or logic, He defines it however he chooses
15. If the sun and moon were not created by God where did they come from?
16. Humanity was to subdue the earth, because it was given to us FOR us by God
17. Taking a general term such as "subdue" and using every extent of it in every definition is a fallacy, because it was used more specifically in certain scenarios.
18. Hebrews 11:13 in the original text uses the term "ex nihilo" to reference God's creation and it literally means "out of nothing"
19. It is believed that the term "heart" was used for the core being of someone before the organ, and the organ was named after due to its necessity and importance.
20. I don't know what translation you used but Isaiah 65:18 says this (direct quote) "But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people
a joy." This does not say he created Jerusalem, it says He created them a rejoicing. As in he created the rejoicing, not the city itself.
21. Nations don't arise over natural processes but by the hand of humans, and God did create the nation of Israel by naming Jacob Israel, and earlier by promising Abraham to be a father of many
nations (in this case meaning people).
22. There was no such thing as a definite article in Hebrew, and no indefinite articles. They were the same
23. It is impossible for something to exist and be formless and void, that is an oxymoron.
24. Even if this was the case that the earth was already there, what about "formless and void" makes you think that there was already life or anything to be chaotic
25. If the God of the Bible was bound by our logic and universal rules, He would not be God
26. You gave no example of how the test indicates an extended period of time
Also can you really say that there are more plot holes in the idea of a young earth than in the idea that earth has been around for billions of years. Evolution is plagued by circular reasoning, and other fallacies, and contradictions to scientific laws that they hold to such as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things tend to disorder, for evolution things would have to actively build upon themselves and perfectly orchestrate new genetic information, which contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Three of the logical fallacies that evolution uses I noted in my video, on my yt channel (three points to discredit evolution)
So the believers in a god has the same problem as no believers in a god. How can something come to exist from nothing? So like but yet so different.
AMEN
Thank you for typing that out. I agree with just about all of it.
Adam and Eve were punished by death. Before they were walking with God, and if we think about Moses being with God his face turned into light then Adam and Eve were also light. Until they ate of the fruit and then they were naked to their shame.
Well said 😅
GOD bless you. I am afraid you havent understood these ten "problems" that i hope by the grace of GOD that i can explain.
10. Abraham wasnt saying its impossible for a 100 year old man and a 90 year old woman to have a child, he was talking about himself and Sarah. He literally had a kid at age 84 i believe but he had it with Hagar, a servant who was probably much younger than Sarah. Abraham also says, "And shall Sarah, who is 90 years old..." not "a 90 year old woman like Sarah", specifying on Sarah, which means that he was asking specifically about Sarah. Just because it doesnt make sense with the given information doesnt mean it isn't true, and we dont know the fertility of women at that era because the lifespan was decreasing so we cant use todays lifespan nor the pre-flood lifespan, since it's decreasing. And how is this a "top ten problems for young earth creationism"? It doesn't support old earth.
9. If you read the passage, it shows that the writer was speaking of the time the ark landed, then it goes back to explain in detail. Verse 6 says that "at the end of forty days" which means the 40 days and night that it was raining. It doesnt contradict at all. It's like Genesis 1 and 2, were there 2 creations? No its just restating what has occurred.
8. Just because one verse in Genesis 2 is metaphorical, doesnt mean the whole of Genesis is. You are saying because of one verse is metaphorical, then all of the Creation account shouldnt be taken seriously? Thats like saying because i got one question wrong on a test, then all of my test is wrong. What about the other verses? Literally most of Genesis is ought to be taken literally. Explain in Genesis 1 what "so the evening and the morning were the (first-sixth) day"? Is that metaphorical ? What does evening stand for then? Or morning?
7. So you're saying that death didnt enter into the world by sin? You have no evidence in the Bible to say that there was death before they sinned. Yeah they were mortal and had to eat from the Tree of Life to live forever but they didnt die so it doesnt disprove creationism, it actually supports it. If Adam and Eve had a few days alive, they wouldn't have died being mortal yet. But if the earth and creation took thousands of years, therefore Adam and Eve either would have been immortal, or lived at least 1000 years before the Fall which isnt supported.
6. In Genesis 2:4, it speaks of the generations of what? The heavens and earth. All the other 9 instances refer to a person, as decendants of those people, of Adam, Noah, sons of Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau and Jacob. In Genesis 2:4 it talks about the creatiom of the heavens and earth, not descendents or what goes after. And Genesis 2:7 says GOD formed man, not a man, and Genesis 1 is the creation account, what was made in 6 days, then Genesis 2:4 is talking about what happened in day six. There is no evidence in the Bible nor in archeology or anywhere ele that says that there were people before Adam. It's sad how you said that in Genesis 2:4 "probably" teaching the same idea as the other toledotes, so you base your truth on uncertainty to disprove something?
5. In Jeremiah 4:23-26 GOD is talking there, not Jeremiah. And by saying that GOD took a disordered cosmos and made it function properly, do you mean that there was already a made creation before the creation, that was destroyed? If so, that isnt supported in the Bible.
4. The light could have been another light source. And can GOD not make light without a source? In Revelation it speaks that we wont need a sun because GOD will be our Light source. And wait, youre saying that creationism not true because there can't be a sun a day after plants? But dont you believe the earth is old? Maybe that Creation took thousands of years? So a day is a thousand years no? So it took a thousand years for the sun in day 4 to exist after the plants in day 3? Thats more unbelievable than a day, right? And Genesis 1:14 isnt giving the sun and moon and stars a purpose, if so, they didnt have a purpose before? Why were they there then?
3. Genesis 1:28 is talking about the finished creation account, not your belief of people already existing and having dominion (or killing) animals. It can also apply agricultural work or taming. And if they had to kill animals, wouldmt they have clothes? But they were naked in the Garden of Eden? The earth wasn't chaotic before sin, GOD was given authority over mankind, to rule over it.
2. Bara means create, so make, it doesn't disprove creationism. Its obvious that GOD created the universe. And either way He had to start with nothing, right? Unless the earth was always there but thats not correct.
1. You said that the scholars said that it would "make more sense"? In what manner? More sense to support their claim? If so, thats changing the Word of GOD to one's convenience. And how does this disprove creationism?
By what i heard in the video, it sounds like you support theories like evolution, which i hope you don't because there is no evidence of such process. But i hope you learn more from GOD's Word from GOD, the author and not from theologians who can be wrong. GOD bless you!
I completely agree what he is saying in his video is absolute heresy at the least and nonsensical
Well said.
@@LetsTalkChristMinistries All glory be to GOD!
The theory of Macroevolution bears more physical evidence than the literal interpretation of Genesis does. Anthropology shows this.
@@xiokixou2017 😂
This further concludes that I absolutely know nothing. Thank you for this teaching brother. 🤝
Point 1. I read it differently, Sarai was barren for 100 years and now she will start to have children?...
Most people like to think that people were old at about 45 then lived another 55 years as an old decrepit person
Also, I can't remember the exact verse, but God literally said that after the flood he would only let man live to around a hundred twenty years, and we see in Abraham's genealogy how the ages of people went down drastically.
@@sam_shrek exactly. Genesis 6:3. People born before the decree didn't really have any limit. After, though, people had a significant decrease in the life span. This decree directly coincides with the contraction of life span.
The attributing of numbers to special meanings gets dangerous with mixing of gematria and kabbalah (pagan) mystical number practices.
This video is pretty garbage.
+@@sam_shrek
Geneticist John Sanford - Cornel professor . . . a former atheist and evolutionist - points out that anytime you see such a hockey stick graph as the ages of man produce when plotted shows a massive change in the environment - just as the flood would demonstrate.
Those that accurately wrote down the message of creation and the flood had NO idea their narrative would be used by a geneticist to validate the two sides of this coin - the radical change in environment and the rapid declination of ages - BUT there they are - correct in every respect as one would expect from SCRIPTURE.
Gen 6:3 "Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”"
"Also, I can't remember the exact verse, but God literally said that after the flood he would only let man live to around a hundred twenty years, and we see in Abraham's genealogy how the ages of people went down drastically."
@DiscipleDave DotCom could you refute every point for me, please?
I'm so glad to see someone talking about this subject. I've heard so many people who doubt the Bible because they were only exposed to Young Earth Creation. I've never noticed the ages in the genealogy either, that was super interesting!
There's many things he got wrong, here's a few, we know that sin and death began because of Adam:
Romans 5:12
King James Version
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
And we know that death comes from sin:
Romans 6:23
King James Version
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Sin and death started from the transgression of Adam.
Also your point about the tree of life is completely misinterpreted, the moment Adam ate the fruit of good and evil, he sinned, and death was his fate, so after being able to die after sinning, then God prevented Adam from eating of the tree of life to be immortal as he once was, he didin't need to eat it previously as he was already immortal.
Exposed lol. Read your Bible you fool!
I was old earth, billions of years all my life UNTIL I actually READ Genesis and let it say what it says.
the author here is a desperate circus clown...as are ALL who are obsessed with a religious book they CLAIM they dont believe but are certainly spending a LOT of time reading it lmao.
@@Platinum-Ninja Not sure that made any sense buddy
Really I've never met one in real life and it's the opposite that I've experienced. But when u take a video like this in a vacuum then sure it could shake you if you don't have understanding and critical thinking.
Was raised on heavy young earth material. Some of these scholars seemed very smart to me, a middling-intelligent guy. But I've always been open to an old, old earth because I understand how poetry works, and Genesis is clearly extremely poetic. Cool video.
I wish i was raised in biblical ye truth
Seems to be selling God a bit short think it can't be historical AND poetic.
@@itsamindgame9198 I didn't say it couldn't be both.
@@henrikibsen6258 Fair enough, but you specifically said it was the poetic aspect of Genesis that made you open to and old, old earth (i.e. deep time). A question I keep coming back to for those who maintain that the description of the creation week is not meant to mean normal days is just what exactly it would take in such an account to convey the concept of a normal day. I mean, if "evening, morning, Day One" and "evening, morning, Second Day" can't be taken as straightforward descriptions of normal days, it would seem that NOTHING would be accepted as saying normal days. That would be exemplar eisegesis.
@@itsamindgame9198 That's a good point. You'd probably have to steep yourself in Jewish history and the Hebrew language to distinguish whether the vibe is historical, poetic, symbolic, etc. But in English for example you could call a day a cycle, or you could call a year a cycle, or you could call doing the washing a cycle. I'm comfortable with a young earth though, it just doesn't make or break my faith in Christ.
I have to hand it to IP, you're probably the most intellectually honest Christian RUclips channel that I've come across. I realize that not every Christian is a YEC, but for many Atheists (especially on RUclips) it can seem like that is the vast majority. They tend to be the loudest voice of a small minority, so when we watch channels dedicated to debunking the claims of YEC, it can get lost in translation that they don't represent the views of all Christians. Anyway, sorry for the rant, just wanted to let you know I appreciate your content.
They aren't a small minority. I am a YEC and disagree with IP, but to say that YECs are the minority of believing Christians is ludicrous.
@z3k399 okay, maybe I should have specified the "majority of Christians that I've interacted with"... tbf that includes Catholics too (and I've heard there's some internal debate concerning whether they are Christians. I'm fine leaving that up to the individual reading this)
@@first3numbers No, YECs are a small minority. The Catholic Church, that holds the vast majority of all Christians, does not advocate a literal interpretation of the Bible, but a figurative one based on what we now consider the Speech-Act Theory. Your hyperliteralization of the Bible was considered a grievous heresy historically, and not a single Church Father or Church Doctor agrees with your interpretation, meaning the problem is not in Christian-sponsored scientific view that resulted in our current model of cosmology, but the problem is literally just You.
EDIT: None of the other churches that still matter teach a literal interpretation either, not the Lutherans, not the Anglicans, probably not the Eastern Orthodox either, except maybe the FSB-affiliated Russian Orthodox Church, though I doubt that one holds onto your interpretation either. In short, nobody beyond your little clique affiliates with your heresy.
@@first3numbers of the worldwide Christian population, young earth creationists are absolutely the minority, but not necessarily a small one.
@@jr8260 well I suppose if we assume every professed Christian is genuine and orthodox then you may be right.
It's pretty tough to have a regional flood that goes up to almost the top of mountains. Were there relatively dry areas probably but as water levels it's self it would be across the whole earth
I forgot all about the mountain argument until I read your comment. The Ark runs aground on mount Ararat and Noah releases the dove and it returned because there was no dry land. Mount Ararat has a current elevation of 16,854 feet so the only other land that would be exposed that the dove could reach would be any other geographic surface at an elevation of roughly 17,000 feet. so other then a few if any mountain tops their is still a whole lot of water. Look up "Land Sequences" These are the uniform layers of sediment found globally at the same elevations. The global fossil record supports this as well.
He twisted the story. If you study it says that god created the mountains and gullies for the waters to flow into! First earth was different than modern earth. That’s why the continent’s fit together like a puzzle. Even modern scientists know that at one time all the continents where connected. Learned that in high school 40ys ago
And if you’re going to spend 100 years, give or take, building an ark to save all the animals, migration would quickly become an appealing and obvious alternative in a regional flood.
+@@brucegillingham2793
Since the mountains INCLUDING Ararat (NOT where the ark landed by the way) were FORMED by the flood tectonics - its hardly rational to assume the depth of the water was 17,000 feet - Mountain building is continuous but v slowing today - it was accelerated during and after the flood - Everest has ocean floor marine limestone on its peak.
"I forgot all about the mountain argument until I read your comment. The Ark runs aground on mount Ararat and Noah releases the dove and it returned because there was no dry land. Mount Ararat has a current elevation of 16,854 feet so the only other land that would be exposed that the dove could reach would be any other geographic surface at an elevation of roughly 17,000 feet. so other then a few if any mountain tops their is still a whole lot of water. Look up "Land Sequences" These are the uniform layers of sediment found globally at the same elevations. The global fossil record supports this as well."
Those uniform sedimentary layers are the RESULT of the flood - NOTHING else could set semi-uniform layers across the globe.
And there is a LACK of uniformity in the sedimentary layers - many have been subject to upthrusting and tilting.
it’s also pretty tough to have a flood that masive in the first place!
I’d think that if God could create a flood out of literally nowhere he could contain it
The idea of a super old earth in billions of years however brings about the idea of death before the fall
What
I’ve heard IP argue that God created humans to subdue the earth. Note that “subdue” implies the earth was a world of chaos.
Humans are recent development. If human have lived for billions of years how come we still have only 8 billion people
@@goodman4093 we been around for hundreds of years. We kill disease kill, disasters kill. Not everyone has a big family. That's why we only have 8 billion
@@jasontrevorhaye
Ancestry will give you a clearer picture that humans are only recent . I don't think you can trace your ancestors to 100 000 years?
Jeremiah 4:23-26 is a very interesting one. You are correct in much of what you are saying. For instance, the same words, "tohu" and "bohu", are used here, as in Genesis 1:2. There are a few ways we could interpret this. #1 that Jeremiah is using figurative language and therefore Genesis 1 is figurative language which is the position you take. Or we could see it as Jeremiah using Genesis 1 in a figurative way to describe what is happening to Israel at that time. That the desolation to come upon Israel will be like the desolation there was before God formed all things. I definitely agree that much of this in Jeremiah 4 is figurative language because the verse itself forces us to go in that direction. However, to automatically assume that everything in Genesis 1 is figurative because Jeremiah uses it in a figurative sense regarding the nation of Israel is not going to guarantee an accurate interpretation. Do I necessarily believe it was a literal 6 days as in 6 24 hour periods? I'm a bit unsure on that one but I reserve judgement.
Hello brother. I am a creationist (not necessarily young earth), I love your work, and I like to think I'm rather open minded about following the Scripture wherever it leads. However, I am honestly unimpressed by these points.
But I gave it a like anyway
I'm a theistic evolutionist and I agree that some of these points aren't as impressing as I would've hoped. Love I.P. and all his work; I think the main issue is that he's not using other texts from that time and culture to base some of his arguments (as he usually does). Or maybe changing the title to address "literal" interpretation rather than young earth creationism.
Anyhow, God bless you for being an open minded follower of Jesus and I.P. for producing this content for our benefit :)
How are they unimpressive?
@@ea-tr1jh You want the list for each of them or just a general comment?
@@lorenzomurrone2430 Just list. And please don't insert words into the Bible. I already had another commenter today totally make stuff up and force the Bible to say things it did not... and then only a couple sentences later he bashed old earth creationists and theistic evolutions for doing what he perceived to be the same thing... the double standard was astounding. I don't want to deal with that again.
Wait up, regarding Adam, didn’t Jesus refer to him as the first man?
Yep! Genesis 5! Also read Luke chapter 3. Going by that timeline, humanity is only 6000ish years old. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Could the "earth" be older? I suppose so. But humanity? 100% not. Impossible. Unless God is wrong, which is impossible, which makes it impossible!
Wait a minute & they'll be telling us our Savior is a metaphor.
@2 Corinthians 4:7-11 yes, "For IN HIM dwells ALL The fullness of God". Jesus is God, all of Him. To veer from that is to open the door to all kinds of confusion.
Why are you people always assuming the worst? He is giving his own interpretation witch suits him the most age of the earth doesn't really matter that much
@@lukarekhviashvili1855 if it doesn't matter, why make assertions about it?
Obviously literary devices are used in Genesis, but I think the clear implication for the most part is that these things actually happened.
I agree
I appreciate this guys work on a lot of topics around apologetics but there are other topics where his reading of the Bible is just all over the map. He takes some massive liberties and leaps with the text that is just very troubling imo.
Just over an extended period of time that goes back a lot longer than just 5,000 years.
@@JohnDove-d8d If you bother to actually read the text, its lays out exact genealogy from Adam to Jesus and counting of years that lay out 4000 years from Adams to Jesus.
@@ExperienceEric Ok but that leaves out too many people. The entire world's population is older than 4,000 years. So we're not human? According to the Bible?
*No* .
Obviously Adam is considered the ancestor of all men if you go by the Book, and if you go by Scientific, the timeline goes back further than 4,000 years meaning Adam is in fact, far, far, far older than 4,000 years.
Number 6 - I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I do know that different translations render toledot as "account" (NAS) and "history" (NKJV). So, it would appear to me that since the usage here isn't translated uniformly, it's possible that toledot with "heavens and earth" rather than an actual person *could* indicate a different meaning for this particular verse.
The Jewish Tanak reads, "Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created." That's the beginning of verse 4, the Tanak separates it from the second half of the verse and so it starts, "When the LORD God created the heavens and the earth..."
You know there are other respected Biblical scholars that would challenge Mr. Walton. "Is probably..." ? He takes up an imaginary journey that would make everything clear to him. But that isn't very scholarly to me. Mr. Hesler also makes an imaginary description based on the assumed localized meaning of "toledot." When you don't adhere to a plain reading of scripture, then your guess is as good as anyone's. And plain reading is coupled with context. Not just the immediate passage, but the entire Bible.
Yeah. Many of IP’s arguments sounded weak to me.
The second toledot in Genesis 5:1-2 ties Genesis 1 and 2 together, so the second toledot literally contradicts his conclusions about the first toledot. LOL
I'm really appreciating how civil the comment section is despite how much people disagree 👍
1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Truth. People get too hung up on things that aren't salvation issues. Is it interesting to discuss? Of course! But I've seen people actually become enraged discussing things like this. At that point, Christians are letting the debate become a stumbling block.
Homo sapiens have walked the earth for around 200,000 years after evolving from lower forms of hominids. That’s the truth. There was no Adam, there was no eve. Read a science book for chrissakes and learn something
@@michaeljameson6468 you got any evidence that we come from fish and monkeys?
@@capstore393 Yes it’s called the DNA sequence. We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
@@capstore393 That we as human beings evolved from lower forms of life is a fact. All forms of life of a vote from lesser forms of life.
These are facts and I know they fly in the face of your little book of myths and legends but too bad.
The Age of the Earth is much more older than 6,000 years old. But the history of Humanity in Biblical times is around 6,000 years old.
Genesis 11:26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.
70, not 130
@Chad Andersoh that's a good point too. It's not just I'm 70 and she's 90 so "our ages are an issue" but that at that age we've been trying all our lives, now at 70 and 90 it will work out?
@Chad Andersoh I'm speculating with that, but a beautiful thing about the Bible is, when there is an apparent contradiction, if you have faith that the mistake is in your view and not the word, a discovery awaits like a buried treasure. Trying to fit the Bible into your world view instead of the other way around is a mistake. It's a habit that demonstrates more fear and respect for how society views you than for how you are viewed in the Lord's eyes.
In Genesis 6 v 3 God shortened the lives of men to 120 years.
So after Noah the lives of people where shorter, and that is why they couldn’t have children at the older age.
I trust the Septuagint here more than the Masoretic text which probably got corrupted by the Rabbis (former known as Pharisees). To disprove that Jesus is the Messiah, a High priest like Melchisedek, without father nor mother they just changed the lifespans, the dates when someone fathered a child etc. So they could construct that Melchisedek and Shem are the same person and that's why Abraham gave him thev tent, accepted him as higher and got blessed by Melchisedek.
@@thinkaboutthatok8129 He also talked about the ark resting on mount Ararat, it DID NOT say (to my knowledge) Ararat was the highest mountain. This means a wrong view/ understanding of that part after the flood.
“So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
1 Corinthians 15:45 NASB
Good job, IP! May God continue to bless you with wisdom and peace.
Wow! This is really good. It changed my mind. Thanks!
I am a yec and here are my arguments:
1. Abrahams laugh was probably laugh of joy not disbelief.
2.the flood: if the flood was regional than what was the point of the ark they would have just traveled if it was regional.
3. most yec's including me read the Bible litererelly witch means that we know when the Bible is being literal and poetic
4.when God finished creating everything he called it all very good and when you consider that our good is like filthy rags to God, Gods standard of good is much better than our standard of good ,therefore there could not be death before the fall the Bible even says by man came death.
5.genesis 2 is not a recap
6.if you read genesis 1 it is clear that it is 6 normal days you are trying to find the littlest evidence to support a long period of time God is not a God of confusion if it was a long period of time it would say so
7.all you need for day and night is a rotating planet orbiting a light source and that light source does not need to be the sun and there was a light source for the first days of creation then God created the sun
8.subdue usually means take over not really war conquest
9.bara does not always mean create out of nothing but it does mean that in genesis God made the universe and he did it out of nothing
10.the people who translated the Bible where no dummies they know the proper words to use and if the other words mean the same things we can believe the in the beginning was the proper sentence.
I am not trying to look down on your worldview, truly the heavens declare the glory of God.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this channel for this video, but I'm happy to see such comments like yours brother
i agree with you but its not god , its God .
Believing in YEC your essentially saying the Bible is false, you would have to disagree with all of science and all civilizations found older than 6000 years and you would have to say they all were actually more recent with no evidence.
It’s a conflict.
This guy gets it. Too many false equivalencies in this video. Pulling single metaphor and saying therefore we have the right to interpret this all as metaphor is dishonest, at best.
There are idioms. So in chapters that are literal history To take a few obvious idioms and claim , we can make an idiom, of anything we want . This is poor understanding of the English language, and juvenile thinking .
Inspiring Philosophy, this all seems solid. However, I would appreciate more debates, and to see these points critiqued to their fullest by YECs. Thanks for all the hard work you put in.
Debates likely would not yield any results. Even Dr. William Lane Craig says that his debates have never convinced anyone to switch sides. I told my sister who is a Christian to watch Dr. Craig's videos for good information. She adamantly refused because she said that Dr. Craig wasn't debating but he was arguing, and she would not change her mind that Dr. Craig debates people but doesn't fight with people. So if a Christian, who agrees with someone, absolutely refuses to even concede that someone is debating versus arguing, what hope is there of convincing them to change their mind on YEC?
About all you can really hope for, is to put out the information and let people choose to accept it or not.
GO to Creation.com and enter age of the earth - there are many many examples there that destroy this mythology. I THINK one of the links has 101 reasons why this is NOT so. Maybe my memory is failing me
Its NOT new, its recycled. Its also rejected by many or MOST Biblical creationists.
IT certianly seems at odds with the words of Jesus.
@@paulrobinson9318 ???
@@misterauctor7353
??
?? what?
@@paulrobinson9318 Or read what a scientist says and read scholar on this lol
Although I'm truly thankful IP is a Christian, and I believe he is a powerful intellect in the apologetics debates (much greater than I), etc., I expected a great deal more when I watched this. I don't care what the truth is; I just want the truth. I'm not someone who tries to protect a pet doctrine, as I'll change my position(s) on the spot if need be. I found myself continuously thinking, maybe he's starting out with old, weak arguments and will progress to the really good, powerful stuff, but those powerful arguments never came. Lots of non sequiturs, which was extremely surprising to me, knowing how great IP is at making such strong, logical arguments for everything else. Not a single point in the entire top 10 disproves YEC (I used to be an OEC). There's such a push from Christians to make the Bible mesh with mainstream, secular science that they're willing to be less logical in this area (and many others). "Literal" means "according to the literature". So someone can easily say they take a text "literally" and yet not mean it in a wooden, "literal" sense. Where the text is poetic, take it poetically. Where it's prophetic, take it prophetically. Where it needs to be taken in a wooden/literal sense, take it "woodenly" (c'mon, that's funny!). Ultimately, this isn't a salvation issue, so we have to show patience, kindness, respect, and love towards one another. Salvation is only found through Christ, and when we're hugging in eternity, none of us are going to be saying, "I told you so! You were wrong and I was right!" We're simply going to be glad we trusted in Jesus, and we might even feel ashamed that we put each other down over such things. Much love to you all, and keep going, IP. We need you fighting the good fight.
It is impossible to reconcile Middle Eastern myth and legend with science. Science based on obsevation of natural phenomena and the interrelationship of everything can never be reconciled with long disproved old writings whether or not they were meant literally or metaphorically. What I find most remarkable is that people use the science of the internat to reject science.
@@ianbeddowes5362 so you are an atheist?
@@ShaulaXNinja Of course. The truths of science and nature negate the fantasies of religion.
Whether Genesis is literal or not has been talked about since ancient Christianity. This isn’t something new to have been fitted in with mainstream media.
I used to be YEC but now I support an old Earth. Along with that evolution and everything else that follows.
Thank you so much. Your comment is wholesome and refreshing: a reminder of what is most essential in the Fight, Our Christ. God bless you, Friend.
Thank you this strengthened my faith.
When their appears to be a conflict between what is written and what is scientifically observed, it is always valuable to to make certain that we have properly understood what the Scriptures say. One method of this is linguistic analysis, a discipline I thoroughly enjoy. But this cannot be the end of our search for Scriptural meaning.
Moreover, as we examine the Scriptures to understand them, we must look beyond the specific Scripture we are examining for other Scriptures often clear up the exact matter that is at issue.
The age of the earth is not the vital issue and is not necessarily connected to the to the evolution/fiat creation theories. There is not way to establish with certainty when God created "the heavens and the earth." We know that some genealogies do not contain every generation, so that same principle could be applied to the early genealogies of Genesis. But what cannot be denied without overthrowing the gospel of Christ is that Adam was the first man made and that he stood in a unique relationship to the rest of humanity as our representative - that his conduct before God was applied to all of us. Romans 5 makes this clear.
Secondly, it cannot be easily denied that God's work of creation covered a time-span of 6 days as we normally think of days - periods of time approximately 24 hours long. When giving the law of the Sabbath, Moses gave the reason for it with these words, "For in six days, God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is." It cannot be denied that that is a summary of Genesis 1. Considering that, to Moses hearers, "heavens and the earth" would mean "everything but God," or "the universe," and that the law being referenced was a law about calendar days, we are compelled to take Moses words to imply that things went from nothing but God existing to God plus the entire universe existing in its regular form over a period of six roughly 24-hour periods.
Furthermore, that the basic from of creation came about, not by a succession of natural events, but by individual commands from God, we refer to Psalms which says, "He spoke and it came into being, He commanded and it stood frim." the "ex nihilo" nature of the biblical creation account is given in Hebrews 11, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." That later part is most important for it says that the visible universe was not brought into existence using things already in existence. It was not just a forming of a chaotic universe into and ordered one. The first few verses of the gospel of John firmly establish that this creation was accomplished through "The Word," and that nothing that has been brought into existence was brought into existence without The Word.
So, even though the linguistic analysis of the Genesis passages can render other meanings than "six-day creation event culminating in a single human couple," comparison with the rest of Scripture leaves us no other option.
But, we do not know just when that happened.
Agreed. We need to always check and make sure whatever we say or believe lines up with scripture.
and no the Bible does not teach 6000 old earth The stars were created not on the 4th day made is past tense in Genesis,
different from make or create hence proves the week is not literal
Genesus 1 31 Genesis 3 1 Genesis 5 1 prove made is something God already done 4th day God put lights in the firmament,does not say first created lights
This is God's creation week,not neccesarily a normal week
You don't ever see a plant growing and producing fruit in 1 day
Job mentions pleiades constellation which is 100m years old
God's sabbath day isn't literal for God,he has finished his new creation and no longer is creating new things even to this dayso why should the other days be literal.
Hence we can accept the Big Bang and old Earth
Adam and Eve were not immortal since tree of life is there
Why do snakes have poisonous fangs or other creatures like scorpions or why do venus fly traps have meat diet?
Genesis 1 31 "Very good" does not mean perfect this context bc how come Adam was not immortal if perfect is flawless?
Animals can not sin therefore Romans 8 applies to humankind
God said "let the Earth bring forth creatures"" never commands animal marriage and sexual immorality exists
Ephesians 5 11 God can not have the appearence of evil therefore animals can not sin and they can't commit sexual sin bc God can not tempt anyone to evil so predators aren't sinning when they kill each other God would have adressed the issue and said animal's are married but that doesn't happen,and he cant have the appearance of evil or tempt or command evil
Hence Theistic Evolution is possible predators are not corruption made by Adam,sin entered the world through Adam and death sin to all men,not animals,animals can not sin but die
For example when it says God created animals/beasts day 6 of Earth it can mean the beasts and all kinds(modern animals) have finished evolving before Adam and Eve.
There may have been land animals before day 6 but Day 6 did not start until all the animals seen today have evolved to one point before Adam.
Day 5 didn't start until whales appeared,so there may have been sharks before trees but Day 5 didn't start until the whales appeared 50m Years ago
Day 3 began,trees appeared until Day 4 began.
In that Day more constellations and lights formed that are seen in sky,such as Pleiades and more,until Day 5.
When it says Adam was first man,it does not say first man of all humanity,it could be first man of group of people/tribe or something similar.
Also Romans 8 20 evidence for death before fall,Adam rebelled on his own free will and he is creation,neither did Satan he only tempted Eve so God set up death before the fall,but not sin,Adam and Satan ,there was already death before the fall,so death would be a role on Earth until the new creation.
Though Adam pretty much made the frustration even worse for humans.
Though the diseases in evolution does not always come from Adam,when Job had diseases,God never blamed Adam and Eve for Job's diseases
Seemingly on Earth,diseases can be used when God decides someone's time for the afterlife,all beings with no understanding go to Heaven,David confirms "he will not go to me i will go to him" all beings no understanding go to Heaven.
Genesis 1:29 says the beasts also ate plants,however animals also eat each other,but they can not sin, venus fly traps eat meat,snakes as well,scorpions seemingly Genesis 1 29 refers to the food that beasts can also eat.
Adam never ate from tree of life,later in Genesis when it says "from the day you eat from the tree you will die."
It refers to spiritual death,not physical or loss of immortality.
Also theory Noah's flood could have been a flood in the Black Sea 7500 years ago but that's another topic.
It was not a global glood
Genesis 8 13 clearly indicates a regional flood,it says water dried off Earth but the Earth still has 70% water,it clearly refers regional area.
@@Angle98411
So are there any parts of the Bible you do believe, or are you REALLY smarter than the Holy Spirit and His revelation?
Talk about compromising the scriptures with the devil's nonsense.
You cannot even find evidence to support what you read from the truth of Scripture.
No. The issue is there are texts that contradict a literal reading of the text. That is all.
+@@SugoiEnglish1
That is MANIFESTLY untrue - where do you get this NONSENSE?
"No. The issue is there are texts that contradict a literal reading of the text. That is all."
Nothing i n SCRIPTURE contradicts a LITERAL reading of the textual account - NOTHING - and the REST of SCRIPTURE reinforces it.
YOU make a BLANKET statement of illiteracy without a shed of PROOF.
There are far bigger problems for the old earth creationists.
there really aren't.
Yep! I love the brother but these reasons were weak and I said that OEC definitely have way bigger problems if that’s the case
Exactly. He doesn't address the issues with OEC.
@@The_Scouts_Code Death before the fall of Adam isn't a problem?
I agree
With the passage explaining how the dove kept coming back because there was no we’re no land to rest on what they were talking about was that there was no vegetation; nothing to eat, so it came back to the arc until there was real land and not just empty mountains tops like where the arc rested. Also it was in total a year on the arc. The waters did cover the entire globe but then slowly drained away. The arc didn’t immediately get lodged into a mountain side. The passages describe it taking a while.
He came with an army of strawmen.
🔥
Genesis 1:9 specifically says "But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark." I thought you guys believed in a literal interpretation.
Does that mean you can't see mountain tops if you look down into the water? Or if they are exposed between the tides?@@keithlarrimore
"All the earth" refers to the entire globe but not necessarily to every square inch of ground. All people have two arms and two legs and two eyes, etc., but there are exceptions to this. "All" can mean literally all or it can mean all in a general sense, not an absolute sense. The waters covered the whole earth in a general sense. It allows for patches of land to show through.
The word was the waters aswaged however you spell it.
I always understood that Abrams departure was not meant to be chronological after Terah's death. This fits in with how the other lives and deaths in Genesis 5 are recorded. It doesn't explicitly say that Terah fathered Abram at 130 years old, and I always thought Abram could have left Haran before his father was dead.
The reason Abraham laughed at the idea of he and Sarah becoming parents, is because he saw the degeneration of the human condition in his own time. He probably knew scores of people who died of natural causes - before their parents, with old man Shem still walking around. He would have known he was weaker stuff than his own dad.
Hi~! I believe that hearing (reading) from the protagonist themselves in Gen 18: 9-15 will for sure give us enough context to reason why they laughed. Interpreting bible with bible is a great rule of thumb. I hope it helps. Gracefully also Issac the son's name means laughter.
All u have done here is make the Bible fit with ur belief rather than reading what it plainly says. This is ironic
The idea that people degenerated over the timeline of Genesis is a relatively novel exegetical idea. It's not stated anywhere in Scripture. The idea only arises as a result of medieval theologians trying to reconcile the bizarre ages cited in Genesis, after the numerological understanding of these ages was lost to time. It's only after people began interpreting the ages literalistically that they came to the conclusion that human lifespans declined gradually over time. So in other words, your argument is circular. You're starting from the presupposition that the events described in Genesis are all completely literal, and using a natural conclusion of that literalism to justify your presupposition that the events are completely literal.
That's not to say it isn't internally consistent. I'm not trying to say a circular argument must be false. There are plenty of cases where two true (but not obvious) things genuinely support each other. That's the case with so much about Jesus, and realizing that mutual and even circular support is not intrinsically falacious was a big part in overcoming my motivated skepticism and accepting that the Resurrection is historical fact. So, it's possible that the ages are literal. When I first converted, despite my education in natural sciences I was really inclined to take the same view. After all, if we can't trust their plain reading, what's the point of venerating these books in the first place?
But the literalist hypothesis is so strongly disconfirmed by physical evidence, and there's now scholarly research indicating that a numerological interpretation of the ages is more plausible. So I have to take the tropological view with respect to the ages, irrespective of Abraham. Abraham's incredulity at the idea of a one-hundred year-old man fathering children is just a tiny supporting detail for the tropological view. It's not the bedrock on which the theory stands. The bedrock would be the overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old planet and the biological phenomena associated with evolution by natural selection.
Toxically Masculine
Where’s the “overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old planet.” That’s news to me.
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” - Genesis 6:3, ESV
Doesn’t your theory contradict this passage?
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-”
Romans 5:12 NIV
And later in Romans 5:
“For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.”
Romans 5:17-18 NIV
Or this
“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 NIV
Seems as though we have a sort of lineage of sin brought from our two progenitors, Adam and Eve.
Great point. We can consider Man having a primeval ancestor separate from the question of a young or old earth.
@@jeremysmith7176 Amen
@@jeremysmith7176 Nonsense. Even if you interpreted the creation of man formed from the dust metaphorically, you leave no possibility for him coming from the flesh of a primate.
@@peterlangbroek3323 Let me restate my point. We can consider the question of the Earth's age separate from the question of are all humans the descendents of one individual.
@@jeremysmith7176 The two subjects are two branches from the same trunk- the attempt to conform Genesis 1-11 to modern scientific theories.
Good job. Really appreciate all the hours of studying and hard work you put in. Your commitment and passion is second to none. God bless
8. Talk about a stretch. Your argument is that because Kent Hovind said he believes the chapter "literally" that this a problem for the straightforwardness of other things stated?
Here's the thing, and its why cherrypicking verses causes trouble. There is explanatory context to the overall story elsewhere in the Bible that backs the story up. Exodus 20:11 is in the context of God reminding the Israelites of the weekly Sabbath and this verse goves the very specific reason as to why. God created everything in 6 days and rested the seventh and hallowed it. So by this verse we know that the creation week was a week, God himself literally said so.
Really looking forward to your videos about archaeological evidence for the Bible! 🤩
fr its gonna be lit!!
Can’t wait for the Exodus!!! Mar. 2021
There's a book by Titus Kennedy called Unearthing the bible, I'm reading it at the moment and it's really awesome I can really recommand it 👍
@@meeron-ny4qs I have that book, too! 😊
@@__.Sara.__ that is awesome 😁😁
IP, I really like your videos, all the work and research put into them, and how they help me think deeper and in different ways about topics! Two things to note though, at 4:21 just based on what you said, the waters could be over the face of the whole earth, in that all the earth is connected with the same flood water still, but as it goes down the mountains are beginning to show. One could even say waters being over the whole earth was hyperbole in a sense.
You go on to mention that the water drying up from the whole earth, if taken literally, should mean all the oceans and rivers should dry up. I would say, knowing the context, the waters are clearly talking about the flood waters, not all the water on the earth. For an example, if I have an aquarium in a room and I say, "Water spilled from my aquarium to the floor earlier today, but don't worry, all the water dried up." You don't freak out thinking my fish are all dead because the water in the aquarium dried up. You understand I'm letting you know the water that spilled dried up.
Not only that but, it seems like you chose to say that the author must be speaking in hyperbole when he says the water covered the whole earth, but you say it must be taken literally when he says all the waters dried up. One could just as easily say it could be taken as hyperbole that all the water dried up means that just a lot of water dried up, thus leaving oceans and the like intact.
Thank you again IP for doing the work you do!
Well spoken!
You have challenged my confidence in YEC. I’ll have to continue researching your and YEC’s claims. Whatever I’ll find the truth to be I am thankful to God and to you for the opportunity to research and know the truth.
I’m glad you are open to studying more.
10. Abraham had kids well after 100 yrs old. After the death of his wife in 2145AM (AM=Anno Mundi aka year of the world aka year of creation) Abraham remarried and had multiple children. Abraham was at least 137 yes old during this time. Him questioning if he could have children at 100 yrs old coupled with the fact that he indeed himself had children at and well after the age of 100 would imply that it was unorthodox and uncommon during that time for an old man to have kids and that it might be difficult at that age to raise a kid. Many in the Bible pose questions in this style/tone and while some imply impossibility (John 3:4), others simply imply an uncommonality (John 4:9). Oldest claimed father James E. Smith (U.S) was 101 yrs old in 1951 and more recently Ramjit Raghav in 2012 at age 96. Only 4 yrs older than when Abraham begged that question.
9. The cretaceous layer confirms the Biblical, Summerian, Egyptian and Aztec account of a worldwide flood. The biblical description of the earth is that of a flat earth. The surface area of my flat house can be flooded up to my kitchen table, the entire, "face" of my house is still flooded. It's all encompassing in that way. Gradually declining flood levels does not mean my house isn't still flooded and if a layer was to form all over my house one could only assume the event happened at the same time if not simultaneously because my house has a flat surface. Just saying.
8. When a man enters a woman carnally they become "one flesh". We know this because he is literally inside her and they are connected. Plus, women retain 100% of the DNA of every man that ejaculates in them. Male DNA has even been found in the brain. Looking at the use of the word "flesh" is simply a matter of context and depth. The same word in a text could have an all encompassing meaning. Gen 6:12 "all flesh had corrupted his way". We know that flesh corrupting his way is sin but it is also amalgamation (gene editing, gene splicing, dna sequencing, etc
.). The implicition of which fits hand in hand with Gen 2:25 "one flesh".
7. Not sure what that had to do with anything.
6. In Gen 10:5,20,31,32 the generations are mentioned after the fact.
5. Common sense would tell us that if God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void, then God created the earth without form and void. Gen 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them". That's exactly what that means. 6 literal days supported by the evening and the morning of each day (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). Gen 22:8 and John 1:29 both talk about lambs, one is literal the other is symbolic. Happens many times throughout the Bible. It doesnt mean that the symbolic should be used to literally explain the literal or else we'd be worshipping lambs. These tend to most definitely correlate in scripture though.
4. The Bible does not support the globe model
3. Any botanist, gardener, etc will tell you that sometimes you will have to subdue the vegetation to make it do what you want. Especially if it is in rich abundance. Gardener is indeed the first occupation in the Bible and this task is given to Adam in a garden God already planted which Adam did not have to subdue. By giving dominion God crowns Adam king of the earth and the different orders of being that inhabit it. Just like God has dominion over all things. It was a type of himself hence we are created in his image.
2. Inconclusive based on context of the biblical text
1. Conjecture
@טמוצ'ין בורג'יגין
“If you listen to constructive criticism, you will be at home among the wise. If you reject discipline, you only harm yourself; but if you listen to correction, you grow in understanding. Fear of the LORD teaches wisdom; humility precedes honor.” -Proverbs 15:31-33
@@sovereignhero9496 wow
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Hello! Can I please borrow your time and say some words?
First, I want to thank you for your videos. I've never seen such a profound analysis of Scripture. Things that made little sense before making much more sense after you've explained them, considering the biblical and ancient near eastern contexts.
Second, I want to ask for your forgiveness... When I first saw you're an evolutionist and have a playlist about Genesis, I automatically concluded you distort God's Word and make stupid interpretations like ''Well, it says it was created in 6 days, but a day is actually billions of years''. When I saw you posted this video, I was outraged. For some reason, I didn't even consider the option you actually have excellent arguments. Until I actually watched it. I was shocked.
Such an attitude is of pride and ignorance and prevents one from being exposed to the truth. I'm sorry before you and God for it.
If anyone is now reading it and haven't watched IP's videos out of a similar attitude, I can't recommend you enough to put your pride aside and watch them. They will shock you.
I'm a native Hebrew speaker, but for some reason, I've never realized what the text actually says to me - ''*When God began to* create...'', not ''In the beginning''. It's an excellent demonstration of the power Man's tradition has to distort God's Word.
Third, I have 2 questions for you:
1) It seems Exodus 20:8-11 clearly parallelizes between the regular work week and the creation week, thus it seems we have a good reason to believe we should take the Bible literally when it says the World was created in 6 regular days. But, I won't be surprised if you have a super-counter-argument... Do you?
2) How does the conventional history of the world fit with God's perfection, love, and goodness? How can a God of perfection create a world full of disease and death? How can a God of harmony create a system where everyone is enemies and rivals trying to kill each other? On the surface, it's a strong argument against theistic evolution, and the only answer I can think of is, ''Maybe there's no other way the universe can work. But, maybe there is. We don't know''. It's quite an unsatisfactory answer... Maybe you have a better answer?
Thanks for reading and answering. I pray for you and your ministry and thank God for these.
This is a good video. I personally hold a Young earth view because I think that makes the most sense. And I can rationalize it theologically and scientifically, so no need to jump through hoops. I easily, easily could be wrong, but these are my counter-arguments to the 10 arguments in this video 😃
10. Abraham didn’t mean it was literally physically impossible to have a kid at the age of 100. He had been married for 75 years “trying” to have a kid with Sarah, and it never happened. It could be read as “I’m 100 years old, and I’ve been trying for over 70 years to have a kid. How could it happen now, that I am so much older than when we began?”
9. I don’t see how the flood could be regional. There are so many verses that communicate that the whole earth was flooded. And Peter in the New Testament relates the flood to the coming judgment. Is the judgment local?
8. I don’t think anyone would seriously take every verse in Genesis 1-2 literally. They might say they do, but just in general. That’s a dumb argument lol
7. Genesis 3:22 is a good argument. But it also is self defeating. If man needed to continuously eat from the tree of life to live forever, then why does God need to stop them from eating it after they sin? It would just wear off like it did before sin. Adam and Eve probably never ate from the tree of life before they sinned, so God didn’t want them to eat from it afterwards, and live forever.
6. I don’t think Genesis 2 is a recap of chapter 1. I think chapter 1 is the overall outline, and chapter 2 is the detailed description, in which the rest of the story continues in the same way. And I therefore reject everything else he says about Adam being “selected”… the rest of this is really nonsense to me.
5. I don’t understand this argument. Couldn’t Jeremiah just as easily mean to show that the northern kingdom is in chaos and bareness, being the opposite of what God intended for them? Comparing it to genesis 1 would just be like saying “this is what it is like without God, just as the beginning was empty and void until the Lord stepped in”.
4. Good argument. But It doesn’t rule out the possibility that God could have been the light source for the first few days. Or had another light source.
3. First of all, “subdue and have dominion” easily could mean control and have authority. Second, the very next verse specifies what is for food. Why would God say (imply) “rule over and eat these animals” and then in the next verse say “now i give you plants for food”? Why not lump it all together and say rule over the plants and animals, and eat as you have dominion, or something like that. There’s clearly a difference between having dominion over and having food, and that’s clearly implied in the two verses.
2. Whether God created out of nothing has nothing to do with the age of the earth, at least no real significance. If the earth was there before Genesis 1, it was still barren and void, which means there was nothing to even measure age. So it wouldn’t matter anyway. When i hear age of the earth, I think age of life on the earth. Also with that, God clearly made everything out of nothing, because he is the uncaused first cause (Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16). Just because Genesis 1 doesn’t say he made it out of nothing doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. The rest of the Bible CLEARLY states God is the author of everything, including the universe and all that is in it. He made it, and it had to be out of nothing.
1. Same with the last argument. If you change it to “when” god made the heavens and earth, it literally wouldn’t change anything. Just the way you tell the story of HOW he made it. It doesn’t say when it happened, so it wouldn’t change when it happened.
Rationalize it scientifically? Explain please how you get around the universal constant of the speed of light and the estimation of distant galaxies. Some suggest science just estimates those distances, but they would need to be off by a factor of 100,000X at least to get anywhere near that light traveling that far in 6 to 14 thousand years
“I don’t care about facts, what about my feelings” - Every creationist
@@raymondgwinn7069 I believe when God said “let there be light” he didn’t wait 10 billion years for it to get there. He created it already there. He made the stars for recognizing time, so he created it to be ready to do so.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus i think you’re in the wrong place. This channel and all these comments believe in a creation based facts and reasoning. No one is basing their beliefs or “feelings” on emotions, but on evidence. Maybe you should not assume things because that’s a terrible assumption to make
@@timothyvenable3336 No I’m not. You don’t dictate where and what I comment on, keep your assumptions to yourself.
_Where’s your evidence to support god magically poofing everything into existence from nothing?_
You’ve made several unsupported claims on this thread about god. Yet you’ve given nothing to support them other than your personal feelings and beliefs.
Thanks for proving me right 😇
When a man and woman copulate, there is a transfer of cells and they in fact do become one. It's a phenomenon known as microchimerization. So it is possible that a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 is possible.
When we think we know more than God's word, we later find out every word in it is true.
I thought the same thing. That was one of the weaker points.
A man and a woman don't become one flesh, literally. You still use a metaphor.
@@robertc5325 I don't even know if I would call that a metaphor. Hyperbolic...maybe, but it is pretty clear what it is talking about. You cannot use that passage to justify a complete metaphorical interpretation of the whole passage.
@@robertc5325 Not true. No metaphors needed. Quite literally cells from the woman live in the man, and cells from the man live in the woman indefinitely. They have become one flesh with cells from their partner living inside of the other. This is literally them becoming one flesh. Meaning the man is no longer just a man's cells, and the woman is no longer just a woman's cells. Their flesh, though in two separate bodies is now identical in composition as they are genetically a part of each other. So if a married man walks up to you, you would be literally correct to address him as his and his wife's name, and vice versa for his wife, seeing as they are both housed in each body. The Bible is telling us stuff that science is just now finding out.
To become one flesh, you don't have to sew two different WHOLE bodies together. Parts will suffice to fulfill all of the definitions of the terms in "be one flesh," and the literal fusion of the two. To illustrate, you can merge two companies and they become one company, but they have a minimum of two locations now. Do we say that they are not literally the same company because they are in two locations? No, your logic isn't consistent here because the English language does not adopt your personal presuppositions on the terms, yet more universally accepted ones. You are confusing bodies with flesh is my only guess. The body is made of flesh, but flesh is not necessarily made of bodies. Flesh can be made up of parts of bodies too. They could just cut a piece of each other off, hold them together until it dries together and the phrase would be literally fulfilled.
Another example, say we find a way to chimerize animals together. If you pick up a slab of Porken (pork and chicken muscles that are uniformly fused together in a single animal prior to death) from the grocery store, would that be one flesh? Yes it would because there is an actual homogeneous physical union. So too then is the literal physical union of a man and a woman after copulation. The woman's flesh has become a part of the man's body, and his flesh has become part of hers. In his body they have become one flesh. In her body they have become one flesh. Plus the act of copulation is eluded to in the text you cite, "cleave unto his wife." You only cleave if you are being intimate or trying to shelter them. Since shelter isn't eluded to, what is the ultimate intimacy of husband and wife? I rest my case.
That's a huge stretch and i think you know it.
The waters can still be covering the whole earth while the mountain tops are visible. Go to the beach, wade out into the water up to your waist, and look down. You will see the bottom of the ocean. Same for the mountaintops here. They were underwater, but close enough to the surface to be seen.
No when it tells us the whole earth was covered it was. After the flood the whole earth shifted and plate tectonic happened. Mount Everest or mount Ararat where not as high as they are now .after the flood they became higher than before. That’s why on Mount Everest you find sea shells.
Also the waters aswaged or however you spell it hovind goes over it in his seminars.
The flood narrative qualifies that the flood covered all the high mountains.
Genesis 7:19 BSB
[19] Finally, the waters completely inundated the earth, so that all the high mountains under all the heavens were covered.
Keep in mind, and I had to beat this out of myself, that how the Earth was created is not the crux of Christianity. Christianity is not about if or if not God created the Earth with Evolution or not, it's about God coming down in the flesh to save us.
Sir Isaac Newton, 1642 - 1747
"About the times of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
What's that text from can you explain it
@@adrianencinas1121 not sure it matters considering Newton wasn't a believer
Yeah Newton rejected the Holy Trinity so you know whatever
Translation: conflict inspires the childish search for simplistic answers to complex questions.
+@@mr8282humble
The TRINITY did NOT exist as a teaching in CHRISTENDOM til 358 at the council of Constantinople. FUNNY they turned the WORLD upside down for CHRIST without the doctrine of the TRINITY!
"Yeah Newton rejected the Holy Trinity so you know whatever"
Being a TRINITARIAN has NO bearing on your being a CHRISTIAN or preaching correct doctrine.
There are 40 MILLION Onesness folk in the world today all loving Jesus as much as you do, if not more, and just as certain of their salvation.
I love the arrogance of modern scholars who deny the entirety of ancient linguistic scholarship that occurred within the ancient world.
Exactly.
Keep in mind that unless you can read hebrew, you're reading a translation. It's also old as can be and languages change. You're being extremely critical of a super old text that was translated many many years later. And that translation is now hundreds of years old.
Yeah, and he even ignored the fact that the text has changed repeatedly as seen by the archeological finds of 100-300 AD versions of the four gospels where jesus was close to a feminist, keeping many women (including courtesans and widows) close to him and treating them as equals to men. Very different from versions that were popular between 400 AD and 1850 AD (that viewed women in the same way as the quran).
@@angrydragonslayer
I an somewhat if a scholar of Biblcal history.
None of your post rings true.
While the HEBREW exists in two quite different forms is true there is not much factual variation
But the last authorities book in the NT was at the end of the first century.
Following that came a raft of fiction, heresy and utter nonsense.
Not worthy of the Christian church and NOT authored or endorsed by God.
Can you care a SINGLE authorities source for your claims?
@@angrydragonslayer
The various discovered NT texts are in all substantive ways exactly the same as we have today.
I think you are quite confused about both inspiration and transmission of Scripture
@@paulrobinson9318 that's funny, using a word created by the orthodoxy to discredit the orthodoxy
As for sources, if i were to follow your premise that anything after 100 AD is "heresy", all current christian churches would be heretical so i just won't bother
+@@angrydragonslayer
Really" Did you think before posting that nonsense?
" @Paul Robinson that's funny, using a word created by the orthodoxy to discredit the orthodoxy"
Define 'the' otrhodoxy . . .
"As for sources, if i were to follow your premise that anything after 100 AD is "heresy","
is that the way I put it or are you putting words in my mouth to make a case?
"all current christian churches would be heretical so i just won't bother "
That of course is utter rubbish - almost all GODLY churches constrain their INSPIRED works to the standard 66 books with a variation or two.
YOUR claim that inspired books - Books we can look to with certainty and agree upon for perfect examples of GOD's relationship with man need to be supplemented with fantasy and fiction and imaginary events - is NONSENSE.
WHO besides YOU has that opinion? OK - I understand some small mid-eastern sects have added some books for their own CULTURE - books NEVER accepted by ANY NT Christian council of teacher - but they are NOT SCRIPTURE any more than Alice in wonderland is.
I have TAUGHT Church history - YOU tell me WHEN those books were accepted by the mainstream Christian CHURCH as inspired . . . OR any serious Bible scholar today who accepts them . . .
They are like the many SDA books supposedly but not FACTUALLY written By E G WHITE - using CHRISTIAN words but NOT teaching Christian doctrines. Best considered fiction.
I'll wait.
There are many old earth creationists who love God and revere the Bible.
I acctully thought they would make me rethink creationism, but I think they just made my faith in it stronger. I'm gonna need somthing more solid then that.
I agree. I thought there were some good points, but they also cause many more problems. Also, some points ignored other truths such as exodus 20:11.
Plus, I think the scientific evidence in favor of a young earth is growing rapidly.
There is a high correlation between scientists who believe the earth is old, believe humans are causing catastrophic global warming, and thought the vax worked. I disagree with all of them.
You missed the point of the video! The entire video is an argument FOR creationism and AGAINST "young-earth creationism" on the grounds that it is unbiblical!
I understand that. I guess I just merged old earth in with Darwinism, that's where the idea originates from. I guess I shouldn't do that, but they are indistinguishable to me.
If the point of the whole bible is to re-establish connection and relationship with God through Jesus Christ, why not ask Him yourself what the truth is? Instead of listening to what everyone else says, why not ask Him if your faith is absolutely required to be 100 percent a literal interpretation of the bible or if perhaps some nuance is indeed required.
As an aside, why does Jesus refer to Herod as fox yet nobody thinks Herod was indeed a fox? Why is Jesus allowed to teach using stories and parables to explain deeper messages, yet the Old Testament is not granted the same literary lenience?
Is it fair to expect a collection of books that predate the modern concept of science to be 100% historically accurate and scientific at all times and in all circumstances?
Could it be that there is more to truth than a story needing to be historically and scientifically accurate? Is there not deep wisdom and truth in a parable, even though it's a story constructed with the sole purpose of transferring fundamental truth across generations?
If you are a legalist and therefore a Pharisee, the answer is no. For the Pharisee, the bible must absolutely be 100 percent correct because their whole salvation is based on religious law instead of relationship with Christ. Jesus Himself took great pains to point out that law without relationship, compassion, humility and humanity is heartless.
Why does it never occur to modern Pharisees, who spend so much time shrieking about the devil being under every bush, that the only beings more legalistic than themselves are the very demons they claim to be aligned against?
Did Jesus not repeatedly point out that the legalistic attitude of the Pharisee is in league with the demonic?
But if your faith is based on an actual relationship with God through Jesus Christ, then the accuracy of the bible in all situations and in all circumstances is not so critical. That's because if the bible vanished completely, the relationship would remain.
The relationship is not dependent on the book. The point of the book is to help explain the relationship.
@@globallatitude-dmacorporat5886 you don't have to believe it if you don't what to. Sciance supports the Bible and other historians back it up also. I think our God is big enough to use real life to teach his lessons, he could use a fictional story but why do that when he can just make it happen in real life. Jesus used practical examples that people could understand to explaine things like salvation, and the stories and parables could have easily happen in life too. The Bible is a collection of stories of real people going through life with God or some times running and disobeying him. The stories are about the relationship with him and how to make that relationship thrive. The Bible could go away and we could still build that relationship but Why not use his word to better understand him. Unless it's not his word and it's all made up as dawinisam would suggest.
This video shouldn’t be called “top ten problems for biblical creationists” but “top ten verses to twist scripture to align with my preconceived ideas.”
Do you BELIVE in God
Basically. The age of the earth is not a salvation issue, but I hope that IP doesn’t do this with salvation and who God is.
Interesting takes, but for #7, where mortality may have already been present before the fall - how do you reconcile that with Romans 5:12? Genuinely curious.
I agree its not reconcilable. my bigger problem with this list is, its all been addressed by YEC. I find it frustrating that i have yet to have found a good discussion from one of my brother's in Christ, who beleives in an old earth, that addresses the arguments YEC research has presented.
@@benjaminwatt2436 everything they say just like this video seems to be speculation without reading context
It's possible that Romans 5:12 is referring to spiritual death because of Adam's disobedience, and not the first death, which is death of the physical body
With this kind of hermeneutics and how subjective it is, I feel empowered to employ the same interpretive methods to modern "science" textbooks to fit whatever ideas I please! That way I can accept the "science" without actually changing my paradigm.
'They don't *really* mean millions of years, they just mean a long time, which in my paradigm must mean a few thousand years...'
'They don't *really* mean creatures evolved over time, that's just a metaphor for societal and technological advancements throughout history...'
'They don't *really* mean the sun is a burning gaseous orb in a vacuum ... That doesn't even work! It must be a metaphor for something...'
Except that science is making an outright and direct claim to be investigating literal, physical facts.
Ok, now sew yourself with your wife
Perfect! That is the perfect response to this heretical teaching. Thank you!
Yes, I love interpreting two totally separate genres of literature with the exact same techniques with no regard for authorial intent or cultural context!
@@gerbiljohnson8190 The Bible incorporates multiple genres, it's not all poetry and it's not all history or anything else. Regarding the authorial intent and cultural context of the scriptures, rather than interpreting them however is most convenient to fit our paradigm (like believing in evolution) was *exactly* my point. No one would read Genesis and suppose the things suggested in this video unless they felt like they had to in order to make sense of it based on their preconceived ideas about creation before opening the text.
I'll find this out when I'm dead. God bless.
Just a reminder of the centrality of the cross in bible. The creation account should, as with all scripture, be viewed/interpreted in light of the cross. Any argument that tends to undermine and not magnify the cross should be rejected.
Explain how this does any of that
@@marvalice3455
I believe that this video is making a very good point to all those souls who are slightly more intelligent than an average folk and has looked into the evidence for the earth being old and the evidence for the Big bang and evolution and can no longer deny it as rubbish like simple minded people do. So this video is mostly for them which explains that you dont have the ultimatum before you, you dont have to choose either God OR science, no, you can and should choose both God and science since they do not contradict each other.
@@nikokapanen82 exactly!
I'm a profoundly curious person. I'm compelled to look into everything and see what the evidence is. I'm personally convinced that both the world is extremely old, but that there is also something more than the mundane physical reality.
@@nikokapanen82 though I prefer not to make value judgements against people who put their priorities in other things. sure, a lot of people are really dumb, but more people are just more concerned about their own lives than they are about science and philosophy, and the fact that they don't put as much thought into it as I do doesn't make them less smart, just a person with a different focus.
@@marvalice3455 YECs are the ones who put emphasis on literal 7-day mythology while leaving the Cross as a detail. Christianity is all about dinosaurs to them.
The example of Genesis 1:1 you presented makes perfect sense, seeing that God can take "nothing and make something", as in, redeem and restore what is chaotic.
God bless you, brother. Love your channel.
Exodus 20:11 KJV 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. Before these literal six days of creation and the seventh day of rest (that seventh day of rest was not millions or billions of years) Romans 5:12 KJV Wherefore, as by one man ( Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. There was no death before Adam's original sin...no millions of years of disease and death before Adam. Believing in death before original sin is not scriptural.
4christ498. Your statement just ate itself alive. What is your point?
God doesn’t need something like nothing to take it.
@@djkostya76 Who said God needed anything?
You did. You said " God can take nothing" @@iConquis4Christ
The dove's flight covered every square foot of the whole earth and the dove then came back to report! Holy feck, that dove could travel!!! 🤣😂
I’m not defending the young earth theory (I actually agree with you). However, Abraham’s father didn’t have him at 130 years old. The genealogy from Shem to Abraham is found in chapter 11:10-32, and we read that “Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram...”.
I do believe the earth is young. But that aside Terah most likely didn't have triplets, right? Abram was most likely born last.
Terah, the father of Abraham was born in 1878AM (AM=Anno Mundi aka year of the world aka year of creation) (Gen11:24) and is the 10th generation from Noah. Terah lived 205 yrs (Gen11:32) and died in 2083AM. That same year, Abraham is called by God to leave his father's house (Acts7:4). Abraham is 75 yrs old when God calls him (Gen12:4) which means he was born in 2008AM, 2 years after Noah died. Terah was 130 yrs old when Abraham is born.
@@sovereignhero9496 Gen 11:24 is about Terah's father Nahor (its not about Abraham). The verse says that Nahor lived 29 years and begat Terah. Then verse 25 says that Nahor lived for another 119 years after Terah was born. Then verse 26 says that Terah lived (from the time that Nahor begat him in verse 24) for 70 years when he begat Abraham.
Acts 7:4 says that God called Abraham out of his father's house (meaning he was still alive when Abraham was called). It was sometime after he went into the land of Canaan that his father died, and he had his body moved into the promised land to be buried. The Scriptures never say how long Abraham had been in the land, and nothing in Acts 7:4 implies that he died the year that Abraham was called. Actually, the verse says the opposite: Abraham was called into the land, and then his father died.
@@scottpostma6392 But you're going off of assumptions. The text clearly says Terah lived 70 years and then begat Abram, Nahor (named after his grandfather), and Haran. There's nothing else written in the Scriptures that suggests they were born at different times. So the logical conclusion, based solely on what is revealed in the text itself, is that they were either triplets, or Terah had 3 wives (there's no mention of wives until Abram & Nahor take wives in 7:29. Also, we know that there is indeed Biblical precedent for polygamy (remember, Jacob had 4 wives). Either way, the text clearly says that Terah was 70 when he begat 3 sons, and Abram is listed first.
@@JasinBoggs Gen 11:24 is simply a timestamp based on the chronology of the Bible to the year 1875AM when Terah was born. Simple math from Adam to Noah and Noah to Terah. Let's start from Act 7:2; "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran". Clear enough right? Act 7:3 "Get thee out of the country.....into the land which I shall shew thee". Also pretty clear. Act 7:4 "Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans (Mesopotamia) and dwelt in Charran (Haran) AND FROM THENCE (meaning after) WHEN HIS FATHER WAS DEAD (meaning WHEN IT HAPPENED) he removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell (Land of Canaan)". Abraham was 75 yrs old when he left Haran (Gen 12:4), Terah died at the age of 205 yrs old (Gen 11:32). If Terah had Abraham at 70 yrs old, Abraham would have to be 135 yrs old in the year of his father's death (2083AM) 60 yrs older then when God would have called him.
I started my religious view when I heard about the Lake Missoula flood. The fun part is when I get into discussions about the flood. They say the same things that the geological community said in the 1920s.
I'm up for it . Let's go🤔
3:40 The very tips of the mountains could be seen protruding out of the water (and possible the tips were underwater, but just by a few feet, effectively making them visible above water. There has to be a reason we find marine life on mountaintops all over the world...
Because mountain tops used to be seafloors.
@@ea-tr1jh shhhh.... you'll ruin their fantasy LOL
@@ea-tr1jh all fossils would be absolutely demolished in the creation of mountains by that logic, not perfectly intact like they are found
Mountains are supposedly created with such force it mixes countless different soils together as one, similar to the effects seen after an ice age
So fossils would be brittle dust mixed in with the other soil if your argument was true, but there are not suggesting they become fossilized on the mountain top, ie during a flood
@@life-live- And what is your source for your claim that they would be demolished?
What does that symbol mean in your circle pic thing? It looks like the pentagram goat lost it’s horns. Does it have anything to do with that?
How can it be an old earth theory? Death didn’t precede Adam and Eve’s fall. It can’t be old.
Number 8 is the only one I paid attention to before turning the video off. 10 had my attention for about 10 seconds before it was entirely unauthoritative. 8 is literally marriage, and the only place two people are allowed to do the exact thing you're missing the point of. Have sex (i.e., 'become one flesh'). Like an electrical circuit, it is no longer two separate circuits when you plug the male-like rod into a female-like outlet. It becomes one circuit. No, that's not a metaphor. That is pretty literal. Even if it WAS a metaphor, does one, single, obvious and well understood metaphor really mean the entirety of a text is inaccurate or uninformative? That's like if NatGeo used a metaphor in one of their articles and all of you instantly disregarded that specific article as informative for life. You can be highly informative and still use a metaphor. And pretending not to understand exactly what that metaphor means is not an excuse for ignorance. You're either very dishonest and grabbing for straws here, or you're actually too illiterate to be trusted explaining what any English text means to anybody.
He’s blatantly dishonest in the way he manipulates
I don’t think he’s saying that genesis is inaccurate, but it’s one giant beautifully written poem that God gave us to help us understand the role that He played in creation in a way that is easy for us to interpret and understand.
The argument is pretty clear. Why is Genesis 2:24 clearly a metaphor and not literal? If it is a metaphor why is it ok for YECs to pick a chose when to read literally and metaphorically, but not Old Earth Creationist to do the same? Furthermore, why are YEC's allowed to elevate the age of the earth to the level of orthodoxy when it wasn't a stated church doctrine for any denomination until the 1900's? The vast majority of Church history allowed for grace and variety on this issue, but for YECs over the last 100 years it's a matter of doubting someone's faith if they disagree.
@@zackattack366 Nobody doubts one's faith for disbelief in a young earth. It wasn't a topic of discussion 100 years ago among most people. If it was a metaphor, we'd be able to tell that it was a metaphor due to the fact that metaphors are easily distinguishable from non metaphors. Calling it a metaphor doesn't make it one, and saying it isn't a metaphor doesn't mean it isn't. It either is or isn't based on what we understand about human languages.
They want to destroy God and force upon the earth a big bang hypothesis - It is not a theory as it is baseless without merit. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: Meaning they had no evidence to begin with and pulled it out of their arse. Too many discoveries in soft tissue , DNA, and bone marrow in dinosaurs bones if millions of years old are not not possible to exist today.
You do inspire me to think more deeply about the Word. As Chuck Missler said when asked if he took the Bible "literally, " I, would also say, I take the Bible "seriously."
I like that a lot.
10. Abraham had kids well after 100 yrs old. After the death of his wife in 2145AM (AM=Anno Mundi aka year of the world aka year of creation) Abraham remarried and had multiple children. Abraham was at least 137 yes old during this time. Him questioning if he could have children at 100 yrs old coupled with the fact that he indeed himself had children at and well after the age of 100 would imply that it was unorthodox and uncommon during that time for an old man to have kids and that it might be difficult at that age to raise a kid. Many in the Bible pose questions in this style/tone and while some imply impossibility (John 3:4), others simply imply an uncommonality (John 4:9). Oldest claimed father James E. Smith (U.S) was 101 yrs old in 1951 and more recently Ramjit Raghav in 2012 at age 96. Only 4 yrs older than when Abraham begged that question.
9. The cretaceous layer confirms the Biblical, Summerian, Egyptian and Aztec account of a worldwide flood. The biblical description of the earth is that of a flat earth. The surface area of my flat house can be flooded up to my kitchen table, the entire, "face" of my house is still flooded. It's all encompassing in that way. Gradually declining flood levels does not mean my house isn't still flooded and if a layer was to form all over my house one could only assume the event happened at the same time if not simultaneously because my house has a flat surface. Just saying.
8. When a man enters a woman carnally they become "one flesh". We know this because he is literally inside her and they are connected. Plus, women retain 100% of the DNA of every man that ejaculates in them. Male DNA has even been found in the brain. Looking at the use of the word "flesh" is simply a matter of context and depth. The same word in a text could have an all encompassing meaning. Gen 6:12 "all flesh had corrupted his way". We know that flesh corrupting his way is sin but it is also amalgamation (gene editing, gene splicing, dna sequencing, etc
.). The implicition of which fits hand in hand with Gen 2:25 "one flesh".
7. Not sure what that had to do with anything.
6. In Gen 10:5,20,31,32 the generations are mentioned after the fact.
5. Common sense would tell us that if God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void, then God created the earth without form and void. Gen 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them". That's exactly what that means. 6 literal days supported by the evening and the morning of each day (Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). Gen 22:8 and John 1:29 both talk about lambs, one is literal the other is symbolic. Happens many times throughout the Bible. It doesnt mean that the symbolic should be used to literally explain the literal or else we'd be worshipping lambs. These tend to most definitely correlate in scripture though.
4. The Bible does not support the globe model
3. Any botanist, gardener, etc will tell you that sometimes you will have to subdue the vegetation to make it do what you want. Especially if it is in rich abundance. Gardener is indeed the first occupation in the Bible and this task is given to Adam in a garden God already planted which Adam did not have to subdue. By giving dominion God crowns Adam king of the earth and the different orders of being that inhabit it. Just like God has dominion over all things. It was a type of himself hence we are created in his image.
2. Inconclusive based on context of the biblical text
1. Conjecture
I think Heiser is right when he explains how many fundamentalists believe the Bible should be interpreted as if the first impressions that pop into a modern reader's head when he reads a text should be the presumed interpretation, and that some people insist on applying a kind of naive literalism to Bible study that would sound neurotic if applied to everyday conversation. That isn't the way language works.
@Jonathan Sarfati 1. Who said anything about a flat Earth? 2. Maybe Heiser leaves open the possibility that the author intended "day" to be understood as an age or indefinite period of time (an OEC literalist approach). I personally find that exegesis eccentric and strained. Modern scientific belief should have no influence on directions taken in biblical theology, and I think Heiser would agree, but I doubt one could arrive at the day-age interpretation, self-honestly, without angling to reconcile biblical literalism with at least a few fields of modern science (astronomy, geology, most if not all paleontology) by mining a word's semantic range for 'technically possible', formally acceptable but contextually improbable meanings. So, nothing against day-agers, but I think it's a stretch. 3. Even when they did not take the creation narratives as literal and linear chronological histories, the church fathers had no compelling reason to doubt the relative youth of the cosmos, especially in the face of Aristotle's view that the universe and its forms were eternal and beginningless. Patristic interpretations of the creation week are also much deeper and richer, multi-layered and more inspired than the perspicuity literalism of the modern YEC movement. The fathers weren't afraid to compound literal and allegorical readings of the text.
@Jonathan Sarfati YECs completely contradict Saint Augustine, one of the most respected church fathers, who wrote a wonderful treatise called "The Literal Meaning of Genesis". Saint Augustine affirmed that 24 hour days are nonsense because that unit of measurement wouldn't have even existed until the 4th "day." You can't delete my comments here, big boy
Doesn’t matter much
I feel God told us just enough for us to know what’s important!
And definitely the gospels and revelation is fundamental, as we see many foretold events unfolding right in front of our eyes !
Jesus held to recent creation (Lk. 11:50,51; Mk. 10:16; Mk. 13:19-20).
We should "follow in his steps" and take the same view (1 Peter 2:21).
assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v8/n3/ComingToGrips-Ch11.pdf
Facts! It doesn’t matter weather the earth is old or young. It doesn’t disprove god, and it doesn’t have anything to do with our Salvation 🙏🏽
@@Fairwrites I have stated here that old earth does not equal heresy:
adamslostdream.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-heresy-of-older-planet.html
I have written 2 books defending a youthful world from history & science:
totalyouth.us/
Jesus held to recent creation (Lk. 11:50,51; Mk. 10:16; Mk. 13:19-20).
We should "follow in his steps" and take the same view (1 Peter 2:21):
assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v8/n3/ComingToGrips-Ch11.pdf
@@Fairwrites It does matter a LOT. As what YECs say, to imply that death occurred before the fall ruins the purpose of salvation. If this is disproven though, such as said in the video, then old-earth creationism may very well be true.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT I agree with you, but I don't think we should fight about it. You are never going to convince the other side (irrespective of what side you are on).
I think it's important because I have a huge problem with Christians seemingly changing their view of Scripture based on current scientific theories. The science isn't settled and Christians shouldn't be like reeds in the wind.
Your first assumption was off, the times of Noah have changed everything…
Earlier in Scripture we read:
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
Genesis 6:3
Not having children later in life was the result of sins that happened BEFORE Abraham.
"...Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing..." Gen 16:2
This guy doesn't know his Bible. When someone pulls possible contradictory texts from the Bible... only to try to prove it is invalid. Makes himself invalid when he doesn't study all of it. I can say since 3x+1 has no mathematical answer... all math is wrong. I would be invalid in that statement.
As an Anthropologist and a Christian with theological training I like this channel's approach. It ultimately comes down to what the scriptures actually are communicating.
As an anthropologist, what is your opinion about James George Frazer?
@@luizh.5951 he just the beginning of the field.. arm chair anthropologist before they dis actual hands on research. Cool stories in his book The Golden Bough though his theories are mostly defuncted. Liberal Christians liked his views of religion.
@@Liminalplace1 I don't think even a Christian, even a liberal, would like James Frazer's vision, because in his book, he says that he thinks Jesus is a plagiarism of other gods, and etc.
@@luizh.5951 it's secular research into culture and religion, a writers opinions is not the research. Frazier is just a resource of travellers stories. Most anthropologists disregard his theories. Early anthropologist have been accused of racism also.
Victor Turner is a good example of an major anthropologist turned Christian (although catholic)
Addressing the first two: Addressing number 10: The genealogies from Shem to Abraham show a decline (E.g. Shem was able to have a kid at 100, while Abraham's father 70, which mind you was 20 years younger than Sarah). You have to keep in mind that other descendants of Noah lived in that area, so with the evidence of Shem to Abraham lower child rates, many other families would experience the same thing. Many women can be fertile until around 50, and humans typically live to be 80.
Addressing Number 9: Different levels of flood across the Earth. When it says mountains are seen but also not, it was referring to the region, the whole purpose of the dove was to see if Noah and them could get out around the area the Ark was floating.
The genealogies in Genesis were direct shots at the Babylonian Kings lists. No one from that context would have read that as "literal history" because they didn't even have that category. That's an invention of the modern materialistic mind.
@Jonathan Sarfati I'm not denying history. I'm denying the modern materialistic religion of historicity.
If you can't see the difference, I'm OK with that.
@@GeoffBosco To be fair, if a flood occurred and everyone carried the same oral ideas and myths, and travelled across the world, then you would expect similar flood, creation, and genealogical mediums in other areas, especially around Iran.
I never stopped to think about the fact that Abraham's close relatives were "over 100 years old" according to the text. It's so obvious these are not literal ages. Thank you so much for making this clear.
The Masoretic Texts are probably not the correct reading for the geneologies, the LXX I believe is.
According to what?
@@randomfandom33 Josephus, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
was about to comment on this one too. but i think this channel also covered the LXX.
@@randomfandom33 Watch this, it explains what the OP means: ruclips.net/video/VI1yRTC6kGE/видео.html
He gets to the point after some minutes in, but watch from the beginning.
@@iamfunnyipromise9605 yah, that’s the video I had in mind.
You use these words a lot for someone trying to make a scientific argument:
Maybe, probably, implying, which implies, the implication is, this seems unlikely, supposedly, suggests, seems to suggest, it might not even, doesn’t necessarily mean, one could assume, more likely refers to, etc.
Also, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a theory, and can’t be used as law when making comparisons between the two.
Let’s be real though. 6 billion years, 6000 years, 30 trillion... if your focus is on how long it took to create the universe, you’ve completely missed the point.
As for the Abraham thing, it's' also possible that they tried and tried and tried and tried for decades with no success having a kid. I think most people would be skeptical.
Interesting and challenging. Some of these are was aware of but some of these objections I’ve never heard. Always need to temper faith with sound reasoning. Will definitely be picking up some of John Walton to read. He has some interesting insights. Thank you for your work IP 🙏 Christ is Lord
Why does Rom 5:19 say: "For as through the one man's disobedience many were made sinners", or 1 Cor 15:21 "For since death came by man"? Why does 1 Tim 2:14 say: "Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman"? Were the Apostles YEC?
We inherited Adam's sin (the original sin), that's why we became sinners because of his disobedience.
Death doesn't necessarily mean physical death, but death of the spirit. You don't physicaly die because of sin, you die spiritualy because each sin sets you further away from God.
Because man was convinced, no deceived. The serpent deceived the woman into sin and the woman conviced the man to sin. The woman was deceived into believing that there was no problem in disobeying an order from God, man was convinced and decided himself into disobeying.
@@BitsGamerfication Thank you for the reply. While things may be as you said, the focus of my question was not exactly there. What I meant was:
* Why was there a physical death before falling into sin, in a Creation not corrupted by Adam's sin? And possibly there was a lot of pain in the world, too?
* If the text talks about Mankind in general, why should all women be deceivable and men not? Why do Adam and Eve behave so much like individuals?
@@juha-petrityrkko3771 There was no death before sin.
No, it is not that he doubted having a child after a hundred years of age.
He laughed because he and Sarah had not achieved a pregnancy over their period of being married, thus having accepted the possibility of being infertile... hence he could not believe this...
He laughed because Sarah was past the age where she could naturally become pregnant, not because he was too old to father a child. He'd already sired Ishmael in his old age, and we read later in Genesis that he fathered more children with his second wife after Sarah died.
FACTS! I wish this guy would spend more time trying to prove God's word is legit. he would probably end up figuring out that it is vs trying to find every way possible to attack it
@@thewaltermittystudios He's not attacking Scripture; he's simply explaining why the Young Earth Creationist interpretation is not necessarily the most accurate.
What would be the point of referencing their ages then?
@@danielbu2611 I don't know, but the Bible says that God's ways aren't always the same as ours.
As a lifelong believer in the scriptures who’s also had a lifelong fascination with the sciences, I often have found myself trying to rationalize certain undeniable scientific facts against what is said to have occurred in the scriptures.
For example: How can Earth only be 6,000 years old when we’ve discovered archeological sites such as Gobekli Tepe that are known to be 12,000 years old and older?
I’ve never believed that the sciences must necessarily contradict the scriptures, but rather that they confirm each other. Two things can be true…
that issue was already answered long ago, they are not "known to be" at that age, the reason why those dates appear so long ago is because they used a highly innacurate dating method (radiocarbon dating) which always adds a much longer period than what it really is, for example some volcanic rocks that were only a few days old from an eruption a few decades ago, were dated to be millions of years old (which was obviously false), or another case someone's baby tooth that came out was taken to a radiocarbon dating and it was dated to the 5th century... even though that person was only like 8 years old when he took the tooth to be dated (it was intentional to show how innacurate that method is)
but whether the earth is 6000 or older that is not really much of an issue since the genesis account fits with either interpretation, whether "young" (well 6000 is still very old) or old earth or even some middle form
It's really simple, the historical "known" data is a guess. Even current historical data that people can verify because they were actually there is often gotten wrong.
For one, If Adam and Eve were created on a literal sixth day, then they were made fully mature on thier first day (though they were maybe around 25ish years old). Likewise, the trees and animals likely could have been created fully mature too, not as seeds or as new borns. So it makes sense, following that logic, that the earth (and the all the universe) could also have been created mature. In that case, from day one (or week one) they could be thousands, or millions, even billions of years old.
science doesnt contradict scriptures, science is just sometimes wrong. if you look at your example, the way they got that number of 12000 years, (correct me if im wrong) is carbon dating, the way carbon dating works is they look at how long it takes for an atom to turn into another atom through radiation, and then they're like "oh look this % of atoms turned into this atom, so that mustve taken around 12000 years", well, how do they know it takes 12000 years, did they measure the time? its just a guess. this is just one example of how science can be wrong
Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
-Genesis 3:20