Nonsense- its only about 6000 yrs old. There would have to be trillions of people on the earth if it were millions of years old Read the genealogy in the OT. Millions of years is accepting the evolution narrative
The only place I disagree with Dr McGee is on the age of the Earth. The Bible clearly tells us just by adding up the ages of central biblical characters from Genesis up to the birth of our Savior Jesus that the Earth is only slightly older than 6 thousand years. Dr McGee somehow succumbed to oppositions of science falsely so called.
So I read a lot of the comments below and some people think that Pastor McGee is incorrect when he said that the earth is billions of years old. I cannot say for sure if he is wrong or right but if we look at Genesis 1 verses 1-6 I can understand why he would say that the world is older than 6000 years. Verse 1 says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Question here is when was the beginning. Verse 2 says God moved upon the face of the waters. Next question is when were the waters created because as per Genesis the night and the day were created on the first day and NOTHING was mentioned about water being created up to that point. On the 2nd day water was mentioned but not in conjunction with creation but with the dividing of the firmaments. On the 3rd day water was mentioned again, but it was the seas that was being created. Day 1 through 6 is about the history of man's tie to creation. There was a world before day 1 on earth. I know this because Satan that serpent was cast out of heaven to earth, yet the Bible does not say when that was done. But he was here before man . We know he moved upon the earth because he was here to tempt Eve to eat that fruit. In another book we know that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels were tossed down from heaven.
If you are using the word ‘scientific’ in the sense of experimental, observable, repeatable, testable phenomena; please tell me one scientifically verifiable fact of evolution (i.e. evolution from matter to man) that you have so proven, or has been proven by others whose conclusion you believe. If you are objective on this I think you will accept that evolution does not meet these criteria. This is because it is a process which allegedly occurred in the past and therefore by its nature cannot be subjected to experimental verification. Evolution harms science and society: creation.com/evolution-harms-science-and-society
The evidence for creation is vast. Explore the ever-increasing list of reasons why creation is the best explanation for our intricately designed and precisely balanced universe. www.icr.org/Topics/
I used to listen to him on the thru the bible app and he was great until one message came on and he said he was going to be in the amplified version after that I said no more I'll just stick with Oliver b Greene, bob jones sr, lester roloff, and Ian paisley great men there and king James preaching truly you won't go wrong there
@@twistedtitan5485 Isn't a God who doesn't lie when He shows us the Universe greater than one who does? The Universe is as much God's word as the bible. And to return to my comment, finding a scientist or two who agrees with you, but ignoring all the rest of them and all the evidence is dishonest. The work of God is not benefited by dishonesty.
@@Naiant Where did the universe come from Hawkeye?? You talk as if the universe is a stand alone entity that has a mind, will and purpose of its own. It doesn't... it's a creation just like everything else in the universe. And basic logic says that a creation requires a Creator. The mental gymnastics that the secularist will go through to avoid being accountable to something greater than himself, never ceases to amaze me.
@@twistedtitan5485 You talk as if the bible is a stand alone entity that has a mind, will and purpose of its own. The argument that since everything in the universe was created the universe itself must have been created commits the formal logical fallacy of equivocation and the informal logical fallacy of composition. It commits the fallacy of equivocation because when you say that everything within the universe was created you're using the word "created" with a different meaning than when you say the universe itself was created. Everything in the universe is created only in the sense that it was at some time assembled from things already existing in the universe. But to say that the universe was created is to say that it came out of nothing, since there can be no things outside of it. Therefore, creation inside the universe isn't the same as what you're postulating about the creation of the universe itself. The fallacy of composition arises when you apply characteristics of a set to the set itself. Take, for instance, the set of even numbers. We can say that every member of the set is even. But we can't say that the set itself is even. In this case, you're saying that all the elements of the universe were created. The universe is the set of all these elements. But even though all the elements of the set we call the universe are created, we can't say that the set of the universe was created without committing the fallacy of composition. You imply that I'm a secularist. This isn't true; I'm a theist. I don't believe that any sacred being worth worshiping would create a world that looks like it's organized in the way described by science but not in fact be organized that way. That would make that being a liar.
Thanks for posting this! I used to listen to Brother McGee years ago on the radio. Praise God he is now in glory!
AMEN!!! ENOUGH SAID!
Well Amen.
😂 🤣
nothing + no one = EVERYTHING! Talk about delusional 🤨
Nope, just had 7-8 science classes 6th grade - college and studied about 30 different topics that confirm the earths age to be ~4.5 billion years old.
Nonsense- its only about 6000 yrs old. There would have to be trillions of people on the earth if it were millions of years old Read the genealogy in the OT. Millions of years is accepting the evolution narrative
Dinosaur Questions and Answers
creation.com/dinosaur-questions-and-answers
Institution of Creation Research fully refutes the old earth evolutionary fairy tale. McGee knows better now
The only place I disagree with Dr McGee is on the age of the Earth. The Bible clearly tells us just by adding up the ages of central biblical characters from Genesis up to the birth of our Savior Jesus that the Earth is only slightly older than 6 thousand years. Dr McGee somehow succumbed to oppositions of science falsely so called.
So I read a lot of the comments below and some people think that Pastor McGee is incorrect when he said that the earth is billions of years old. I cannot say for sure if he is wrong or right but if we look at Genesis 1 verses 1-6 I can understand why he would say that the world is older than 6000 years. Verse 1 says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Question here is when was the beginning. Verse 2 says God moved upon the face of the waters. Next question is when were the waters created because as per Genesis the night and the day were created on the first day and NOTHING was mentioned about water being created up to that point. On the 2nd day water was mentioned but not in conjunction with creation but with the dividing of the firmaments. On the 3rd day water was mentioned again, but it was the seas that was being created. Day 1 through 6 is about the history of man's tie to creation. There was a world before day 1 on earth. I know this because Satan that serpent was cast out of heaven to earth, yet the Bible does not say when that was done. But he was here before man . We know he moved upon the earth because he was here to tempt Eve to eat that fruit. In another book we know that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels were tossed down from heaven.
You believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? So dinosaurs and humans coexisted, Bobby?
If you are using the word ‘scientific’ in the sense of experimental, observable, repeatable, testable phenomena; please tell me one scientifically verifiable fact of evolution (i.e. evolution from matter to man) that you have so proven, or has been proven by others whose conclusion you believe. If you are objective on this I think you will accept that evolution does not meet these criteria. This is because it is a process which allegedly occurred in the past and therefore by its nature cannot be subjected to experimental verification.
Evolution harms science and society:
creation.com/evolution-harms-science-and-society
The evidence for creation is vast. Explore the ever-increasing list of reasons why creation is the best explanation for our intricately designed and precisely balanced universe. www.icr.org/Topics/
I used to listen to him on the thru the bible app and he was great until one message came on and he said he was going to be in the amplified version after that I said no more I'll just stick with Oliver b Greene, bob jones sr, lester roloff, and Ian paisley great men there and king James preaching truly you won't go wrong there
Landon Dunn so what’s the problem with the amplified version??
DR in TX
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. The Revelation of Jesus Christ 9: 18-19K J V V S. AMP

Exepted from a book by: Jeff Johnson called
SPIRTUAL DECEPTION IN THE HIGHEST
In this section we compare the King James to the "Amplified Bible" (AMP). In this comparison, we will see the results of an 'amplified' approach.

Gen 1:21 KJV: "And God created great WHALES ..."
AMP: "God created the great sea monsters ..."

Matt. 12:40 KJV: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES's belly ..."
AMP: "For even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster ..."
COMMENT: God creates monsters?

Gen. 2:7 KJV: "... and man became a living SOUL."
AMP: "... and man became a living being."
Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is
that man is the ONLY creature with a SOUL.

Gen. 2:13 KJV: "... land of ETHIOPIA."
AMP: "... land of Cush."
Comment: I know where Ethiopia is, but where is Cush?

Gen. 3:4-5 KJV: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil."
AMP: "But the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as God, knowing the difference between good and evil."
COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is
not evil! Think about the difference between "as gods" and "as God".

Lev. 3:13b KJV: "... and the sons of Aaron shall SPRINKLE the blood thereof upon the altar round about."
AMP: "... and the sons of Aaron shall throw its blood against the altar round about."

Judges 7:20b KJV: "... and they cried, the sword OF the LORD, and OF Gideon."
AMP: "... and they cried, The sword for the LORD and Gideon."
Comment: Notice: "OF" was changed to "FOR".

2 Sam. 21:19 KJV: "... Elhanan ... slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath ..."
AMP: "... Elhanan ... slew Goliath ..."
Comment: The scholars missed this one! Most Sunday school children know that DAVID slew Goliath.

Daniel 3:25 KJV: "... and the form of the fourth is like THE
SON OF GOD."
AMP: "... And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"
COMMENT: It was Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD, who was with Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. It was Jesus Christ who saved them from the fiery furnace. And, it is Jesus Christ who saves you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. Hell). There is a big difference between "THE SON OF GOD" and 'a son' of 'plural' gods! Think about it.

Zech. 11:17 KJV: "Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!"
AMP: "Woe to the worthless and foolish shepherd who deserts the flock!"
Comment: Idol and worthless/foolish are very different.

Zech. 13:6 KJV: "And one shall say unto him, What are these
wounds IN THINE HANDS? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."
AMP: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds on your breast - between your hands? Then he will answer, Those with which I was wounded [when disciplined] in the house of my (loving) friends."
COMMENT: Folks: This is a verse prophesying Jesus Christ. Jesus was wounded IN HIS HANDS (and also on His back), BUT NOT ON HIS BREAST! Also, Jesus WAS NOT BEING DISCIPLINED when He went to the cross! Jesus did nothing wrong! And, lastly, Jesus WAS in the house of "His" friends, but they WERE NOT BEING "loving" back to him!

Matt. 18:11 KJV: "For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost."
AMP: "For the Son of man came to save (from the penalty of eternal death) that which was lost."
Comment: The AMP says Jesus Christ "came" to save that
which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The AMP implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone, TODAY, can be saved by Jesus Christ. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. This AMP corruption is very subtle but very important.

Mark 1:2 KJV: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."
AMP: "Just as it is written in the prophet Isaiah: Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will make ready Your way;"
Comment: Sometimes verses in the New Testament requote
the Old Testament. This is happening here. The verse being quoted is not in Isaiah, as the AMP says, it is from Malachi 3:1. Check it out! Not only does the AMP misquote the Word
of God, it even mis-quotes itself. The KJV has the correct reading: "As it is written in the prophets ...", because Malachi was a prophet!

Luke 2:33 KJV: "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
AMP: "And His [legal] father and [His] mother were marvelling at what was said about Him;"
Comment: This is blasphemy! Contrary to what the AMP
would say, Joseph WAS NOT Jesus' father! God WAS Jesus' father! Every Christian knows this! And contrary to the AMP, God was also Jesus' LEGAL father. Think about what the AMP is saying: If Jesus' had an earthly father, then He is just any man. If He is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved. If we are not saved, then we have a BIG PROBLEM.

John 3:13 KJV: "And NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
AMP: "And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven; but there is One Who has come down from heaven, the Son of man [Himself], Who is - dwells, Whose home is - in heaven."
Comment: Not true AMP. There HAVE BEEN others who have gone up to heaven. Remember the angels of Jacob's ladder? They were ascending and descending. The KJV has the correct reading which is: "... NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven ..."

Acts 12:4 KJV: "... after Easter ..."
AMP: "... after the Passover ..."

Acts 17:22 KJV: "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill,
and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS."
AMP: "So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus [Mars Hill auditorium] said: Men of Athens, I perceive in every way - on every hand and with every turn I make - that you are
most religious ..."
Comment: Come on! Being "most religious" and "TOO
SUPERSTITIOUS" are entirely different!

1 Cor. 5:7b KJV: "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed
FOR US:"
AMP: "... for Christ, our Passover [Lamb], has been sacrificed."
COMMENT: Leaving out "FOR US" misses the point entirely.

1 Cor. 16:22 KJV: "If any man love not the Lord JESUS CHRIST, let him be Anathema Maranatha."
AMP: "If any one does not love the Lord ... he shall be accursed ... "
COMMENT: Leaving out "JESUS CHRIST" leaves us guessing as to whom the AMP wants us to love.

2 Cor. 2:17 KJV: "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the Word of God ..."
AMP: "For we are not, like so many ... peddling God's Word ..."
COMMENT: Peddling and corrupting are very different.
'Modern' bibles try and hide from the truth they are 'corrupting' the Word of God.

Gal. 2:20 KJV: "I AM crucified with Christ ..."
AMP: "I have been crucified with Christ ..."
COMMENT: The AMP says their crucifixion is over! Not
true. The believers crucifixion is an ongoing, PRESENT TENSE, transaction.

Eph. 5:1 KJV: "Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God ..."
AMP: "Therefore be imitators of God ..."
Comment: The AMP documents Satan's position exactly.
ONLY Satan tries to IMITATE God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can't rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his "fishers of men" to imitate Him. Jesus said: "follow me ...".

Philip 3:8 KJV: "... and do count them but DUNG, that I may
win Christ,"
AMP: "... and consider it all to be mere rubbish ..."
COMMENT: I have rubbish on the top of my office desk,
but I don't want 'dung' there!!!

1 Tim. 3:16 KJV: "... God was MANIFEST in the flesh ..."
AMP: "... He (God) was made visible in human flesh ..."
COMMENT: God wasn't just made visible, He was MANIFEST in the flesh. The image of the beast, in Revelation, is going to be made visible!

1 Tim. 6:10 KJV: "For the love of money is THE root of all evil ..."
AMP: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil ..."
COMMENT: There is a big difference between AMP's "a"
root and the correct KJV reading of "THE" root.

1 Tim. 6:20 KJV: "... oppositions of SCIENCE falsely so called"
AMP: "... contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge"

1 Pe. 2:2 KJV: "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby:"
AMP: "Like new born babes ... desire - the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may ... grow unto [completed] salvation."
COMMENT: The AMP leaves out "OF THE WORD". It's God's Word that makes us grow. Also, unlike what the AMP says, we DO NOT grow to "[completed] salvation". That says salvation is by works! That is heresy. Remember: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2: 8-9).
EVIDENCE MENUFeedback or Chat - Please contact: As a son unto the Father in Christ
Layout and design Copyright ©2000 BURNING BUSH PRODUCTIONS

Haha,,, you been smoking dope with Carl Sagan???
Hahahahaha actually its about 750,000 times older than that..... but, good guess!
Free moral choice?? How do dead men make a choice? Ephesians 2:1. McGee denies total depravity
Creationists do love them their proof texts. Find some scientist who can be made to agree with you, and who cares about all the evidence?
When the breath goes out our body
We will see who was right.
I placed my one poker chip on the word of God.
Where you going to place yours?
@@twistedtitan5485 Isn't a God who doesn't lie when He shows us the Universe greater than one who does? The Universe is as much God's word as the bible.
And to return to my comment, finding a scientist or two who agrees with you, but ignoring all the rest of them and all the evidence is dishonest. The work of God is not benefited by dishonesty.
@@Naiant
Where did the universe come from Hawkeye??
You talk as if the universe is a stand alone entity that has a mind, will and purpose of its own.
It doesn't... it's a creation just like everything else in the universe.
And basic logic says that a creation requires a Creator.
The mental gymnastics that the secularist will go through to avoid being accountable to something greater than himself, never ceases to amaze me.
@@twistedtitan5485
You talk as if the bible is a stand alone entity that has a mind, will and purpose of its own.
The argument that since everything in the universe was created the universe itself must have been created commits the formal logical fallacy of equivocation and the informal logical fallacy of composition. It commits the fallacy of equivocation because when you say that everything within the universe was created you're using the word "created" with a different meaning than when you say the universe itself was created. Everything in the universe is created only in the sense that it was at some time assembled from things already existing in the universe. But to say that the universe was created is to say that it came out of nothing, since there can be no things outside of it. Therefore, creation inside the universe isn't the same as what you're postulating about the creation of the universe itself.
The fallacy of composition arises when you apply characteristics of a set to the set itself. Take, for instance, the set of even numbers. We can say that every member of the set is even. But we can't say that the set itself is even. In this case, you're saying that all the elements of the universe were created. The universe is the set of all these elements. But even though all the elements of the set we call the universe are created, we can't say that the set of the universe was created without committing the fallacy of composition.
You imply that I'm a secularist. This isn't true; I'm a theist. I don't believe that any sacred being worth worshiping would create a world that looks like it's organized in the way described by science but not in fact be organized that way. That would make that being a liar.