I have been a level2-5 agnostic for years. But after watching this man and his ideas for just a week i am around a level1-5. This guy actually makes sense. Im a historian and linguist and this astronomer is filling in a lot of gaps for me.
Its funny how an argument from an ancient book explain to you the gaps science cant answer. That is called the god of gapes, its not logicaly to think that way.
@@talancae Hugh Ross is simply just interpreting current scientific data and connecting it with the Bible though. If anything, isn't it astounding how an "ancient" book is somehow able to frame-by-frame, accurately depict our current scientific knowledge about the sequence on how Earth was made? Also, the "gaps" that were mentioned from the original comment wasn't about "the gaps science can't answer" it's more on the gaps in which he was curious about the information regarding the bible and its connection to science, not the gaps in science itself.
@@talancae God consistently uses those of little reputation or those who persecute Or even murdered as tools to further his will.. clearly he is not a respecter of man ,, hardly logical,, but God has no interest in pride or those who presume their worldly accumulation of knowledge somehow translates into Wisdom.. Man plans,, God laughs.
This is exactly why I appreciate this man as much as I do, he can explain Biblical facts as well as scientific facts in a way that anyone can understand.
@@gabriellachang2967 - To each their own and to God His own. As a "woman of God" you should believe God. Remember how the first sin began ... "Yea, hath God said, ...?" The first sin began with the serpent suggesting that Eve question God's Word. Indeed, Eve's response was a distortion of God's Word. The serpent followed by directly contradicting God's Word - "Ye shall not surely die." Here we are today and all of Mankind is in such an awful mess because the first two people disbelieved God's word. Hugh Ross is as subtle as that old serpent. "Yea, hath God said?" But as you say - to each their own - and to God, His own. I am trying to convince you to change your mind and believe God, rather than Hugh Ross. "For _in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,_ the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." - Exodus 20.11 (KJV) (Emphasis added.)
Dr. Ross is always an inspiration! He gives me answers for my grandchildren's questions from the message they get at school. Logical, scientific answers! I thank God for you!
@@simclimie6045 I remember watching their debate at the twighlight of my YEC days. Ross spoke about the hebrew meaning of "day"....Kent's response was "you and I don't know hebrew! So don't act like you know hebrew!"...that was weak. Since then i'm sceptical of young earther's knowledge of hebrew.
Exactly. Often YECs make the claim that because this is what the word means in English, it must also be the only application in the Hebrew. I would also note the difference between them in the spirit with which they debate.
Wow, Moses was right after all! Man Dr. Ross is just awesome. I don't understand why so many people are hating on him. In this stage of the game, we are understanding more about the natural world, and when it conflicts with what we believe, we find ways to intertwine them. He was a scientist first, THEN a Christian. He's such in a minority group, but that's okay. So many scientists are not Christians are hate religion, while so many Christians are anti-science. Dr. Ross shows we can be scientists and Christians!
You cannot be christian and scientist at the same time. You either have to believe that the earth is flat, that the sun was created after the earth, that the earth is the centre of our solar system, that evolution did not happen and that the earth was created in 6 days... if you are a christian of course. Or the opposite if you are a scientist. Bible is unscientific, and that’s because it was altered many times by priests, the vatican, poor translations etc.
@@tugrulc.1804 To be a Christian, you need to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and live by the spirit. Your "scientific" affiliations matter very little. Good day.
A true believer, and a child of God indeed,no one can interprete the whole formation of the universe apart from the Holy Spirit that dwells in them! His application to scriptures is undeniable and so convincing, May God bless you sir!!
I hope somebody continues his amazing legacy after he leaves us physically or mentally. The man is 76 years old. I know for a fact that people's mental faculties sharply decline in their late 70s and 80s. Gotta pray that God preserves his incredible intellect for at least another 5 years.
may God continue to use intellectual and intelligent people like Dr Hugh Ross to explain his word. Glory to God. Glory be to Jesus and the holy spirit.
I appreciated Dr. Ross' interpretation on Genesis 1, and he is likely correct, however I can't help but wonder if a more literal interpretation can't be squared with what we know of how the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Earth formed? Our best models of the formation of the Solar System suggest that the Earth formed alongside the Sun and other planets, however, it may be true that the Earth reached a stage of completion (albeit one that was without form and void) prior to the protosun undergoing fusion and becoming a main sequence star. That is to say, that whilst there may have been light from the protosun on day one, the sun itself would not be "born" until day four when it achieved fusion. [EDIT: I should add, that between the Protostar phase, and the Main Sequence "birth" of a true star, there is another phase or stage called the T Tauri stage, when these Pre-Main Sequence Objects (PMSO's) emit a great amount of light, and create winds that could easily be responsible for clearing enough of the early solar system dust away, so that the light of the PMSO could reach earth long before the T Tauri protostar undergoes fusion and becomes a true star, aka our Sun. Also worth noting, is that this stage is thought to have lasted as much as 100 million years during the development of our sun, marking a clear division of time between "Let there be light", on day one, and "Let there be lights", on day four.] As for the moon? Our best data suggests that the earth did indeed form prior to the moon. That just leaves the stars, at which point it is important to point out that the Bible is only talking about those stars that are visible with the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, as they are there to "give light" and to act as signs for the seasons, etc. As it so happens to turn out, whilst the majority of Stars in the Milky Way are older than our sun, they are not visible to the naked eye, and as such, are not the stars created on day 4. However, the vast majority or stars that _are_ visible to the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, are _younger_ than our sun, and therefore younger than the earth. So these would be the stars that "give light" and act as signs, etc. Created during the fourth Yom, just as the Scripture teaches.
I am a self taught historian and linguist. I am also a level 2/5 agnostic so i believe in God but im a bit skeptical of the bible and religion as well. However i cannot ignore the fact that there are many similar stories of the flood and rituals still performed in its honor that hint of a water canopy with references. History and linguistics are sciences too. Even though these may be mostly myth they should not be just brushed aside as useless.
For such an intelligent man he has to jump through some ridiculous hoops to make the bible sound consistent ( i was going to say believable but it's not....... so i won't )
The only way that he could have said less was to speak more. What a way to muddy up the waters. It is not nearly that complicated. The writer was not writing to what we might consider today as a Ph.D scholar. The account in Genesis is the most complete account of Creation. It is what is considered to be the authoritative account or the primary account or the mandatory account. Any other account or reference is a secondary account. Secondary accounts MUST matchup with the Primary account, not the other way around. In other words, the Cliff's notes account MUST match the novel, not the other way around. Thus, the Cliff's notes account bears no weight regarding the accuracy of the story. We do not fact check the novel by seeing if the novel matches the Cliff's notes. All that was said to say that Genesis is the only account that should be referenced for Creation. All other accounts within the Bible MUST meet Genesis's explanation. The speaker referenced Job to enhance Genesis as if Job had the answer that Genesis lacked. He went on to add assumptions of his own which cannot be substantiated Biblically. Instead of saying, "I don't know", he fabricated an explanation that has no scientific or Biblical reference. This is why people get so confused when taking in "opinion" as fact. It sounds good but cant be backed up. If you start with Genesis 1:1 you will see that the author was the creation of the earth in its universe. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Now contrast that with 14 And God said, LET THERE BE lights in the firmament of the heaven TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: AND IT WAS SO. 16 And God MADE two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: HE MADE the stars also. 17 And God SET THEM in the firmament of the heaven TO GIVE LIGHT upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the FOURTH DAY. Now, the following is science that supports the fact that the water on the earth predated the existence of the sun. Earth's Water Is Officially Older Than the Sun. That's Incredible. www.popularmechanics.com/space/solar-system/a43340339/earths-water-is-older-than-the-sun/ Earth's Water Is Older Than the Sun www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/earths-water-is-older-than-the-sun Earth's water is even older than the Sun, having formed billions of years ago, say astronomers www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/earth-water-formed-billions-years-ago-before-sun Thus, the Genesis story is intact. The earthis made. The earth has water even before the sun came into existence. Finally, this further goes against the idea that God's days of creation were not 24 hours per day. That time cycle did not come along until God created a time reference for his creations via the sun as a clock. When we read creation days in Genesis we should read that word as "stages" or "phases' and not a typical 24 cycle. 2 Peter 3: 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. In other words, the writer is giving the reader an idea of humanity's clock compared to God's clock - there is no comparison. So, we can rest on the writing of the prophet regarding creation without having to attend seminary or graduate school.
Another easy way to answer as well is first sentence “God created the heavens and the earth” Sun moon and stars are part of heaven. The rest was let there be.
Correct . There was no word for universe in Hebrew ,except the phrase (the heavens and the earth) day 1 God creates all physical matter (the universe) the word create is only used 3 times in genesis. Day 1, day 5 , day 6, everything else he separates, forms and shapes.
@@shaikaleemuddin1255 it doesn’t use the word create on day 4 . Notice on day 1 God separates light from darkness.V 14 God said (let there be lights in the sky , and the verse goes on to say that God (MADE 2 great lights. The word MADE in Hebrew is used in the past tense . Verse 17-18 the lights were made (past tense)to separate day from night AND separate light from darkness. What did the light do on day 1? Day 1 the atmosphere goes from opaque to translucent, day 4 it goes from translucent to transparent.
In Genesis 1:6-8 since it says “Let there be a firmament” that means he didn’t create the firmament? Which logically means he didn’t create the heaven... right? Then who did? Who created light and the heaven?
In January '04, astronomer, James McNeil, discovered a small nebula that appeared unexpectedly near the nebula Messier 78, in the constellation of Orion. When observers around the world pointed their instruments at McNeil's Nebula, they found something interesting:its brightness appears to vary. Observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provided a likely explanation: the interaction between the young star's magnetic field and the surrounding gas causes episodic increases in brightness.
It doesn't mean that it WASN'T either. When the first passage says he created the heavens and the Earth, "the heavens" means everything that exists in space (stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc). It is not logical to interpret the scripture as God being the source of light for "day". God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness. Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the "day". That means it must have existed on the first day.
It seems like an alternative explanation could be that the earth started out as a rogue planet, with liquid water warmed by geothermal heat but no sunlight. And on Day 1, God could have set it in orbit around the sun.
God's People yes......the science which is about learning and being open to new evidence. What.....you prefer something that was written by primitives and then never ever change your mind ? I prefer to be open to evidence and having my mind corrected as I don’t presuppose some ancient people knew everything .
@@jerichosharman470 There is nothing that goes against the bible scientifically apart from the ignorant theory that you are an ape loool Search Trey Smith the theory of everything.
Wow. That guy really does some fancy footwork to dance his way out of that one. Obviously the Biblical writers meant that the sun and stars were created after the earth because the earth seemed to them larger and more "basic", whereas the sun and stars seemed to be merely hung in the sky. I can forgive Bronze Age myth makers; but a shameless modern day snake oil salesman trying to weasel his way out of a contradiction is pathetic.
I'm not sure what relevance Adam being created as a man has on the creation of the universe in terms of billions of years. Why would God have made him a child?
It would be worth mentioning that god is able to create light without a secondary source like a sun as backed by scripture in revelation that describes how we will live in the new city.
Psalm 19 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Clearly God intended for us to witness the work God has done by looking at the stars. Since it is critical that both animals and humans have the ability to observe the stars, he would have to place us on the Earth at such a time when we would be able to observe them, which means billions of years after its creation.
I am a student of theology and have studied the hebrew. In verse 16 the verb in hebrew is the consecutive imperfect which is used to bring along the narrative. It is always the next thing that happens, used in the rest of the bible like children use “and then.. and then.. and then..” I believe in God and in Christ, but I think this guy is bad for the faith. The way to God is through the heart, not natural science. He seems to be basing his faith on the current theories of natural science - what then, if they are proven wrong? Is God proven wrong as well? God is so much greater and more true than science can ever be. He is eternal, science is provisional.
"Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the 'day'. That means it must have existed on the first day." Does not mean it must have. "God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness." He is also creating light, He is not just an observer, remember?
the sun governs the day. the sun was created "in the beginning", known as New moon day, the beginning of months. The first day ever, new moon day, which took place BEFORE creation day 1, is defined as a day, therefore the sun had to be present, just not observable to the earth. God was on the face of the earth. The spirit was on the face of the earth. Therefore when the spirit of Jesus/God was hovering over the face of the earth, the sun moon and stars would not have been visible to him from his earthly position while creating things.
I would like to see Dr Ross make a you tube video with pictures on this, I like tosee the visuals so it could help people to understand how it cam to be. Just a thought.
The idea i was stabbing at (over a year ago haha) is that in the beginning, God created Adam as a man. So we miss this whole biological process of him being an infant, a child, a teenager and eventually a man. There was no process. He was just a man. So similarly, why is it far-fetched to assume that the creation of earth was also created in maturity? That's all I was asking.
God has given you a great answer. It is Genesis 1 exactly the way it is written. My 6-year old grandaughter understands Genesis 1. She's got it right. Hugh Ross is a book salesman. The Bible is free.
"There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated." The fact He will be the source of light in Heaven? Is that nothing?
The Earth (and more precisely the universe) is billions of years old because that's exactly how old it needs to be in order for intelligent, human life to exist in the universe and have the ability to witness the creation. It would take billions of years for starlight to reach earth from billions of light years away. If God put humans or animals on earth immediately after he created it, we wouldn't be able to observe the stars at all, because the light from them wouldn't have gotten here yet.
I am not picking and choosing, but accepting tradition. "Getting back to Genesis, 'day' and 'night' means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation." It means there exists a light that by God's decree shines on half of the earth and not on the other at each moment, and which circles the earth. It does not have to be the sun, only equally strong or more so.
@@manfredconnor3194 What tradition are you even remotely talking about? I do not know _any_ tradition of not doing so. There may be places where one cannot, like in the woods a bit far from water, but there is no culture saying even in very old traditions one shouldn't - if you know one please cite it!
@@manfredconnor3194 What Semmelweis was arguing against was not a traditional practise. Male experts in gynaecology who were also doctors of medicine performing childbirth assistance in a hospital several times a day was definitely not traditional. It was modern. And precisely belief in miasma and sometimes demons _did_ inspire good habits of washing. Tell me when you have an actual point to make ...
@@manfredconnor3194 _"Yes this was perhaps a bad example"_ THANK YOU. _"but you cannot argue creationism not in this day and age,"_ Learned that phrase from some Masonic idiot in the 1940's? There was a time when those words were used to deny Hell and a real personal Satan. _"you simply have no leg to stand on, I am afraid,"_ And as some scared people you prefer checking your fears over checking what I do have to stand on. _"so falling back on centuries of false tradition and false belief will get you nowhere."_ How about proving them false before arguing from them - supposedly - being so? _"You cannot believe in Genesis when we know what we know about the earth and the universe these days,"_ How about proving that "social knowledge" actual KNOWLEDGE rather than socially accepted big mistakes? Or there never were any such - or admit there were? _"you would have to be a fool or a person so egotistical that they cannot admit they were on the wrong path."_ That's what you call an ad hominem. _"The evidence is their unlike the case made for the existence of God for which there is still no evidence."_ If the evidence "is there" why not present it instead of trying to make me "soft" first by mere mudslinging? And thanks for admitting yourself an Atheist or at least Agnostic, meaning you are really not _the_ best contributor to a debate I am trying to take with Hugh Ross ...
I agree with Doctor Ross, but this means there was a day BEFORE creation day 1, and on this day that preceeded creation day 1, things were created. Which means there were 7 days of creation BEFORE what we know as "creation day 7". This means there were 7 full days BEFORE the 7th day. How can this be? Let me explain. God tells us in the book of Exodus that "new moon day" must be the beginning of EVERY month. New moon day is when the moon is new. The day that preceeded creation day one was identified as "in the beginning". On this day "in the beginning", the moon was created, which means this day is to be identified as "new moon day". Perfect, because both Ezekiel and Amos tell us that new moon day CANNOT be counted as one of the 6 work days. New moon day was to be a seperate, set apart day of WORSHIP, not work. That aligns exactly with what the book of Job says about this day in the beginning, that worship took place on it. Job 38 says "where were you in the beginning when I laid the earth's foundation, when the morning stars sang". Here Job explains that stars most definitely did exsist BEFORE creation day 4, and what were they doing? Singing praise to God! This is worship, singing praises to God is a form of worship, and the stars were doing this worship as they were commanded because it was new moon day, a commanded worship day. After the worship day of the new moon is over, then creation day 1-6 take place, just as God commanded. "You are to work 6 days, then rest on the 7th day". 7th day of what? 7th day of the week, which is actually the 8th day of the month, because new moon day happened first and is NOT apart of the weekly count.
Also, understand that I am not trying to convert anyone. What god you may or may not believe in is of no consequence to me. I personally am an atheist. However, I am not saying that it is impossible for a god to exist. I simply can't find any evidence that supports it and plenty to contradict the bible and its many versions and interpretations.
The reason why God would not have created the universe with the "appearance of age" is because that would mean that he had deceived mankind. The bible says that God cannot lie or deceive! And it also says that the heavens declare his glory and the skies proclaim his work. [Pslam 19:1] This means that what we see in the sky represents the TRUE work of God. If starlight appears to be coming from billions of light years away, then that's exactly how far away is because the heavens have declared it.
Excellent , intelligent and sensible. How can anyone claim to know definitively , when Moses is giving his account, he is speaking as an observer of a great and powerful happening, is it for us to confine/ confound into such simplistic , trite dogma .
Also, Genesis 1:2 (the spirit of God hovering over the waters) establishes the point of view for the entire creation text. That perspective is from an observer above the surface of the Earth. So when God says "let their be light", he is allowing light to be seen from that perspective. And when it says he is separating the light from the darkness, it means from the perspective of the observer (which is God). That means it must be talking about the Sun, not God being the source of light.
The evidence is the fact that God "separated the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the darkness "night"! This tells us that he was not the source of the light, but the sun was. God did not separate HIMSELF! The way in which light is separated from darkness is by rotation of the earth, with the sun as the source of light. The scripture doesn't make sense by any other interpretation.
Yes, and I mentioned that this passage is metaphorical (symbolic) just like most everything else from the book of Revelation. What part about that do you not understand?
The Passage of the 4th Day in Genesis 1:14-19 has NOTHING to do with creating or recreating the luminaries as was done on the 1st day. It's literally and figuratively about God appointing/programming the Sun, Moon and Stars the specific divine purpose of being observable Signs, Seasons, Days and Years for all Sentient Beings. Having an intimate impact on the biology, cultures and spiritual Systems of all Sentient Beings made in the following (5th & 6th) days. Thought of another way...God took a Day for Intentionally willing future Sentient Beings to perceive and observe the Luminaries in a way that affects us as they do. Making sure that as soon as Sentient Beings were created, we would have an intimate, unbreakable relationship with the Lights.
It does say god created the two great lights on day four, so what are we to do with that? It is interesting that it talks about lights in the firmament (sky) and then says "let the Light be" seeming to refer to us being able to now see those lights, but right after it specifically says "Then God created the two great lights, one to rule the day and one to rule the night", so that theory gets ruined.
I Kat Goat Interesting, I've read the epic of Gilgamesh but never read that creation story, they do have some similarities, not as many as the flood story but several. Thanks for the info.
Actually, that's not what it says. It says "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." It doesn't say any of this happened on day four. In fact we know that it wasn't because it uses the word "made" not "created" (in Hebrew they mean two different things). If something is made, it is crafted from already existing material. If something is created, it is brought into existence for the first time. And that's how those two words are treated throughout scripture. God created the heavens and the earth (all matter, energy, space, and time) "in the beginning". Light existed in the beginning. And we know this light came from the sun because God separated the light from the darkness creating day and night. Light is separated from darkness by the rotation of the earth, and which side faces the sun. Therefore we know the sun existed on day one.
i just love how instead of admitting the current version of the bible is corrupted and wrong, he goes on to try to explain it and doesn't even give a fulfilling answer...
"That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
Your apology is accepted. I don't just spit random information. I take the time to read and learn without the fog of religion to influence the facts. My aim is not to insult anyone, but to examine and discover the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong as much as right because the truth is what is paramount.
But even if we never figure this out, then we've succeeded to find that this God is forever unpredictable, unfathomable and impossible to understand. I imagine that's where He wants us. In a place where we know we are simply nothing without Him.
Not sold on it yet… sounds like another opinion to me. I’m sticking to what I believe is truth and that is the sequence of creation described in Genesis. God is light… the “source” of all light. I believe the two great lights were created in the 3rd day, specifically for the earth.
Genesis 1:5 it says “5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” So the thick layer you’re talking bout was night for the first 3 days? Plants were created on the third day so how did photosynthesis happened without light especially from the sun since there wasn’t any?
First of all, it doesn't say he created anything on day 4. After describing what God allowed to happen on day 4, the scripture elaborates on what ALREADY happened (in the past). The phrase "God made two great lights" is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four. It is a recount of creation (in more detail), that goes on to explain WHY he did it. It doesn't not denote an act of creation. It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous.
I wonder! If for us 1 day is 24 hours then how many hours it was for God to be 1 day while creating the earth because planets,sun,moon was formed on 4th day?
If God created the heavens and the earth (in the beginning) then the sun existed in the beginning. If God separated day from night on the first day, then that means the sun existed on the first day (because the Sun governs the day. There is no other interpretation that makes logical sense. There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated. Not only does that not make any sense, but the scripture doesn't say that, therefore that's not what happened.
Of course they didnt.They only wrote what they were told to write.The fact that today with modern science we can have insight into the creation account only highlights how scientificly viable the genesis account is.
5:08 "in the beginning, before the six days" Confer Exodus. If God takes his Sabbath rest at 18:00 Friday March 25, this means "the beginning" can be as early as Saturday March 19 at 18:00. Which in Jewish reckoning would count as the beginning of Sunday (March 20 being understood from Church Fathers, not from Jews).
I don't need to. Like I said, you don't need me to explain or reference the information. It's readily available to anyone who wants to learn.....including you.
"The X-ray/optical comparison of the region surrounding McNeil's Nebula shows that the position of a source detected by Chandra is coincident with that of a bright infrared and optical source at the apex of the nebula.Source 3, thought to be a very young star, is illuminating the fan-shaped cloud of gas, or nebula." Thought to be very young = not seen at its actual beginning. (continued)
I mentioned that Jesus Christ WILL BE the light of Heaven. Apocalypse 21:[23] And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.
Genesis 1.16 (ESV) "And God *made* the two great lights ..." (Emphasis added.) It does _not_ say God _made the great lights appear._ It simply says "made."
@@manuelvicente8313 - That's right. Many of Dr. Ross' explanations are incorrect. Quite simply, Dr. Ross doesn't believe the Word of God which means he doesn't believe the author of the Word of God. Dr. Ross is one of the scoffers talked about in 2 Peter 3. Dr. Ross is a deceiver who has led many people astray.
Lol Dr Ross. The birds need to know the seasons? That hebrew word "seasons" does NOT mean summer, winter, etc. It was the hebrew word "moedim" which means set apart holy days. Gid literally said in Genesis 1:14 that the sun moon and stars are to be observed in order to know when his holy days would be. His luminaries are a clock in the sky. Yes it is also true that the birds need to be able to regulate their biological clocks to the weather seasons. But this is NOT what this verse, or the hebrew word MOEDIM is refering to.
What about the beasts on the next day? Did god not make them either? Answer: No, the beasts were hiding behind a bush and they just came out and appeared!
Excellent answer from Dr. Ross. This is similar to what jw's believe. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning (before the six creative days began starting at Genesis 1:3), God created the heavens and the earth. The physical heavens include the sun, moon and stars. Genesis 1:2 says that there was darkness on the surface of the earth. When God said "Let there be light”, diffused light from the already-created sun began to penetrate the earth's thick atmosphere. Genesis 1:16 says that on the fourth day God "made" the sun, moon and stars, but that does not mean that God created them ex nihilo at that time. The word for "made" in this verse is not the same word as "create" used in Genesis 1:1. God "made" the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day in the sense that he placed them in the sky, causing them to become distinctly visible as light sources from the vantage point of the earth, perhaps due to a gradual thinning of the atmosphere. (Some say that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days, but the word "day" in the Bible can refer to a long period of time.)
"Why is the earth billions of years old and you say God created it earlier than that?"....Adam was created a man....not a child...think about that one...
About the firmament, you're still missing my point. Separating the waters to allow a firmament to exist is not an act of "creation". Nothing (matter, energy, space, time, or "life") is being created on creation day 2, or creation day 4. God is only allowing things to be. At best you could say that he MADE the firmament. Making and creating are two different things in Hebrew by they way. In any case, (since we've gotten off topic) the point is, nothing is made on day 4.
You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not. Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere. Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two.
"Otherwise the default meaning is simple past." That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past! It does not specify when in the past they were made, only "simple past". Scripture does not say that they were made ON day 4. It says that the light from them is allowed to be seen on day 4. Then in an elaboration the scripture tells us what happened in the "simple past", and relates that to the purpose of these lights which can now be seen on day 4.
@@Terrylb285 go back a verse. "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven"...."And God made". The God made phrase is actually referring back to the creation moment of the sun and moon. So you're right. In 16 they had already been made. In 14-15 they're created.
@@thefellowheirs yes ,the Hebrew word made is in the past tense form . Also Job 38 tells us the stars were there when God laid the foundations of the earth.
And let there be means ,from a conscience observer can now see distinct objects in the sky , the frame is reference is the surface of the earth. Verse 2 establishes that.
He just stated that earth is over billion years so how can it only be 6,000 years old? Some people will said anything just to support their argument or belief! Science is the truth but science does not have all the answer because there are things that are too profound for their knowledge.
"It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous." The Hebrew of Moses, the Greek of LXX, the Latin of Vulgate had no specific word for hydrogen as opposed to water. But hydrogenium means "water origin", wasserstoff means "water stuff" and väte means "wetness". If you have ever mixed hydrogen with air and lit it with a match, you know why. And you get a possible scenario of how "he flood gates of heaven were opened".
And you're the one to judge what would be perfectly clear to Bronze Age Hebrews, eh? Of course, my whole take is that God is not very concerned with communicating scientific facts in Genesis anyways. It's not a scientific treatise. It may be accurate, but if there's some scientific misunderstanding due to the narrative's poetic expression, so be it. The theological truth that's being conveyed is more important here than scientific curiosity. God wants us to read the book of creation for that.
(continued) "Such a scenario may explain why the brightness of McNeil's Nebula appears to vary with time. It appears in optical images taken of this region of Orion in the 1960s, but is absent from images taken in the 1950s and 1990s." No indication that same sharpness of observation has been applied since e g 1900 and only in 60's the first sighting came. Telescopes have been improving, and it seems this one could have been fluctuating before they could sight it - even back to Day Four. (ctd
Okay, I see what you're saying now about Adam. Basically you are arguing that Adam was created with the "appearance of age", and that because God has done this he could have also created the universe with the appearance of age. Am I right so far? The problem with this logic is that Adam wasn't created with the appearance of age, he was created brand new but to be fully functional unlike. But that's not the same thing as "age".
Adding on top of that is the fact that the book was written in Hebrew 2000 years ago. Languages continuously evolve and change, so obviously it would be very difficult to decipher. Have you read any English from even 1000 years ago? You need a professional translator to understand 100%
I have been a level2-5 agnostic for years. But after watching this man and his ideas for just a week i am around a level1-5. This guy actually makes sense. Im a historian and linguist and this astronomer is filling in a lot of gaps for me.
Its funny how an argument from an ancient book explain to you the gaps science cant answer. That is called the god of gapes, its not logicaly to think that way.
@@talancae Hugh Ross is simply just interpreting current scientific data and connecting it with the Bible though. If anything, isn't it astounding how an "ancient" book is somehow able to frame-by-frame, accurately depict our current scientific knowledge about the sequence on how Earth was made? Also, the "gaps" that were mentioned from the original comment wasn't about "the gaps science can't answer" it's more on the gaps in which he was curious about the information regarding the bible and its connection to science, not the gaps in science itself.
@@talancae
God consistently uses those of little reputation or those who persecute Or even murdered as tools to further his will.. clearly he is not a respecter of man ,, hardly logical,, but God has no interest in pride or those who presume their worldly accumulation of knowledge somehow translates into Wisdom.. Man plans,, God laughs.
@@talancae an ancient book maybe but one that's relevant to today and has the power to change lives
@@hymatwat9412 Lol you defenetly did not read it...
The more we learn about the universe, the more clear God becomes.
@Crazy Glasses Allah is an Arabic word for God
@Crazy Glasses funny 😂😂
Allah is pagan moon god..not Jevovah.
@@jvbest5k301 -cool story.
Now tell us the word “God” in 1000 other languages besides Arabic…..
@@blesson.thomas suttup
I could listen to this man for yoms
haha. this made me chuckle.
This is exactly why I appreciate this man as much as I do, he can explain Biblical facts as well as scientific facts in a way that anyone can understand.
This man has received some serious revelation
This man has _deceived_ many people.
@@rubiks6 As an aspiring scientist and woman of God, I disagree but that's okay! To each their own.
@@gabriellachang2967 - To each their own and to God His own. As a "woman of God" you should believe God.
Remember how the first sin began ...
"Yea, hath God said, ...?"
The first sin began with the serpent suggesting that Eve question God's Word. Indeed, Eve's response was a distortion of God's Word. The serpent followed by directly contradicting God's Word - "Ye shall not surely die."
Here we are today and all of Mankind is in such an awful mess because the first two people disbelieved God's word.
Hugh Ross is as subtle as that old serpent. "Yea, hath God said?"
But as you say - to each their own - and to God, His own. I am trying to convince you to change your mind and believe God, rather than Hugh Ross.
"For _in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,_ the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
- Exodus 20.11 (KJV) (Emphasis added.)
@@rubiks6 You're typing babble
@@chungusultimate - Did you not understand what I said?
Dr. Ross is always an inspiration! He gives me answers for my grandchildren's questions from the message they get at school. Logical, scientific answers! I thank God for you!
I agree, but Kent Hovind thinks he is deluded !
@@anthonymeyer3735
I'll choose Hugh Ross over Kevin...any day...Hugh Ross does his research and he makes sense
@@simclimie6045 I remember watching their debate at the twighlight of my YEC days. Ross spoke about the hebrew meaning of "day"....Kent's response was "you and I don't know hebrew! So don't act like you know hebrew!"...that was weak. Since then i'm sceptical of young earther's knowledge of hebrew.
Exactly. Often YECs make the claim that because this is what the word means in English, it must also be the only application in the Hebrew. I would also note the difference between them in the spirit with which they debate.
Thanks Dr Ross you're the reason I believe In Christ
Wow, Moses was right after all! Man Dr. Ross is just awesome. I don't understand why so many people are hating on him. In this stage of the game, we are understanding more about the natural world, and when it conflicts with what we believe, we find ways to intertwine them. He was a scientist first, THEN a Christian. He's such in a minority group, but that's okay. So many scientists are not Christians are hate religion, while so many Christians are anti-science. Dr. Ross shows we can be scientists and Christians!
if it makes you happy that is the main thing
I completely agree. :-)
You cannot be christian and scientist at the same time.
You either have to believe that the earth is flat, that the sun was created after the earth, that the earth is the centre of our solar system, that evolution did not happen and that the earth was created in 6 days... if you are a christian of course. Or the opposite if you are a scientist.
Bible is unscientific, and that’s because it was altered many times by priests, the vatican, poor translations etc.
@@tugrulc.1804 To be a Christian, you need to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and live by the spirit. Your "scientific" affiliations matter very little. Good day.
Kv Denko
A perfext example
A true believer, and a child of God indeed,no one can interprete the whole formation of the universe apart from the Holy Spirit that dwells in them! His application to scriptures is undeniable and so convincing, May God bless you sir!!
Wow are you deceived..
Not at all
I hope somebody continues his amazing legacy after he leaves us physically or mentally. The man is 76 years old. I know for a fact that people's mental faculties sharply decline in their late 70s and 80s. Gotta pray that God preserves his incredible intellect for at least another 5 years.
Gods words are timeless. As we learn, it doesn’t outdate God’s word it gives deeper understanding.
may God continue to use intellectual and intelligent people like Dr Hugh Ross to explain his word. Glory to God. Glory be to Jesus and the holy spirit.
Why doesn't he explain it himself?
I appreciated Dr. Ross' interpretation on Genesis 1, and he is likely correct, however I can't help but wonder if a more literal interpretation can't be squared with what we know of how the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Earth formed?
Our best models of the formation of the Solar System suggest that the Earth formed alongside the Sun and other planets, however, it may be true that the Earth reached a stage of completion (albeit one that was without form and void) prior to the protosun undergoing fusion and becoming a main sequence star. That is to say, that whilst there may have been light from the protosun on day one, the sun itself would not be "born" until day four when it achieved fusion.
[EDIT: I should add, that between the Protostar phase, and the Main Sequence "birth" of a true star, there is another phase or stage called the T Tauri stage, when these Pre-Main Sequence Objects (PMSO's) emit a great amount of light, and create winds that could easily be responsible for clearing enough of the early solar system dust away, so that the light of the PMSO could reach earth long before the T Tauri protostar undergoes fusion and becomes a true star, aka our Sun. Also worth noting, is that this stage is thought to have lasted as much as 100 million years during the development of our sun, marking a clear division of time between "Let there be light", on day one, and "Let there be lights", on day four.]
As for the moon? Our best data suggests that the earth did indeed form prior to the moon.
That just leaves the stars, at which point it is important to point out that the Bible is only talking about those stars that are visible with the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, as they are there to "give light" and to act as signs for the seasons, etc.
As it so happens to turn out, whilst the majority of Stars in the Milky Way are older than our sun, they are not visible to the naked eye, and as such, are not the stars created on day 4. However, the vast majority or stars that _are_ visible to the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, are _younger_ than our sun, and therefore younger than the earth. So these would be the stars that "give light" and act as signs, etc. Created during the fourth Yom, just as the Scripture teaches.
thanks for that explanation that helps to understand the passages better.
As a Christian trained in science I can say this is sensational stuff. Awesome.
Yes, it is unbelievable. In that it is not true.
I respect your opinion. Jesus of Nazareth was not ( and in my opinion is not) a control freak. May you have a nice day. From Australia. :)
I am a self taught historian and linguist. I am also a level 2/5 agnostic so i believe in God but im a bit skeptical of the bible and religion as well. However i cannot ignore the fact that there are many similar stories of the flood and rituals still performed in its honor that hint of a water canopy with references. History and linguistics are sciences too. Even though these may be mostly myth they should not be just brushed aside as useless.
Wao God is too great
Bible is overwhelming book
This is so good...
God bless Hugh Ross ...thank you God , for blessing us with him .
For such an intelligent man he has to jump through some ridiculous hoops to make the bible sound consistent ( i was going to say believable but it's not....... so i won't )
Your ignorance is what causes your depression, your resistance to the Father.
The only way that he could have said less was to speak more.
What a way to muddy up the waters.
It is not nearly that complicated. The writer was not writing to what we might consider today as a Ph.D scholar.
The account in Genesis is the most complete account of Creation. It is what is considered to be the authoritative account or the primary account or the mandatory account. Any other account or reference is a secondary account.
Secondary accounts MUST matchup with the Primary account, not the other way around. In other words, the Cliff's notes account MUST match the novel, not the other way around. Thus, the Cliff's notes account bears no weight regarding the accuracy of the story. We do not fact check the novel by seeing if the novel matches the Cliff's notes.
All that was said to say that Genesis is the only account that should be referenced for Creation. All other accounts within the Bible MUST meet Genesis's explanation.
The speaker referenced Job to enhance Genesis as if Job had the answer that Genesis lacked. He went on to add assumptions of his own which cannot be substantiated Biblically. Instead of saying, "I don't know", he fabricated an explanation that has no scientific or Biblical reference. This is why people get so confused when taking in "opinion" as fact. It sounds good but cant be backed up.
If you start with Genesis 1:1 you will see that the author was the creation of the earth in its universe.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now contrast that with
14 And God said, LET THERE BE lights in the firmament of the heaven TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: AND IT WAS SO.
16 And God MADE two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: HE MADE the stars also.
17 And God SET THEM in the firmament of the heaven TO GIVE LIGHT upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the FOURTH DAY.
Now, the following is science that supports the fact that the water on the earth predated the existence of the sun.
Earth's Water Is Officially Older Than the Sun. That's Incredible.
www.popularmechanics.com/space/solar-system/a43340339/earths-water-is-older-than-the-sun/
Earth's Water Is Older Than the Sun
www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/earths-water-is-older-than-the-sun
Earth's water is even older than the Sun, having formed billions of years ago, say astronomers
www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/earth-water-formed-billions-years-ago-before-sun
Thus, the Genesis story is intact. The earthis made. The earth has water even before the sun came into existence.
Finally, this further goes against the idea that God's days of creation were not 24 hours per day. That time cycle did not come along until God created a time reference for his creations via the sun as a clock.
When we read creation days in Genesis we should read that word as "stages" or "phases' and not a typical 24 cycle.
2 Peter 3:
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
In other words, the writer is giving the reader an idea of humanity's clock compared to God's clock - there is no comparison.
So, we can rest on the writing of the prophet regarding creation without having to attend seminary or graduate school.
This guy can be my best teacher.
He’s the best!
Another easy way to answer as well is first sentence “God created the heavens and the earth” Sun moon and stars are part of heaven. The rest was let there be.
Correct . There was no word for universe in Hebrew ,except the phrase (the heavens and the earth) day 1 God creates all physical matter (the universe) the word create is only used 3 times in genesis. Day 1, day 5 , day 6, everything else he separates, forms and shapes.
Then why he created again where it says two lights
Iam fairly asking
@@shaikaleemuddin1255 it doesn’t use the word create on day 4 . Notice on day 1 God separates light from darkness.V 14 God said (let there be lights in the sky , and the verse goes on to say that God (MADE 2 great lights. The word MADE in Hebrew is used in the past tense . Verse 17-18 the lights were made (past tense)to separate day from night AND separate light from darkness. What did the light do on day 1? Day 1 the atmosphere goes from opaque to translucent, day 4 it goes from translucent to transparent.
@@Terrylb285 thanks for answering I will see it
In Genesis 1:6-8 since it says “Let there be a firmament” that means he didn’t create the firmament? Which logically means he didn’t create the heaven... right?
Then who did?
Who created light and the heaven?
Sremm Lyphe in the beginning god created in the heavens in earth. It’s literally the first sentence
Polishsnipez7 _ Christians believe that there are multiple heavens so the one I’m referring to is the sky (Not where “he” lives)
@@sremmlyphe8064 the firmament means the sky
In January '04, astronomer, James McNeil, discovered a small nebula that appeared unexpectedly near the nebula Messier 78, in the constellation of Orion. When observers around the world pointed their instruments at McNeil's Nebula, they found something interesting:its brightness appears to vary. Observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provided a likely explanation: the interaction between the young star's magnetic field and the surrounding gas causes episodic increases in brightness.
And what is the point of this? Does it bring Salvation to Me? Does it heal my ohysical body? Does it free me from my afflictions? What is the point?
It doesn't mean that it WASN'T either. When the first passage says he created the heavens and the Earth, "the heavens" means everything that exists in space (stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc). It is not logical to interpret the scripture as God being the source of light for "day". God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness. Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the "day". That means it must have existed on the first day.
Excellent
It seems like an alternative explanation could be that the earth started out as a rogue planet, with liquid water warmed by geothermal heat but no sunlight. And on Day 1, God could have set it in orbit around the sun.
This is BRILLIANT. OM gosh! Wow! Love this man. Don't "always" agree but generally, yes. This was great for me.
People need to read the original Hebrew. Hugh is right and is consistent with the original texts.
People need to stop believing this crap
Even better.......people should just go straight to science and skip the bible.....so as to get accurate information
@@jerichosharman470 You mean the science that keeps changing its mind?
God's People yes......the science which is about learning and being open to new evidence. What.....you prefer something that was written by primitives and then never ever change your mind ? I prefer to be open to evidence and having my mind corrected as I don’t presuppose some ancient people knew everything .
@@jerichosharman470 There is nothing that goes against the bible scientifically apart from the ignorant theory that you are an ape loool
Search Trey Smith the theory of everything.
God is unfathomable, great !
Utterly brilliant 😇
Wow. That guy really does some fancy footwork to dance his way out of that one. Obviously the Biblical writers meant that the sun and stars were created after the earth because the earth seemed to them larger and more "basic", whereas the sun and stars seemed to be merely hung in the sky. I can forgive Bronze Age myth makers; but a shameless modern day snake oil salesman trying to weasel his way out of a contradiction is pathetic.
I'm not sure what relevance Adam being created as a man has on the creation of the universe in terms of billions of years. Why would God have made him a child?
It would be worth mentioning that god is able to create light without a secondary source like a sun as backed by scripture in revelation that describes how we will live in the new city.
Ya but He didn't, He created the WHOLE UNIVERSE in the first 10 words, then he worked on the earth, just the way it says He did. dont over think it.
Amazing lecture
Psalm 19 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Clearly God intended for us to witness the work God has done by looking at the stars. Since it is critical that both animals and humans have the ability to observe the stars, he would have to place us on the Earth at such a time when we would be able to observe them, which means billions of years after its creation.
I am a student of theology and have studied the hebrew. In verse 16 the verb in hebrew is the consecutive imperfect which is used to bring along the narrative. It is always the next thing that happens, used in the rest of the bible like children use “and then.. and then.. and then..”
I believe in God and in Christ, but I think this guy is bad for the faith. The way to God is through the heart, not natural science. He seems to be basing his faith on the current theories of natural science - what then, if they are proven wrong? Is God proven wrong as well? God is so much greater and more true than science can ever be. He is eternal, science is provisional.
@@manfredconnor3194 "In front of God we are always wrong" - Kierkegaard
I agree there was light in Heaven before day one.
That does not mean the sun was there from day one.
"Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the 'day'. That means it must have existed on the first day."
Does not mean it must have.
"God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness."
He is also creating light, He is not just an observer, remember?
the sun governs the day. the sun was created "in the beginning", known as New moon day, the beginning of months. The first day ever, new moon day, which took place BEFORE creation day 1, is defined as a day, therefore the sun had to be present, just not observable to the earth. God was on the face of the earth. The spirit was on the face of the earth. Therefore when the spirit of Jesus/God was hovering over the face of the earth, the sun moon and stars would not have been visible to him from his earthly position while creating things.
I would like to see Dr Ross make a you tube video with pictures on this, I like tosee the visuals so it could help people to understand how it cam to be.
Just a thought.
The idea i was stabbing at (over a year ago haha) is that in the beginning, God created Adam as a man. So we miss this whole biological process of him being an infant, a child, a teenager and eventually a man. There was no process. He was just a man. So similarly, why is it far-fetched to assume that the creation of earth was also created in maturity? That's all I was asking.
I was wondering about this and I never thought I’ll come to a great answer
God has given you a great answer. It is Genesis 1 exactly the way it is written. My 6-year old grandaughter understands Genesis 1. She's got it right.
Hugh Ross is a book salesman. The Bible is free.
If your hear your special ❤❤❤❤❤
"There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated."
The fact He will be the source of light in Heaven? Is that nothing?
The Earth (and more precisely the universe) is billions of years old because that's exactly how old it needs to be in order for intelligent, human life to exist in the universe and have the ability to witness the creation. It would take billions of years for starlight to reach earth from billions of light years away. If God put humans or animals on earth immediately after he created it, we wouldn't be able to observe the stars at all, because the light from them wouldn't have gotten here yet.
I am not picking and choosing, but accepting tradition.
"Getting back to Genesis, 'day' and 'night' means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation."
It means there exists a light that by God's decree shines on half of the earth and not on the other at each moment, and which circles the earth. It does not have to be the sun, only equally strong or more so.
@@manfredconnor3194 What tradition are you even remotely talking about?
I do not know _any_ tradition of not doing so. There may be places where one cannot, like in the woods a bit far from water, but there is no culture saying even in very old traditions one shouldn't - if you know one please cite it!
@@manfredconnor3194 What Semmelweis was arguing against was not a traditional practise. Male experts in gynaecology who were also doctors of medicine performing childbirth assistance in a hospital several times a day was definitely not traditional. It was modern.
And precisely belief in miasma and sometimes demons _did_ inspire good habits of washing.
Tell me when you have an actual point to make ...
@@manfredconnor3194 _"Yes this was perhaps a bad example"_
THANK YOU.
_"but you cannot argue creationism not in this day and age,"_
Learned that phrase from some Masonic idiot in the 1940's? There was a time when those words were used to deny Hell and a real personal Satan.
_"you simply have no leg to stand on, I am afraid,"_
And as some scared people you prefer checking your fears over checking what I do have to stand on.
_"so falling back on centuries of false tradition and false belief will get you nowhere."_
How about proving them false before arguing from them - supposedly - being so?
_"You cannot believe in Genesis when we know what we know about the earth and the universe these days,"_
How about proving that "social knowledge" actual KNOWLEDGE rather than socially accepted big mistakes? Or there never were any such - or admit there were?
_"you would have to be a fool or a person so egotistical that they cannot admit they were on the wrong path."_
That's what you call an ad hominem.
_"The evidence is their unlike the case made for the existence of God for which there is still no evidence."_
If the evidence "is there" why not present it instead of trying to make me "soft" first by mere mudslinging? And thanks for admitting yourself an Atheist or at least Agnostic, meaning you are really not _the_ best contributor to a debate I am trying to take with Hugh Ross ...
I agree with Doctor Ross, but this means there was a day BEFORE creation day 1, and on this day that preceeded creation day 1, things were created. Which means there were 7 days of creation BEFORE what we know as "creation day 7". This means there were 7 full days BEFORE the 7th day. How can this be? Let me explain. God tells us in the book of Exodus that "new moon day" must be the beginning of EVERY month. New moon day is when the moon is new. The day that preceeded creation day one was identified as "in the beginning". On this day "in the beginning", the moon was created, which means this day is to be identified as "new moon day". Perfect, because both Ezekiel and Amos tell us that new moon day CANNOT be counted as one of the 6 work days. New moon day was to be a seperate, set apart day of WORSHIP, not work. That aligns exactly with what the book of Job says about this day in the beginning, that worship took place on it. Job 38 says "where were you in the beginning when I laid the earth's foundation, when the morning stars sang". Here Job explains that stars most definitely did exsist BEFORE creation day 4, and what were they doing? Singing praise to God! This is worship, singing praises to God is a form of worship, and the stars were doing this worship as they were commanded because it was new moon day, a commanded worship day. After the worship day of the new moon is over, then creation day 1-6 take place, just as God commanded. "You are to work 6 days, then rest on the 7th day". 7th day of what? 7th day of the week, which is actually the 8th day of the month, because new moon day happened first and is NOT apart of the weekly count.
Also, understand that I am not trying to convert anyone. What god you may or may not believe in is of no consequence to me. I personally am an atheist. However, I am not saying that it is impossible for a god to exist. I simply can't find any evidence that supports it and plenty to contradict the bible and its many versions and interpretations.
The reason why God would not have created the universe with the "appearance of age" is because that would mean that he had deceived mankind. The bible says that God cannot lie or deceive! And it also says that the heavens declare his glory and the skies proclaim his work. [Pslam 19:1] This means that what we see in the sky represents the TRUE work of God. If starlight appears to be coming from billions of light years away, then that's exactly how far away is because the heavens have declared it.
Excellent , intelligent and sensible. How can anyone claim to know definitively , when Moses is giving his account, he is speaking as an observer of a great and powerful happening, is it for us to confine/ confound into such simplistic , trite dogma .
DR. ROSS MAY GOD BLESS YOU. YOURE AWESOME.. ENJOYING ALL THE VIDEOS!
Also, Genesis 1:2 (the spirit of God hovering over the waters) establishes the point of view for the entire creation text. That perspective is from an observer above the surface of the Earth. So when God says "let their be light", he is allowing light to be seen from that perspective. And when it says he is separating the light from the darkness, it means from the perspective of the observer (which is God). That means it must be talking about the Sun, not God being the source of light.
The evidence is the fact that God "separated the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the darkness "night"! This tells us that he was not the source of the light, but the sun was. God did not separate HIMSELF! The way in which light is separated from darkness is by rotation of the earth, with the sun as the source of light. The scripture doesn't make sense by any other interpretation.
Thank you Sir for providing us enough stuff to believe the truth.
Yes, and I mentioned that this passage is metaphorical (symbolic) just like most everything else from the book of Revelation. What part about that do you not understand?
The Passage of the 4th Day in Genesis 1:14-19 has NOTHING to do with creating or recreating the luminaries as was done on the 1st day. It's literally and figuratively about God appointing/programming the Sun, Moon and Stars the specific divine purpose of being observable Signs, Seasons, Days and Years for all Sentient Beings. Having an intimate impact on the biology, cultures and spiritual Systems of all Sentient Beings made in the following (5th & 6th) days.
Thought of another way...God took a Day for Intentionally willing future Sentient Beings to perceive and observe the Luminaries in a way that affects us as they do. Making sure that as soon as Sentient Beings were created, we would have an intimate, unbreakable relationship with the Lights.
Because of hugh ross, I school people of genesis 😂😂😂. Its amazing
It does say god created the two great lights on day four, so what are we to do with that? It is interesting that it talks about lights in the firmament (sky) and then says "let the Light be" seeming to refer to us being able to now see those lights, but right after it specifically says "Then God created the two great lights, one to rule the day and one to rule the night", so that theory gets ruined.
+95TurboSol : that guy Ross is an Apologetics gymnast or as we say on the streets , a bull shit artist !
I Kat Goat I think he's an authentic guy but yeah you do have to do some contortionist moves to get his idea here to work.
Genesis is a poor ass copy of Enuma Elish, with a few other mythologies sewn in.
One would have to be a bullshit artist in order to sell it as fact.
I Kat Goat Interesting, I've read the epic of Gilgamesh but never read that creation story, they do have some similarities, not as many as the flood story but several. Thanks for the info.
Actually, that's not what it says. It says "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." It doesn't say any of this happened on day four. In fact we know that it wasn't because it uses the word "made" not "created" (in Hebrew they mean two different things). If something is made, it is crafted from already existing material. If something is created, it is brought into existence for the first time. And that's how those two words are treated throughout scripture.
God created the heavens and the earth (all matter, energy, space, and time) "in the beginning". Light existed in the beginning. And we know this light came from the sun because God separated the light from the darkness creating day and night. Light is separated from darkness by the rotation of the earth, and which side faces the sun. Therefore we know the sun existed on day one.
i just love how instead of admitting the current version of the bible is corrupted and wrong, he goes on to try to explain it and doesn't even give a fulfilling answer...
GOD is the big bang.......
Yea...but how did photosynthesis work without the sun?
"That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
The sun was not necessary or even be visible from the Creation of the earth during its creation. God held everything in place.
Your apology is accepted. I don't just spit random information. I take the time to read and learn without the fog of religion to influence the facts. My aim is not to insult anyone, but to examine and discover the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong as much as right because the truth is what is paramount.
But even if we never figure this out, then we've succeeded to find that this God is forever unpredictable, unfathomable and impossible to understand. I imagine that's where He wants us. In a place where we know we are simply nothing without Him.
Not sold on it yet… sounds like another opinion to me. I’m sticking to what I believe is truth and that is the sequence of creation described in Genesis. God is light… the “source” of all light. I believe the two great lights were created in the 3rd day, specifically for the earth.
Genesis 1:5 it says “5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
So the thick layer you’re talking bout was night for the first 3 days?
Plants were created on the third day so how did photosynthesis happened without light especially from the sun since there wasn’t any?
Hence why he created the sun
cause God is Love and he is the light and the truth and the way
LEt there be light = creation of the angels as well
First of all, it doesn't say he created anything on day 4. After describing what God allowed to happen on day 4, the scripture elaborates on what ALREADY happened (in the past). The phrase "God made two great lights" is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four. It is a recount of creation (in more detail), that goes on to explain WHY he did it. It doesn't not denote an act of creation. It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous.
I wonder! If for us 1 day is 24 hours then how many hours it was for God to be 1 day while creating the earth because planets,sun,moon was formed on 4th day?
If God created the heavens and the earth (in the beginning) then the sun existed in the beginning. If God separated day from night on the first day, then that means the sun existed on the first day (because the Sun governs the day. There is no other interpretation that makes logical sense. There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated. Not only does that not make any sense, but the scripture doesn't say that, therefore that's not what happened.
Of course they didnt.They only wrote what they were told to write.The fact that today with modern science we can have insight into the creation account only highlights how
scientificly viable the genesis account is.
5:08 "in the beginning, before the six days"
Confer Exodus.
If God takes his Sabbath rest at 18:00 Friday March 25, this means "the beginning" can be as early as Saturday March 19 at 18:00. Which in Jewish reckoning would count as the beginning of Sunday (March 20 being understood from Church Fathers, not from Jews).
I don't need to. Like I said, you don't need me to explain or reference the information. It's readily available to anyone who wants to learn.....including you.
4:25 this guy is a genious
How?
"The X-ray/optical comparison of the region surrounding McNeil's Nebula shows that the position of a source detected by Chandra is coincident with that of a bright infrared and optical source at the apex of the nebula.Source 3, thought to be a very young star, is illuminating the fan-shaped cloud of gas, or nebula."
Thought to be very young = not seen at its actual beginning.
(continued)
I mentioned that Jesus Christ WILL BE the light of Heaven.
Apocalypse 21:[23] And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.
Apocalypse? 😂
Genesis 1.16 (ESV) "And God *made* the two great lights ..." (Emphasis added.)
It does _not_ say God _made the great lights appear._ It simply says "made."
Thank you for pointing out this. His explanation isn't correct
@@manuelvicente8313 - That's right. Many of Dr. Ross' explanations are incorrect. Quite simply, Dr. Ross doesn't believe the Word of God which means he doesn't believe the author of the Word of God. Dr. Ross is one of the scoffers talked about in 2 Peter 3. Dr. Ross is a deceiver who has led many people astray.
Does he think birds existed before land animals?
If god is the almighty creator what super power created god?
Lol Dr Ross. The birds need to know the seasons? That hebrew word "seasons" does NOT mean summer, winter, etc.
It was the hebrew word "moedim" which means set apart holy days. Gid literally said in Genesis 1:14 that the sun moon and stars are to be observed in order to know when his holy days would be. His luminaries are a clock in the sky.
Yes it is also true that the birds need to be able to regulate their biological clocks to the weather seasons. But this is NOT what this verse, or the hebrew word MOEDIM is refering to.
What about the beasts on the next day?
Did god not make them either?
Answer: No, the beasts were hiding behind a bush and they just came out and appeared!
Excellent answer from Dr. Ross. This is similar to what jw's believe. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning (before the six creative days began starting at Genesis 1:3), God created the heavens and the earth. The physical heavens include the sun, moon and stars. Genesis 1:2 says that there was darkness on the surface of the earth. When God said "Let there be light”, diffused light from the already-created sun began to penetrate the earth's thick atmosphere. Genesis 1:16 says that on the fourth day God "made" the sun, moon and stars, but that does not mean that God created them ex nihilo at that time. The word for "made" in this verse is not the same word as "create" used in Genesis 1:1. God "made" the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day in the sense that he placed them in the sky, causing them to become distinctly visible as light sources from the vantage point of the earth, perhaps due to a gradual thinning of the atmosphere. (Some say that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days, but the word "day" in the Bible can refer to a long period of time.)
So Dr. Ross and JWs believe similarly stupid things. That may be a compliment to the JWs, but not to Dr. Ross.
"Why is the earth billions of years old and you say God created it earlier than that?"....Adam was created a man....not a child...think about that one...
About the firmament, you're still missing my point. Separating the waters to allow a firmament to exist is not an act of "creation". Nothing (matter, energy, space, time, or "life") is being created on creation day 2, or creation day 4. God is only allowing things to be. At best you could say that he MADE the firmament. Making and creating are two different things in Hebrew by they way. In any case, (since we've gotten off topic) the point is, nothing is made on day 4.
You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not.
Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere.
Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two.
"Otherwise the default meaning is simple past." That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past! It does not specify when in the past they were made, only "simple past". Scripture does not say that they were made ON day 4. It says that the light from them is allowed to be seen on day 4. Then in an elaboration the scripture tells us what happened in the "simple past", and relates that to the purpose of these lights which can now be seen on day 4.
Wow, nice explanation... I haven't seen that in Genesis... Really cool! :D
Verse 16 says "God made two great lights"
Correct it says God made ( in Hebrew it means in the past) it doesn’t say God created( bara) which means brand new
@@Terrylb285 go back a verse. "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven"...."And God made". The God made phrase is actually referring back to the creation moment of the sun and moon. So you're right. In 16 they had already been made. In 14-15 they're created.
@@thefellowheirs yes ,the Hebrew word made is in the past tense form . Also Job 38 tells us the stars were there when God laid the foundations of the earth.
And let there be means ,from a conscience observer can now see distinct objects in the sky , the frame is reference is the surface of the earth. Verse 2 establishes that.
thx god there is radiocarbon dating which makes possible to debunk any claims that Earth is older than the Sun. The bubble of apologets just bursted.
He just stated that earth is over billion years so how can it only be 6,000 years old? Some people will said anything just to support their argument or belief! Science is the truth but science does not have all the answer because there are things that are too profound for their knowledge.
The plants already had a sun. The sun existed on day one of creation because LIGHT existed on day one.
how could there be night and day before the creation of the sun?
No sun , no night and day , no sun , no heat , everything would be frozen.
"It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous."
The Hebrew of Moses, the Greek of LXX, the Latin of Vulgate had no specific word for hydrogen as opposed to water.
But hydrogenium means "water origin", wasserstoff means "water stuff" and väte means "wetness".
If you have ever mixed hydrogen with air and lit it with a match, you know why.
And you get a possible scenario of how "he flood gates of heaven were opened".
And you're the one to judge what would be perfectly clear to Bronze Age Hebrews, eh? Of course, my whole take is that God is not very concerned with communicating scientific facts in Genesis anyways. It's not a scientific treatise. It may be accurate, but if there's some scientific misunderstanding due to the narrative's poetic expression, so be it. The theological truth that's being conveyed is more important here than scientific curiosity. God wants us to read the book of creation for that.
(continued)
"Such a scenario may explain why the brightness of McNeil's Nebula appears to vary with time. It appears in optical images taken of this region of Orion in the 1960s, but is absent from images taken in the 1950s and 1990s."
No indication that same sharpness of observation has been applied since e g 1900 and only in 60's the first sighting came.
Telescopes have been improving, and it seems this one could have been fluctuating before they could sight it - even back to Day Four. (ctd
Okay, I see what you're saying now about Adam. Basically you are arguing that Adam was created with the "appearance of age", and that because God has done this he could have also created the universe with the appearance of age. Am I right so far? The problem with this logic is that Adam wasn't created with the appearance of age, he was created brand new but to be fully functional unlike. But that's not the same thing as "age".
Adding on top of that is the fact that the book was written in Hebrew 2000 years ago. Languages continuously evolve and change, so obviously it would be very difficult to decipher. Have you read any English from even 1000 years ago? You need a professional translator to understand 100%