The young lady is correct on her interpretation of a six (literal) day creation event; Frank wants to keep donations coming in, and acknowledging this would be a detriment to his ministry (he does great work aside from this). The Hebrew word for "day" (24-hour period) in Genesis is "yom" (יום, and this is the word used for day in Genesis. In Genesis, the earth is formed before the sun, which would completely contradict how the Heliocentric religion describes how planets (look at the word in Greek (not just the "wondering star definition)) form and these two are at opposition. To further clarify the literal 6-day creation, each day is explicitly stated as: " And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day." This illustrates these days are not epochs of times, but 24-hour days. Trust God's Word, not man, Romans 3:4!
1. "Yom" has several meanings, one of which is a 24-hour period. It comes from the root word meaning "hot", as in the hot part of the day, which would be a 12 hour day. In John 11:9, Jesus says "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" Another meaning is an indefinitely long period of time, as the ending of one era and the beginning of another. 2. No light, including sunlight, shone on Earth until the fourth day. Sooooo, how were the first three days, days? 3. Keep reading. Genesis 2:4 says "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the LORD G-d made the earth and the heavens. The first part means that the days were GENERATIONAL. And if the second part were to be taken literally, then the days of creation would all have to have occurred in ONE DAY. So, six days of creation and one day of rest all happened in one day? Nooo. 4. I agree with Frank on this. No matter how long we believe a creation day is, it doesn't change the context that the heavens and the earth were created by G-d IN THE BEGINNING. It is fun to think about and discuss, but it isn't faith shattering.
@@robertburns7877, 1. Each time "Yom" is used, it's for a 24-hour period. Thank you for adding in Jesus's comments, further clarifying that it He is talking about one single period of daylight, not billions or millions of years. 2. You are wrong; light was on earth the first day, without the sun and moon. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. 3. Re-read Genesis, trying exegetically not eisegetical. That's saying this was the "time period" when the earth was created. He's not suggesting millions or billions of years; again "And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day." 4. I agree with Frank too, that in the beginning, God; it's important to trust His Word, not just on creation; certainly not what lucifarian lucifarian occultists say.
@@gregorylatta8159, if it's revealed to you that lucifarian occultists had tricked you your entire life into sun-god worship, would trust Jesus alone for your salvation?
Frank has some good points. 1. Context is king. 2. Who was this written to. 3. The Bible has different forms of literature to be taken differently. 4. Also Scripture interprets Scripture. 5. The Holy Spirit is our teacher (John 14:26, John 16:13) 6. The Bible is living and active (Heb 4:12. Then of course, there is prayer and meditation on Scripture. This help me, if a Scripture is confusing, how does it fit with the whole theme of the Bible? Thank you LORD for Your Word!!
@@aef789 Really? I am willing to bet that I know 10 times more than you do. I am going to call you out with a very simple question, which will expose your lies and duplicity: Pick your favorite bible story, and provide the testable evidence that it is true! If you cannot (because all bible stories are fake) you will be forced to admit that the bible story is just another lie with no evidence.
I'm a licensed professional engineer and former professor in technology. NOTHING in all my many years of working in science and technology would dissuade me from knowing that the Bible teaches a literal six-days of creation. No evolutionary principle has ever entered into any equation, design, or decision in any of my many projects when working with real physical systems. I don't agree with Frank's analysis here anymore than I would agree with John Lennox's position on the age of the earth, despite my general regard for them. Both men appear to be playing footsies with secular science while clinging to the Word of God. I wish they would go one way or the other because reputable men like these hold huge sway on many people and I feel for this young women. His answer to her is unnecessarily confusing and over emphasizes the benefits of alternate interpretative lenses by which to know God's meaning over a literal hermeneutic. Her concern here is correct and timely. I teach and preach in a Brethren community and recently taught a message entitled "How Big is your God?". One need only ask how many millions of years did Jesus take to create fish and bread ex-nihilo to feed 5000 men, not counting women and children (John 6)? Think about it, here we have the perfect challenge to theistic evolutionists. I agree with atheist Richard Dawkins who said that "sophisticated theologians" who support evolutionary ideas are "deluded" whereas evangelicals who reject all aspects of evolution, including long geological periods of earth time, "got it right in seeing evolution as the enemy". Too many believers are more concerned with looking smart in the eyes of men than being wise in the eyes of God.
Agreed! I replied to someone earlier with the following and thought you may find it interesting. The Bible’s references to the six days of creation bring up several profound scientific and theological insights. The term *yom* ("day") is often debated, but Scripture makes it clear that we are to understand Creation as six literal days, as stated in Exodus 20:11: > “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.” This is reinforced by cosmological insights, which acknowledge the universe had a definite beginning-a "singularity" from which time, matter, and energy emerged. Common Big Bang models describe this as "First there was nothing-and then it exploded." The vastness of the universe makes it difficult to reconcile astronomical time with earth-based time, but Gerald Schroeder’s quantum physics analysis suggests that with an expansion factor of approximately 10^12, 16 billion years can compress to about six days, depending on the "clock" perspective. The Bible also alludes to key physical laws. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Matter and Energy, appears in Scripture, but the 2nd Law, the Law of Entropy, is particularly significant. Entropy gives time its direction and implies the universe had a beginning, as infinite existence would mean a uniform temperature everywhere. Since heat still flows from hot to cold and temperatures vary, we know the universe is not infinitely old and is headed toward an end. Genesis emphasizes the phrasing “evening and morning” to mark each day: > “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:5) The Hebrew *erev* (evening) and *boker* (morning) carry symbolic meanings: *erev* denotes disorder, while *boker* represents order. As night falls, our perception of order fades (erev), and at dawn, order re-emerges (boker). Each day of creation represents a decrease in entropy-a move toward order-except the seventh day, where there was no entropy change, yet it, too, was bound by “evening and morning.” Additionally, the first day is called *yom echad* ("Day One"), a unique designation marking the creation of time itself, while the other days are labeled in sequence: "Second day," "Third day," and so on.
If the earth and universe truly is as young as genesis implies, then that would be disappointing- A young earth does not do justice to the immensity and beauty of the universe that we observe. And frankly it contradicts the big bang theory, which implies an old universe.
@@raymondblake5765 The immensity and beauty of the universe express the glory of God; neither attribute is a function of age. Every mother views with awe and wonder her new born child, though it be but a day old. The big-bang theory is by definition a theory. God asks Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? (Job 38:4). Secular physics cannot answer the most important questions or explain where matter and energy came from in the first place. All these origin theories omit God from the equation so why would I care whether a young universe contradicts an atheistic world view of origins when I have God's Word on the matter? Answers in Genesis and other creation sites already provide ample reasons for even the most science minded believer to wholly trust in God's Word. Also, James Tour, one of the world's most renowned micro-chemists has more than taken on the pro-Abiogenesis crowd at the highest academic levels who claim life has evolved from base chemicals through random processes. He has his own web site and has aptly revealed the myths entrenched in current secular thinking. We have no reason to doubt God's Word.
@ A young Earth doesn’t diminish the beauty or grandeur of the universe; it highlights the power and purpose of a Creator who designed it intentionally and fully formed. The notion that beauty requires billions of years is unfounded-just as a master artist creates instantly stunning work, God could craft a magnificent universe in a short time. The Big Bang theory, while popular, faces unresolved issues like the horizon problem and unexplained origins. Alternative models, such as those incorporating Einstein’s relativity, reconcile observable data with a young Earth, showing how phenomena like distant starlight can align with a biblical timeline. Far from disappointing, a young Earth emphasizes the immediacy of God’s glory and purpose, reflecting His power to create a vast, intricate cosmos to inspire awe and declare His majesty, regardless of its age.
The first verse is an overview, a high level description of the entire creation. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.". That's an overview of the entire creation, not step one in the creation. Then he goes back and breaks it down into days.
That is what i am thinking too. Same for chapter 2 where just a futher description is given about the creation of man. I d like to know what Hebrew experts say about this
I always take all of the Bible literally. That being said there are parts, like parables or allegories, that have to be interpreted to get the right meaning which I take literally.
A dragon with ten heads and seven crowns doesn't exist literally. There was the Ottoman Empire over the region of Israel slowly giving up Israel but then broken into ten pieces in 1919 with Woodrow Wilson's "Determinism" and later a man like Barack Husssein Obama who removes three kings in 29 days of 2011 and so perhaps another Democratic President might gain prostration in Islam and reform the Ottoman Empire for the 8th leadeth unto the 7th. 7th what? 7th direct ruler over Israel. 1) Babylon 2) Persia 3) Greece and Macedonia 4) Rome 5) Holy Roman Empire 6) Byzantine 7) Ottoman Empire Germany, British Empire, France, and the USA (so far) have never directly wanted to rule over Israel. THAAD is now directly in Israel controlled by American soldiers. Matthew 24:27-28 "For as BARACK cometh out of the East and shineth even so far as the West so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man, for wherever the bodies lie so too AN EAGLE IN UNION."
@@vladtheemailer3223Jesus himself spoke in hyperbole and parables. A hyperbole by nature is an exaggeration, the above is not a modern take but how it is intended to be read.
I won't say _all_ of the Bible is allegory, but certainly _any_ of it could be allegory. Paul says we are to be ministers of the spirit, not of the letter, and that some Old Testament stories are allegories. Jesus never spoke but in a parable, at least not to his disciples. Psalms says that God speaks in "dark sayings", and Proverbs tells us that wisdom is understanding the dark sayings.
Frank is quite right to point the finger at most churches in their complete derogation of their duty to make disciples. I'm sure most young people and new Christians have no idea about how to read the Bible, let alone the overall picture of our life-reality and the flow of biblical history. Most wouldn't even defend the elements of the Apostles Creed with any coherence! Let alone have any deeper understanding of theology or the contents of the Bible. Truly a terrible state of affairs that the modern church has let fester without shame, it would seem. I think, therefore, Grace, who raised this issue, raised a very important one both in general and in the detailed example she sprang from. Frank's comments invite more discussion, as a result. The first point is to agree that genre is vital to understanding a text; but Frank fails to discuss that on the basis of genre, Genesis 1 is historical narrative; indeed, reporting. It is set out as a structured list with the structure of declaration, result, assessment and time-stamp driving the report. It is, in fact, more like a modern computing data structure than anything else in the history of language. It is set up to be taken in terms of its direct content, seriously. One could, in fact compare it with Numbers 7:12ff and 29:12ff where there are very similar chronologically demarked lists. The next item to address is the notion of 'purpose and audience'. Frank's view that Genesis 1 can be reduced to a 'polemic' is one of the great acts of tendentious mitigation of all time, with all respect to our dear brother. In fact, 'mere polemic' would be the apt expression. If Genesis 1 is but a polemic, a rebuttal of pagan creation stories, and it is not true to history, then it is hardly a polemic at all. It is as useful as a knife in a gun fight. But this again underplays what Genesis 1 is about. It's purpose is indeed arguably to boost the confidence of the Israelites in terms of Yahweh's identity but to deny that it does this by being historically untrue would amount to betrayal of any trust that identity sought to invoke. It would truly undermine God's declaration of his identity. Frank has failed to grasp the underlying 'philosophy' of the Bible texts, most prominently evident in the broadly historical accounts and passages. I would call this 'concrete historical realism'. This renders null the pagan fantasies from Idealism to Animism and substitutes a creation that is historically and foundationally real and significant: being created with propositional content in the real terms of our experience of life in that creation. Ponder Proverbs 3:19-20. The concrete historical realism of the Bible means that the creation account, the description of God's spoken acts, gives us real information about the creation (it features rational causality, dependency hierarchies, has true noetic content) that is reliable to material context and human experience by which knowledge can be gained and communicated. God showing the way by his Word. (God's) words truly structure reality! The fact that the words are spoken in a cadence of days is of critical importance. Nor do day's come into existence on day 4 (not 3). On day four we get the time markers: the 'signs' of the passage of time. This is not to say that the passage of time commenced here. It clearly commence on day 1. The days serve two purposes: they indicate that the passage of time is basic to the cosmos and our lives. Like energy (light), time is basic to material reality. Theologically, they show that God is near: he works in the tempo he creates in the cosmos that will be the tempo of our experience of it. Thus he shows himself present and active in our 'life-world'. He is not the god afar, indifferent, remote and uninvolved. He is here, the God who is love, with us. Genesis 3:8 brings this to the climax which builds over the days, brought together on the 6th day, with 'very good'. Above all, the days place the creation in our history and connect us to God who works in the same days in which we work: the first act of fellowship in that he shares in our tempo of life. in our very home! Let's not confuse the markers with the passing of time. Moses calibrates the tempo of the creation by defining the days as 'evening and morning' type days, and counts them as such. He reminds us repeatedly as to what these days are, driving the point. Thus the wonderful theology that springs from this. Yahweh is utterly different from the god-conceptions of pagans (either indifferent or contained within the cosmos) and deists (remote and uninvolved). He works in our world, to make a commutative connection with us, creatures in his image for whom the created cosmos is truly meaningful. When it comes to precisely locating (dating) the events of creation in that history in which they are placed, of course this is not the interest of Genesis 1. The time line comes from the very precisely and obviously set out 'chrono-genealogies' later in Genesis, which give sufficient detail to provide an order of magnitude timing of creation from then to now. This is the only culture- and date-independent means of placing the creation in real history. The importance of a recent creation is that it eliminates pagan/materialist attempts to use indeterminately vast if not 'eternal' spans of time to distance mankind from the creation and/or to destroy any real connection with any possible 'creator' and make us to be foreigners in our home. Yet, Psalm 115:16! Oddly enough, the imagined modern age of the cosmos, let alone earth, is entirely insufficient for putative evolutionary processes to produce life as we know it! Or indeed, life at all! Because the Bible in its entirety is written for the instruction of all mankind at all relevant times, the creation account must convey what really happened. If on the other hand it does not, then reality is constituted in some way other than that revealed, a way about which we know nothing, or is as has been suggested by pagans or materialists (or spiritists), all giving us in impersonal incomprehensible reality (or something else, unknown and unknowable) from which we are disconnected and thus lost in a meaningless emptiness of space and time where even ordinary causality is not warranted. The Genesis account is thus not amenable to being taken 'hyper-literally' (a slur, if every there was one) but requires to be taken in 'historical concrete realist' terms. These terms mean that we are told things that are true: about the material world we are in, about ourselves as denizens in that world, its vicegerents and the creator God to whom we relate either as rebels or children in that world. At the end, Grace was right. Miss the creation as real events in real history by the word of the only real communicating God, and one is left with the arid purposeless cosmos of materialism, or impersonal spiritism. God agrees with Grace: Exodus 31:3 (cf. Pv 3:19 , 20) and 17f: God in his own words!
I appreciate Frank's work and agree that this is not the "hill to die on". One's salvation does not depend on the age of the universe. But I think this issue puts man's interpretation of observed "evidence" ahead of God's word. (How do we explain dinosaur soft tissue found in bones? How about the evidence for a global flood.) The Bible also does not say or even hint that God created the world and everything in it, using evolution. Why would he if he can merely speak things into existence. Evolution is a bad theory. Frank is trying to mix creation and evolution because he has bought the lie. He has been listening to William Lane Craig, et al, who are theological evolutionists. Sin brought death is a common message in the Bible beginning with Adam and Eve. Is God so illiterate that he has deceived us or obscured the truth by using the word "day" when he meant something else? Let God, through the Bible, speak for himself. We will all be better off for it.
What is the evidence for the Global Flood. It never happened. All science facts disprove the Flood claim. The soft tissue was actually collagen, and the T-Rex find by Mary Schweitzer was dated to be 65+ million years old. Evolution is a fact, it has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory The only truth in the bible is the page numbers. Do you have any more lies?
@@maylingng4107 you talking total nonsense. anyone reading your tripe can disqualify your opinion in a minute using some google searches and common sense Why do they need to prove evolution in a laboratory??? - all the chemicals will just continuously organise themselves into new intelligent sentient life forms without scientists having to do anything?
So when the bible says that the tomb of the saints opened and wandered the city, was that literal or figurative? When god commanded the slaughter of babies and children, was that to be taken literally or figuratively?
default should be literal. when there's a problem with literal interpretation, THEN you begin exploring figurative interpretations. but you shouldn't just interpret it however you want. you should use reliable sources such as your pastor or commentary book. tradition is also important. how did theologians interpret that passage throughout history? what about now? what is the general consensus? sometimes there are 2 or 3 competing interpretations that all have equally valid arguments and scriptural support. for example, calvinist vs arminian, or continuationism vs cessationism. in those cases, you just lean to the one that you like, while (and this is important) keeping in mind that opposing views could be true. for the saints wandering the city, i don't see a problem taking it literally. for the slaughter of children, even though i understand that it sounds horrible, i still don't see a problem with it being literal. frank has answered this question many times already. one of his answers are "if christianity is true, when we die, we don't disappear. we just change location. so god doesn't murder anyone, he just changes their location." or something like that. and many theologians think that it's a hyperbole. philosophically, IF christianity is true, then god decides what is good and bad. so it wouldn't make logical sense to say that god is bad for doing this or that because you'd be placing YOUR moral standards above god's moral standards.
@@joegame4576 How would you like if we changed your location, Joe? Murdering (by god) millions of babies and infants is your god's higher moral standard?
What if the six days had nothing to do with all of this. What if it was 6 actual days, but the length that Adam and Eve stayed in the garden was a lot longer?? What if it was millions of years for example. Then after they sinned and were kicked out of the garden they lost the tree of life and thus they ended up dying?
A few points: - the idea of six days is repeated many times throughout the Old and New Testaments with theological implications, so it definitely does not have "nothing to do with it" - Having Adam and Eve stay a long time in the garden doesn't help much, for instance the animals were created before Eve - Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply, but hadn't before they sinned, so most would suppose that it was a relatively short period of time.
@@maylingng4107 Is this the science that thought that the appendix was useless, that eyes are designed back-to-front and that whales used to walk on land.
Should the Creation story in genesis be taken literally ? What about evolution over millions of years that science proved ? What about Noah and the flood that has also been debunked by science ?
Science has proved nothing of the kind. Neo-darwinian evolution would have to be the greatest con-job ever pulled on mankind. It simply explains nothing but gives us 'just so' stories, based on Darwin's ignorant gross morphology fantasy.
To have everlasting life you absolutely must trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation 💖 this means that saving repentance is turning from unbelief to belief. You either believe that Jesus paid your sin debt in full or you don't.
Because the book is the best form of communication: and the point is only secondarily to 'follow' God, it is to obey him and trust Christ's salvation for eternal peace and joy with him.
The testimony of Jesus christ is the spirit of prophesy it is the key of David which opens up the door to understand prophesy. The gospel. And the holy spirit are creating men in God's image
The only truth in the bible is the page numbers. Select your favorite bible story (Noah's Flood, Exodus, etc.) and supply the evidence for that story. Can you?
@maylingng4107 science tells us that the earth is billions of years old you have to understand the 3 earth ages. The first earth age was when Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven Luke 10-18. And Jeremiah 4-22-27 is when God decides to create man in his own image. After Gen 1 verse 2 the days of recreation began how did God decide to create man in his own image he sent us his word john1 in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Hebrews 7 1-3 melchisedec king of Salem priest of the most high no father no mother no beginning no end he became the son of God. 1GOD 1faith and 1baptisim the word became flesh and redeemed humanity and left us the holy spirit the gospel and the holy spirit is creating men in God's image revelations 12-17 . We are not here by accident. We must be born from above first by water the human body is what 80% water and then of spirit the spirit is the intellect of your soul you need the word of God
@@don-ek3ud You could not refute the age of the earth. You can not provide a single eyewitness to Jesus (outside the bible) Your lies are exposed, and your goose is cooked.
if may have to research all meanings of word or the root of the word in order to get the most out of it. the translations can use specific language yet they may tilt the true meaning. just be cautious and curious and get old Latin, Greek and Hebrew translation books
Much of Frank's comments are wrong here or misconstrued. Yes, Genesis 1 doesn't does not say how old the Earth is. How could it? The age is constantly lengthening. But the age is determined by the history in other passages. Genesis 1 says the Bible was created in the beginning in six clearly literal days. Exodus 20 in the Sabbath law clearly and unequivocally says that. The genealogies in later passages in Genesis enable us to determine the age of the Earth. The idea that Genesis 1 is a polemic against Egyptian ideas is NOT a result of good Bible interpretation, it is an idea invented and used to avoid the conflict between the Bible's clear young earth view and the long age views of modern science. It is clear that Genesis is composed of historical records that Moses has compiled and edited. The records are indicated by the phrases "these are the generations of....". It is also clear that the early ones were written before the Egyptians. Genesis is written as historical narrative, including Genesis 1 and 2. That is clear from the passages, and the view of the rest of Scripture. Yes it is important to consider the genre of the portions of Scripture, but despite Frank's and the commentators advise to use good hermeneutics, their views on the age of the Earth and Genesis 1 are bad hermeneutics. The girl who asked the question was right, they are wrong.
The creation story is telling us how God created earth right? The bible clearly states that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. That simply states that God can manipulate time and space and that time means nothing to him. So to say that a day about Gods work of creation is one of our days is ridiculous because time is irrelevant to him and a day for him could be a thousand years to us or it could be 10 thousand years to us. He is the Alpha and Omega the first and last he transcends time.
@talleneagle1974 Your argument is in favour of 6 day creation, not long age creation. Yes "time is irrelevant to him" in that he can do something in a short time or a long time because he is outside of time as he created it in the beginning and remains outside of it. And he is omnipotent and omniscient so he can do what he wills. But he called creation into being and into time, and created the Earth in six days as he says clearly. He is a God of truth and doesn't lie or deceive. When God says something took a day, or year, or month you would not use this same twisted logic and say it can mean any length of time at all. The days of Genesis 1 must mean a literal day because they are numbered and described as successive evenings and mornings. God could not have been clearer or more emphatic. It is very clear that creation was a process which was quick and miraculous because it was God doing creative work. He stops creating after six days and after the rest day enters into history as the sustainer of this universe. But the processes of creation were clearly different from the processes of maintaining his creation. A problem with long age views is that they confuse the two.
@russellholmes8742 maybe you have trouble understanding context or reading comprehension. The Genesis story isn't mans story it's Gods and time is a creation of his and our years are only a description of our reality. God doesn't operate in our time, it's stated like i said a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God. God created everything in his time not our earth days because the creation story has nothing to do with man or his works or days. We're in Gods day of rest in this present time, and it's not a day it's been thousands of years.
@@talleneagle1974 So when God told Moses "You shall keep the Sabbath...Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death..Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ (Exodus 31) God lied and yet he made it a capital offence for the Israelites to ignore a lie and work 7 days a week? Is it also a lie that God said not to murder and thus the death penalty did not really apply? What other laws are a lie: adultery, theft, bestiality....?
“Where it’s meant to be taken literally” ?? No one can take that answer “literally”. There are some historical texts that (based upon the preponderance of existing physical evidence) can be viewed as factually true. Take for instance the towns/cities of ancient Palestine that still exist. But that’s a Far cry from claiming the supernatural events reported in those ancient texts are fact as well. There exists “literally” no physical evidence to support ANY of of those ancient (or even modern) claims of a supernatural origin such as ghosts, demons, manipulation of natural laws, resurrecting the dead (including Jesus), walking (unaided) on water, parting of the Red Sea, turning water into the finest of wine, etc etc. And one other thing… human testimonials are not perfectly reliable. Humans create all kinds of ideas for various personal or institutional motives. Take “eyewitness testimony”. Since the introduction of (scientific) DNA analysis, ask any cop or District Attorney what kind of evidence they’d prefer to have in court and it will be hands down (physical) DNA evidence. Over 230 “innocents” have been convicted just since the 1960s on eyewitness testimony and later exonerated based upon follow-up DNA testing. Science reveals fact… human testimonials not nearly as much. And that consists of the entire bible (minus the physical locations previously mentioned).
i say use combination of common sense and education. when jesus says "i am the door", common sense tell us that it doesn't make sense if taken literally. and education taught us what a metaphor is.
@@clivehayball3782 That is true for some reason I thought it specifically named Adam and Eve however it does relate to Genesis 1:27. Don't trust the A.I. results that dominate searches now. The 6 days of creation are clear literal days. Some can't let go of evolution thinking God could have used it in His creation of organism when it has zero evidence or credibility. Tons of evidence to support a young Earth.
The bible should be taken literally. Period. Even the poetry should be taken literally. His explanation of divy up part to taken literally and other parts as just pretty words is Wrong. The bible is divinely inspired or not. The bible didn't mention the age of earth or the universe because it's not the main focus. People keep making Christianity more difficult than it needs to be.
As I read Wilfred Owen, Sigfied Sasson, or Robert Brooke, poets of WWI, I know they refer to what was really real! If you read Lowells' poems, you do not doubt that places such as Washington, West Street or Rapallo truly existed! You are right. But the age of the earth is important, or you have fallen into the pagan idealist trap: that its not. God made a real creation for real relationships between us and him.
Tired does a lot of good for Christianity, but being a scholar, he is looking at the books as though they were written by “men” to a specific group, of men. And yes, God did use human authors, but we call the Bible “The Word of God” because it was written by God to all humans, to his entire creation. It was written to me. And it was written to you. The Bible was written so that you and I can have the truth. God wrote Genesis 1:1 to us so that you and I would know who created the earth. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point that the Bible is written to all humans so that they can know the truth.
The bible was written by primitive and ignorant goat herders who believed the earth to be flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. They understood not much about nature, so they invented childish tales pf god, miracles, and unreasonable claims to cover their ignorance and to control the gullible. There is not a single bible story that can be backed up by evidence.
Ahh...so WHO decides what is literal? Frank Turek and Co? The bible is very clear that creation was created in 6 days... Genesis _"...and there was evening, and there was morning-the second day."_ If you cannot take that at faith and choose to rely on pseudo science...then where is your faith?
The Bible’s references to the six days of creation bring up several profound scientific and theological insights. The term *yom* ("day") is often debated, but Scripture makes it clear that we are to understand Creation as six literal days, as stated in Exodus 20:11: > “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.” This is reinforced by cosmological insights, which acknowledge the universe had a definite beginning-a "singularity" from which time, matter, and energy emerged. Common Big Bang models describe this as "First there was nothing-and then it exploded." The vastness of the universe makes it difficult to reconcile astronomical time with earth-based time, but Gerald Schroeder’s quantum physics analysis suggests that with an expansion factor of approximately 10^12, 16 billion years can compress to about six days, depending on the "clock" perspective. The Bible also alludes to key physical laws. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Matter and Energy, appears in Scripture, but the 2nd Law, the Law of Entropy, is particularly significant. Entropy gives time its direction and implies the universe had a beginning, as infinite existence would mean a uniform temperature everywhere. Since heat still flows from hot to cold and temperatures vary, we know the universe is not infinitely old and is headed toward an end. Genesis emphasizes the phrasing “evening and morning” to mark each day: > “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:5) The Hebrew *erev* (evening) and *boker* (morning) carry symbolic meanings: *erev* denotes disorder, while *boker* represents order. As night falls, our perception of order fades (erev), and at dawn, order re-emerges (boker). Each day of creation represents a decrease in entropy-a move toward order-except the seventh day, where there was no entropy change, yet it, too, was bound by “evening and morning.” Additionally, the first day is called *yom echad* ("Day One"), a unique designation marking the creation of time itself, while the other days are labeled in sequence: "Second day," "Third day," and so on.
@@maylingng4107 at least take some effort to use google and common sense when replying . Faith is to have trust and confidence. Plenty of evidence of the winning political party after an election but everyone relies on faith that they will deliver what they promised.
@@zoelong6021 When it comes to religious claims, faith is not based on any evidence. Religion (almost all) is made up fiction, is based on invented tales. Faith is just hoping for something that may or may not happen. Religion goes against all common sense. Stories of the supernatural arise from ignorant minds only, ignorant minds, like yours. You are confusing faith with FORECAST (politics). Intelligent people do not rely of faith, they rely on evidence. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen". Einstein shared this opinion in a 1948 Harper's Magazine article.
If the God that created everything is the author of genesis, there would be no need for interpretation, and if they don’t have a word for a thing, you would think God would give them a new word for such a thing and explain what it is. No this just reinforces the fact that these stories are from primitive people that don’t understand the reality that we live in, or the nature of things.
Foolish Frank raving away again as though he knows what Israelites were thinking 3,500 years ago. Supremely arrogant. All that fame has gone to his head.
@georgeochs1302 what he said was that certain parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally such as parables and poetry, which I completely agree with. What I mean is that since Genesis is neither poetry or parable it should be taken literally. To take it literally is a six day creation.
@maylingng4107 no way you can prove what you're saying I'm giving Bible scripture and verse Luke 10-18 genesis 1-2 Jeremiah 4-22-27 genesis 1-26 this is why God decided to create man in his own image and its doen by the gospel and the holy spirit revelations 12-17 read your Bible
@@don-ek3ud Science tells no such thing. There is only one age of the earth. The age of the earth has been measured and can be measured today to be 4.567 billion years. All geologists (except for creationists, like you) agree and not one claims otherwise. Can you name any evidence or a scientist that disagrees? The oldest reliably dated Homo sapiens fossils are from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and are approximately 300,000 years old. The bible is 100% myths, lies and fiction. The biblical Jesus is not supported by a single evidence. Can you name a single EYEWITNESS (outside the lies in the bible) who mentions Jesus in his writing? There is NONE.
what about exodus 21? Literal or metaphorical? Should we buy our slaves from the heathen that surround us or not? Can we beat our slaves so long as they don’t die within a couple of days? Can we pass our slaves on to our children?
fazerianducati you mentioned Exo. 21. The passage is too long but I will respond to one point. First let me be clear that you are clearly a "serpent in the garden." Now the passages in chapter 21 of Exo. are limiting the Jew so they do not treat their workers (slaves) too harshly. It actually gives the workers (slaves) certain rights.
It is all Israel's redemptive story. Highly allegorical, and metaphorical. Has nothing to do with us, other than what Jesus teaches , which can be of value .
Most of the "contradictions" can be explained by rightly dividing what is for the Jews from what is for us gentiles in the dispensation of the grace of God. James and Paul contradict because the Jews were and will be under the law. Works are not required under grace but are under law. Only in Paul's books do we find Jesus' teaching for us in this dispensation.
just ridiculous....Frank says Moses mentions God is out of universe...can u imagine such nonsense..And how does ole Frank know what is poetry, how to interpret it....WHY SHOULD THIS BOOK STILL BE trying to be understood 2,100 years from being written.... can you imagine....and this is supposed to be the main book of the world...But guys like Frank just KNOWS IT ALL....has anyone ever wondered how he knows everything ??? because he says he does.... it is that simple....he knows nothing more than anyone else...and no one's meaning of this bible is better than anyone else....that is the problem....POOR OLE GRACE...FRANK AND HIS PEOPLE HAVE HER IN A TRANCE...she has no idea the true history of this book as she is locked into these apologists....what a shame...and none of these biased apologists will ever share with poor ole grace all the problems...just like YWHW...who is made up...the thunderstorm god...
You claim that YWHW is the storm god, but where are the evidence and your sources? You have blind faith in the matter and you project this to others too....
@@derjogderjog8031 Scripture repeatedly affirms that God is beyond the created universe-He is not confined to it (Isaiah 55:8-9, Psalm 139:7-12). God’s nature is infinite, and His presence extends beyond the limits of time and space. The idea that God is “out” of the universe doesn’t negate His active involvement in it-He created it and sustains it (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3). Regarding interpretation, the Bible is not just a book of historical facts but includes various genres-history, poetry, prophecy-requiring careful, context-driven exegesis. Frank, like others, seeks to interpret Scripture faithfully, not because he "knows it all," but because he believes the Bible is divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Bible’s enduring relevance for over 2,000 years speaks to its divine authority, not its obsolescence. It is the standard by which all truth is measured (John 17:17). As for the critique of God being a "thunderstorm god," this reduces Him to a pagan deity. The Bible presents God as both transcendent and immanent-He is the Creator of all (Genesis 1:1), not a force of nature, and His plan for salvation is revealed through His Word, which has stood the test of time (Hebrews 4:12). The Bible is a divinely woven tapestry-historical, prophetic, and scientific truths intertwined. If we dismiss the Bible, we reject the very foundation of reality and truth itself. Rather than dismissing the Bible, the challenge is to understand its depth and wisdom, recognizing that its divine authority is what truly gives it lasting value. The issue is not about human opinion but about understanding the truth that God has revealed to us in His Word.
I read the Bible 3 ways. Literally, metaphorically. and with faith. I catch myself finding more and more amazing things reading this way.
Whenever yom is preceded by a number ie “6”the day it is always a 24 hr day. Evening and morning the 6th day ❤
The young lady is correct on her interpretation of a six (literal) day creation event; Frank wants to keep donations coming in, and acknowledging this would be a detriment to his ministry (he does great work aside from this).
The Hebrew word for "day" (24-hour period) in Genesis is "yom" (יום, and this is the word used for day in Genesis.
In Genesis, the earth is formed before the sun, which would completely contradict how the Heliocentric religion describes how planets (look at the word in Greek (not just the "wondering star definition)) form and these two are at opposition.
To further clarify the literal 6-day creation, each day is explicitly stated as: " And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day." This illustrates these days are not epochs of times, but 24-hour days.
Trust God's Word, not man, Romans 3:4!
If the 6 day creation story is not literal which I am not refuting would you still trust in Jesus alone for your salvation?
1. "Yom" has several meanings, one of which is a 24-hour period. It comes from the root word meaning "hot", as in the hot part of the day, which would be a 12 hour day. In John 11:9, Jesus says "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" Another meaning is an indefinitely long period of time, as the ending of one era and the beginning of another.
2. No light, including sunlight, shone on Earth until the fourth day. Sooooo, how were the first three days, days?
3. Keep reading. Genesis 2:4 says "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the LORD G-d made the earth and the heavens.
The first part means that the days were GENERATIONAL. And if the second part were to be taken literally, then the days of creation would all have to have occurred in ONE DAY. So, six days of creation and one day of rest all happened in one day? Nooo.
4. I agree with Frank on this. No matter how long we believe a creation day is, it doesn't change the context that the heavens and the earth were created by G-d IN THE BEGINNING. It is fun to think about and discuss, but it isn't faith shattering.
@@robertburns7877,
1. Each time "Yom" is used, it's for a 24-hour period. Thank you for adding in Jesus's comments, further clarifying that it He is talking about one single period of daylight, not billions or millions of years.
2. You are wrong; light was on earth the first day, without the sun and moon. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
3. Re-read Genesis, trying exegetically not eisegetical. That's saying this was the "time period" when the earth was created. He's not suggesting millions or billions of years; again "And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."
4. I agree with Frank too, that in the beginning, God; it's important to trust His Word, not just on creation; certainly not what lucifarian lucifarian occultists say.
@@gregorylatta8159, if it's revealed to you that lucifarian occultists had tricked you your entire life into sun-god worship, would trust Jesus alone for your salvation?
Well said.
Frank has some good points. 1. Context is king. 2. Who was this written to. 3. The Bible has different forms of literature to be taken differently. 4. Also Scripture interprets Scripture. 5. The Holy Spirit is our teacher (John 14:26, John 16:13) 6. The Bible is living and active (Heb 4:12. Then of course, there is prayer and meditation on Scripture. This help me, if a Scripture is confusing, how does it fit with the whole theme of the Bible? Thank you LORD for Your Word!!
The only truth in the bible is the page numbers, nothing else.
@@maylingng4107 Yeah so what is the truth then? Feel like this one isn't getting answered.
@@SheepAmongG.O.A.T
The truth is that the bible 100% fiction, myths and lies.
Is that a straight enough answer for you?
@@maylingng4107The only truth here is that you know....nothing.
@@aef789
Really? I am willing to bet that I know 10 times more than you do. I am going to call you out with a very simple question, which will expose your lies and duplicity:
Pick your favorite bible story, and provide the testable evidence that it is true!
If you cannot (because all bible stories are fake) you will be forced to admit that the bible story is just another lie with no evidence.
I'm a licensed professional engineer and former professor in technology. NOTHING in all my many years of working in science and technology would dissuade me from knowing that the Bible teaches a literal six-days of creation. No evolutionary principle has ever entered into any equation, design, or decision in any of my many projects when working with real physical systems. I don't agree with Frank's analysis here anymore than I would agree with John Lennox's position on the age of the earth, despite my general regard for them. Both men appear to be playing footsies with secular science while clinging to the Word of God. I wish they would go one way or the other because reputable men like these hold huge sway on many people and I feel for this young women. His answer to her is unnecessarily confusing and over emphasizes the benefits of alternate interpretative lenses by which to know God's meaning over a literal hermeneutic. Her concern here is correct and timely.
I teach and preach in a Brethren community and recently taught a message entitled "How Big is your God?". One need only ask how many millions of years did Jesus take to create fish and bread ex-nihilo to feed 5000 men, not counting women and children (John 6)? Think about it, here we have the perfect challenge to theistic evolutionists. I agree with atheist Richard Dawkins who said that "sophisticated theologians" who support evolutionary ideas are "deluded" whereas evangelicals who reject all aspects of evolution, including long geological periods of earth time, "got it right in seeing evolution as the enemy". Too many believers are more concerned with looking smart in the eyes of men than being wise in the eyes of God.
Agreed! I replied to someone earlier with the following and thought you may find it interesting.
The Bible’s references to the six days of creation bring up several profound scientific and theological insights. The term *yom* ("day") is often debated, but Scripture makes it clear that we are to understand Creation as six literal days, as stated in Exodus 20:11:
> “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.”
This is reinforced by cosmological insights, which acknowledge the universe had a definite beginning-a "singularity" from which time, matter, and energy emerged. Common Big Bang models describe this as "First there was nothing-and then it exploded." The vastness of the universe makes it difficult to reconcile astronomical time with earth-based time, but Gerald Schroeder’s quantum physics analysis suggests that with an expansion factor of approximately 10^12, 16 billion years can compress to about six days, depending on the "clock" perspective.
The Bible also alludes to key physical laws. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Matter and Energy, appears in Scripture, but the 2nd Law, the Law of Entropy, is particularly significant. Entropy gives time its direction and implies the universe had a beginning, as infinite existence would mean a uniform temperature everywhere. Since heat still flows from hot to cold and temperatures vary, we know the universe is not infinitely old and is headed toward an end.
Genesis emphasizes the phrasing “evening and morning” to mark each day:
> “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:5)
The Hebrew *erev* (evening) and *boker* (morning) carry symbolic meanings: *erev* denotes disorder, while *boker* represents order. As night falls, our perception of order fades (erev), and at dawn, order re-emerges (boker). Each day of creation represents a decrease in entropy-a move toward order-except the seventh day, where there was no entropy change, yet it, too, was bound by “evening and morning.” Additionally, the first day is called *yom echad* ("Day One"), a unique designation marking the creation of time itself, while the other days are labeled in sequence: "Second day," "Third day," and so on.
Well said
If the earth and universe truly is as young as genesis implies, then that would be disappointing-
A young earth does not do justice to the immensity and beauty of the universe that we observe. And frankly it contradicts the big bang theory, which implies an old universe.
@@raymondblake5765 The immensity and beauty of the universe express the glory of God; neither attribute is a function of age. Every mother views with awe and wonder her new born child, though it be but a day old. The big-bang theory is by definition a theory. God asks Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? (Job 38:4). Secular physics cannot answer the most important questions or explain where matter and energy came from in the first place. All these origin theories omit God from the equation so why would I care whether a young universe contradicts an atheistic world view of origins when I have God's Word on the matter? Answers in Genesis and other creation sites already provide ample reasons for even the most science minded believer to wholly trust in God's Word. Also, James Tour, one of the world's most renowned micro-chemists has more than taken on the pro-Abiogenesis crowd at the highest academic levels who claim life has evolved from base chemicals through random processes. He has his own web site and has aptly revealed the myths entrenched in current secular thinking. We have no reason to doubt God's Word.
@ A young Earth doesn’t diminish the beauty or grandeur of the universe; it highlights the power and purpose of a Creator who designed it intentionally and fully formed. The notion that beauty requires billions of years is unfounded-just as a master artist creates instantly stunning work, God could craft a magnificent universe in a short time.
The Big Bang theory, while popular, faces unresolved issues like the horizon problem and unexplained origins. Alternative models, such as those incorporating Einstein’s relativity, reconcile observable data with a young Earth, showing how phenomena like distant starlight can align with a biblical timeline.
Far from disappointing, a young Earth emphasizes the immediacy of God’s glory and purpose, reflecting His power to create a vast, intricate cosmos to inspire awe and declare His majesty, regardless of its age.
She is so right.
The first verse is an overview, a high level description of the entire creation. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.". That's an overview of the entire creation, not step one in the creation. Then he goes back and breaks it down into days.
That is what i am thinking too. Same for chapter 2 where just a futher description is given about the creation of man.
I d like to know what Hebrew experts say about this
I always take all of the Bible literally. That being said there are parts, like parables or allegories, that have to be interpreted to get the right meaning which I take literally.
The bible is 100% myths and fake stories with no evidence for any of them.
A dragon with ten heads and seven crowns doesn't exist literally.
There was the Ottoman Empire over the region of Israel slowly giving up Israel but then broken into ten pieces in 1919 with Woodrow Wilson's "Determinism" and later a man like Barack Husssein Obama who removes three kings in 29 days of 2011 and so perhaps another Democratic President might gain prostration in Islam and reform the Ottoman Empire for the 8th leadeth unto the 7th.
7th what? 7th direct ruler over Israel.
1) Babylon
2) Persia
3) Greece and Macedonia
4) Rome
5) Holy Roman Empire
6) Byzantine
7) Ottoman Empire
Germany, British Empire, France, and the USA (so far) have never directly wanted to rule over Israel.
THAAD is now directly in Israel controlled by American soldiers.
Matthew 24:27-28
"For as BARACK cometh out of the East and shineth even so far as the West so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man, for wherever the bodies lie so too AN EAGLE IN UNION."
It was all meant to be taken literally. You position is a modern one.
@@vladtheemailer3223Jesus himself spoke in hyperbole and parables. A hyperbole by nature is an exaggeration, the above is not a modern take but how it is intended to be read.
I won't say _all_ of the Bible is allegory, but certainly _any_ of it could be allegory. Paul says we are to be ministers of the spirit, not of the letter, and that some Old Testament stories are allegories. Jesus never spoke but in a parable, at least not to his disciples. Psalms says that God speaks in "dark sayings", and Proverbs tells us that wisdom is understanding the dark sayings.
TO pray and/or wish Good Luck yields the same result
Literal when possible.
Everywhere
Frank is quite right to point the finger at most churches in their complete derogation of their duty to make disciples.
I'm sure most young people and new Christians have no idea about how to read the Bible, let alone the overall picture of our life-reality and the flow of biblical history. Most wouldn't even defend the elements of the Apostles Creed with any coherence! Let alone have any deeper understanding of theology or the contents of the Bible. Truly a terrible state of affairs that the modern church has let fester without shame, it would seem.
I think, therefore, Grace, who raised this issue, raised a very important one both in general and in the detailed example she sprang from.
Frank's comments invite more discussion, as a result.
The first point is to agree that genre is vital to understanding a text; but Frank fails to discuss that on the basis of genre, Genesis 1 is historical narrative; indeed, reporting. It is set out as a structured list with the structure of declaration, result, assessment and time-stamp driving the report. It is, in fact, more like a modern computing data structure than anything else in the history of language. It is set up to be taken in terms of its direct content, seriously. One could, in fact compare it with Numbers 7:12ff and 29:12ff where there are very similar chronologically demarked lists.
The next item to address is the notion of 'purpose and audience'.
Frank's view that Genesis 1 can be reduced to a 'polemic' is one of the great acts of tendentious mitigation of all time, with all respect to our dear brother. In fact, 'mere polemic' would be the apt expression.
If Genesis 1 is but a polemic, a rebuttal of pagan creation stories, and it is not true to history, then it is hardly a polemic at all. It is as useful as a knife in a gun fight. But this again underplays what Genesis 1 is about. It's purpose is indeed arguably to boost the confidence of the Israelites in terms of Yahweh's identity but to deny that it does this by being historically untrue would amount to betrayal of any trust that identity sought to invoke. It would truly undermine God's declaration of his identity.
Frank has failed to grasp the underlying 'philosophy' of the Bible texts, most prominently evident in the broadly historical accounts and passages. I would call this 'concrete historical realism'.
This renders null the pagan fantasies from Idealism to Animism and substitutes a creation that is historically and foundationally real and significant: being created with propositional content in the real terms of our experience of life in that creation. Ponder Proverbs 3:19-20.
The concrete historical realism of the Bible means that the creation account, the description of God's spoken acts, gives us real information about the creation (it features rational causality, dependency hierarchies, has true noetic content) that is reliable to material context and human experience by which knowledge can be gained and communicated. God showing the way by his Word. (God's) words truly structure reality!
The fact that the words are spoken in a cadence of days is of critical importance.
Nor do day's come into existence on day 4 (not 3). On day four we get the time markers: the 'signs' of the passage of time. This is not to say that the passage of time commenced here. It clearly commence on day 1.
The days serve two purposes: they indicate that the passage of time is basic to the cosmos and our lives. Like energy (light), time is basic to material reality. Theologically, they show that God is near: he works in the tempo he creates in the cosmos that will be the tempo of our experience of it. Thus he shows himself present and active in our 'life-world'. He is not the god afar, indifferent, remote and uninvolved. He is here, the God who is love, with us. Genesis 3:8 brings this to the climax which builds over the days, brought together on the 6th day, with 'very good'.
Above all, the days place the creation in our history and connect us to God who works in the same days in which we work: the first act of fellowship in that he shares in our tempo of life. in our very home!
Let's not confuse the markers with the passing of time. Moses calibrates the tempo of the creation by defining the days as 'evening and morning' type days, and counts them as such. He reminds us repeatedly as to what these days are, driving the point. Thus the wonderful theology that springs from this.
Yahweh is utterly different from the god-conceptions of pagans (either indifferent or contained within the cosmos) and deists (remote and uninvolved). He works in our world, to make a commutative connection with us, creatures in his image for whom the created cosmos is truly meaningful.
When it comes to precisely locating (dating) the events of creation in that history in which they are placed, of course this is not the interest of Genesis 1. The time line comes from the very precisely and obviously set out 'chrono-genealogies' later in Genesis, which give sufficient detail to provide an order of magnitude timing of creation from then to now. This is the only culture- and date-independent means of placing the creation in real history.
The importance of a recent creation is that it eliminates pagan/materialist attempts to use indeterminately vast if not 'eternal' spans of time to distance mankind from the creation and/or to destroy any real connection with any possible 'creator' and make us to be foreigners in our home. Yet, Psalm 115:16! Oddly enough, the imagined modern age of the cosmos, let alone earth, is entirely insufficient for putative evolutionary processes to produce life as we know it! Or indeed, life at all!
Because the Bible in its entirety is written for the instruction of all mankind at all relevant times, the creation account must convey what really happened. If on the other hand it does not, then reality is constituted in some way other than that revealed, a way about which we know nothing, or is as has been suggested by pagans or materialists (or spiritists), all giving us in impersonal incomprehensible reality (or something else, unknown and unknowable) from which we are disconnected and thus lost in a meaningless emptiness of space and time where even ordinary causality is not warranted.
The Genesis account is thus not amenable to being taken 'hyper-literally' (a slur, if every there was one) but requires to be taken in 'historical concrete realist' terms. These terms mean that we are told things that are true: about the material world we are in, about ourselves as denizens in that world, its vicegerents and the creator God to whom we relate either as rebels or children in that world.
At the end, Grace was right. Miss the creation as real events in real history by the word of the only real communicating God, and one is left with the arid purposeless cosmos of materialism, or impersonal spiritism.
God agrees with Grace: Exodus 31:3 (cf. Pv 3:19 , 20) and 17f: God in his own words!
TLDR; You should get a channel.
@@intentionally-blank Many thanks for the encouragement.
I appreciate Frank's work and agree that this is not the "hill to die on". One's salvation does not depend on the age of the universe. But I think this issue puts man's interpretation of observed "evidence" ahead of God's word. (How do we explain dinosaur soft tissue found in bones? How about the evidence for a global flood.) The Bible also does not say or even hint that God created the world and everything in it, using evolution. Why would he if he can merely speak things into existence. Evolution is a bad theory. Frank is trying to mix creation and evolution because he has bought the lie. He has been listening to William Lane Craig, et al, who are theological evolutionists. Sin brought death is a common message in the Bible beginning with Adam and Eve. Is God so illiterate that he has deceived us or obscured the truth by using the word "day" when he meant something else? Let God, through the Bible, speak for himself. We will all be better off for it.
What is the evidence for the Global Flood. It never happened. All science facts disprove the Flood claim.
The soft tissue was actually collagen, and the T-Rex find by Mary Schweitzer was dated to be 65+ million years old.
Evolution is a fact, it has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory
The only truth in the bible is the page numbers.
Do you have any more lies?
@@maylingng4107 you talking total nonsense. anyone reading your tripe can disqualify your opinion in a minute using some google searches and common sense
Why do they need to prove evolution in a laboratory??? - all the chemicals will just continuously organise themselves into new intelligent sentient life forms without scientists having to do anything?
But evolution and long ages are a universal acid against Christianity.
The Devil is far more cunning than you think.
You can take
the Bible literally for the most part but not the book of Daniel and Revelation
It could be written as a polemic but still actually done the way it was said
Luke 10-18 genesis 1-2 Jeremiah 4-22-27 genesis 1-26 john1 Hebrews 7 1-3
The Holy Spirit will help you interpret the Bible.That's how you should read it. Man can not teach you what the holy spirit can teach you!
Put links in the video so we can skip the annoying commentary! I just want to get to what Frank has to say.
The robotic AI voice is very annoying, also!
So when the bible says that the tomb of the saints opened and wandered the city, was that literal or figurative?
When god commanded the slaughter of babies and children, was that to be taken literally or figuratively?
It depends on the context, there is no meaning without context. You need to put your claim into context to understand why God commanded as he did.
default should be literal. when there's a problem with literal interpretation, THEN you begin exploring figurative interpretations. but you shouldn't just interpret it however you want. you should use reliable sources such as your pastor or commentary book. tradition is also important. how did theologians interpret that passage throughout history? what about now? what is the general consensus? sometimes there are 2 or 3 competing interpretations that all have equally valid arguments and scriptural support. for example, calvinist vs arminian, or continuationism vs cessationism. in those cases, you just lean to the one that you like, while (and this is important) keeping in mind that opposing views could be true.
for the saints wandering the city, i don't see a problem taking it literally.
for the slaughter of children, even though i understand that it sounds horrible, i still don't see a problem with it being literal. frank has answered this question many times already. one of his answers are "if christianity is true, when we die, we don't disappear. we just change location. so god doesn't murder anyone, he just changes their location." or something like that. and many theologians think that it's a hyperbole. philosophically, IF christianity is true, then god decides what is good and bad. so it wouldn't make logical sense to say that god is bad for doing this or that because you'd be placing YOUR moral standards above god's moral standards.
@@joegame4576
How would you like if we changed your location, Joe?
Murdering (by god) millions of babies and infants is your god's higher moral standard?
@joegame4576 yet you act like a petulant child when confronted. Not very Christian like I say
All literal
What if the six days had nothing to do with all of this. What if it was 6 actual days, but the length that Adam and Eve stayed in the garden was a lot longer?? What if it was millions of years for example. Then after they sinned and were kicked out of the garden they lost the tree of life and thus they ended up dying?
The bible documents the age of all descendents from Adam to Noah - Adam was alive in the time of Noah's father and they most probably knew each other.
@@zoelong6021
You like to preach children's tales? How about getting a little education, and learn something about history and a little about science?
@@maylingng4107 Please read Genesis 5.
A few points:
- the idea of six days is repeated many times throughout the Old and New Testaments with theological implications, so it definitely does not have "nothing to do with it"
- Having Adam and Eve stay a long time in the garden doesn't help much, for instance the animals were created before Eve
- Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply, but hadn't before they sinned, so most would suppose that it was a relatively short period of time.
@@maylingng4107 Is this the science that thought that the appendix was useless, that eyes are designed back-to-front and that whales used to walk on land.
Should the Creation story in genesis be taken literally ? What about evolution over millions of years that science proved ? What about Noah and the flood that has also been debunked by science ?
Noah's flood has not been debunked!
Science has proved nothing of the kind. Neo-darwinian evolution would have to be the greatest con-job ever pulled on mankind. It simply explains nothing but gives us 'just so' stories, based on Darwin's ignorant gross morphology fantasy.
🤡 I suggest you study because the flood is in no doubt amongst scholars or historians, both believers and non-believers.
You're suffering from Confirmation Bias. You need some intellectual stimulation, like reading the counter evidence for your religion.
To have everlasting life you absolutely must trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation 💖 this means that saving repentance is turning from unbelief to belief.
You either believe that Jesus paid your sin debt in full or you don't.
Why do we need a book and need to have explanations for it ? If God wants us to follow him why can’t he demonstrate it himself ?
Because the book is the best form of communication: and the point is only secondarily to 'follow' God, it is to obey him and trust Christ's salvation for eternal peace and joy with him.
Why do you insist on preempting Franks comments with your own, I tune you out so I can listen to Frank
The testimony of Jesus christ is the spirit of prophesy it is the key of David which opens up the door to understand prophesy. The gospel. And the holy spirit are creating men in God's image
The only truth in the bible is the page numbers.
Select your favorite bible story (Noah's Flood, Exodus, etc.) and supply the evidence for that story.
Can you?
@maylingng4107 science tells us that the earth is billions of years old you have to understand the 3 earth ages. The first earth age was when Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven Luke 10-18. And Jeremiah 4-22-27 is when God decides to create man in his own image. After Gen 1 verse 2 the days of recreation began how did God decide to create man in his own image he sent us his word john1 in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Hebrews 7 1-3 melchisedec king of Salem priest of the most high no father no mother no beginning no end he became the son of God. 1GOD 1faith and 1baptisim the word became flesh and redeemed humanity and left us the holy spirit the gospel and the holy spirit is creating men in God's image revelations 12-17 . We are not here by accident. We must be born from above first by water the human body is what 80% water and then of spirit the spirit is the intellect of your soul you need the word of God
@@don-ek3ud
You could not refute the age of the earth.
You can not provide a single eyewitness to Jesus (outside the bible)
Your lies are exposed, and your goose is cooked.
if may have to research all meanings of word or the root of the word in order to get the most out of it. the translations can use specific language yet they may tilt the true meaning. just be cautious and curious and get old Latin, Greek and Hebrew translation books
Much of Frank's comments are wrong here or misconstrued. Yes, Genesis 1 doesn't does not say how old the Earth is. How could it? The age is constantly lengthening. But the age is determined by the history in other passages. Genesis 1 says the Bible was created in the beginning in six clearly literal days. Exodus 20 in the Sabbath law clearly and unequivocally says that. The genealogies in later passages in Genesis enable us to determine the age of the Earth. The idea that Genesis 1 is a polemic against Egyptian ideas is NOT a result of good Bible interpretation, it is an idea invented and used to avoid the conflict between the Bible's clear young earth view and the long age views of modern science. It is clear that Genesis is composed of historical records that Moses has compiled and edited. The records are indicated by the phrases "these are the generations of....". It is also clear that the early ones were written before the Egyptians. Genesis is written as historical narrative, including Genesis 1 and 2. That is clear from the passages, and the view of the rest of Scripture. Yes it is important to consider the genre of the portions of Scripture, but despite Frank's and the commentators advise to use good hermeneutics, their views on the age of the Earth and Genesis 1 are bad hermeneutics. The girl who asked the question was right, they are wrong.
Frank stopped thinking once his fame got the better of him.
The creation story is telling us how God created earth right? The bible clearly states that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. That simply states that God can manipulate time and space and that time means nothing to him. So to say that a day about Gods work of creation is one of our days is ridiculous because time is irrelevant to him and a day for him could be a thousand years to us or it could be 10 thousand years to us. He is the Alpha and Omega the first and last he transcends time.
@talleneagle1974 Your argument is in favour of 6 day creation, not long age creation. Yes "time is irrelevant to him" in that he can do something in a short time or a long time because he is outside of time as he created it in the beginning and remains outside of it. And he is omnipotent and omniscient so he can do what he wills. But he called creation into being and into time, and created the Earth in six days as he says clearly. He is a God of truth and doesn't lie or deceive. When God says something took a day, or year, or month you would not use this same twisted logic and say it can mean any length of time at all. The days of Genesis 1 must mean a literal day because they are numbered and described as successive evenings and mornings. God could not have been clearer or more emphatic. It is very clear that creation was a process which was quick and miraculous because it was God doing creative work. He stops creating after six days and after the rest day enters into history as the sustainer of this universe. But the processes of creation were clearly different from the processes of maintaining his creation. A problem with long age views is that they confuse the two.
@russellholmes8742 maybe you have trouble understanding context or reading comprehension. The Genesis story isn't mans story it's Gods and time is a creation of his and our years are only a description of our reality. God doesn't operate in our time, it's stated like i said a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God. God created everything in his time not our earth days because the creation story has nothing to do with man or his works or days. We're in Gods day of rest in this present time, and it's not a day it's been thousands of years.
@@talleneagle1974 So when God told Moses "You shall keep the Sabbath...Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death..Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ (Exodus 31) God lied and yet he made it a capital offence for the Israelites to ignore a lie and work 7 days a week?
Is it also a lie that God said not to murder and thus the death penalty did not really apply?
What other laws are a lie: adultery, theft, bestiality....?
“Where it’s meant to be taken literally” ?? No one can take that answer “literally”. There are some historical texts that (based upon the preponderance of existing physical evidence) can be viewed as factually true. Take for instance the towns/cities of ancient Palestine that still exist.
But that’s a Far cry from claiming the supernatural events reported in those ancient texts are fact as well. There exists “literally” no physical evidence to support ANY of of those ancient (or even modern) claims of a supernatural origin such as ghosts, demons, manipulation of natural laws, resurrecting the dead (including Jesus), walking (unaided) on water, parting of the Red Sea, turning water into the finest of wine, etc etc.
And one other thing… human testimonials are not perfectly reliable. Humans create all kinds of ideas for various personal or institutional motives. Take “eyewitness testimony”. Since the introduction of (scientific) DNA analysis, ask any cop or District Attorney what kind of evidence they’d prefer to have in court and it will be hands down (physical) DNA evidence. Over 230 “innocents” have been convicted just since the 1960s on eyewitness testimony and later exonerated based upon follow-up DNA testing. Science reveals fact… human testimonials not nearly as much. And that consists of the entire bible (minus the physical locations previously mentioned).
Well written!
Tks
i say use combination of common sense and education. when jesus says "i am the door", common sense tell us that it doesn't make sense if taken literally. and education taught us what a metaphor is.
Jesus (the bible story) never existed. There is no evidence that he did.
Common sense doesn't exist, and education is not synonymous with indoctrination.
@@joegame4576 yet some people can’t get the hint their replies are unwarranted
@@cutehumor just like you right now?
@@joegame4576 I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement
Mark 10:6. Jesus's Words. Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation.
That verse doesn't even mention Adam and Eve. It's about gender and marriage.
@@clivehayball3782 That is true for some reason I thought it specifically named Adam and Eve however it does relate to Genesis 1:27. Don't trust the A.I. results that dominate searches now. The 6 days of creation are clear literal days. Some can't let go of evolution thinking God could have used it in His creation of organism when it has zero evidence or credibility. Tons of evidence to support a young Earth.
The bible should be taken literally. Period. Even the poetry should be taken literally. His explanation of divy up part to taken literally and other parts as just pretty words is Wrong. The bible is divinely inspired or not. The bible didn't mention the age of earth or the universe because it's not the main focus. People keep making Christianity more difficult than it needs to be.
As I read Wilfred Owen, Sigfied Sasson, or Robert Brooke, poets of WWI, I know they refer to what was really real! If you read Lowells' poems, you do not doubt that places such as Washington, West Street or Rapallo truly existed! You are right.
But the age of the earth is important, or you have fallen into the pagan idealist trap: that its not. God made a real creation for real relationships between us and him.
Tired does a lot of good for Christianity, but being a scholar, he is looking at the books as though they were written by “men” to a specific group, of men. And yes, God did use human authors, but we call the Bible “The Word of God” because it was written by God to all humans, to his entire creation. It was written to me. And it was written to you. The Bible was written so that you and I can have the truth. God wrote Genesis 1:1 to us so that you and I would know who created the earth. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point that the Bible is written to all humans so that they can know the truth.
The bible was written by primitive and ignorant goat herders who believed the earth to be flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. They understood not much about nature, so they invented childish tales pf god, miracles, and unreasonable claims to cover their ignorance and to control the gullible. There is not a single bible story that can be backed up by evidence.
Reading Genesis is not a hyper Reading. That's stupid.
It's a fact, if you follow the Bible, dates add up to everything getting created approximately six thousand years ago during Creation week
Ahh...so WHO decides what is literal? Frank Turek and Co?
The bible is very clear that creation was created in 6 days... Genesis _"...and there was evening, and there was morning-the second day."_
If you cannot take that at faith and choose to rely on pseudo science...then where is your faith?
Faith = belief with no evidence.
The Bible’s references to the six days of creation bring up several profound scientific and theological insights. The term *yom* ("day") is often debated, but Scripture makes it clear that we are to understand Creation as six literal days, as stated in Exodus 20:11:
> “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.”
This is reinforced by cosmological insights, which acknowledge the universe had a definite beginning-a "singularity" from which time, matter, and energy emerged. Common Big Bang models describe this as "First there was nothing-and then it exploded." The vastness of the universe makes it difficult to reconcile astronomical time with earth-based time, but Gerald Schroeder’s quantum physics analysis suggests that with an expansion factor of approximately 10^12, 16 billion years can compress to about six days, depending on the "clock" perspective.
The Bible also alludes to key physical laws. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Matter and Energy, appears in Scripture, but the 2nd Law, the Law of Entropy, is particularly significant. Entropy gives time its direction and implies the universe had a beginning, as infinite existence would mean a uniform temperature everywhere. Since heat still flows from hot to cold and temperatures vary, we know the universe is not infinitely old and is headed toward an end.
Genesis emphasizes the phrasing “evening and morning” to mark each day:
> “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:5)
The Hebrew *erev* (evening) and *boker* (morning) carry symbolic meanings: *erev* denotes disorder, while *boker* represents order. As night falls, our perception of order fades (erev), and at dawn, order re-emerges (boker). Each day of creation represents a decrease in entropy-a move toward order-except the seventh day, where there was no entropy change, yet it, too, was bound by “evening and morning.” Additionally, the first day is called *yom echad* ("Day One"), a unique designation marking the creation of time itself, while the other days are labeled in sequence: "Second day," "Third day," and so on.
@@maylingng4107 at least take some effort to use google and common sense when replying . Faith is to have trust and confidence. Plenty of evidence of the winning political party after an election but everyone relies on faith that they will deliver what they promised.
@@zoelong6021
When it comes to religious claims, faith is not based on any evidence. Religion (almost all) is made up fiction, is based on invented tales. Faith is just hoping for something that may or may not happen. Religion goes against all common sense. Stories of the supernatural arise from ignorant minds only, ignorant minds, like yours. You are confusing faith with FORECAST (politics). Intelligent people do not rely of faith, they rely on evidence.
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen". Einstein shared this opinion in a 1948 Harper's Magazine article.
If the God that created everything is the author of genesis, there would be no need for interpretation, and if they don’t have a word for a thing, you would think God would give them a new word for such a thing and explain what it is. No this just reinforces the fact that these stories are from primitive people that don’t understand the reality that we live in, or the nature of things.
Foolish Frank raving away again as though he knows what Israelites were thinking 3,500 years ago.
Supremely arrogant. All that fame has gone to his head.
He is absolutely wrong. The six day creation is what is taught. Genesis is not parable or poetry.
He never said Genesis was a parable or poetry. Go back and listen again. He explains perfectly what the Bible is and consists of.
@georgeochs1302 what he said was that certain parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally such as parables and poetry, which I completely agree with. What I mean is that since Genesis is neither poetry or parable it should be taken literally. To take it literally is a six day creation.
@@georgeochs1302
Nope! Cliffe just lies about the bible stories. He offers no evidence for any story being true.
@@PapaJoeK
No part of the bible can be taken any other way, than just as a bunch of lies and myths with no evidence.
@@maylingng4107 why do you say that the Bible is not true?
Question the ice age was 12000 years ago the fall of satan a 1000.years is 1 day the earth was recreated. 6000 year's ago ????
The timeline of anything prehistory is simply guesswork, radio/carbon dating is full of assumptive holes.
None of that is true. The earth is 4.567 billion years old. Homo sapiens lived on earth for the past 300,000 years.
@maylingng4107 no way you can prove what you're saying I'm giving Bible scripture and verse Luke 10-18 genesis 1-2 Jeremiah 4-22-27 genesis 1-26 this is why God decided to create man in his own image and its doen by the gospel and the holy spirit revelations 12-17 read your Bible
@maylingng4107 and if you don't believe in Jesus. Who give you your conscience. Jesus did
@@don-ek3ud
Science tells no such thing. There is only one age of the earth.
The age of the earth has been measured and can be measured today to be 4.567 billion years.
All geologists (except for creationists, like you) agree and not one claims otherwise.
Can you name any evidence or a scientist that disagrees?
The oldest reliably dated Homo sapiens fossils are from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and are approximately 300,000 years old.
The bible is 100% myths, lies and fiction.
The biblical Jesus is not supported by a single evidence.
Can you name a single EYEWITNESS (outside the lies in the bible) who mentions Jesus in his writing?
There is NONE.
Girl; Bible is a fable, not true.!!! Santa Claus, Easter Bunny,....
A course on how to interpret your bible, an oxymoron surely?
what about exodus 21? Literal or metaphorical? Should we buy our slaves from the heathen that surround us or not? Can we beat our slaves so long as they don’t die within a couple of days? Can we pass our slaves on to our children?
So you saying all professional football club owners are slave masters? I mean, they buying and selling football players all day long...haha...got you
Exodus never happened; the Israelites were never captives in Egypt.
@ Correct
@@zoelong6021 Chattel slavery is in the bible.
fazerianducati you mentioned Exo. 21. The passage is too long but I will respond to one point.
First let me be clear that you are clearly a "serpent in the garden."
Now the passages in chapter 21 of Exo. are limiting the Jew so they do not treat their workers (slaves) too harshly. It actually gives the workers (slaves) certain rights.
You should take everything in the bible literally until it is proven impossible then it's just a parable. 😂
It is all Israel's redemptive story. Highly allegorical, and metaphorical. Has nothing to do with us, other than what Jesus teaches , which can be of value .
Was Adam the first man?
@@intentionally-blank No, he represents the first covenant man.
You can't take the bible literally, it contains contradictions.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18 4
Most of the "contradictions" can be explained by rightly dividing what is for the Jews from what is for us gentiles in the dispensation of the grace of God. James and Paul contradict because the Jews were and will be under the law. Works are not required under grace but are under law. Only in Paul's books do we find Jesus' teaching for us in this dispensation.
If you take the entire Bible and applied the law of noncontradiction, there you will find there is literally zero true contradictions within it.
@@scottlong5093 But they are still contradictions. The law of contradiction tells us that the bible is not free of errors.
@@revive.nation Literally zero true contradiction is not zero.
just ridiculous....Frank says Moses mentions God is out of universe...can u imagine such nonsense..And how does ole Frank know what is poetry, how to interpret it....WHY SHOULD THIS BOOK STILL BE trying to be understood 2,100 years from being written.... can you imagine....and this is supposed to be the main book of the world...But guys like Frank just KNOWS IT ALL....has anyone ever wondered how he knows everything ??? because he says he does.... it is that simple....he knows nothing more than anyone else...and no one's meaning of this bible is better than anyone else....that is the problem....POOR OLE GRACE...FRANK AND HIS PEOPLE HAVE HER IN A TRANCE...she has no idea the true history of this book as she is locked into these apologists....what a shame...and none of these biased apologists will ever share with poor ole grace all the problems...just like YWHW...who is made up...the thunderstorm god...
Christians educated the Vikings on what thunderstorms were and they converted to Christianity
Moses never existed. It is a fake invention (as are all the other stories) of the bible.
You claim that YWHW is the storm god, but where are the evidence and your sources? You have blind faith in the matter and you project this to others too....
@@derjogderjog8031 Scripture repeatedly affirms that God is beyond the created universe-He is not confined to it (Isaiah 55:8-9, Psalm 139:7-12). God’s nature is infinite, and His presence extends beyond the limits of time and space. The idea that God is “out” of the universe doesn’t negate His active involvement in it-He created it and sustains it (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3).
Regarding interpretation, the Bible is not just a book of historical facts but includes various genres-history, poetry, prophecy-requiring careful, context-driven exegesis. Frank, like others, seeks to interpret Scripture faithfully, not because he "knows it all," but because he believes the Bible is divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Bible’s enduring relevance for over 2,000 years speaks to its divine authority, not its obsolescence. It is the standard by which all truth is measured (John 17:17).
As for the critique of God being a "thunderstorm god," this reduces Him to a pagan deity. The Bible presents God as both transcendent and immanent-He is the Creator of all (Genesis 1:1), not a force of nature, and His plan for salvation is revealed through His Word, which has stood the test of time (Hebrews 4:12).
The Bible is a divinely woven tapestry-historical, prophetic, and scientific truths intertwined. If we dismiss the Bible, we reject the very foundation of reality and truth itself.
Rather than dismissing the Bible, the challenge is to understand its depth and wisdom, recognizing that its divine authority is what truly gives it lasting value. The issue is not about human opinion but about understanding the truth that God has revealed to us in His Word.