Is Genesis Literal or Allegorical?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- Visit www.sbts.edu/sample to access free theology lectures
"Is Genesis Literal or Allegorical?"
Dr. Mitchell Chase answers in Honest Answers | Episode 109
Watch more episodes of Honest Answers here: • Honest Answers
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE for future episodes:
ua-cam.com/users/SouthernSemi...
To learn more about studying with a Southern Seminary or Boyce College Professor, go to:
www.sbts.edu
www.boycecollege.com
Come visit us at our next official "Preview Day”: www.sbts.edu/preview
Or plan a personal visit any time: www.sbts.edu/visit
Various ways for you to get started online: www.sbts.edu/the-global-campus/
To speak with an admissions counselor: email admissions@sbts.edu
Our admissions team would love to connect with you!
Please do one like this on Jonah!
great listen! i’ve been really missing these Honest Answers vids. glad they’re back!!
Literal/historical is being contrasted by allegorical to create a false dichotomy. The Bible uses allegorical language to talk about actual historical events.
Agreed. The stories are told in a way that's they hold deep symbolic truths that are usually pointing to key aspects of the faith. Muh like Jesus parables.
Example: in Gen 6 Noah is instructed to build an Ark with Gopher wood and Pitch. Does that matter ? Pitch is essentially Tar and was used by ancient ship builders to water proof boats. It has a lot of symbology here as it's the substance that "covers" and seals the boat and protects the inhabitants from the judgement waters of the flood. But it gets more interesting when you look at the the original Hebrew word translated into english as Pitch which is "Kopher". That word has multiple meanings in Hebrew. It also means - Atonement/payment for sin/restitution/bribe.
So when God instructs Noah to cover the boat in pitch / Kopher in the Hebrew it's also saying ..... Perform acts of atonement to protect and pardon you and your family from my judgement against sin. The same purpose the animal sacrifices served in the tabernacle and the Eucharist serves today. In Exodus and Leviticus the name of the mercy seat in the tabernacle Moses builds is the Kopher'et. The animals sacrifices are called - Kopher or Kapher. Same word as Noah is instructed to cover his boat with.
The connections in the original language between Noahs Ark and the function and purpose of the tabernacle/church are very obvious and clear but often obscured to modern English readers. So the question I have after reading Genesis 6 isn't was Noah a real person and did the flood really happen. Its did Noah actually build a boat for a physical flood ..... or was he actually the first priest who built a tabernacle which is being symbolized poetically in this story in the same manner as Matt 7:25 to protect his family against a "spiritual" flood.
Excellent!
Thank you!
Reading genesis without a LOT of study can leave you with a very weird view of what's trying to be communicated. Even just spending time doing a Hebrew word search within these stories will open up layers of meaning and symbology that completely change the understanding.
Example: in Gen 6 Noah is instructed to build an Ark with Gopher wood and Pitch. Does that matter ? Most read over this without a second thought. Pitch is basically Tar and was used by ancient ship builders to water proof boats. It has a lot of symbology here as it's the substance that "covers" the boat and protects the inhabitants from the judgement waters of the flood. But it gets more interesting when you look at the the Hebrew word translated as Pitch which is "Kopher". That word has multiple meanings in Hebrew. It also means - Atonement/payment for sin/restitution/bribe.
So when God instructs Noah to cover the boat in pitch in the Hebrew it's also saying ..... Perform acts of atonement to protect and pardon you and your family from my judgement against sin. The same purpose the animal sacrifices served in the tabernacle and the Eucharist serves today. In Exodus and Leviticus the name of the mercy seat in the tabernacle Moses builds is the Kopher'et. The animals sacrifices are called - Kopher or Kapher. Same word as Noah is instructed to cover his boat with.
The connections in the original language between Noahs Ark and the function and purpose of the tabernacle/church are very obvious and clear but often obscured to modern English readers. So the question I have after reading Genesis 6 isn't was Noah a real person and did he really exist. Its did Noah actually build a boat .... or was he actually the first priest who built a tabernacle which is being symbolized poetically in this story in the same manner as Matt 7:25
We try to use modern interpretations of ancient poetry when we are obviously going to have a different result then what the authors described. While things like evolution and carbon dating have some faults, its rare to find a system that is 100% true and trying to say that just because carbon dating something that is 2000 years old doesn't show the data, that doesn't mean its invalid. Science is trial and error and you have to look at the best result based off of years of research by various individuals experienced in said topic.
I would like to very mildly and respectfully question the use of the word "allegorical" here, inasmuch as that word is used in a much more specific sense elsewhere, specifically the allegorical hermeneutic of Origen of Alexandria. I realize that here and in general conversation "allegorical" is used in place of the more accurate and less confusing term "figurative". I think a better title for this video would be "Is Genesis Historical or Figurative", or since that could be a bit of a false dichotomy, perhaps "Does the Book of Genesis Use Historical and Figurative Language?".
Yes
Hard for me to believe this question really needs to be answered. Then again, Satan is at work (and doing a fine job, btw) of creating and spreading lies. Somuchso, we have a World struggling to discern truth from lies.
Satan’s really working overtime to crank out all those academic peer-reviewed papers promoting crazy ideas like radiometric dating and plate tectonics.
So the only argument for historical is there were "names"? At first he mention "names", then suddenly change to "historical names"? How does that follow?
Not only names. The NT writers also infer a real historicity to the Genesis accounts.
He failed to mention that the names of Cain's lineage are a near descendant by descendant match of those of Seth's. Divine coincidence, surely. And were presented in entirely different writing styles in successive chapters. Moses was as busy impersonating multiple writers as he was writing.
Don't think radiometric dating is a law such as gravity.
It is a theory that is based on many assumptions.
In the casual sense, a theory isn't objective. But it has a different meaning in science. In science, theories are concepts that have been confirmed to be the most true over other hypotheticals and speculations. Therefore biological evolution is the most agreed upon origin of the species. That being said, there's nothing in the Bible that says beings can't evolve into a different species.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gravity is a theory as well. Also based on assumptions
which is completely false, and this poor christian is terribly ignorant. Happily nuclear decay is a known physical law and we have nuclear energy thanks to it. If it wasn't true then nuclear plants, bombs, radiation sources to heal cancer, etc would not work. this fellow is quite a fraud.
@@bro_izzy
We witness speciation in the present and the past.
Just as science and scripture predicted.
We do not however witness kinds or Families (taxonomically speaking) changing.
Kinds bring forth kinds.
Science agrees with scripture.
@@PrisonMichael
I would have to say that on the surface of our planet we should agree that gravity is a law. You get consistent readings every experiment.
Outer solar system or inside the earth where we cannot take readings I agree it as a theory.
If you are trying to measure the past, where we weren't there to get the beginning of the experiment you must assume starting conditions.
The society has been brainwashed by uniformitarianistism to the point that they have trouble being open minded to a single catastrophic global flood described in Genesis, which wipes away the old earth theories
Many thanks to the teacher for this candid thoughts. I don't personally find this view satisfying, I don't think you can say Adam is literal, because we need that for salvation, but the creation account itself is just telling us that it was God who created as though no specificity is given in it. In that case, it need go no further than Genesis 1:1. Goliath presented himself to Israel " .. forty days, morning and evening." 1 Samuel 17. We take that as narrative but the order of creation as not?
Paul compares a literal Adam with a literal Christ. So Adam must be literal. I think that's right.
The LORD also compares the 6 day creation week with the normal 6 day work week for man (Exodus 20), by the same logic the 6 day creation week must be literal? I think that's right.
I think the heart of the issue is a fear or a trust in the ever changing theories of scientists. Once we allow secular scientists to shape our view of Scripture I think you'll always be living in a world of compromise.
Once I started engaging with the philosophy of science that evolutionists use, for me it was easy to see how unstable that type of "science" is. But if you don't study, engage and critique the theory of evolution for yourself, I think you'll always fear it in some way or blindly trust it.
I don't understand how the Paul example is supposed to imply a literal interpretation. From what was said it sounds like Paul was making an analogy between Jesus and Adam, which could be interpreted literally or not, but in addition must necessarily be interpreted allegorically.
How much literary logic do you need? Writers separated by 1500 years confirm each other over and over again.
If the biblical record of Genesis is historical, please explain Genesis 1 in contrast to the popular mainstream worldview and how it fits the heliocentric worldview.
If the timescale is sometimes written from God’s perspective, which is possible, there is no contradiction…
Would the end result of the truth of the meaning be any different whether allegorical or literal? Does literal historical account mean “truth” ? Does “truth” exist outside of historical narrative? 3 questions. If you feel compelled to respond, try to limit your responses to yes or no. That would be 3 answers - 3 words. There is a challenge for you. See if you can restrain….
So, I'm not a bible scholar, but my understanding is, there is no real archaeological findings that any of the named people in the bible before the flood existed. So how can Genesis be considered historical, if there is no proof that they existed in history? Also, if it is said that Moses was the author of the first five books of the bible, which includes Genesis, but there's a problem, because his death is recorded in Deuteronomy 34? Should there be somewhere in this video, the discussion of how some of the bible was edited by some of it's writers. Do we think by leaving that out, it kinda of forces some to believe the bible came about in a bias viewpoint. Could editors later down the line, create some of the narrative, including the names to unify it's message. Is there any actual archeological evidence to refute this point?
I wouldn't deny that there is some level of editing happening. However, the refutation of changes that shift the narrative is: We don't see much of an evolution from the documents we have. If this was happening, there would be an obvious evolution of the narrative and names throughout the existent documentation. So, we would simply ask the detractor to show his specific evidence for clear changes in meaning.
A supporting counter argument for purposeful and meaningful changes being made repeatedly throughout history is that there is no tradition of allowing such revisions inside Judaism or Christianity. Both have had a relatively closed canon for 2000+ years. Changes would easily be noticed, and confronted, by Rabbis and Priests and there would be evidence of their contentions as well.
And, I don't think you are going in this direction, but just for clarity, I think if we go too much beyond "slow changes through time based on cultural drift" towards "a secret cabal making insidious changes, then meticulously destroyed the true scriptures and its adherents removing all traces of the conspiracy from the record", then we should also consider the possibility of a hollow earth and what its reptilian inhabitants might be up to. 🙂
@@stanleybarret990 So, the questions still stands, if outside the bible there is little to no archaeological evidence that any of the people before the flood existed, how can they be considered historical?, if that is not the case, what standard then is used to discredit stories written down about Mesopotamia, and other ancient accounts? It's not so much about if it's true are not, its the fact that unless you go to seminary, the average christian reading the bible are not told that there is some editing. (How did Moses record is own death?) Ask that to the average Christian, and see how they answer it. Even the new testament writers used some old testament text out of context to make to their new testament points. It does not matter how small the edit is, or if it changes the overall meaning. The fact there is little talk about there was editing in the bible, some things were added and some where subtracted, should be a little concerning. This leaves many christian off guard when they encounter those that are opposed to the believe that the bible is inerrant. If a little change does not really matter, why does it matter in the case other christian doctrines,(without naming names), that change a word here and there? We should not assume every christian understands this issue. But without this understanding, are we giving the full truth, so believers can speak with conviction?
Genesis 1-11 is the earliest extant literary instance of humans rejecting the mythologization of nature, and embracing instead a mythologization of history as an account of why the world is the way it is.
What is the relationship between this transition of the subject of mythologization and a subversion of conventions (i.e. competing explanations/stories/worldviews)?
@@strangelaw6384 yeah this is a great question, and not one that anyone can answer with certainty. I must admit that the idea is not my own, I borrowed it from Alan F. Segal’s ‘Life After Death’ in which he examines the formulation and evolution of afterlife theologies in a variety of western religions across time. Principally, the cultural transition away from mythologizing nature and toward mythologizing history coincides with another transition whereby polytheism is abandoned in favor of henotheism by the group of semitic tribes who would go on to become the Israelites. It’s a tremendously fascinating area of study, and Segal is incredibly readable and relevant still today.
@@paulallenscards Interesting. I'm only asking because I have a hypothesis: the act of mythologization stood out to me as the result of man's innate ability to form narratives. To more precisely worded, it is the ability to identify narremes. In addition, I think that the paradigm shift in the subject of mythologization AND the transition from favoring polytheism to favoring henotheism have a common purpose, and this purpose is cohesion of a community, made relevant by the improvement of living conditions and resources.
❤
I still have my doubts about the understanding of the 7 days of creation, because of Scientific research and dating methods. I only care for truth. And by approaching it with this mind set and being a science nerd, I cant say that science lies. 1+1 will always be 2 and because the dating of (for example) dinosaurs is based on empirical science and not on interpretations, the millions of years are a fact.
So my question is, if the earth is really young and dinosaurs lived together with humans, why dont we find humans which are also a couple of hundred million years old?
Again, I only care about the truth. For now i will stick ofc to the bible. Because it is Gods word, but i think that our interpretationy may be wrong.
For clarification : I do believe that Adam lived. And that the flood etc happened.
Science is pretty much a religion, the Laws of Nature are facts. God created the Laws of Nature, man creates ridiculous theories trying to explain away God, like the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution, it is all a rebranding of Genesis 1.
If the earth was a spinning ball entirely under your feet wherever you are, how could it be casting a shadow on the moon when you regularly see a crescent 🌙 moon and the sun both well above the horizon? If we are whizzing through space at astronomical speeds, how can the stars return to the exact same position 365 days later since recorded history? I’ll take God’s word for it all, I know Man lies all of the time.
Old Earth Creationism was the dominant historic Christian view for the past several thousand years! One can believe that Genesis IS historical, that Adam & Eve WERE the first humans, and that God created everything as it says in Genesis. The only difference is that God created things over 7 long periods of time (which the Hebrew word for days that is used in Genesis can mean), which means you can accept the science that creation is several millions or billions of years old!
The primary difference between Young Earth Creationism & Old Earth Creationism is, as I said prior, the reading of the word "day" in the Hebrew. Does it mean literal 24 hour day or a period of time? The Hebrew is ambiguous and could go both ways. However, Scripture would suggest that it is a period of time. Why? Because in Hebrews 4:10-11 & Hebrews 4:3-5 we are told that we, humanity, is still in the 7th day. Thus, it follows that if the 7th day is at least over 24 hours, as demonstrated from Scripture, that the other days must also be at least over 24 hours.
You should definitely read the Church Fathers (who learned from the Apostles & those who learned from the Apostles) rather than allowing loud Young Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists cloud your view!
One thing we can all agree on is that God created everything and that Jesus Christ is Lord, died for our sins, rose again on the 3rd day, and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father.
Also, I am a Protestant Christian
God bless!
@@soupeverywhere9565
The book of 1 Enoch has a parable of the 70 generations until the 2nd coming of Messiah, where he prophecies accurately on major events before and after the israélites.
A period of 7.000 years.
This confirms the Hebrew verse you quoted, in Enoch's perspective a generation IS 100 years.
Peter tells us a day to the Lord IS like 1000 years to man. 7days, converted 7 millenias to the generations of the sons of Adam until the 2nd coming is still obeing this idea of a millenal Sabbath since creation. This is the correct biblical paradigm.
We're coming close to the end of that time period certainly.
In this case the old earth idea is inaccurate. Genesis is so adamant about a day = a period of 12 hours of darkness+12 hours of light.
God's creations are made perfect, mature and ready, no time for trial and error, for evolution to kick in. Evolution needs tremendous amount of time to make sense, the Eternal God has infinite Time and wisdom to imagin and create out of nothing.
No reason that Moses, assuming Jewish & Church tradition is correct on his authorship, couldn’t have been writing Spirit-inspired allegory in Genesis. (Heck, the Big Bang Theory was criticized for years for aligning too closely with Genesis’ creation ex nihilo.)
I think it creates an undue stumbling block to potential brothers and sisters in the hard sciences if we insist on the bending of physics and/or denial of well-documented scientific evidence. (Not to mention doing so undermines our own arguments for interpreting the immutability and order of physics as evidence for God, His intelligent design, and His eternal character.)
His ways are higher than my ways, so what is it to me, the jar of clay, if God created via a literal 7 days or 13 billion years? 2 Peter 3:8 almost explicitly states that the creation “days” are allegorical, and Hebrews 4 could be read to imply that the 7th day of creation, the day of rest, is still ongoing millennia later.
It also does not follow that if Jesus and Paul used Adam in teaching, Adam has to have been a literal first human missing a rib and a belly button. See: the Good Samaritan, the Sower, the Prodigal Son, the Lost Sheep, etc, etc.
In Genesis One, humans were created equally, with joint dominion over creation. Far too many disregard this, thus perpetuating disunity among God’s image bearers.
You can say that again
Im here for the lolz.
🤣😂🤣😅🤣😁🙃
I was scared when I saw the title of this, it was going to be yet another seminarian, compromising, and causing unbelief. I was relieved to see the answer.
Mitch Chase is the man! Check out his Biblical Theology blog, super solid.
@@kamalkhalil9090 If you are right, he would be rare
I’m glad you clicked even though you were scared. I wasn’t scared but my expectations were the same but I am in the opposite camp. I don’t think it’s historical and I certainly thought he would agree that it’s allegorical. I definitely think the people in the New Testament believed it to be historical, but they don’t have the geological background we have today. If only they knew about radiometric isotopes and how to measure them, maybe the new testament writers would have taken a different stance, ya know?
@@ThomasO2 shouldn’t say such a thing. Revelation is a part of the bible. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. We shouldn’t even speak such things. That’s very dangerous
You don’t know. You have only been convinced by people peddling books and new ideas. Do you honestly believe God would let his word be corrupted for 2000 years with the whole book of Revelation waiting for German textual criticism doubting ever joy and tittle to have revealed errors? I really can’t believe people are really falling for these peddlers of new ideas. Kind of scary how fast people except these new age ideas.
I think it’s important to separate the claims and intentions of the authors and actual history.
Why and how? Unless you are all-knowing I don't see how that is possible.
@@2wheelz3504 you treat it like history, any other historical document. It’s not about arriving at complete certainty, history is rarely completely certain, but it is about finding out what could be true or likely to be true.
We do know that this is a long oral tradition and the genesis is an accumulation of these stories, ancient theology. It’s hard to say how original all these stories are or how they have changed of course, unless you believe as many do that this is perfectly preserved word of God, but then I don’t think you are interested in history at all.
If I was to give my opinion I think the stories are meant to be very literal, the authors likely believed the events happened as it is written.
#1 I do believe the account was divinely given by God. #2 Therefore it is history. Jesus referred to it as having been written by Moses and not a group of random priestly authors during the captivity. I am an all or nothing kind of guy. I have never heard an apologist adequately reconcile how Gen. 1-11 can be myth and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ be cold stone true. I have heard it all and their logic is not logical. If a book begins with, "Once upon a time," everything that follows is suspect.
Noah was 4yrs old when Adam died. Noah was 892yrs old when Abram was born.
The question to ask concerns two scientific theories called Uniformitarianistism versus Catastrophism.
A single catastrophic global flood described in Genesis explains the anomalies of geology that Uniformitarianistism cannot.
Unfortunately, for Christians, uniformitarianism was left behind long ago by geologists. Your reliance on lies and ignorance always shows just how worthless your cult is. We know that catastrophic events occur occasionally. That doesn't mean your god exists or the idiotic magic flood happened.
if it did, we'd see one massive layer with everything in it sorted by its hydraulic characteristics. We don't see that at all. We see many seperate layers, each sorted within itself and fossils are found by complexity. It's a shame creationist are such poor liars. They can't even agree amongst themselves whose baseless nonsense is true.
No geologists agree with the position that a global flood catastrophy occurred within the past ten thousand years. There is evidence for several large scale localized flood events in the levant over that time period, but that would of course be insufficient for the overly literal interpreter of Genesis 6-8.
@@paulallenscardsNo geologists?? Check out Rob Sheldon, The Long Descent, William Ryan, Walter Pittman, Andrew Snelling to name a few
@@paulallenscards Curious how christians can't agree on how to interpret Genesis or any other part of the bible. It shows that it is simply made up. They want to claim that the inconvenient and ridiculous bits are metaphor, exaggeration, etc, but their ridiculous claims about a magic resurrection have to be claimed as literal or the cult ends.
Genesis is LITERAL. It's written in a narrative style. From the first chapter to the last. 1:38
No doubt about it
Genesis is history right but specifically, it's mytho history. It's history told in the language of myth, metaphors and figures of speech that are used in ancient times.
So, the sun came after plants?
Indeed.
@@bbl5499 well, not in Genesis 2
Only one day .. that's not a problem :)
And Genesis 2 simply gives us more info about the creation of Adam and Eve (and the garden of Eden). It's not a new creation account.
@@krisv001 why aren’t there any plants then?
Genesis 2:5 is not a comment on the whole world, but only on the location where the garden of Eden was going to be created/planted. That place was still barren (nothing there yet). Also notice that God mentions specifically plants and herbs of the field in Genesis 2:5 (food for Adam and Eve basically).
God wanted to create Adam first on day 6 before He created and planted the garden of Eden, so that Adam could witness what God was going to do there.
Something many people forget about is that the "begining" and "the first day of creation" are two separate dates. And also, the Bible doesn't specify the how much time had passed between the two. Even so, both of these are referred to as "creations". Therefore God created the heavens and the Earth at least twice. Adding to that, it's safe to assume the sun and the stars existed before they were "created". And that God could've made them before the Earth. Therefore, it's possible for us as Christians to believe the scientific origin of the universe without denying the Bible. Science doesn't have to conflict with your faith. God Bless!
Uh, no.
Genisis is 100% literal.
The earth in Genesis was referring to the singular dry land that used to stand on pillars out of the waters.
The old earth was destroyed during the flood. Animals, trees, humans, etc. used to get very old.
If you believe it, a lot of text in the rest of the Bible opens up to you.
A brand new journey, enjoy....
I think that it's a bit of a cop out to try to equate the terms "literal" and "historical". I can agree that Adam and Eve were actual people, but also think that the account of Eve being created specifically from Adam's rib is not meant to be taken literally.
so you just pick and choose.
@@velkyn1 No, it's called interpreting an ancient text within its literary genre. The very description of Eve proceeding from the side (like literally the entire half of his body) of Adam was more of a visionary experience not that God used divine anesthesia and performed surgery. It was teaching the equality of the woman with the man.
@@axderka According to you it's unlikely to make another being out one's rib than to create the original from scrath, from dust? The process God used in both cases is unknown to us, it says He did it, why applying our limited scope of vision to choose which one we accept?
@@axderka AS usual, christians can't agree on what genre the various books of the bible are, which really harms your attempts to lie about those books. It's hilarious how you guys can't agree on what is literal, metaphor, exaggeration, etc. The ridculous bits are always claimed as "metaphor" since some christians are at least that smart, but nothing in the book says that is what the writer meant. And gee, your ignorant garbage about a magic resurrection just has to be true since the cult would die without it.
The first story of creation has an equal man and woman, both created by god at the same time. Your false claims about the rib woman myth fail to show that equality.
@@bbl5499 yep, you christians do love to disagree on the basic nonsense in your cult. Just like you are all making it up.
So I'm not sure if I totally understand, but it seems according to this, somewhere on Earth there's a flaming sword guarding a garden??? I always thought it was a metaphor or symbolic.
I suspect the Flood put paid to that.
@@Metempiric7 😁 gotcha... So just an extinguished spinning sword.
@@drkfish no. I think the landscape of the world, including Eden was largely destroyed in the flood. No one was ever going to back there because it didn’t exist anymore.
We usually don't see forces, just their effects on things.
@@Metempiric7
A destroyed garden of Eden, the one housing the tree of life, proptected by surnatural forces, (those heavenly flaming swords, what would they look like ?), not withstanding the flood ? Hard to believe.
Either you believe the bible or you don't
😂
The ancient Sumerian tablets predate Genesis by 1000 years and tell many of the same stories that you find in Genesis and the Old testament. However it is much more detailed than the brief summary found in Genesis with characters such as Noah and Abraham who lived in the Sumerian civilization. If the Sumerian tablets are older then they should also be used as a reference.
That's what you think. But Genesis is clearly only edited by Moses. It contains sections headed by "These are the generations of...." clearly showing this.
@@russellholmes8742 ??? By the time Moses wrote Genesis many of the events that he described were already ancient history in his own time. It's almost certain He did not have access to the Sumerian texts and instead relied on oral tradition. Which is why Genesis reads like it does. Because of that there's a lot that it naturally leaves out. That's why you read the Sumerian texts in addition to Genesis.
@@russellholmes8742you might benefit from a cursory understanding of the documentary hypothesis. Whether you choose to agree with it or not, it will move the needle in your understanding of who might have written what.
@paulallenscards I am very aware of the documentary hypothesis. It is simply rubbish. Just because I don't believe something doesn't mean I am ignorant of it. It is simply wild and ultra sceptical speculation of people professing to be wise and becoming fools. Their evolutionary assumptions and hostility to the Bible blind them.
Jesus: I am the door to eternal life
Young earthers: it has to mean he's a physical wooden door! Clear as day
Lol
Lol
I find it's the other way around.
"And the evening and the morning was the second day"
Old Earther: It can't possibly be an actual day, because the evolution record!
I find it is helpful to remember that the same God who made Fractals, is the one who made the days, and the creation.
Ergo, it's both literal, historical, AND allegorical.
Read six verses further: “This *figure of speech* Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.” The Genesis account is given as a historical account. Nowhere in Scripture is there any indication otherwise- in fact, quite the opposite, with every reference back to the creation account, both in the Old and New Testament, treating it as literal history.
All of GODs Word is Literal. One Day equals One Day and so on. Some people over study something that is simple.
I’m just curious if you still have both hands and both eyes ;p Mt. 18.8; 1 Jn. 1.8-10
@ColeM440 Yes I do and both ears. Thanks for being concerned about me.
@@jebbthetrainkid1281 You’re welcome Brother.
when did God tell eve not to eat that tree. blank slate
Genesis 3:2-3
[2] And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, [3] but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” (ESV)
What stupid arguments. Genesis 1 doesn't even mention Adam.
No, it doesn't.
God who can do anything can easily do what is described in Genesis. He is NOT the author of confusion. The Bible is meant to be on a level everyone can understand not people who "think" it can only be by people who spend decades studying it.
What precisely in the video are you objecting to? I understood Dr. Chase to say that Genesis is a straightforward historical account which matches with what you are saying.
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368they are one of those that love to open their mouths to try and show how smart they are. 😅😅😅
Tons of jabronis just comment without watching the videos or reading the text.
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 There will always be people who not only disagree, but can't argue their claim and only make insults.
It doesn't take a "degree" to understand the Bible nor learn about outside evidence and how say Ancient Hebrew was tranglated into English, Russian, etc.
Many can't undersand something so simple so a clarification needs to be made.
Including revelation?
@@ninjason57 Especially Revelation.
Anyone, John, you, me, etc. if we experienced something so supernatural (above/other than natural) then your mind would be overwhelmed.
You'd likely be at a loss for words and only after the fact could you give some level of what happened.
You would make statements that seem "ridiculous" but are beyond true comprehension.
Have you ever had such an experience?
Genesis is a fairy tale.