This is probably the best explanation of this theological position I've ever heard. It's nice to grow up and find that, even though my perspectives have changed a lot since childhood, some Christian figures I grew up with (Phil Vischer) are still doing good work and being a good influence to fellow Christians.
You think this because you, like the guy in this video, are completely Biblically illiterate, unsaved, outside of the kingdom of God, and are totally blind, lost, and deceived. Repent!
@_Niddy_ You are both completely steeped in deception. You are not Christians, you are the accursed of God. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
This is just another example showing how creationists are forced to manipulate and aggressively reinterpret their scripture in order to mold it to fit the science and morals we have today. Why on earth would god just leave us a book? A book is up to an individual is interpretation, hence why there’s so many denominations of the Christian faith. Shouldn’t god have sent us very clear and precise rules to follow? Why would god wait 198,000 years into human history to reveal the truth? There are ancient civilizations that we have recorded that predate any Abrahamic faith. Are all of those people going to heII even though there is no way for them to have received the “truth” because gif hadn’t yet bothered to send them his book lol? Was god procrastinating the whole thing??
@@Ruder6163 ,...The fake christian in this video is just another example of how totally apostate the church is. The people of the church are every bit as blind, lost, and deceived as are those in your ignorant religion of atheism/scientism. You have spoken is absolute ignorance showing yourself to be exactly what the Bible tells us you are, a brute beast made only to be destroyed. You have only proven the Bible to be true. "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" 2 Peter 2:12 KJV "But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." Jude 1:10 KJV the fact is, you know nothing, and everything you have been indoctrinated/deceived to believe is wrong and mothing but fake manmade nonsense. The Bible is the only truth the Godless world has. Repent, how long will you remain completely steeped in ignorance?
Growing up I was forced by my parents to go to church and I’ve always been a free will independent person even as a child so since I was forced I resented their decision and never really developed a connection with God but I still believed in him. Years later into my late teen years I started to question and make fun of the church and how everyone pretty much denied modern science because it challenges and rejects scriptures in the Bible. Stuff like the earth is only 4,000 years old, dinosaurs aren’t real, earth is flat, evolution. And this would go on until I was 18 and graduated high school and left for the army and there without anyone forcing me to go to church or trying to shove their teachings down my throat I picked up the Bible probably for the first time in my life and said I’m gonna figure this stuff out on my own. Fast forward a few years later and I feel like I’m the closest with god I’ve ever been. I feel like this is why a lot of people dismiss the Bible because since it was written 3,000 years ago people take what it says too literally and deny any type of science that contradicts and challenges the Bible. But what I never hear anyone say is how cool it is that God made the universe so incomprehensibly big with billions of unexplored planets even though we will never even leave our own solar system. Science doesn’t contradict the Bible it makes it infinitely more badass.
The Bible is filled with ridiculous stories that can be disproved with science, but honestly it should be common sense. For instance, Noah's Ark. The fact anyone could believe that nonsense makes me embarrassed that I'm the same species as something so utterly asinine.
@@troywest7045who said the animals were fully grown? The smaller they were, the less space and food they required. *Stop being so arrogant in your ignorance.*
Knowing facts about Jesus and Being a, Born-Again, Christian are 2, Totally, Different-Things. So, lf you're not Saved, Yet, You better get your, Unbelieving, You know what, ln gear, and Get right with God, Before you die or Before the Rapture occurs! See, On UA-cam, Asap! : Chick Tracts - Creator or Liar, Chick Tracts-Who's Your Daddy?, Chick Tracts-Hi There!, Chick Tract-The Choice With Narration, Chick Tracts-Back From The Dead?, and The Beast-Chick Tract animated.
You would likely enjoy reading the books of astrophysicist Hugh Ross (of Reasons To Believe ministry in California). Physical science does indeed confirm the Bible and is evidence that its human authorship was superintended by God.
⭐️ THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "the last age in which God is saving man from the imminent destruction of this old world" (All who come to this world should experience life and death, and many have experienced tuning death, and re Birth. Those who live will die later and the dead will bring back. This is the mystery of life granted to man by God and proof that life comes from Him. If the day God has had a sudden change of heart and want to recover all the living of the world again and take the life He gave, it will disappear all then. Now, let Me say a secret: the exaltation and power of God's life can not be understood by any creature. Any kind of life creature you, you will not be able to oppose the path of life set by God. In any case, My only request for man is to understand that without care, caution, and financing God, the person will not receive everything he should receive, no matter how much effort is or effort. And again, do not forget that God is the source of your life. When the person fails to love all that God has granted, God will not only recover all that is given, but more therefore, man must pay double as fees for all that God has spent.) Almighty God said ALL that COMES into this WORLD should EXPERIENCE LIFE and DEATH, and many have EXPERIENCED REPEATING DEATH and REBIRTH. THOSE who LIVE will DIE LATER and the DEAD will RETURN. ☀️ All this is the PASSING of the LIFE that GOD ORGANIZES for every LIVING CREATURE. However, THIS COURSE and this CYCLE is the FACT that GOD WANTS PEOPLE to SEE, that LIFE GOD has GIVEN to MAN is ETERNAL and can NOT RESIST the FLESH, TIME or SPACE. THIS is the MYSTERY of LIFE given to MAN by GOD and PROOF that LIFE COMES from Him. 🙏 Although MANY can NOT BELIEVE that LIFE COMES from GOD, people can NOT AVOID being ENJOYED by ALL from GOD, WHETHER they BELIEVE or DENY His PRESENCE. IF the DAY when GOD had a SUDDEN CHANGE of HEART and WANTED to RECOVER all the LIVING in the WORLD and TAKE the LIFE He GAVE, it WOULD be LOST. GOD USES His LIFE to SUPPLY everything to be ALIVE or LIFELESS, BRINGS everything in GOOD ORDER in the EFFECTIVENESS of His POWER and authority. This is the fact that anyone can not imagine or understand, and those who do not understand the truth are truly declaring and evidence of the force of God's life. NOW, let Me SAY a SECRET: the GREATNESS and POWER of GOD'S life can NOT be UNDERSTOOD by ANY CREATURE. ☀️ It is now, then and it will be this time. The SECOND SECRET I will GIVE is THIS: The origin of life comes from God for all creation, regardless of the difference in appearance or structure. Any KIND of LIFE CREATURE, you will NOT be ABLE to OPPOSE the PATH of LIFE that GOD has SET. ☀️ In any case, My ONLY REQUEST for MAN is to UNDERSTAND that WITHOUT CARE, CAUTION, and FINANCING GOD, the PERSON can NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING He should RECEIVE, NO MATTER how much EFFORT is or effort. WITHOUT the PURSUIT of LIFE from GOD, PEOPLE will LOSE the SPIRIT of APPRECIATION of LIFE and will LOSE the SPIRIT of LIFE PURPOSE. How did God allow man to waste the significance of his life without worrying? 🛑 And AGAIN, do NOT FORGET that GOD is the SOURCE of your LIFE. WHEN the PERSON FAILS to LOVE all that GOD has GIVEN, GOD will NOT ONLY RECOVER all that is GIVEN, BUT more, MAN must PAY DOUBLE as a DAMAGES for ALL that GOD has SPENT. 🙏🛑 From "The Word shows the bodies" Holy book Fulfill it in (John 1: 1) and (Ezekiel 2:9-10), (Revelation 19:9,13) 📥Calling and leading everyone to His lowered Kingdom or Church because it is still standing on earth in the holy place in the air/ youtube "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD 💐 this is the fulfillment of what He said to Peter 2,000 years ago, recorded in (Mat. 16:18'19). This is the the only Church of each one of our spirit that we must listen to or eat and drink like how we eat, dress and sleep every day so that He can guide us and change us by rejecting the evil attached by satan so as to be perfect, having attained eternal life that will enter the coming replacement of the New Heaven and New Earth. 💌 Life in the Kingdom is the life of people and God Himself. Humanity depends on My care and precaution, and all are engaged in fighting the great red dragon to the death. In order to win this last battle, and to end the great red dragon, all people must offer Me their entire being, for My Kingdom. When I say "KINGDOM", I mean it is the life lived under the protection of divinity, where all humanity I constantly guide, I teach directly, so that the life of all humanity, although in world is as if it were in heaven, the true spirit of life in the third heaven . 🙏 💌
But there is one question. Why does God hang out in Heaven, and not on earth as his principal residence? Or split time between the two places? Or at least visit earth more often? Even God chooses not to hang out on the earth. I guess Heaven is still alot better, and His better Creation. God prefers upscale real estate over East St. Louis. lol
EXCELLENT!! "down to earth" presentation for popular consumption. Unfortunately, the dear Christian brothers and sisters around me are so hung up on an extreme "literal" understanding of the Bible that our conversations cannot get past that. And unfortunately, any attempt to compare the Bible with other ancient literature is seen as a claim that the Bible simply copied from other nations and, therefore, is not from God. It is very difficult to bring people to a different understanding. But that being said, thanks for this presentation because it has given me some ideas for new approaches to this issue.
I feel your pain. I take one thought as consolation that I hope will do as well for you. That is, there is no test on this content. It is truly by trusting Jesus that one has eternal life. However, that said, all the great content brought out today by Phil & the Bible Project show that there is so much rich discovery and God is not done showing us more about Him to those who truly have eyes to see. Cheers!
It's hard to remain a strict literalist once you've actually studied how the Bible was formed. I find that the most dogmatic are often the most ignorant of their own faith, probably as a means of protecting themselves from being exposed as ignorant of their faith.
@@jonathonpolk3592 it’s usually a taught problem, where someone is brought up with strict dogma with the intent of ensuring that they are controlled and predictable. Being able to recite long memorized passages without understanding what they mean gives the appearance of education without any of the actual empowerment that comes with education.
@@jonathonpolk3592. What an absolute crock! There’s no reason to fight over this stuff. And no reason to belittle fellow Christians. Both sides have perfectly reasonable arguments that should be debated in a respectful manner. And Phil is just plain off about the Creation story, which he presents as merely an Ordering story. In the beginning God created (using a verb that means ‘to create’ and not ‘to order,’ and using a verb to which only God can act as its subject) the Heavens and the Earth. It is “ex nihilo” creation and is utterly distinct from other ANE creation myths. The Spirit does not hover “over the face of the deep” until after the oceans are created. The fact doesn’t really weaken Phil’s argument…and STILL he finds the need to be dishonest about it. Why is that?
That is a completely meaningless statement. Anyone who write for someone writes to them also. Unless you are trying to make room to disregard the parts you don’t like there is no room for this.
@@beefsupreme4671 There is an important distinction between reading something in the bible as written "for" you and reading it as being written "to" you. Aside from that, you can use all sorts of ways to "disregard the parts you don't like." Christians of it everyday. The reason it is important to make the distinction between what is written to us and what is written for us in Scripture is that the meaning of what we read is drastically changed depending on which approach we take. For example, Romans 13:11 (NKJV) "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." If you make the mistake of interpreting this as being written "to" you, you will assume that Paul is telling us now in 2024 that "our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed." But when you understand that Scripture had an original audience and it was written "for" us but most literally "to" them, then what Paul is saying has a different meaning. His reference to their salvation is talking about something in their near future. Most likely, he is referring to the Jewish-Roman War and the siege of 70 AD. He called it "their salvation" because it, in effect, removed the main source of the persecution of the church, the leaders of Israel who killed Jesus, many of the apostles, and who were trying to systematically stamp out Christianity. This is why we need to make a clear distinction about what in the Bible is written to us and what is written for us (but directly to an earlier audience).
@@justonetime112 they knew you could read. Just because they don’t know you doesn’t mean it’s not written to you. I just read a book on economics. It was written to people who want to know more about economics. That doesn’t mean the author had to know who I am all the time. What is meaningless is saying that the Bible can mean different things to different people. This is a way to deny the truth of the Bible.
The older I get the more comfortable I am with "not knowing". I have my leanings but I don't understand the in-fighting over this stuff. Either God did it, or God didn't. If I agree that God started it and so does someone else that's the basis. I definitely lean toward the points in this video while also holding room in my brain that if God wanted to create all this in 6 days He could. I'm secure in God's way even if I don't know what it was ❤
How it happened has little bearing on how I love my God and my neighbor. Things like evolution have an impact though as they are useful in understanding disease and agriculture so they have an impact on how I interact with my neighbor.
Not sure why it's irrelevant or not worth fighting over whether God did or didn't. The passage is clear. If the Bible says it happened in 6 literal days (which it does), but it actually happened over millions of years, then the Bible cannot be trusted. If it can't be trusted, then what is the basis for the salvation of any Christian? That's why it matters.
@@Justanotherconsumer The reason it has bearing is because the Bible can be understood without scholarship and degrees and "science", or it can't. If not, then the scholars and scribes will inherit the Kingdom of God, not the rest of us. And if regular people can't understand the Bible, then they can't know how to love God or their neighbor either. It may seem obvious how to do that, but according to the Bible, it's anything but (e.g. Jer 17:9; Prov 14:12).
Yes, not only Genesis, but the entire Pentetuch/Torah, is the result of multiple authors/schools of thought and traditions. That's one reason for the many doublets and also the reason God is referred to by different names. It's really a fascinating story and there's many good scholarly books on the subject.
I first heard this idea in the 1970s. For some reason, the age of the earth doesn't change It never becomes 6001, 6002, and so on. It always remains six thousand years, year after year, decade after decade.
Haven't heard that? in what way is it helpful? I know what is very helpful. Reading the Bible and believing every word. That alone will make you wiser than all your teachers! 💪🙏🤣
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. Thomas Jefferson
@@I_Am_Monad There over 120 peer reviewed papers that have been published attesting blood cells and blood vessels as well as collagen and partial DNA found in the tissues. There are dozens of videos on the web showing these tissues under a microscope. You are either a liar, uninformed or both.
@@alantasman8273 Awesome. Looks like a revolution in paleontology awaits us. We'll know a lot more about these creatures from 65 million years old and earlier. Thanks for the update.
@@I_Am_MonadBiochemists and forensic experts will tell you that these tissues cannot possibly be 65+ million years old especially when they are often found mere feet from the surface where weather and solar radiation would have degraded them much sooner. By the way partial DNA has a half-life of only 521 years.
@@I_Am_Monad Don't expect it. Dinosaur soft tissue has been known about since the 1950's but has particularly been a top since about 2005 as a result of Mary Schweitzer's work. Its been almost twenty years and textbooks are still teaching dinosaurs live 65+ million years ago. Only the gullible believe that. Biochemists will say otherwise. Science today is committed more to the paradigm of deep time than accepting what the evidence clearly reveals.
Hebrew scholar Dr. Steven Boyd has conducted a statistical analysis of 522 Old Testament passages. He found that poetic and narrative passages could be categorized with a better than 99% accuracy based on the verb usage alone. Dr. Boyd’s analysis showed conclusively that Genesis 1 is narrative history, not poetry. This means the only way to interpret it properly is as history, looking for its straightforward, historical meaning. ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture. The word yom is used 410 times in relation to a number. Every time it means an ordinary day. "evening and morning" are used 38 times in the Old Testament and each time it means an ordinary day. "evening and morning" are used 23 times without the word yom and each time it means an ordinary day. "night" is used 52 times without yom and each time it means an ordinary day. Because of the context of the creation days, "evening and morning", if these days represented vast periods of time, the either God is a untrustworthy idiot because he has conveyed something untrue, or he is a liar because he has conveyed that the length of the days is equal to the coming and going of the sun, while they were in fact vast periods of time. If the days of creation in Genesis 1 represent thousands to millions of years,and Adam and Ever were created during day 6, then one would have to believe they were thousands to millions of years old by day 7 unless you believe God created them at the last moment before sunrise on day 6. Moreover, since the passages describe the coming and going of the sun, one would have to believe the earth orbited the sun at a rate exponentially slower during the days of creation than immediately after. If you don't hold to that idea, then you have to explain why the days of creation represent vast ages of time and an exponentially slower moving earth than for day 7 and all days afterward. In the context, the word day in Genesis 1 refers to six 24-hour days. Every time it appears with “evening and morning” or with a number like “sixth day,” which is over 200 times, it refers to a 24-hour day. If the days represent cast periods of time, then God would have had to supernaturally placed all plants into a frozen state of stasis to wait for the sun to arrive the next "day" so that they would have sunlight. Plants can survive a couple of literal days without sunlight, but they cannot survive hundreds, thousands, or millions of days without light. If the days represent vast periods of time, the sun would have charred the earth into a dessert on each day that the earth rotated. Otherwise, one would have to believe each day represents millions of actual days, but this contradicts the statements of "and the evening and the morning were the X day". Because of the statements regarding the workweek and sabbath in Exodus, the creation days cannot be longer than 24 hour. Since death entered the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), all of the animals God created would have had to live for vast ages of time until Adam sinned. This forces Day-Age theorists to arbitrarily decide how long the creation days must be to fit their concept. Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament apostles read Genesis 1-11 as straightforward historical narrative. "The idea that humans lived before Adam was first put forth by a Roman Catholic named Isaich la Perere in a book titled Apologie de la Peyrere (Men before Adam) in 1655. He claimed that scientific data from Greenland and China proved humans lived as long ago as 50,000 B.C. This book was very influencial to Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic educated by the Jesuits, who is considered the father of textual criticism. Simon attacked protestant Christianity, saying, "The great changes that have taken palce in the manuscripts of the Bible since the first originals were lost completely destroy the principle of the protestants. If tradition joined not to scripture, there is hardly anything in religion that one can confidently affirm." - Boyd, specialist in biblical Hebrew, Semitic languages, and Old Testament studies. He has a BS and MS in Physics from Drexel University, a ThM in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a PhD in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. The idea that the earth is older than the Bible tells us it is came into the modern era from the 18th century from Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old, and from Pièrre LaPlace, and from Jean Lamarck. The idea of millions of years came into being from secular geology through men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell. Their ideas were in defiance of scripture and based upon uniformitarian, false interpretations of the physical characteristics of the lithosphere of the earth.
Dr. Boyd is a Christian creationist though, he's not Jewish, so of course he's going to come to that conclusion. Jewish scholars have a completely different interpretation of their ancient writings.
@@wrinkleneckbass If you stop trying to interpret the texts in a way as to say something they do not convey with a casual reading, you will see glaringly that the events in Genesis are expressed quite plainly. You said, "Jewish scholars have a completely different interpretation of their ancient writings." That is not true. It is so not true that it is remarkable that anyone would dare say it. They do not. University Hebraists (experts on the Hebrew language) are in almost 100% agreement that the texts describe events just as we read them. By the way, virtually every scholar of Hebrew at a Jewish university is in agreement with Boyd and Bar! I have never even heard of a scholar of Hebrew that disagrees. If there are any, they must be countable on one hand. Do yourself a favor: try finding some. Not scholars who have studied Hebrew, but scholars OF Hebrew - the experts who's career is built on knowledge of ancient and present-day Hebrew. Give it a shot. If you had read my post, you would have seen Dr. Barr and Dr. Boyd testify to that fact: ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture.
So what you're saying is that, up until we had scientific ways to measure the age of the earth, man was ignorant as to its true age? Sounds about right.
Are you willing to share what (specifically) you take issue with Ken Ham about? My family and I were graced to see and hear him last year at G3, and it was very biblical & edifying.
@@patrickc3419 I was raised on creationists from the generation before Ken Ham but they teach mostly the same thing. It was finding out for certain that Young Earth Creationism isn't true that is the reason I'm not a Christian anymore. I'll agree that what Ken Ham teaches is Biblical. I believe the Bible really does teach a young Earth and a global flood that wiped out all but 8 people about 4370 years ago. The problem is that it didn't happen. Do you still want to know specifics?
Yes! The Bible that we know and love is not a 20th-21st century history and science text book. Insisting that it be does great injustice to God's word and to His creation, including ourselves.
Having actually read the Bible - I think you have the word injustice placed in the wrong place. Just reading the first 5 books demonstrates a narcissistic, genocidal thug of a deity that destroyed the earth, promised Canaan to the forefathers of the Israelites - then find out that Jacob lied to steal Easau’s birthright - two no-nos in the 10 Commandments but nothing happened to him - not like Lot’s wife who was turned into a pillar of salt for having the audacity to look at - wait - the destruction that this maniacal deity brought on - but then turned a blind eye to Lot’s daughters getting him drunk - and can’t mention what happens next because this could be read by children. Oh, look what happened to the Moabites and Midianites (also god’s creation -but he never appeared before them)…..and how they met their end - again the Bible not fit for children’s eyes - so you’ll have to trust me…….then let’s move past the first 5 books and read about what happened to Jephthah’s daughter - whose crime was walking out of the house to greet her father - just wow. Then god - who traces his son’s (who somehow is also him) lineage to David - I guess just saying I’m god it isn’t good enough - you have to say - I’m god and I’m related to David. David, the king who took Bathsheba (and yes took is a very nice word for what is a crime)…..then sent Bathsheba’s husband - who did follow this god’s laws - off to battle and did god protect him? Hell no, he died in battle - then when Bathsheba gave birth - god took out the baby - probably had it coming - but at least he let it be born - because you know, he’s pro life……except when you read what husbands were allowed to do when they just thought their wife was unfaithful - and make them have - well we’re not allowed to say what happened but it would force a non-birth…..all done in the tent that god was supposed to be hanging out in……And how god also was good with slavery - because as god - you can’t say - don’t own people (wait why wasn’t this in the 10 commandments)…..sounds like there is a lot of injustice done by god…..it’s almost as if people that lived hundreds of years after the “events” were to have happed just made the whole thing up - in the Bronze Age.
it is a history book. science didnt begin till 1600s, whats funny, is science confoirms bible. AS a 12 year old i plotted death ages after flood, probably because god wanted me to say this and created me for that purpose. IT's a geometrical decline, which shows a natural process, but we didn't know about that 1600s with Descartes, a christian, invention of analytic geometry.
also people like tyou scoffed at history aspect, then we found out hitties empire actually existed like bible said. the paroash from moss was thutmoses III, who after moses decimated his kingdom (not commenting on name there) at right time stopped wars against foreign countries and had his mother's name removed from all monuments
What's really dumb are people that say they believe in a supernatural God that feel compelled to explain an example of His omnipotence (creation) through their infinitesimally small understanding of "science" as they know it.
@@johnwollenberg3623 All their facts, are fiction, they know nothing about anything. If it sounds good, they write another book. Their intellect is gained by reading everything, and treating us as mere mortals, The absolute truth is replaced on a regular basis by a millions, trillions of years details of what and how something happened.
All main religions have different beliefs about the age of the earth. Most religions believe in the scientific estimate of about 4.5 billion years. I don't understand why anyone still thinks it's 6,000 years.
Some (not all) think so because they insist the ordinal 'days' (Hebrew 'yamim,' singular 'yom') must only be single-rotational cycle (currently ~24 hours) time periods. However, Genesis 1-2-4 ALONE uses four different meanings of 'yom' (and variants) to refer to: -The daylight portion of a single rotational cycle -A single rotational cycle -An ordinal 'day' (Day One, Day Two, etc.) -The entire creation 'week' or at least the first six ordinal 'days' collectively wherein God worked All of these meanings are literal in that they designate specific time periods but they are not the same time period as each other. My personal reasons for thinking the oridinal days are NOT single-rotational cycle time periods but are much longer time periods include: 1. The day/night cycle BEGINS during ordinal Day One (Gen. 1:4-5); the daylight portion of this cycle as we know is caused by sunlight and is not the same thing as Day One itself. 2. The (photosyynthetic) land plants of Day Three are not only said to have sprouted (Gen. 1:11) but to have PRODUCED their fruit with the seed in it (i.e., grown to maturity, something necessary for the fruit to appear)--(Gen. 1:12), and this process takes eiither part of a growing season, a full growing season, or mutliple growing season depending on the plant species involved. So Day Three was evidently LONGER than a single rotational cycle time period because plants take much longer to mature than that. 3. 2 Peter 3:3-9, picking up on the teaching about God's time transcendence presented in Psalms 90:1-6, specifically argues that the ordinal days of Genesis 1 (which Peter clearly alludes to) are GOD-LENGTH days. What is a 'God-length' day? According to Psalms 90, it's AN ENORMOUSLY LONGER TIME than a human-length (single rotational cycle) day! The Psalmist uses a millennium as his comparator, and a millennium is 365,250 days (for a God-length day) compared to 1 day (for a human-length day). Here we have inspired interpretation of Genesis 1 in favor of the ordinal days being LONG TIME PERIODS as humans would experience them. Is the Psalmist being EXACT (6 creation ordinal days x 1,000 years each = the 6,0000 years which young Earth creationists latch onto)? Or is he being COMPARATIVE of two UNLIKE THINGS (how God experiences time vs. how humans experience time)? I think the latter because his comparison itself is nuumerically imprecise; he writes: "For a thousand years in Your sight/Are like yesterday when it passes by/OR AS A WATCH IN THE NIGHT. 'Yesterday' is a single rotational cycle but a 'watch in the night' is a 3-hour time period, and those two are numerically DIFFERENT, which suggests the comparison is RELATIVE rather than exact: a LONG TIME PERIOD for a God-length day vs. a single rotational cycle for a human-length day.
Skye's interview with Dr. Walton never addressed Exodus 20:11 where Moses says the Israelites should work 6 days (literal) and rest on 1 literal day, he states the REASON is because God worked 6 days to create the heavens and the earth (the "stuff") and then rested. Scripture itself seems to backup the Genesis 1 account of a 6 day creation.
So a fable in a book of fables proves another fable in the same book..😂 So, going by that logic since England and France are real places mentioned in King Arthur's tale, then both King Arthur and Lancelot are also real people...🤔
Look up the meanings of their names... All heavily symbolic. For example, Methuselah died in the year of the great flood, and Methuselah can be translated "Upon death, judgement follows".
@@OffbrandDrPhil - Yes, I have researched the names. They are interesting. But don't overlook the obvious fact that this is a straightforward genealogy. Two relevant facts are the ages of each father, which can be readily used to calculate years back to Adam's creation, and the other fact is that every man except Enoch died, demonstrating the consequences of sin. Why do you think God included genealogies allowing us to calculate the age of the creation? The obvious answer is, that's exactly what He wanted us to be able to do. The creation is roughly 6000 years old - according to God's Word.
@@rubiks6 I'm somewhere in-between a young and old-earth creationist and grew up young-earth. I'm just not seeing how the age of the earth really ties into being a critical doctrine, so I think there's room for different interpretations. I do fail to see, however, how one could believe in theistic evolution as death is said to have come about as a result of sin. Hence why I'm still definitely a creationist.
@@OffbrandDrPhil - For me, the tie in is simply whether I believe God or not. The saying goes, "A man's word is his bond." Can I trust God's Word or not? I do. In Genesis 15.6 we are told that Abraham _“believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”_ This passage is cited by New Testament writers.
@@rubiks6 I agree with holding fast onto God's Word as the ultimate goal. I also believe in not trying to make it say something it doesn't. These are the two considerations I'm currently trying to balance as I weigh the options.
Question:- is the earth just the planet or is it the planet that supports life as we know it. My understanding is earth is the planet that supports life. If it cannot support life it is not earth. Has this planet always been earth?
Yep, this planet is always called earth. And yep so far earth is the only known planet to have "life". One thing we have learned studying the Universe is that we cannot, and have not found water anywhere else in the Universe of any quantity. Just traces of it. While plentiful on earth, water seems extremely rare everywhere else in the Universe. And as far as we know, no water equals no life. Want to check out something that will blow your mind? Check out "Kinesin Proteins". They are in every cell of every living creature even plants. This will help show just how complicated life really is, and why we were created, and didn't happen randomly by "Evolution". Without Kinesin Proteins you could say life wouldn't exist. Peace.
Good question, and one that also comes up in another context (often but not always Bible-based): flat Earth. In English we have two lookalike words: "earth" and "Earth." The word "Earth" is capitalized because it's a proper noun (name for our entire physical world/planet) whereas the older uncapitalized word "earth" is an improper noun used to refer to the ground, the soil, or a product thereof. However, the older word "earth" is nearly archaic now--hardly anyone uses it. For example, in the mid-nineteenth century Longfellow wrote a poem that begins: I shot an arrow into the air; It fell to earth [the ground] I knew not where. Likewise, someone before contemporary times might have said "This river valley has rich earth [soil] for growing crops." In chemistry this word usage is preserved as well: "Sarmarium is one of the rare earth [product of the ground/soil] elements on the Periodic Table." In English translations of the Bible only the older improper noun "earth" is used. In the Old Testament it's used to render the biblical Hebrew word 'eretz' which itself refers to the land, to a country/territory/region or its people, to the ground, or to the soil. So "earth" was chosen to render 'eretz' as its closest English equivalent. The world/planet name "Earth," however, DOES NOT APPEAR in English Bible translations because there is no vocabularly word in either biblical Hebew or biblical Greek which is a NAME for our entire world/planet the same way that "Earth" is in modern English. But many modern readers of the Bible are unaware of the earth/Earth distinction or are sloppy about capitalization and just don't notice the difference and think the two words are THE SAME and refer to THE SAME THING when they don't. This is the main problem with the Bible-based flat Earth folks; they've mistaken "earth" in the Bible for "Earth" and then their interpretation goes astray from there. Your question specifically was whether "earth" is the phyiscal planet or the physical planet supporting life. It's neither, because the uncapitalized word "earth" is not the name of our world/planet. For that we use "Earth" instead. Sometimes people want to argue over what the assorted English style manuals recommend about capitalizing this word(s) or not and they are somewhat inconsistent. But the general rule-of-thumb is that names in English are capitalized and "Earth" is used as the name for our planet (since Copernicus at least) alongside the capitalized Roman-derived names Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Venus, etc. used for other planets in our Solar System. Now age 68, I grew up in the 1960s reading kids astronomy books which capitalized the names of planets and a college level astronomy text by Jay Pasachoff which I own does the same thing. Even in ordinary English usage (i.e., not in Bible translation work), "earth" does not denote our world/planet by NAME. Once everyone is talking about the same thing and using the NAME "Earth" I think EITHER the physical planet itself is properly referred to using that name, or sometimes the PEOPLE of Earth (all of human civiliation) are referred to it in more poetical contexts (e.g., "All of Earth heaved a collective sigh of relief."). However, when the Bible makes similar statements (e.g., "Let the earth rejoice") and is using 'eretz' in the Hebrew originally, it's talking about the PEOPLE of a land, country, territory or region. A specific passage where this comes up in my personal discussions with flat Earth advocates is 1 Chronicles 16:30; the NASB rendering reads: Tremble before Him all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established; it will not be moved. A more precise rendering with some words updated is this: Dance frenetically before Him, all the [people of the] country; Indeed, the world [we inhabit] is firmly established; it will not be brought down. As you can see, there's a big difference between reading this verse as if it were saying 'The Earth will not be moved.' (i.e., our planet does not move to either rotate or orbit the Sun) vs. reading it to say in effect, as King David evidently did: 'Let loose with the wild dancing, my fellow countrymen! The world we inhabit here is not going to falter/be brought down!' The local context tells you the latter is the sense of what he's saying; that context is a national day of celebration in ancient Israel due to the arrival of the Ark of the Covenant that day in Jerusalem, a very symbolic 'sealing of the deal' of God establishing them in The Promised Land. So "earth" in the Bible means the land, a country/territory/region or its people, the ground, or the soil. It is not a name for our entire world/planet in English and does not render a Hebrew or Greek word ('ga') that is a name for our world/planet either. In ancient times the enire world had not yet even been explored yet and the Copernican model, which called for a NAME for our world as another planet among a whole family of such objects all orbiting the Sun, was still many centuries in the future compared to the Bible writers. I hope this lengthy answer addrsses the question as you posed it.
Earth is not just the planet but the planet that supports human life. The earth perished in the flood but the planet didn't. 2Pet.3:6. Interpretation and definition cause us to differ on understanding the bible.
Thank you. Instead of a battle between religion and science, this view puts the emphasis back on the relationship between God and humanity, which is the ultimate story of all of Scripture.
Does it matter? Kind of like the end times. Does it matter when Jesus is coming back.? All we need to know is that Jesus is coming back. Just like all we need to know is that God created the world. We should spend our time more productively. Like spending those resources on debates like this on taking the gospel to the world. God ahead and flame me now.
Let's believe the Holy Bible that there was no chaos before Day 1. Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Finally someone noticed that. I was looking for a comment like this one. This guy is simply a liar not mentioning the very first verse of the Bible, and what's worse, almost everybody praises him. Are y'all blind? Wake up, people. He's lying to you.
Interesting, until Vischer starts talking matter-of-factly about precisely why we have the account we have and what God intends to communicate from it. You don't know that. Just let the Bible speak for itself and quit trying to frame it in a way that aesthetically and intellectually appeals to you and your particular tribe.
@@gamnamoo6195 Personally, I do not think so. Even the things that are said in the Genesis creation account to transpire within a day are not really possible within one day, and I think ancient people were better acquainted with and immersed in the limits of what one can accomplish during typical daylight hours than we are,
I think you do a good job of describing how the creation story might have been more abstract in nature, but the 6000 year calculation is pulled from the Biblical genealogies. So it would be helpful to detail how the writers viewed family trees and whether there might be flexibility in interpretation there
I'm a Gen X'er and this young earth stuff came out of left field to me. I grew up in a conservative church but never heard anything like it until I was an adult. A group from my church organized a field trip for the kids to the Ark Encounter and I did some research, and found that it contained explicit anti-science propaganda. In addition, I found some of our homeschool textbooks would also try to discredit things like carbon dating and attempting to justify the young earth position. And of course there was the pandemic and all the anti-vaccine sentiment. I'm disturbed at how many in the church want to pit religion against science, far more likely to drive people away from the church than towards it. It's a trend that needs to be reversed.
@@larrybedouin2921 Likewise, believing the scriptures actually say what you wish to impose upon them is a fool's game. Presupposing that a collection of writings created over a period of thousands of years will somehow meet the standards of a modern history and science text is a bad place to start. Maybe instead of imposing your expectations of "correct" and "true" on them, how about letting God decide what truths He chooses to reveal to us and what truths he chose not to reveal because he gave us enough sense to eventually figure it out on or own, if he even thought some of the things we are so concerned about were even important enough to talk about.
I can understand why this disturbs you if the goal is to drive people into the church, rather than away from it. I would have to agree that insisting on the literalness of the Bible even when it disagree with science, does indeed drive most people away from church. But the Bible says that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). The truth of the gospel is, by its nature, against the wisdom of this world (e.g. "science", "scholars", media, etc.). This video attempts to reconcile the Bible with secular science & scholarship. But according to the Bible the two cannot be reconciled (1 Cor 1:20-21). The Bible says that "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:20), and even that God has "hidden these things from the wise and intelligent" (Luke 10:21). So the approach taken in this video may, in fact, reconcile the churches to the secular world. But if you take that approach, then the world is your Authority. On the other hand, if you reject the clear teaching of Scripture, then you have rejected the Authority of God in your life, and your "Christianity" is worthless.
I know a lot of Christians who get hung up on the old earth/young earth theories when in reality that discussion does nothing whatsoever. The discussion that MUST happen for all Christian believers (and yes, I am one of them) is regarding pre-sin death. If creatures were living and dying before the fall, then death is not, as Scripture claims, the punishment for sin. Extrapolate that out and you inevitably come to the result that the Gospel is no longer good news at all. If death is not the punishment for sin, Jesus could not die for the sins of the world and His death on the cross achieved nothing whatsoever. It is a nonsense to talk about how certain people wrote poetry a few thousand years ago as though that amounts to a hill of beans. It amounts to nothing whatsoever. If All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, then the Bible is not about the people who wrote it or their poetic predilections, it is about the God who inspired men to write exactly what He wanted them to write, not only for people a couple of thousand years ago but for the people of the 21st century too. God is eternal and His Word is written from His perspective, not ours. It isn't about whether the Bible puts a date on when it all kicked off, it is about God getting His message across to His people throughout history. That is the Who and Why that really does matter :) Please note, I claim no scholarly insights here and I utterly respect all that is said in this video and the person saying it. I am not up for an argument, that is sheer folly. I simply believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stand on the Word of God with this regard :)
If the Bible is what you claim it is, why did God "write it" in ancient languages? In addition to ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, why didn't God just inspire the same automatons who wrote down God's verbal dictation in their own languages to also make marks on paper they had no way of understanding so that there would already be a version for us in perfect English, modern French, Spanish, German, Chinese (all several thousand different dialects), etc.? After all, the difference between languages is more than just substituting vocabulary words in one language for vocabulary words in another language. It's more than the difference in syntax and grammatical structure. It's even more than the difference in cultural understandings based on the collective experiences of all who use each language. Most fundamentalists don't have a clue that there are people living *right now at this very moment* in other places on this planet in cultures who do not see the world the same way they do, who do not think in the same categories that they do, and who are not concerned with the same questions they have. What chance do they have to understand that those living in the ancient world don't also think like 21st century Westerners? Or even more specifically, like 21st century American Evangelical Christians who can't tell the difference between Jesus Christ and our politicians on both sides of the divided aisle?
@@michaelclark9762 Interesting comments though clearly you've intended them from a pejorative paradigm. I must first correct the comment you made about God dictating the Scriptures. He didn't dictate them, He inspired them. People naturally wrote in the language that they would originally have been read. Are you saying that we can't translate things accurately today or that this is just an example of a cosmic fun and games exercise in which God plays with those little earthlings He's created? Sorry to be flippant but it's clearly not reflecting what the Bible says at all. As for people thinking differently, absolutely, and so they should. After all, you don't have to be from a different culture and language base to think differently to each other, you and I speak the same language and possibly share quite a lot in common culturally but we clearly differ in how we think. If you look at a Bible written in English, Urdu and Japanese, do they not say the same thing but in a way that is understood by people of those language cultures? They are remarkably accurate in the way they read. Well, I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of the validity of the Bible but do at least read it and see what it actually says. Good place to start :)
@@robbarron8635three documents written in English, Urdu, & Japanese CAN NOT say the same thing because those three languages ARE NOT based on the same ideas, cultural backgrounds, etc. The differences between how two 21st century Americans, even if one is a right wing radical & the other is a left wing radical, is relatively minor compared to the cultural and linguistic gulf between either and a Japanese speaking person.
@@robbarron8635 No, I am not writing from any perjorative point of view. I respect the scriptures enough to recognize that ANY translation from the original languages will lose a bit in translation, not only because of the differences I the two languages, but also due to the gulf in the differences in culture and the different worlds in which the ancient writers lived and modern readers live. There is no English translation of any book of the Bible that fully conveys to a modern 21st Century Western (i.e. Culturally descended from Hellenistic thought, not Eastern/Semitic thought) what the text meant to those who wrote it. To claim that any English translation says "the same thing" as what the ancient texts say is ludicrous. Then there's the issue of what, exactly, the ancient texts actually said. We have no autographs of any part of the Bible. The "earliest" manuscripts we have are at least a thousand years and who knows how many hand copied generations removed from any "originals". There are numerous variations among different strains of manuscripts. Most aren't very consequential to theological interpretation, but some are.
The Bible is primarily historical and focuses on relationships. Of course, those relationships and connections etc need to be - historically true.@@michaelclark9762
I am reborn Christians but cringe when some of my fellow believers say the earth is only 6000 years old and even more so that the earth is flat because the word firmament is used...My Lord and savior have ALWAYS only pointed my afford to spend time with Him, to Worship Him and praise Him.
Actually, there is not one shred of evidence showing that the world is older than around 6,000 earth years old. Every so-called "dating method" uses false assumptions to FORCE the results to give much older ages. Studies of earth's geological features over the last 100 years prove that the global flood of Noah's day is required to explain the origin of those features. Evolutionists have never been able to explain how our geology could exist without the global flood, thus they only say "millions of years did it"i with zero logical explanation. An age around 6,000 years is a proven scientific fact while imagined ages of millions of years is garbage, invented only as an excuse to be an atheist.
The bible doesn't say how old the earth is, it's only assumed based on the time Adam sinned until the time he died and that is based on one prophets understanding of days and death which he believed a day to God is like a thousand years, that is based on what God told Adam what would happen if he sinned, he would die which took almost 1000 years, that prophet had no understanding of the spiritual man but only the physical man, Adam did die the day he sinned only it was a spiritual death not a physical death, that took about 1000 years, the real question should be how old was Adam before he sinned since he was created immortal in the beginning, it's assumed that on day 8 or 9 or so on that Adam sinned and death entered when in fact Adam could have been a million years old before he sinned, time is not a factor when there is no death, time is only a factor because of death, death is only the end of something after it's beginning, the day Adam sinned was the day Adam died only that death was a spiritual death, Adam and Eve had already populated the earth before they sinned as evidence of other men on the earth at that time plus the evidence of Adam giving Eve her name which meant the mother of all living before Cain and Abel were born plus the evidence of the curses God put on her by increasing her pain in child bearing, not creating pain in child bearing, the truth about one of God's days don't apply to Him, it's only to what He created and it's beginning and it's end, God had no beginning and will have no end just as the man that was created in His image, a spirit, a spirit cannot die, it can only be held captive somewhere awaiting judgement day and even then cannot be eliminated from existence but sent somewhere, there are actually two different types of death, one is physical and the other is spiritual, the spiritual death is only separation from God or a sense of shame and guilt that comes from sinning as evidenced by Adam's sinning and how he felt after he sinned, also as evidenced by us after we sin ( IF you believe in God ) people that don't believe in God have no guilt when they sin, they are what the bible calls dead to God, their not even in the equation, does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old? NO, men say that
Except that this video is against the Holy Bible: Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: There was no "chaos" here before God started creating.
@@missinglink_eth Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: 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.
Yes! Tgank you! God is timeless! Time does not "pass"! There are only events that spawn the "time" as we understand it. Earth's rotation&revolution are the events that are responsible for that.
If god is timeless, why does he have a plan that is revealed over time? Why did it take him 6 days to create everything from nothing at all, instead of doing it in a split second?
So we are now interpreting the Bible according to what others are saying? Look, was Adam 930 years old when he died? Was Seth born to him at 130 years of age? Did Seth Die at 917 years of age and have Enosh at 105 years of age? The six thousand years is not based on Genesis 1 & 2 it is based on the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11. which cover about 2,000 years, Genesis 12 til the coming of the Messiah is about 2000 years and it has been almost 2000 years since the beginning of the church. All you have done is come up with another theory that supports your view of an old earth. Both Biola and Wheaton have been in the old earth community for a long time. The fact is that the earth is not billions of years old, that is based on scientific speculation, and dating techniques that are fundamentally flawed. These techniques are calculated on uniformity and the assumption that all decay processes have been constant and steady for millions of years. They are also based on the assumption of naturalism, that Jesus did not supernaturally accelerate the speed of light and the growth of trees etc. Was the sun created on day one? Likely, but it does not matter because light and darkness were created on day one. Darkness is the absence of light, so the earth was lighted on one side by the light source, and dark on the other side of the earth because the earth blocked the light just as it does today. These theory is just more of the same from the Old Earth community
The fact is, the earth is not the Godless worlds fake spinning cartoon ball. The earth is a flat stationary plane just as the Bible clearly tells us it is. If the earth was the God hating worlds manmade spinning baal, then there is no possibility of the Bible being true and has to be thrown out. And this is exactly the purpose of the Godless worlds fake spinning baal.
"So we are now interpreting the Bible according to what others are saying?" - as if you don't? How much do you depend upon philologists to have your translations of the Bible? You also likely project your own culture onto those of the NT writers and the OT writers.
@@TheDanEdwards ,...Seek help for actually understanding the Bible? Seek help for being one who God has shown the truth to? Reject God and turn to Godless mankind? Repent!
Great video, thanks! I’m unsure if you answered the question of the age of the Earth. In my experience a YEC would look at what you said and reply “Yes, God did all that in 6 24hr days (‘cause that is what the Bible literally says!) and than those literal genealogies we have in 5-11 tell us 6000 years or so for the age of the Earth. You didn’t address the Yoms of creation or the nature of those genealogies, which I think is the foundation for the young earth position, not a material v. Functional creation. I hope that makes sense lol. Thanks!
The genealogies are more indicative about the age of civilization than about the age of the earth itself. Which, interestingly, does historically trace itself to around 6000 years ago (there’s some evidence it may be older, but not by that much)
@@mikerivera373I agree, just wanted to point out this wasn’t addressed in the video lol. I would also say the genealogies are more about theological messaging than historical
In the beginning YAH created the heavens and the earth…the earth was without form or void Of a truth from that piece of scripture tells us earth was made but not how long it took OR how long between the creation of earth to the time he started day 1. But if I was a betting man I would lean towards it was all done at the same time meaning He creates earth and then gets right to work in bringing order and function to the creation.
@@mikerivera373this is a very euro centric perspective that ignores the far east. I would say we have evidence of civilization back to 8000 years ago at least and some evidence points to even older
Ugh. Thank you for this. Believing in an old earth and believing in an inerrant, infallable Bible are NOT mutually exclusive. The thing that frustrates me about those who defend a young earth -- which everyone just took for granted was true in the churches I grew up in -- is the assumption that if one believes in an old earth, then they *must* then believe in macroevolution of humans. Why is it not considered a possibility that the universe could be very old, but humans a more recent capstone addition? The typical response that I get from others is, "because death couldn't have existed before the fall of man". But is that actually true? Is it not possible for one to interpret passages such as Romans 5:12 and 6:23 to mean that death came to *humans* after the fall, and that other things within creation could have been experiencing death before then? Humans were NOT the first beings to commit sin. Otherwise, how would one explain the presence of the serpent in Genesis 3? Wasn't he already committing sin by trying to deceive Eve into questioning what God had told her?
I do not know a single Christian who does not believe in micro evolution. It absolutely is factual (i.e. there were not, aboard Noah’s Ark, two wolves, two coyotes, two dingoes, two foxes, two dogs. There were simply two wolves, or wolf-like animals). A Christian certainly can not believe in macro evolution; the unbiblical belief that species become other species, in fact, all species, and I would call any self professed Christian who claims otherwise to repent and believe the Gospel. Theology matters.
The churches of traditional Christianity never consider that possibility because they generally overlook all of the passages that reveal that (1) Lucifer and the angels that were put under his command were here first and (2) the rebel angels launched their rebellion from this planet. Traditional Christianity's understanding of Gen. 1 is based on the false premise that this is God's world, and it never has been. Christ said so Himself before His arrest in John.
@@troywest7045 Why don't people stop by and accept the hospitality and free gift available from Jesus the Christ? God is near to those that seek him. To those who cannot see that he is near...it is because they are not seeking him in spirit and truth.
@@alantasman8273 You're right, I'm not seeking him in the same way I'm not seeking Santa Clause or the Tooth fairy. That's all your religion is to me, a fairy tale, a conjuring of the human imagination. You're also correct I'm not very spiritual, I tend to lean into science. If I do ever become spiritual, I've already decided to worship the Sun. That's the most logical entity to worship as it's existence is undisputable as you not only can see it, but also feel it. Science and basic common sense tells you the Sun is responsible for all life on this planet.
I've heard this line of argumentation articulated several times recently, and admittedly it has a sort of self-authenticating appeal. I do feel though that we need to pause first and examine all of the presuppositions presented here - and the list is large - lest we fall into the trap of reading scripture exclusively through the lens of 21st century theologians from California or Illinois. There are other legitimate conservative views that deserve thorough consideration.
The Creation Story in Genesis 1 reads like an account of the building of an ancient temple. It follows that format. And in the position, within that format, in which the image of an ancient deity would have been erected in the temple, we are made in the image of God. It tells of our purpose, which is to express the glory of God and thus, to promote worship. If we can take this understanding to heart, we can be motivated to do a better job of cherishing & protecting Creation. (It is God's temple, after all.) We can also see, more clearly, why human sin is so awful. (It's the exact opposite of our purpose, and it defiles the most sacred aspect of God's temple.) And we can sense, more clearly, the reason that God's values should be our own.
@@HolyPost I do not know if I am speaking to either Phil, or Skye, but can you share why you feel why a literal understanding of creation is not possible but the virgin birth and resurrection are? Certainly 2 Timothy 3 says that all (ALL) scripture is breathed out by God, so I was curious as to how you decide what is allegorical and what is literal.
@@patrickc3419the writing of genesis and the gospels are completely different, so it makes sense to read them differently. It's not a theological argument, but I've always wondered about the fact that the gospels (or books like Kings) document history and are often part of an eye witness testimony. During creation, no human was present! The story of creation was probably given to a human via vision. There was no human who was watching from day 1 through 6; the story was given to provide an understanding of God and creation that's true, as opposed to what the other ancient religions at the time were teaching.
@@pastorofmuppets8834 So Genesis, as the rest of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were physically written by Moses, from the inspiration/guidance of God.
@@patrickc3419 most likely, though as far as I'm aware I don't think we know for sure who wrote Genesis. Most would have been written down after years of verbal communication given that very few would have been literate back then.
I've always thought that since God made animals, plants, and people fully grown, or at least that's what it seems like based on Genesis 1, then God would've made the earth already fully grown, seemingly an "adult" version of the earth like the adult people and animals. So, it makes sense to me that the earth would seem to be older than 6000 years even if it was created then. Just one perspective though.
god can't lie, if he made us think the earth is older than what it actually is, then he would be decieving us, and God can't do that. Only the devil decieves. So if we see the earth is old using the reason that god gave us (and it is old, and its undeniable), then god's word can't contradict god's work. YEC is not only a butchering fo scripture wanting to attribute stuff that it doesn't claim, its just plainly wrong.
@@marcel87688 ,...You have spoken in complete ignorance, it is your ignorance and unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state that is undeniable. Everything you just stated in not only wrong, but it is also 100% unbiblical. The earth is only a few thousand years old. Period. You know nothing and are not a Christian. Repent!
@@marcel87688 God's Word is indeed inerrant in terms of truth but why is God deceiving us by creating the universe with an inherent history? He isn't deceiving us because He has told us exactly what He created and how long it took. He makes no mention of the time period before the creation of the world other than 'the beginning' which He says was formless and empty. It is only deceitful to add a pre-history if He then says that He didn't add such a thing. To say that our interpretation of it means He deceived us is because it doesn't mention a pre-history only means that our interpretation of it is wrong, not that God was trying to deceive us. As you correctly stated, God cannot lie, in Him is only truth. The more I have thought about this pre-history over the years, the more it makes sense. Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? When they cut down trees, would they have had rings? Did Adam and Eve already know how to do gardening, know how to speak, the list goes on and on. The answer is clear if you reckon on there already being a history. Without any of that the arguments rage on and on but God does not require of us understanding of all that He has done, only that we believe in faith. Thanks for your comments, they are food for thought as indeed are all the various ideas I hear from both Christians and non-Christians regarding the beginnings of our universe. The one thing I simply cannot reconcile is the argument that nothing became something and that the something became more and more complex in total defiance of science.
I have a good friend that reads, and speaks Hebrew very well and his explanation about creation in the language of Hebrew is excellent. His definition answers a lot. Yet many fundies rail against learning Hebrew or even Greek. I have had those debates and the fundies are more than glad to assign me to hell.
@frankmckinley1254 , it's very fine to think your advocate before the Father might be some "good friend that reads and speaks Hebrew very well", whose "explanation about creation in the language of Hebrew is (no doubt, in your humble but expert opinion) excellent"? I wish you well. But, with several thousand years of scripture scholarship and many hundreds of competent translations having been made in your own mother tongue (not to mention the testimony of God's Own Spirit bearing witness to every human heart--including yours), one could see where your 'authenticating council' may seem a bit slim to "the fundies". Fortunately, whatever our faith may appear to others, it is before our own Master that we stand or fall. Therefore, my sole concern is whether my own thoughts, words and deeds will bear me up on the last day, for those are the only substance I could lean upon...apart, that is, from those of the Lord in my stead.
I literally can't tell if you're supporting or attacking the original commenter. Since this is a religious discussion, I'm going to assume you're attacking him - it's usually the only time people comment.
@VinnieBartilucci , literally: "My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins." "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you." “'My son, do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives.' Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
"Attacking"? Cite these, and I trust you entirely to draw a sober conclusion.
The ancient Hebrews had no actual "hell" as we know it. Only a sort of limbo in which souls walked around aimlessly with nothing really to do, until the Messiah comes along and redeems them, at which point many will go to heaven and the rest will continue to be separated from God. Which should be hellish enough.
Hebrew and Greek are great, but the meaning of terms (regardless of language) is still determined by context. You don't have to learn Hebrew to see that "Day" (Hebrew: yom) is a literal day in Genesis 1, based on the context. After all, "Day" is the time of the "light" (Gen 1:5), and "Night" is the time of "darkness" (Gen 1:5). And these periods of light/darkness are governned by a great light during the day, and a "lesser light" at night (1:16). These are the sun and moon, clearly. The only reason anyone disputes that the days are literal is because we are more concerned with reconciling the Bible with science, which is our true Authority, not God. The speaker in this video clearly considers Geology, etc. authoritative, but the Word of God not.
Before the 1790's the Calendar had 13 Months all 28 days each. With March being the first month of the year, Not January. Now for how long, is a good question. And who is the 13th Disciple of Jesus? (It was Mary Magdalene). And what is the 13th Zodiac sign? And how does March being the first month affect all of the Zodiac signs? And who is the 13th Tribe of Israel? Before the Catholic Church decided to destroy the Knights Templar on Friday the 13th. The number 13 was considered a Lucky number. Yeah, nobody talks about how the calendar changed in the 1790's.
The ancients came to understand there world of history and experience through myth. This myth is not of the nature of how we understand fiction, but it is a living reality believed to have once occurred. For post enlightenment man to go back and make sense of what the ancients wrote, with our thought forms, leads to errors in understanding and meaning. Searching for an actual star of Bethlehem is an example of this.
"With the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day." GOD does not reckon time the way that we do. The six days of creation are not literal twenty-four-hour periods as we count time. They are periods of ordering the universe. They could easily be billions of years as we count time.
Bible says when rhe world has been created. Its a choice for each person either to believe a Holy Word of Eternal God, or a word of a men corrupted by devil (fake science and fake prophets like this one). Adam and Eve have been created on day 6. Adam lived 930 years, Bible says for each generation up to Noah exactly the numbers, which makes it easy to add up and compute the time from Creation to the flood.
Please, everyone... Don't lose sight of the purpose of this video. It is not as much about convincing you of his point of view, but rather to make it clear that young earth probably isnt true (and that most Christians in history have not believed in it), and MOST OF ALL, stop putting so much emphasis on it and fighting over it.
That may be his point, but the reason people put emphasis on it is this: If you undermine the Creation account as a literal event, with literal days, then you have undermined the credibility of the whole of Scripture. At that point, why read it at all? Which is exactly the point. As Satan said in Genesis 3:1, "Has God truly said . . .?"
@@TimWismer if I interrupt Genesis 1 as poetry and not literal, why does that undermine the rest of scripture? The point of the scriptures is to reveal who God is and reveal his character. A non literal creation story does that and sets the tone for the rest of Scripture. The God of the universe reveals himself through the scriptures, but that does not mean that the creation story in Genesis one is literal, God may have inspired the authors to write it as poetry like they did to reveal His plan for all creation. God never owed any of us an explanation as to how he made all things. Genesis 1 simply establishes Yahweh and the one true king over all creation. Just like when Jesus came, he was established as the Christ/Messiah/King over all creation. The firstborn of all creation. None of that requires Genesis 1 to be literal.
Is Creation young or old? We are only given a choice of 2 wrong answers. When I read the Genesis account, I read the Earth is created "in the Beginning". An unknown number of years ago. It sat around "formless and empty" (KJV says void) until God prepared it to sustain life, which He creates on the 4th day. Then we do the math and figure out 6000 years from then until now; which the Jewish calendar verifies.
He did not say that Genesis is not factual. You drew a false conclusion. That would be horrible, worse than what liberal scholarship does. What this man said aligns with Dr. Walton, Dr. Heiser, Tim Mackie, and others. Rather, taken as an ANE document, and seen from that perspective, we undertand many motifs such as the Cosmic Mountain, Chaos and leviathan (the sea monster), the divine council, or the 3-tiered universe as their cosmology. Israel and their neighbors shared these views. That is not to mean they weren't true but that the message was predominately theological, not scientific. But the Scriptures are still holy and accurate!
@@TheNikolinho I am deeply puzzled by your comment on Phil Vischer's discussion of Genesis 1. You describe Genesis 1 as consisting of many ANE motifs. The components are all untrue for the Israelites just as they are for the Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures that preceded them by as much as two millennia. The components are not factually true--but...what?...don't need to be true? Or aren't the kind of things which can be said to be true or false? Is the reader to understand that these descriptions are themselves not material to the account and only serve--like a fictional parable?--to illustrate the theological truths of Genesis 1? If this is the case, we are left with only two "truths" from Genesis 1: "God created...man in his image, according to his likeness." All other details are not scientifically accurate. The things being made in Genesis 1 are mostly not real things at all, and they were not made in the way or the order indicated. (I can elaborate if you request it in a reply.) Of the two theological truths remaining, Christians reject one of them. Modern Christians cannot or will not believe that we have bodies which look like our divine Parent. We believe it when we read, by this author and in the same story, "and [Adam] fathered a son in his image, according to his likeness, and called his name, Seth" (Genesis 5:3). But we cannot or will not believe the clear meaning of the identical words in Genesis 1:26. Today's Christians do not accept as "truth" that we look like God--that we have a genetic relationship to God, even. This reduces the theological truth to be gleaned from Genesis 1 to just this: "God created..." The writer of Genesis 1 is supposed to have enjoyed, with his audience, all the false things in this section of his Creation and Flood Account, but what modern readers can derive from it is just, "This is the genealogical record of the skies and the land when they were created...except not really...and trust me, bro, God made it."
@@TheNikolinho why do you people think it MATTERS how the people understood it? One of the biggest things ABOUT scripture is that God gave it to people in the past...and they DIDN'T fully understand it. Take Isaiah 53. How could the Messiah come and DIE...but then also take up kingship and reign? They didn't understand when it was written that there would be TWO comings of the Messiah. See? It didn't matter what they would have thought when they received it. God knew they wouldn't fully understand it but that people in later times would. So their "old understanding" doesn't dominate the interpretation. Just because they didn't understand that there would be two comings of the Messiah...doesn't mean that we today are WRONG in the knowing that there WILL be. We don't get to be like. "well they would have understood it differently...as ONE coming. So we need to go back to them and their interpretation of it." Silly silly thinking. But oh so easy to accept to those with itching ears.
@@GrimdarkKing Dude, if you think you understand the biblical world and ancient context better than the people if old, congratulations - you're the only one in the history of the Church. Also, you haven't addressed ANYTHING about the Ancient Near East, Hebrew language, well-known motifs and concepts among the old religions and myths, cultural-historical context, forms of speech, or so. Have you ever had Hermeneutics? Probably not. How many books have you read on OT biblical theology? Probably not many. How well do you know Hebrew? You probably don't. How many Genesis commentaries have you read? Probably none. Have you ever studied that there are names omitted in genealogies? Probably not. Yet, you wanna come, act smart, and try to correct strangers online? That's hysterical. Yes, the ancients could've missed something, sure, but if you think that a modern-day Westerner knows their culture, history, Worldview, cosmology, the spiritual and religious life, then we have nothing to talk about 😎 The Bible has many scientific facts but is NOT a scientific book and was portraying many theological messages through symbols, patterns, numbers, and already known words, phrases, and terms. Huge portions of the OT are polemics, e.g. YHWH is the rider on the cloud, written to correct the previous pagan narrative that Baal was the cloud rider. Passages in Proverbs are found to be almost the same in older Egyptian wisdom literature. Yet, all we have is divinely inspired. God didn't tell the Jews how old is the planet, nor were they bothered with that. And guess what? Jesus, the apostles, and the early church fathers didn't care either! It's only important in the last century or so. I don't care if the planet is 50 or 50 billion years old. The same with the shape. It doesn't influence my faith at all
I get a similar picture reading older scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, John L. McKenzie, and others. The amazing thing is that you still have to explain this. Of course, there are a number of other creation texts in the Bible which provide different conceptions of creation.
You mean it's amazing that Christians read the Bible but not older scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, John L. McKenzie, and others? That's not amazing, it's encouraging.
@@TimWismer Huh! You made a division between reading the Bible and reading biblical scholar, not me. Are you saying that Phil Vischer and the scholar he refers to, John Walton, do not read the Bible? Biblical scholars try to figure out what the biblical texts meant to the authors and their audience. You rely on translations by other scholars. I also pointed out very gently that Genesis 1 (and 2) are not the only creation texts in the Bible. You might try to find Bernhard W. Anderson's Creation in the Old Testament, which will point you to other biblical texts with differing conceptions of creation. Or do you not actually want to read the Bible?
@@TimWismer No Tim. I mean that there are other creation texts in the Bible which have different conceptions of creation. You obviously have not studied them. There are scholars who will point them out for you, such as B. W. Anderson
⭐️ THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "the last age in which God is saving man from the imminent destruction of this old world" (All who come to this world should experience life and death, and many have experienced tuning death, and re Birth. Those who live will die later and the dead will bring back. This is the mystery of life granted to man by God and proof that life comes from Him. If the day God has had a sudden change of heart and want to recover all the living of the world again and take the life He gave, it will disappear all then. Now, let Me say a secret: the exaltation and power of God's life can not be understood by any creature. Any kind of life creature you, you will not be able to oppose the path of life set by God. In any case, My only request for man is to understand that without care, caution, and financing God, the person will not receive everything he should receive, no matter how much effort is or effort. And again, do not forget that God is the source of your life. When the person fails to love all that God has granted, God will not only recover all that is given, but more therefore, man must pay double as fees for all that God has spent.) Almighty God said ALL that COMES into this WORLD should EXPERIENCE LIFE and DEATH, and many have EXPERIENCED REPEATING DEATH and REBIRTH. THOSE who LIVE will DIE LATER and the DEAD will RETURN. ☀️ All this is the PASSING of the LIFE that GOD ORGANIZES for every LIVING CREATURE. However, THIS COURSE and this CYCLE is the FACT that GOD WANTS PEOPLE to SEE, that LIFE GOD has GIVEN to MAN is ETERNAL and can NOT RESIST the FLESH, TIME or SPACE. THIS is the MYSTERY of LIFE given to MAN by GOD and PROOF that LIFE COMES from Him. 🙏 Although MANY can NOT BELIEVE that LIFE COMES from GOD, people can NOT AVOID being ENJOYED by ALL from GOD, WHETHER they BELIEVE or DENY His PRESENCE. IF the DAY when GOD had a SUDDEN CHANGE of HEART and WANTED to RECOVER all the LIVING in the WORLD and TAKE the LIFE He GAVE, it WOULD be LOST. GOD USES His LIFE to SUPPLY everything to be ALIVE or LIFELESS, BRINGS everything in GOOD ORDER in the EFFECTIVENESS of His POWER and authority. This is the fact that anyone can not imagine or understand, and those who do not understand the truth are truly declaring and evidence of the force of God's life. NOW, let Me SAY a SECRET: the GREATNESS and POWER of GOD'S life can NOT be UNDERSTOOD by ANY CREATURE. ☀️ It is now, then and it will be this time. The SECOND SECRET I will GIVE is THIS: The origin of life comes from God for all creation, regardless of the difference in appearance or structure. Any KIND of LIFE CREATURE, you will NOT be ABLE to OPPOSE the PATH of LIFE that GOD has SET. ☀️ In any case, My ONLY REQUEST for MAN is to UNDERSTAND that WITHOUT CARE, CAUTION, and FINANCING GOD, the PERSON can NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING He should RECEIVE, NO MATTER how much EFFORT is or effort. WITHOUT the PURSUIT of LIFE from GOD, PEOPLE will LOSE the SPIRIT of APPRECIATION of LIFE and will LOSE the SPIRIT of LIFE PURPOSE. How did God allow man to waste the significance of his life without worrying? 🛑 And AGAIN, do NOT FORGET that GOD is the SOURCE of your LIFE. WHEN the PERSON FAILS to LOVE all that GOD has GIVEN, GOD will NOT ONLY RECOVER all that is GIVEN, BUT more, MAN must PAY DOUBLE as a DAMAGES for ALL that GOD has SPENT. 🙏🛑 From "The Word shows the bodies" Holy book Fulfill it in (John 1: 1) and (Ezekiel 2:9-10), (Revelation 19:9,13) 📥Calling and leading everyone to His lowered Kingdom or Church because it is still standing on earth in the holy place in the air/ youtube "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD 💐 this is the fulfillment of what He said to Peter 2,000 years ago, recorded in (Mat. 16:18'19). This is the the only Church of each one of our spirit that we must listen to or eat and drink like how we eat, dress and sleep every day so that He can guide us and change us by rejecting the evil attached by satan so as to be perfect, having attained eternal life that will enter the coming replacement of the New Heaven and New Earth. 💌 Life in the Kingdom is the life of people and God Himself. Humanity depends on My care and precaution, and all are engaged in fighting the great red dragon to the death. In order to win this last battle, and to end the great red dragon, all people must offer Me their entire being, for My Kingdom. When I say "KINGDOM", I mean it is the life lived under the protection of divinity, where all humanity I constantly guide, I teach directly, so that the life of all humanity, although in world is as if it were in heaven, the true spirit of life in the third heaven . 🙏 💌
While there does appear an element of what he's saying is true - ie, Gen. 1 is talking a lot about order - it still says in Gen. 1:1 that GOD "created" the heavens and the earth, and then in Ex. 20:11 that GOD made everything in heaven and on earth within 6 days. That appears to me as a message about the material creation as well as its order.
What are the ancient Hebrew words used on those two passages? How do you have a clue what any of them actually meant to those who spoke that language at that time?
Genesis 1:1 - בָּרָא., Exodus 20:11 - עָשָׂה. First, I've studied Hebrew. Second, look at all the other places in the Old Testament these words are used, examine the context and what it's communicating, and you have a great idea what it means in these passages.
Welllll.... a valiant Try but you seem to be Overlooking one critical detail. That critical detail is the fact that you are using your finite//Human reasoning for interpretation. I think we can both agree of the fact that God Is supernatural as are His works which do not have to follow the Reasoning/opinios of finite man.
I guess the question I still have, as someone who can be back and forth between young and old earth, if we are looking at genesis one this way, how do we see chapter two, three and four? Creation story is intertwined with Adam and Eve story, and I can take this story allegorically, but then what do I with Adam and Cain and Seth being included in genealogy? And then what do I do with the genealogy where people live multi-century? Maybe all of Genesis is non-literal, what do you think? It’s hard to wrap my mind around it.
These seem like good (and honest) questions. But your problem is deeper than you think. Making all of Genesis non-literal isn't enough. You have to make the entire Bible non-literal, because Luke (see Luke 3:38), Paul (see Acts 17:26; Rom 5:12-14) and Jesus (Mt 19:4) also talk about Adam and Eve as if they are literal, and they build their teachings on this belief. Also, Jude argues from a statement of Enoch, who is "seventh from Adam" (Jude 14). Jude takes the geneology of Genesis literally. The type of reasoning demonstrated in this video is never ending, because there is no shortage of scholars, no shortage of discoveries about ancient cultures, and no shortage of new scientific theories to displace the old ones. You have to take the whole Bible as true, or none of it. If you really want to know the truth, ask God to reveal it to you, and He will do it (please see Prov 2:3-7). But if you just want to be comfortable in this fallen world, then you have to dump the Bible and Christianity entirely. I'll be praying for you tonight.
Credit deeper Christian "In Genesis 5 there appears to be a seemingly unimportant genealogy of Adam. We realize this is significant as it relates to the line of Jesus (see Luke 3), but why take the time to mention all the details of each individual? What is profound is when you begin to look at the meaning of each of the names. Adam: man Seth: appointed Enosh: mortal, frail, or miserable Kenan (Cainan): sorrow, dirge, elegy Mahalalel: the Blessed God (coming from Mahalal: blessed or praise | El: name for God) Jared: this is from the verb which means “shall come down” Enoch: commencement or teaching Methuselah: his death shall bring (coming from Meth: death | Shalach: to bring/send forth) Lamech: despairing (root of this word is where we get our English word lament or lamentation) Noah: comfort, rest (derived from nacham: to bring relief or comfort) What may appear as an insignificant list of names becomes an incredible picture of the Gospel of Christ. Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring the despairing comfort, rest When you read the meaning of the names (as it would have been understood to a Hebrew listing the genealogy) you see how God, even at the very beginning, weaved a picture of the coming Messiah even into the names/lineage of the first ten people through whom that coming Christ would be birthed through."
Almost the entire bible is non-literal and meant to be such. So yes all of Genesis is as well. They are stories, parables with morals. The entire message is to better ourselves in preparation for the after life. So our current life in insubstantial relatively speaking, and likely the reason why much of it rarely ever focuses on the physical real world beyond giving messages from God. The only times the bible _might_ be meant to be taken literally is when it gives more precise details. Such as giving the actual size dimensions of a building, etc. Does it give us precise details in how Adam and Eve was created? No. Does it give us precise details what Adam and Eve did from day to day? No. They are there for the messages and morals. And yes to provide allegory, some of which I suspect we no longer even get today. For instance like as was presented here in this video with the Genesis creation story.
@@robynlinquist7239so your faith is in science, which by history, everything in it will or has been proven wrong. carbon dating relies on c14:c12 isotopes being fixed at current levels as ONE assumption and even then only accurate to 30,000 years, as too low to measure beyond that due to short half life. They should really teach science history in school to give you an idea how wrong science has been. And no it does not improve, it revolutionizes with new ideas with new ideas the older generations try to suppress as they have staked careers supporting old ideas. Einstein took 25 years to get accepted for instance, as he overthrew Newton.
I'm a young earth creationist right now & I absolutely agree that we should give interpretive priority to what the Bible meant to its original audience, not our scientific worldview millennia later. Believers who interpret Genesis differently than me are no less Godly than me & are not in imminent danger of slipping into hell. I agree that the Bible does not exclude other interpretations. There are some quirks in creation science theory like the order of things being created that the video mentioned & maybe some circular logic about the 1st day being 24 hours b/c it says "day" & a day at the time of writing meant 24 hours. I'm not sure why many creation scientists seem opposed to the idea of human-induced global warming, despite all the evidence for it that is firmly within the young earth timescale. God made humans stewards of creation & we have a perfect track record of messing things up. I do think creation scientists have made some contributions to science, even if mainstream scientists don't accept them. But, I remain a firm believer in my own ability to be wrong about things & hope I'll never get so stuck in my views that God can't change my mind.
It seems to me that you actually are compromising the authority of scripture. Here you are limiting God to the understanding of men. Not just any men either, but men who believed in false gods. What about all the prophecies that have since been fulfilled, or the ones yet to be fulfilled that we don't completelyunderstand? Should we reject Jesus because the ancient Israelites didn't understand the prophecies and rejected him? Did Jesus go off the understanding of the pharisees, or did he correct their understanding? I don't think it's just a coincidence that over the last 100+ years since christians started to reject a straightforward understanding of the bible that christianity has significantly declined.
Also worth adding that God has given us two sets of documentation about himself and his character and creation, and the other one is the trail of understanding provided by scientific discovery. Both being His Truth, they cannot actually conflict.
@@AresAlpha No its not is it complicated if they say is AresAlpha INSERT YOUR NAMETHERE older than 25? it is either a yes or no Is my dog 8 years old? yes / Is he older than seven? yes / Is my dog less than ten years old? yes /Is my dog 9? no Amazing how reality works compared to mental gymnastics
@@cravenlestat7006wow, confining God to a yes or no of what we as humans understand as the age of the earth or length of a day… the thing I hate the most about YEC isn’t the idea of it. Its the fact that we have to limit God to what we as humans think a day is.
This guy is more intelligent than fundamentalists, he realises that the Earth is much older than just 6000 years. (He mentions that people realised this by the end of the 18th century.) Since he does not want to admit that the Bible is not inerrant, he has to reinterpret Genesis 1. And actually what he says about how the ancient Israelites interpreted the creation story makes sense. He is also right that the creation starts from chaos. Interestingly, fundamentalists, who hold on to a literal interpretation of a six-day creation never address the point, that according to Gen 1:6 God created a solid firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. Has any fundamentalist seen a solid firmament above the Earth, or waters above the "firmament"? They are cherrypicking, holding on tenaciously to those details that they have cherrypicked, while ignoring the details that they cannot explain away.
God I am a sinner. sinning is so tempting I don’t know if your real but I believe that you exist. I don’t know if the life I live would be blasphemous but I don’t think I deserve the love of my lord. Just because all the bad I do I just hope my brother can get salvation even if he’s done worse I don’t care about what happens to my soul I just want him to keep his love in the heart of my lord I know my chance to salvation has faded but I will never give up on my lord or my family but my brother is a crashout and so am I pray he can be in the lords grace when goes to the other side p.s I love all of gods children have a wonderful life in Jesus name I ask have mercy on all that have taken the wrong path
He also didn’t create Adam and Eve as babies but as adults. God’s ability to create isn’t limited on time or point of development of His creation. Adam and Eve were created as adults and so were the animals that God created. So why do we think the earth was created as if without mature development?
@@albertmiller3082jus by going on what is done Adam mature,so is Eve and all else created,so its logical to assume the universe is created with a semblance of maturity
@@mlafi7 Maturity biologically follows directly on adolescence, which follows childhood, which follows infancy. If you don’t apply scientific standards, you can believe “God” made people fully mature. You can believe pigs fly, too. You can believe in unicorns and fire breathing dragons too. You can believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus. Or Zeus, Neptune and Thor. Beliefs are all over the board. There is no direct Biblical reference to the age or stage of life Adam and Lilith and Eve were conjured up out of thin air. You are simply trying to apply your 21st century sensibility to Iron Age hand-me-down stories, ten times translated. My question to you is simple: What difference does it make either way? Whether born young, or as teenagers or as adults, what difference does it make to the story that’s told about the Fall?
@@albertmiller3082 God does not follow mans way of understanding thats why man still has no clue how life came about,we just hypothesis ,if we can believe people like Homer,Socrates,Herodotus, I see no reason to doubt few more Jewish old men on their account of this story ,specially if we have others outside the circle attesting to events in the same book
@@mlafi7 Homer, Socrates and Herodotus did not claim to suspend the basic laws of nature. Christians like you insist the story where a homeless illiterate from a Jewish tribe was unique among earthly people and could suspend the enduring laws of nature, of time and of space simply by wishing for something? That claim of being “uniquely holy and divine” cannot be compared with a poet like Homer telling a story in verse about imaginary people like “Odysseus”. If you believe “God doesn’t follow man’s way of understanding” then how the hell DO YOU claim to understand this unknowable “God” and then SPEAK for that “God” as if God needed your explanations in order for me to understand God. You are God’s Translator? Because you read a book? Help me understand why that isn’t an extraordinarily silly claim?
@@Donathon-qx8kq The question isn't whether time is irrelevant to God, but whether He intends to communicate to us or not. God knows that time is not irrelevant to us, so if He makes it clear that morning and evening are defined by light and darkness and day and night and "the greater light" and "the lesser light", but in fact He created in millions/billions of years, then He is not trying to communicate to us, but rather deceive us.
This was exactly the position of not just Christian scholars but all of Christendom. Which is why it took 1650 years for anyone to try to add it up. The ancients would have scoffed at the notion.
@@TimWismer Maybe you should try communicating with God. He will listen, and in His time, which often isn’t our time, He will answer and bless. God would not deceive us, but He loves us enough to wait, until we are ready to come to Him. Peace be with you. Added: Consider that the One, who is outside of time may have a perspective greater than ours. And consider: "Seek the Lord while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."
I still love to use the example Phil shared in "What's In the Bible". Asking the Bible to give the answer to how old the Universe is is akin to asking someone to measure how long the table is with a thermometer. It is not the right job for the tool.
You also have to understand two factors of “science”. Christians are responsible for the study of this earth because they wanted to know more about God’s creation. 2. Current science has taken a different direction than originally intended and became its own religion with its own priests and converts. So why are we trying to explain Christianity through a religion that mostly denies it and God even though most of the facts they come across point to it being true?!
The idea that Phil Vischer and Skye Jethani are liberal is extremely hilarious. But, yeah. AIG will mourn the loss of such a great Christian mind to the influence of darkness or whatever.
7:42 In addition to thinking of the sun, moon, and stars as lights, weren't they also sort of thought of as beings? Or at the very least used as a way to think about beings akin to angels and such?
That was one of the ways in which Genesis contradicted the surrounding cultures. They all saw them as divine beings, but Genesis reveals them as simply lights. That being said, I'm sure there were times where the Israelites faltered in that regard, as they were apt to do.
@@danielfitzpatrick4873 'Suppose it might not be the case, but the idea of stars as not just being thought of as lights in the sky was something I think I heard talked about in one of the Bible Project things I listened to. Of course, they shouldn't be worshiping them, but personally, I don't think it'd really be an issue if the ancient Israelites did think the stars were beings to the effect of angels and such. They would still be created beings, not self-existent equals of the LORD God, who would still be above all of them in authority, power, etc.
“In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…: two dimensions He created light and separated darkness from light, He brought order by separating day from night (molecular composition of aerosols), establishing a firmament which divides the dimensions (the heavenly waters from earthly waters liquids)) and detracted the earthly waters from land (solids), and so on..
The Bible does claim a 6,000 year old (or thereabouts) Earth. Luke 3:23-38 traces every single generation, name by name, from Adam down to Jesus. No gaps.
That still doesn't prove there was only 6 literal days before the birth of Adam. Yom is the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis. But Yom also means "Era" or also "Unspecified length of time". Not to mention there's an unspecified time period during the development of the cities of Cain. 6,000 year old earth is not only unbiblical, but unscientific and unchristian.
This whole hubbub seems to tap dance around calling a spade a spade - that is, that Genesis (and much of the Bible) is specifically NOT literal. Take the Flood story for instance. It's FILLED with hyperbole that most likely would have been recognized by its ancient audience as a figurative description of an event in order to produce an effect and make a theological point, and NOT an example of ancient journalism or accurate science.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu No, it does not. There are many things that men claim that are false. The Scriptures help us see those lies. It is the plumb line of the world.
@@jannaswanson271 The Bible is full of probably false stories from a mythical creation story to Gospels which are not eyewitness accounts. It's also a book of questionable morality from exhortations to kill women and children, the subjugation of women, a failure to condemn slavery and oppression of gay people.
There's nothing hyperbolic about the Flood when God told Noah that He was going to put an end to _all_ flesh. God says what He means and means what He says. If God simply wanted to make a theological point, He wouldn't have had Noah spending 100 yrs of his life building an ark that was capable of surviving flood waters for over a month.
"And how can we have day and night on day one . . when there's no Sun until day four"? Maybe God made some light on day one, as the Book says, to start a day count. (Maybe, just maybe, an Entity that could make the Sun, could also make some photons ; )
@@benjaminharris7091 - You're thinking of Galileo, the poster child of the meany dumb Christians denouncers. Copernicus published his model about a century earlier, in Latin, and didn't catch much flak. Galileo was asked by the Pope to analyze the various models, thinking he would "debunk" moving earth stuff, but he confirmed it, and published in the common tung, so to speak. He caught a lot of flak from the church muckily mucks, but the Pope gave him a symbolic punishment. Confinement to a friend's estate, which meant a very light sentence, since he was pretty old, and travel was not a good idea for old folks back then. He could write to people and have visitors. Slap on the wrist, basically.
The problem with denying Genesis 1 is literal is it that is compromises the fall of man accounts in Genesis 2-3; and to note, these chapters/verses we added to the books of the bible weren't present in the original texts, they were meant to be read together. If there is a compromise in the fall of man, there is a compromise in the understanding in the deliverance through Jesus Christ from our fallen status.
It does not, unless one treats it literarily and tries to patch up the inconsequences by adding up the years in an origin story that were never meant to be added up.
What you said is true. But you missed most of it. Ge 1 is a Hebrew thought rhyme. While english poets rhyme words at the ends of phrases, ancient Hebrews rhymed thoughts. Each day is a stanza in the poem. What God formed on day n, he filled on day n + 3. Now read again. Next you missed the repetition of phrases in each stanza. At the end of each day is the phrase, "And there was evening and morning, day N". We read that phrase at the end of days 1 thru 6. But the phrase does not exist for day 7. Why? Because day 7 is still occurring. Day 7 continues to this moment, for even "now you can enter God's seventh day rest". Heb 7:4. (Therefore a Genesis day is not a 24 hour period.) You also missed the Hebrew language nuance that only days 1 and 6 are "first" and "sixth". The other days are "a day 2", "a day 3", etc. In other words, the days 2 thru 6 are not in chronological order. Now order the days as the rhyme goes: 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6. A scientist would even agree that order is indeed the cosmological and evolutionary record. You also missed that Ussher wrongly assumed that the generations in Bible genealogies are back to back. The genealogies are not back to back. Ancient Hebrews telescoped genealogies. They deliberately omitted unimportant generations. For example, Jesus son of David. You will find that the genealogies have multiples of 4, 7 or 10 generations. 4, 7 and 10 is a literary device meaning "fullness". Ussher was ignorant of this. Ussher did not study Hebrew or ancient Hebrew literature.
I appreciate this explanation. The creation of the earth is complicated and hard to figure out. I, also, have always believed that Genesis wasn't trying to tell us how God did it. He was trying to tell us that He did it.
There’s an Open Yale course that explains the reasons behind the Genesis creation story really well! I will say, though, my pastor insisted that the creation story must be literal because of the story of the Fall. Without the fall of man, he argued, there is no need for Jesus. He was so adamant about this that the first friend I had to deconstruct did so in the span of a day after evolution was proven to him in college.
what a joke, just another rationalization about creationism. Bottom line, this is just another scholars opinion, just like the nonsense of the gap theory, the day age theory, progressive creationism etc. anything to get along with the lies of science and the long ages they propose. Its just an opinion, that you are presenting as a fact, if you were honest you would mention that it is just that.
The fact is, science is a religion. The one world religion of the entire Godless world as well as the entire 100% apostate church is scientism. What the church sells as Christianity is not the Bibles Christianity, it is the God hating worlds religion of scientism. Anyone who thinks the earth is a spinning ball is in the Godless worlds religion of scientism. No one can be a Christian and think the earth is a spinning ball.
Actually he is right. It is sad that the church is not current in these matters. There are scholars that are bringing their knowledge to the lay, knowledge that was kept only to an elite, the academia. This is the view prominent and respected scholars held, like the one he mentioned Dr. John Walton. Let's get educated church. 😊❤
I love how Phil Vischer's works in VeggieTales ministered to me as a kid, and now these videos are ministering to me as an adult and are super healing for a lot of the fundamentalist upbringing I had. Phil truly knows how to minister to Gen Z lol
Undermining the trustworthiness of the Scriptures is not a "ministry" to believers. Beware, because many of Satan's "ministers" masquerade as "ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor 11:14-15, NKJV).
Another thing to keep in mind is that the author was also explaining to ancients who thought one god created one aspect of the world - one diety created the sun, another created the sea, yet another created man, etc. - that it was the other way around: one God created everything.
Interesting to bring up Paul's letters to Timothy, because the scholarly consensus (I'm borrowing heavily from Dan McClellan here! Sorry!), is that those letters weren't written by Paul. I'm not trying to attack Phil here at all (in fact, I think quite well of him!). But I do want to point to something that's frustrated me, and that is that Evangelical scholarship of the Bible only goes so far. There's a whole deep ocean of Biblical scholarship that the Evangelical community seems to avoid. I have pondered a lot as to why that is. Are they afraid of what it might reveal? Does it challenge Evangelical dogma? Please understand, I was deep in the Evangelical world most of my life. I know that world well.
While there are scholars who don't think Paul wrote the letters to Timothy, there certainly isn't scholarly consensus on that. 19th century German literary critics were the first to doubt Pauline authorship. It's been a while since I've looked at this in more depth, but a weighty argument for me was that the early church fathers wouldn't have accepted them if there had been doubt that they were genuinely written by Paul.
@@chriskeiller As far as I can tell, most scholars currently dispute Pauline authorship for the pastoral epistles. Of course, this doesn't mean that it's an irrefutable fact that they're forgeries, but most people who study this seem to think that they are.
@@pnwmeditations Looks like that's a fair assessment of the current scholarly landscape. It seems to be mostly based on textual evidence (Paul couldn't have written in this particular way). When I studied this (about 20 years ago admittedly) the other argument I found compelling was that the way we speak or write often changes significantly depending on who we're addressing. You'd expect a letter sent to a whole church or group of churches to look quite different from something written to a close friend struggling to lead a church.
@@chriskeiller "...a weighty argument for me was that the early church fathers wouldn't have accepted them if there had been doubt that they were genuinely written by Paul." You're placing your own expectations for what should and should not be accepted as valid based on your experience as a 21st century Westerner upon those who lived 1800-1900 years ago in a non-Western culture. For them, it didn't matter if Paul personally penned them or not. Did they emerge from the Pauline community? Were they edifying for the church? Did they contain useful truth for the church? Did God inspire them?
@@chriskeiller Even when writing different types of correspondence to different audiences, people tend to use the same vocabulary and syntax. It's not the content contained in the communication, it's the structure upon which that content is hung that can point to different authorship.
Great video. Anytime we read a book in a way it could not have been understood by its original audience, we are reading it wrong. Genesis explains that God created everything because he wanted it to exist, and that things like the sun, moon, stars, plants, mountains, and animals are just stuff God made, not things to be worshipped. This was revolutionary at the time, and it still is. But if you try to make the creation story in Genesis contain scientific facts, you actually force it to contain lies. For example, it says that the moon is a "lesser light that governs the night". That’s just simply wrong. The moon isn't a light, and it's up in the day instead of the night half of the time, and sometimes you can't see it at all. If it were a scientific fact, it would say, "Then God created a rock much like earth in the sky that reflected the Sun - which was exactly like the stars, only much closer to us, and the earth and other planets orbited around it - and it was good." "But it's just a figure of speech to call the Moon a light" you might say, but that's MY point, not yours.
I like to use this analogy to illustrate "truth:" A map of the MTA (NYC subway system) intentionally distorts geography, misrepresents distance and doesn't even have north at the top. So is it true or false? Is scripture true or false because of or in spite of its cultural underpinnings? What kind of information is it trying to convey in the first place?
I would say, the earth is somewhat older, if the Sphinx is that young, The earth was 'without form', according to the book of Genesis. That is pretty old.
I must say, I am simply amazed that you consider yourself Christian, but maintain an open mindset. I thought that a closed mind was a requirement given the common example. I was raised Catholic myself, but have since drifted into non-religious territory. As a writer, in all but the commercial sense, I have many times conscripted a creation for my many worlds and try to take all considerations into account. The What and How as well as the Who and Why. I just wrapped up one about an indifferent god who made the universe and kept the celestial bodies moving, but it was his five, nameless sons who made the Earth, or some such planet of occupancy, and fashioned man upon it, no women though, as they were a curse upon humanity. But it may not all be accurate as it is a story told by a patriarchal society to give reason for why women are kept under their thumb. I find it very interesting that you separate knowledge from understanding. The ancient people weren't interested in knowing so much as understanding it. As such, God was forced to break down the major aspects and principles into bite-sized pieces. I believe it was one of Paul's letters that he said, When I was a child, I thought as a child. Now that I am a man, I think like a man. It makes me wonder what God's word on creation would be for this more modern audience.
This is probably the best explanation of this theological position I've ever heard. It's nice to grow up and find that, even though my perspectives have changed a lot since childhood, some Christian figures I grew up with (Phil Vischer) are still doing good work and being a good influence to fellow Christians.
You think this because you, like the guy in this video, are completely Biblically illiterate, unsaved, outside of the kingdom of God, and are totally blind, lost, and deceived. Repent!
@_Niddy_ You are both completely steeped in deception. You are not Christians, you are the accursed of God. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
This is just another example showing how creationists are forced to manipulate and aggressively reinterpret their scripture in order to mold it to fit the science and morals we have today. Why on earth would god just leave us a book? A book is up to an individual is interpretation, hence why there’s so many denominations of the Christian faith. Shouldn’t god have sent us very clear and precise rules to follow? Why would god wait 198,000 years into human history to reveal the truth? There are ancient civilizations that we have recorded that predate any Abrahamic faith. Are all of those people going to heII even though there is no way for them to have received the “truth” because gif hadn’t yet bothered to send them his book lol? Was god procrastinating the whole thing??
@@Ruder6163 ,...The fake christian in this video is just another example of how totally apostate the church is. The people of the church are every bit as blind, lost, and deceived as are those in your ignorant religion of atheism/scientism.
You have spoken is absolute ignorance showing yourself to be exactly what the Bible tells us you are, a brute beast made only to be destroyed. You have only proven the Bible to be true.
"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" 2 Peter 2:12 KJV
"But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." Jude 1:10 KJV
the fact is, you know nothing, and everything you have been indoctrinated/deceived to believe is wrong and mothing but fake manmade nonsense. The Bible is the only truth the Godless world has. Repent, how long will you remain completely steeped in ignorance?
@@forthosewithearstohear6219jesus fucking christ, these christians are becoming even more insane than before!
Growing up I was forced by my parents to go to church and I’ve always been a free will independent person even as a child so since I was forced I resented their decision and never really developed a connection with God but I still believed in him. Years later into my late teen years I started to question and make fun of the church and how everyone pretty much denied modern science because it challenges and rejects scriptures in the Bible. Stuff like the earth is only 4,000 years old, dinosaurs aren’t real, earth is flat, evolution. And this would go on until I was 18 and graduated high school and left for the army and there without anyone forcing me to go to church or trying to shove their teachings down my throat I picked up the Bible probably for the first time in my life and said I’m gonna figure this stuff out on my own. Fast forward a few years later and I feel like I’m the closest with god I’ve ever been.
I feel like this is why a lot of people dismiss the Bible because since it was written 3,000 years ago people take what it says too literally and deny any type of science that contradicts and challenges the Bible. But what I never hear anyone say is how cool it is that God made the universe so incomprehensibly big with billions of unexplored planets even though we will never even leave our own solar system. Science doesn’t contradict the Bible it makes it infinitely more badass.
The Bible is filled with ridiculous stories that can be disproved with science, but honestly it should be common sense.
For instance, Noah's Ark. The fact anyone could believe that nonsense makes me embarrassed that I'm the same species as something so utterly asinine.
@@troywest7045who said the animals were fully grown? The smaller they were, the less space and food they required.
*Stop being so arrogant in your ignorance.*
Knowing facts about Jesus and Being a, Born-Again, Christian are 2, Totally, Different-Things. So, lf you're not Saved, Yet, You better get your, Unbelieving, You know what, ln gear, and Get right with God, Before you die or Before the Rapture occurs! See, On UA-cam, Asap! : Chick Tracts - Creator or Liar, Chick Tracts-Who's Your Daddy?, Chick Tracts-Hi There!, Chick Tract-The Choice With Narration, Chick Tracts-Back From The Dead?, and The Beast-Chick Tract animated.
Universe obviously wasn't created by a God. It's almost 100% lifeless
You would likely enjoy reading the books of astrophysicist Hugh Ross (of Reasons To Believe ministry in California). Physical science does indeed confirm the Bible and is evidence that its human authorship was superintended by God.
What I like about Gen. 1 is it starts in the garden…. Then, we go to Rev. 22 and the garden is revealed again. God is good… all the time.
Thank you.
Repent!
⭐️ THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "the last age in which God is saving man from the imminent destruction of this old world"
(All who come to this world should experience life and death, and many have experienced tuning death, and re Birth. Those who live will die later and the dead will bring back. This is the mystery of life granted to man by God and proof that life comes from Him. If the day God has had a sudden change of heart and want to recover all the living of the world again and take the life He gave, it will disappear all then. Now, let Me say a secret: the exaltation and power of God's life can not be understood by any creature. Any kind of life creature you, you will not be able to oppose the path of life set by God. In any case, My only request for man is to understand that without care, caution, and financing God, the person will not receive everything he should receive, no matter how much effort is or effort. And again, do not forget that God is the source of your life. When the person fails to love all that God has granted, God will not only recover all that is given, but more therefore, man must pay double as fees for all that God has spent.)
Almighty God said
ALL that COMES into this WORLD should EXPERIENCE LIFE and DEATH, and many have EXPERIENCED REPEATING DEATH and REBIRTH. THOSE who LIVE will DIE LATER and the DEAD will RETURN. ☀️
All this is the PASSING of the LIFE that GOD ORGANIZES for every LIVING CREATURE. However, THIS COURSE and this CYCLE is the FACT that GOD WANTS PEOPLE to SEE, that LIFE GOD has GIVEN to MAN is ETERNAL and can NOT RESIST the FLESH, TIME or SPACE. THIS is the MYSTERY of LIFE given to MAN by GOD and PROOF that LIFE COMES from Him. 🙏
Although MANY can NOT BELIEVE that LIFE COMES from GOD, people can NOT AVOID being ENJOYED by ALL from GOD, WHETHER they BELIEVE or DENY His PRESENCE. IF the DAY when GOD had a SUDDEN CHANGE of HEART and WANTED to RECOVER all the LIVING in the WORLD and TAKE the LIFE He GAVE, it WOULD be LOST.
GOD USES His LIFE to SUPPLY everything to be ALIVE or LIFELESS, BRINGS everything in GOOD ORDER in the EFFECTIVENESS of His POWER and authority. This is the fact that anyone can not imagine or understand, and those who do not understand the truth are truly declaring and evidence of the force of God's life. NOW, let Me SAY a SECRET: the GREATNESS and POWER of GOD'S life can NOT be UNDERSTOOD by ANY CREATURE. ☀️
It is now, then and it will be this time. The SECOND SECRET I will GIVE is THIS: The origin of life comes from God for all creation, regardless of the difference in appearance or structure. Any KIND of LIFE CREATURE, you will NOT be ABLE to OPPOSE the PATH of LIFE that GOD has SET. ☀️
In any case, My ONLY REQUEST for MAN is to UNDERSTAND that WITHOUT CARE, CAUTION, and FINANCING GOD, the PERSON can NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING He should RECEIVE, NO MATTER how much EFFORT is or effort. WITHOUT the PURSUIT of LIFE from GOD, PEOPLE will LOSE the SPIRIT of APPRECIATION of LIFE and will LOSE the SPIRIT of LIFE PURPOSE. How did God allow man to waste the significance of his life without worrying? 🛑
And AGAIN, do NOT FORGET that GOD is the SOURCE of your LIFE. WHEN the PERSON FAILS to LOVE all that GOD has GIVEN, GOD will NOT ONLY RECOVER all that is GIVEN, BUT more, MAN must PAY DOUBLE as a DAMAGES for ALL that GOD has SPENT. 🙏🛑
From "The Word shows the bodies" Holy book
Fulfill it in (John 1: 1) and (Ezekiel 2:9-10), (Revelation 19:9,13)
📥Calling and leading everyone to His lowered Kingdom or Church because it is still standing on earth in the holy place in the air/ youtube "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD 💐 this is the fulfillment of what He said to Peter 2,000 years ago, recorded in (Mat. 16:18'19).
This is the the only Church of each one of our spirit that we must listen to or eat and drink like how we eat, dress and sleep every day so that He can guide us and change us by rejecting the evil attached by satan so as to be perfect,
having attained eternal life that will enter the coming replacement of the New Heaven and New Earth. 💌
Life in the Kingdom is the life of people and God Himself. Humanity depends on My care and precaution, and all are engaged in fighting the great red dragon to the death. In order to win this last battle, and to end the great red dragon, all people must offer Me their entire being, for My Kingdom. When I say "KINGDOM", I mean it is the life lived under the protection of divinity, where all humanity I constantly guide, I teach directly, so that the life of all humanity, although in world is as if it were in heaven, the true spirit of life in the third heaven . 🙏 💌
Genesis 1 does not start in the garden. The generations of man starts in the garden.
But there is one question. Why does God hang out in Heaven, and not on earth as his principal residence? Or split time between the two places? Or at least visit earth more often? Even God chooses not to hang out on the earth. I guess Heaven is still alot better, and His better Creation. God prefers upscale real estate over East St. Louis. lol
God is spirit. He is everywhere at once.
EXCELLENT!! "down to earth" presentation for popular consumption. Unfortunately, the dear Christian brothers and sisters around me are so hung up on an extreme "literal" understanding of the Bible that our conversations cannot get past that. And unfortunately, any attempt to compare the Bible with other ancient literature is seen as a claim that the Bible simply copied from other nations and, therefore, is not from God. It is very difficult to bring people to a different understanding. But that being said, thanks for this presentation because it has given me some ideas for new approaches to this issue.
I feel your pain. I take one thought as consolation that I hope will do as well for you. That is, there is no test on this content. It is truly by trusting Jesus that one has eternal life. However, that said, all the great content brought out today by Phil & the Bible Project show that there is so much rich discovery and God is not done showing us more about Him to those who truly have eyes to see. Cheers!
It's hard to remain a strict literalist once you've actually studied how the Bible was formed. I find that the most dogmatic are often the most ignorant of their own faith, probably as a means of protecting themselves from being exposed as ignorant of their faith.
@@jonathonpolk3592 it’s usually a taught problem, where someone is brought up with strict dogma with the intent of ensuring that they are controlled and predictable.
Being able to recite long memorized passages without understanding what they mean gives the appearance of education without any of the actual empowerment that comes with education.
@@jonathonpolk3592. What an absolute crock! There’s no reason to fight over this stuff. And no reason to belittle fellow Christians. Both sides have perfectly reasonable arguments that should be debated in a respectful manner.
And Phil is just plain off about the Creation story, which he presents as merely an Ordering story. In the beginning God created (using a verb that means ‘to create’ and not ‘to order,’ and using a verb to which only God can act as its subject) the Heavens and the Earth. It is “ex nihilo” creation and is utterly distinct from other ANE creation myths. The Spirit does not hover “over the face of the deep” until after the oceans are created.
The fact doesn’t really weaken Phil’s argument…and STILL he finds the need to be dishonest about it. Why is that?
"Down to earth" lol 😂 I appreciate that pun
"The Bible is written for us, not to us." Excellent. We'd solve so many interpretational problems if we kept this in mind.
If Christian’s would only accept science as a verb then they would no longer be Christians
That is a completely meaningless statement. Anyone who write for someone writes to them also.
Unless you are trying to make room to disregard the parts you don’t like there is no room for this.
@@beefsupreme4671 There is an important distinction between reading something in the bible as written "for" you and reading it as being written "to" you. Aside from that, you can use all sorts of ways to "disregard the parts you don't like." Christians of it everyday. The reason it is important to make the distinction between what is written to us and what is written for us in Scripture is that the meaning of what we read is drastically changed depending on which approach we take. For example, Romans 13:11 (NKJV) "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." If you make the mistake of interpreting this as being written "to" you, you will assume that Paul is telling us now in 2024 that "our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed." But when you understand that Scripture had an original audience and it was written "for" us but most literally "to" them, then what Paul is saying has a different meaning. His reference to their salvation is talking about something in their near future. Most likely, he is referring to the Jewish-Roman War and the siege of 70 AD. He called it "their salvation" because it, in effect, removed the main source of the persecution of the church, the leaders of Israel who killed Jesus, many of the apostles, and who were trying to systematically stamp out Christianity. This is why we need to make a clear distinction about what in the Bible is written to us and what is written for us (but directly to an earlier audience).
@@beefsupreme4671 that makes absolutely no sense. I have read books from authors that don't know that I exist so how could they be writing to me
@@justonetime112 they knew you could read. Just because they don’t know you doesn’t mean it’s not written to you.
I just read a book on economics. It was written to people who want to know more about economics. That doesn’t mean the author had to know who I am all the time.
What is meaningless is saying that the Bible can mean different things to different people. This is a way to deny the truth of the Bible.
The older I get the more comfortable I am with "not knowing". I have my leanings but I don't understand the in-fighting over this stuff. Either God did it, or God didn't. If I agree that God started it and so does someone else that's the basis.
I definitely lean toward the points in this video while also holding room in my brain that if God wanted to create all this in 6 days He could.
I'm secure in God's way even if I don't know what it was ❤
How it happened has little bearing on how I love my God and my neighbor.
Things like evolution have an impact though as they are useful in understanding disease and agriculture so they have an impact on how I interact with my neighbor.
The 7th day Sabbath shows conclusively that God created everything in 6 days.
He commands us to keep it too from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
Not sure why it's irrelevant or not worth fighting over whether God did or didn't. The passage is clear. If the Bible says it happened in 6 literal days (which it does), but it actually happened over millions of years, then the Bible cannot be trusted. If it can't be trusted, then what is the basis for the salvation of any Christian? That's why it matters.
@@Justanotherconsumer
The reason it has bearing is because the Bible can be understood without scholarship and degrees and "science", or it can't. If not, then the scholars and scribes will inherit the Kingdom of God, not the rest of us. And if regular people can't understand the Bible, then they can't know how to love God or their neighbor either. It may seem obvious how to do that, but according to the Bible, it's anything but (e.g. Jer 17:9; Prov 14:12).
@@TimWismer Exactly true, Tim. God bless.
Factual error at 3:50: There is no basis to think Genesis was written by one person. From the styles of text alone, it almost certainly was not.
That was the way people wrote 3000 years ago. You have to take in the context of the writing
Yes, not only Genesis, but the entire Pentetuch/Torah, is the result of multiple authors/schools of thought and traditions. That's one reason for the many doublets and also the reason God is referred to by different names.
It's really a fascinating story and there's many good scholarly books on the subject.
I first heard this idea in the 1970s. For some reason, the age of the earth doesn't change It never becomes 6001, 6002, and so on. It always remains six thousand years, year after year, decade after decade.
Walton's analogy of building a "home" (immaterial) vs. building a "house" (material) is helpful here.
Haven't heard that? in what way is it helpful?
I know what is very helpful. Reading the Bible and believing every word. That alone will make you wiser than all your teachers! 💪🙏🤣
What kind of theo-babbling nonsense are you promoting here? Nothing to do with scripture or science whatsoever!!
@@jimhughes1070 Except the bible contradicts itself, sometimes even on the same page. So you can't believe every word.
Sounds interesting, unfortunately I can't find it on the Internet.
@MarielleilonaLinthorst
Could you share with us a notable example of the Bible contradicting itself?
I dont think that God "brought order out of chaos." I would argue it's more the other way around. God created order, but sin introduced chaos.
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
Thomas Jefferson
@@troywest7045 Jefferson is still dead in his grave. Jesus isn't.
@@troywest7045 Those who believe in that will have all eternity in hell to contemplate how wrong they were.
@@alantasman8273 Hell is a made up place, clearly you are afraid of going to that made up place 😂
The video is telling you about the history of the entire timeline of the universe rather how the earth come to existence and how God did that
Does a dinosaur fossil containing soft tissues like blood vessels, blood cells, collagen and sometime partial DNA say 65+ million years old?
@@I_Am_Monad There over 120 peer reviewed papers that have been published attesting blood cells and blood vessels as well as collagen and partial DNA found in the tissues. There are dozens of videos on the web showing these tissues under a microscope. You are either a liar, uninformed or both.
@@alantasman8273 Awesome. Looks like a revolution in paleontology awaits us. We'll know a lot more about these creatures from 65 million years old and earlier. Thanks for the update.
@@I_Am_MonadBiochemists and forensic experts will tell you that these tissues cannot possibly be 65+ million years old especially when they are often found mere feet from the surface where weather and solar radiation would have degraded them much sooner. By the way partial DNA has a half-life of only 521 years.
@@alantasman8273 Maybe we actually could clone a dino.
@@I_Am_Monad Don't expect it. Dinosaur soft tissue has been known about since the 1950's but has particularly been a top since about 2005 as a result of Mary Schweitzer's work. Its been almost twenty years and textbooks are still teaching dinosaurs live 65+ million years ago. Only the gullible believe that. Biochemists will say otherwise. Science today is committed more to the paradigm of deep time than accepting what the evidence clearly reveals.
Hebrew scholar Dr. Steven Boyd has conducted a statistical analysis of 522 Old Testament passages. He found that poetic and narrative passages could be categorized with a better than 99% accuracy based on the verb usage alone. Dr. Boyd’s analysis showed conclusively that Genesis 1 is narrative history, not poetry. This means the only way to interpret it properly is as history, looking for its straightforward, historical meaning.
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture.
The word yom is used 410 times in relation to a number. Every time it means an ordinary day.
"evening and morning" are used 38 times in the Old Testament and each time it means an ordinary day.
"evening and morning" are used 23 times without the word yom and each time it means an ordinary day.
"night" is used 52 times without yom and each time it means an ordinary day.
Because of the context of the creation days, "evening and morning", if these days represented vast periods of time, the either God is a untrustworthy idiot because he has conveyed something untrue, or he is a liar because he has conveyed that the length of the days is equal to the coming and going of the sun, while they were in fact vast periods of time.
If the days of creation in Genesis 1 represent thousands to millions of years,and Adam and Ever were created during day 6, then one would have to believe they were thousands to millions of years old by day 7 unless you believe God created them at the last moment before sunrise on day 6.
Moreover, since the passages describe the coming and going of the sun, one would have to believe the earth orbited the sun at a rate exponentially slower during the days of creation than immediately after. If you don't hold to that idea, then you have to explain why the days of creation represent vast ages of time and an exponentially slower moving earth than for day 7 and all days afterward.
In the context, the word day in Genesis 1 refers to six 24-hour days. Every time it appears with “evening and morning” or with a number like “sixth day,” which is over 200 times, it refers to a 24-hour day.
If the days represent cast periods of time, then God would have had to supernaturally placed all plants into a frozen state of stasis to wait for the sun to arrive the next "day" so that they would have sunlight. Plants can survive a couple of literal days without sunlight, but they cannot survive hundreds, thousands, or millions of days without light.
If the days represent vast periods of time, the sun would have charred the earth into a dessert on each day that the earth rotated. Otherwise, one would have to believe each day represents millions of actual days, but this contradicts the statements of "and the evening and the morning were the X day".
Because of the statements regarding the workweek and sabbath in Exodus, the creation days cannot be longer than 24 hour.
Since death entered the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), all of the animals God created would have had to live for vast ages of time until Adam sinned. This forces Day-Age theorists to arbitrarily decide how long the creation days must be to fit their concept.
Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament apostles read Genesis 1-11 as straightforward historical narrative.
"The idea that humans lived before Adam was first put forth by a Roman Catholic named Isaich la Perere in a book titled Apologie de la Peyrere (Men before Adam) in 1655. He claimed that scientific data from Greenland and China proved humans lived as long ago as 50,000 B.C. This book was very influencial to Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic educated by the Jesuits, who is considered the father of textual criticism. Simon attacked protestant Christianity, saying, "The great changes that have taken palce in the manuscripts of the Bible since the first originals were lost completely destroy the principle of the protestants. If tradition joined not to scripture, there is hardly anything in religion that one can confidently affirm." - Boyd, specialist in biblical Hebrew, Semitic languages, and Old Testament studies. He has a BS and MS in Physics from Drexel University, a ThM in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a PhD in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.
The idea that the earth is older than the Bible tells us it is came into the modern era from the 18th century from Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old, and from Pièrre LaPlace, and from Jean Lamarck. The idea of millions of years came into being from secular geology through men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell. Their ideas were in defiance of scripture and based upon uniformitarian, false interpretations of the physical characteristics of the lithosphere of the earth.
What an incredible presentation and study. Thank you.
Dr. Boyd is a Christian creationist though, he's not Jewish, so of course he's going to come to that conclusion. Jewish scholars have a completely different interpretation of their ancient writings.
@@wrinkleneckbass If you stop trying to interpret the texts in a way as to say something they do not convey with a casual reading, you will see glaringly that the events in Genesis are expressed quite plainly.
You said,
"Jewish scholars have a completely different interpretation of their ancient writings."
That is not true. It is so not true that it is remarkable that anyone would dare say it. They do not. University Hebraists (experts on the Hebrew language) are in almost 100% agreement that the texts describe events just as we read them. By the way, virtually every scholar of Hebrew at a Jewish university is in agreement with Boyd and Bar! I have never even heard of a scholar of Hebrew that disagrees. If there are any, they must be countable on one hand. Do yourself a favor: try finding some. Not scholars who have studied Hebrew, but scholars OF Hebrew - the experts who's career is built on knowledge of ancient and present-day Hebrew. Give it a shot.
If you had read my post, you would have seen Dr. Barr and Dr. Boyd testify to that fact:
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture.
@@legacybuilder9664You're welcome.
So what you're saying is that, up until we had scientific ways to measure the age of the earth, man was ignorant as to its true age? Sounds about right.
Phil, our family loves your "What's in the Bible" DVDs.
I'm glad you chose a non-controversial topic this time.
😂
"non-controversial" Jesus
What does the original Hebrew text reveal about Genesis 1-11? - Dr. Steve Boyd ua-cam.com/video/3txmpHQJ520/v-deo.html
@@pieshoYeah, what about Him?
@@Orthosaur7532 Him? "Jesus" is an expression
Great video, before I gave it a like though I had to look over my shoulder to make sure Ken Ham wasn’t there 🤣
😂😂😂 same
Are you willing to share what (specifically) you take issue with Ken Ham about? My family and I were graced to see and hear him last year at G3, and it was very biblical & edifying.
@@patrickc3419 I was raised on creationists from the generation before Ken Ham but they teach mostly the same thing. It was finding out for certain that Young Earth Creationism isn't true that is the reason I'm not a Christian anymore. I'll agree that what Ken Ham teaches is Biblical. I believe the Bible really does teach a young Earth and a global flood that wiped out all but 8 people about 4370 years ago. The problem is that it didn't happen. Do you still want to know specifics?
I’d be interested in hearing your specifics/story. What has made you “certain” and how did that discredit your Christian faith?
@timmatter1058
"In the beginning God created heaven and the earth. And the earth was void and without form."
There it is. There is when he created all the stuff.
Yes! The Bible that we know and love is not a 20th-21st century history and science text book. Insisting that it be does great injustice to God's word and to His creation, including ourselves.
Having actually read the Bible - I think you have the word injustice placed in the wrong place. Just reading the first 5 books demonstrates a narcissistic, genocidal thug of a deity that destroyed the earth, promised Canaan to the forefathers of the Israelites - then find out that Jacob lied to steal Easau’s birthright - two no-nos in the 10 Commandments but nothing happened to him - not like Lot’s wife who was turned into a pillar of salt for having the audacity to look at - wait - the destruction that this maniacal deity brought on - but then turned a blind eye to Lot’s daughters getting him drunk - and can’t mention what happens next because this could be read by children. Oh, look what happened to the Moabites and Midianites (also god’s creation -but he never appeared before them)…..and how they met their end - again the Bible not fit for children’s eyes - so you’ll have to trust me…….then let’s move past the first 5 books and read about what happened to Jephthah’s daughter - whose crime was walking out of the house to greet her father - just wow. Then god - who traces his son’s (who somehow is also him) lineage to David - I guess just saying I’m god it isn’t good enough - you have to say - I’m god and I’m related to David. David, the king who took Bathsheba (and yes took is a very nice word for what is a crime)…..then sent Bathsheba’s husband - who did follow this god’s laws - off to battle and did god protect him? Hell no, he died in battle - then when Bathsheba gave birth - god took out the baby - probably had it coming - but at least he let it be born - because you know, he’s pro life……except when you read what husbands were allowed to do when they just thought their wife was unfaithful - and make them have - well we’re not allowed to say what happened but it would force a non-birth…..all done in the tent that god was supposed to be hanging out in……And how god also was good with slavery - because as god - you can’t say - don’t own people (wait why wasn’t this in the 10 commandments)…..sounds like there is a lot of injustice done by god…..it’s almost as if people that lived hundreds of years after the “events” were to have happed just made the whole thing up - in the Bronze Age.
The Bible has been altered 30,000 times it's not accurate and not the word of God
You have spoken in total ignorance, repent!
it is a history book. science didnt begin till 1600s, whats funny, is science confoirms bible. AS a 12 year old i plotted death ages after flood, probably because god wanted me to say this and created me for that purpose. IT's a geometrical decline, which shows a natural process, but we didn't know about that 1600s with Descartes, a christian, invention of analytic geometry.
also people like tyou scoffed at history aspect, then we found out hitties empire actually existed like bible said. the paroash from moss was thutmoses III, who after moses decimated his kingdom (not commenting on name there) at right time stopped wars against foreign countries and had his mother's name removed from all monuments
What's really dumb are people that say they believe in a supernatural God that feel compelled to explain an example of His omnipotence (creation) through their infinitesimally small understanding of "science" as they know it.
Thanks goodness, I found an expert on the subject, which book will give me the answer.
Yet, science can't explain the most fundamental theories of life. How it began.
@@johnwollenberg3623 We're in agreement. That's my point.
@@johnwollenberg3623 All their facts, are fiction, they know nothing about anything. If it sounds good, they write another book. Their intellect is gained by reading everything, and treating us as mere mortals, The absolute truth is replaced on a regular basis by a millions, trillions of years details of what and how something happened.
@@amessenger3208Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.
All main religions have different beliefs about the age of the earth. Most religions believe in the scientific estimate of about 4.5 billion years. I don't understand why anyone still thinks it's 6,000 years.
Some (not all) think so because they insist the ordinal 'days' (Hebrew 'yamim,' singular 'yom') must only be single-rotational cycle (currently ~24 hours) time periods. However, Genesis 1-2-4 ALONE uses four different meanings of 'yom' (and variants) to refer to:
-The daylight portion of a single rotational cycle
-A single rotational cycle
-An ordinal 'day' (Day One, Day Two, etc.)
-The entire creation 'week' or at least the first six ordinal 'days' collectively wherein God worked
All of these meanings are literal in that they designate specific time periods but they are not the same time period as each other.
My personal reasons for thinking the oridinal days are NOT single-rotational cycle time periods but are much longer time periods include:
1. The day/night cycle BEGINS during ordinal Day One (Gen. 1:4-5); the daylight portion of this cycle as we know is caused by sunlight and is not the same thing as Day One itself.
2. The (photosyynthetic) land plants of Day Three are not only said to have sprouted (Gen. 1:11) but to have PRODUCED their fruit with the seed in it (i.e., grown to maturity, something necessary for the fruit to appear)--(Gen. 1:12), and this process takes eiither part of a growing season, a full growing season, or mutliple growing season depending on the plant species involved. So Day Three was evidently LONGER than a single rotational cycle time period because plants take much longer to mature than that.
3. 2 Peter 3:3-9, picking up on the teaching about God's time transcendence presented in Psalms 90:1-6, specifically argues that the ordinal days of Genesis 1 (which Peter clearly alludes to) are GOD-LENGTH days. What is a 'God-length' day? According to Psalms 90, it's AN ENORMOUSLY LONGER TIME than a human-length (single rotational cycle) day! The Psalmist uses a millennium as his comparator, and a millennium is 365,250 days (for a God-length day) compared to 1 day (for a human-length day). Here we have inspired interpretation of Genesis 1 in favor of the ordinal days being LONG TIME PERIODS as humans would experience them. Is the Psalmist being EXACT (6 creation ordinal days x 1,000 years each = the 6,0000 years which young Earth creationists latch onto)? Or is he being COMPARATIVE of two UNLIKE THINGS (how God experiences time vs. how humans experience time)? I think the latter because his comparison itself is nuumerically imprecise; he writes: "For a thousand years in Your sight/Are like yesterday when it passes by/OR AS A WATCH IN THE NIGHT. 'Yesterday' is a single rotational cycle but a 'watch in the night' is a 3-hour time period, and those two are numerically DIFFERENT, which suggests the comparison is RELATIVE rather than exact: a LONG TIME PERIOD for a God-length day vs. a single rotational cycle for a human-length day.
Skye's interview with Dr. Walton never addressed Exodus 20:11 where Moses says the Israelites should work 6 days (literal) and rest on 1 literal day, he states the REASON is because God worked 6 days to create the heavens and the earth (the "stuff") and then rested. Scripture itself seems to backup the Genesis 1 account of a 6 day creation.
What about the seven year Sabbath for the land?
So a fable in a book of fables proves another fable in the same book..😂
So, going by that logic since England and France are real places mentioned in King Arthur's tale, then both King Arthur and Lancelot are also real people...🤔
A wonderful explanation. Thank you
Absolutely. The Scripture will always stand accurate.
@@jameswood231 .....🤣
What's the purpose of the genealogy in Genesis 5?
Look up the meanings of their names... All heavily symbolic. For example, Methuselah died in the year of the great flood, and Methuselah can be translated "Upon death, judgement follows".
@@OffbrandDrPhil - Yes, I have researched the names. They are interesting. But don't overlook the obvious fact that this is a straightforward genealogy. Two relevant facts are the ages of each father, which can be readily used to calculate years back to Adam's creation, and the other fact is that every man except Enoch died, demonstrating the consequences of sin.
Why do you think God included genealogies allowing us to calculate the age of the creation? The obvious answer is, that's exactly what He wanted us to be able to do. The creation is roughly 6000 years old - according to God's Word.
@@rubiks6 I'm somewhere in-between a young and old-earth creationist and grew up young-earth. I'm just not seeing how the age of the earth really ties into being a critical doctrine, so I think there's room for different interpretations. I do fail to see, however, how one could believe in theistic evolution as death is said to have come about as a result of sin. Hence why I'm still definitely a creationist.
@@OffbrandDrPhil - For me, the tie in is simply whether I believe God or not. The saying goes, "A man's word is his bond." Can I trust God's Word or not? I do.
In Genesis 15.6 we are told that Abraham _“believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”_ This passage is cited by New Testament writers.
@@rubiks6 I agree with holding fast onto God's Word as the ultimate goal. I also believe in not trying to make it say something it doesn't. These are the two considerations I'm currently trying to balance as I weigh the options.
Question:- is the earth just the planet or is it the planet that supports life as we know it. My understanding is earth is the planet that supports life. If it cannot support life it is not earth. Has this planet always been earth?
Strange comment.
Interesting comment.
Yep, this planet is always called earth. And yep so far earth is the only known planet to have "life". One thing we have learned studying the Universe is that we cannot, and have not found water anywhere else in the Universe of any quantity. Just traces of it. While plentiful on earth, water seems extremely rare everywhere else in the Universe. And as far as we know, no water equals no life. Want to check out something that will blow your mind? Check out "Kinesin Proteins". They are in every cell of every living creature even plants. This will help show just how complicated life really is, and why we were created, and didn't happen randomly by "Evolution". Without Kinesin Proteins you could say life wouldn't exist. Peace.
Good question, and one that also comes up in another context (often but not always Bible-based): flat Earth.
In English we have two lookalike words: "earth" and "Earth." The word "Earth" is capitalized because it's a proper noun (name for our entire physical world/planet) whereas the older uncapitalized word "earth" is an improper noun used to refer to the ground, the soil, or a product thereof. However, the older word "earth" is nearly archaic now--hardly anyone uses it. For example, in the mid-nineteenth century Longfellow wrote a poem that begins:
I shot an arrow into the air;
It fell to earth [the ground] I knew not where.
Likewise, someone before contemporary times might have said "This river valley has rich earth [soil] for growing crops." In chemistry this word usage is preserved as well: "Sarmarium is one of the rare earth [product of the ground/soil] elements on the Periodic Table."
In English translations of the Bible only the older improper noun "earth" is used. In the Old Testament it's used to render the biblical Hebrew word 'eretz' which itself refers to the land, to a country/territory/region or its people, to the ground, or to the soil. So "earth" was chosen to render 'eretz' as its closest English equivalent. The world/planet name "Earth," however, DOES NOT APPEAR in English Bible translations because there is no vocabularly word in either biblical Hebew or biblical Greek which is a NAME for our entire world/planet the same way that "Earth" is in modern English. But many modern readers of the Bible are unaware of the earth/Earth distinction or are sloppy about capitalization and just don't notice the difference and think the two words are THE SAME and refer to THE SAME THING when they don't. This is the main problem with the Bible-based flat Earth folks; they've mistaken "earth" in the Bible for "Earth" and then their interpretation goes astray from there.
Your question specifically was whether "earth" is the phyiscal planet or the physical planet supporting life. It's neither, because the uncapitalized word "earth" is not the name of our world/planet. For that we use "Earth" instead. Sometimes people want to argue over what the assorted English style manuals recommend about capitalizing this word(s) or not and they are somewhat inconsistent. But the general rule-of-thumb is that names in English are capitalized and "Earth" is used as the name for our planet (since Copernicus at least) alongside the capitalized Roman-derived names Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Venus, etc. used for other planets in our Solar System. Now age 68, I grew up in the 1960s reading kids astronomy books which capitalized the names of planets and a college level astronomy text by Jay Pasachoff which I own does the same thing.
Even in ordinary English usage (i.e., not in Bible translation work), "earth" does not denote our world/planet by NAME. Once everyone is talking about the same thing and using the NAME "Earth" I think EITHER the physical planet itself is properly referred to using that name, or sometimes the PEOPLE of Earth (all of human civiliation) are referred to it in more poetical contexts (e.g., "All of Earth heaved a collective sigh of relief."). However, when the Bible makes similar statements (e.g., "Let the earth rejoice") and is using 'eretz' in the Hebrew originally, it's talking about the PEOPLE of a land, country, territory or region. A specific passage where this comes up in my personal discussions with flat Earth advocates is 1 Chronicles 16:30; the NASB rendering reads:
Tremble before Him all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established; it will not be moved.
A more precise rendering with some words updated is this:
Dance frenetically before Him, all the [people of the] country;
Indeed, the world [we inhabit] is firmly established; it will not be brought down.
As you can see, there's a big difference between reading this verse as if it were saying 'The Earth will not be moved.' (i.e., our planet does not move to either rotate or orbit the Sun) vs. reading it to say in effect, as King David evidently did: 'Let loose with the wild dancing, my fellow countrymen! The world we inhabit here is not going to falter/be brought down!' The local context tells you the latter is the sense of what he's saying; that context is a national day of celebration in ancient Israel due to the arrival of the Ark of the Covenant that day in Jerusalem, a very symbolic 'sealing of the deal' of God establishing them in The Promised Land.
So "earth" in the Bible means the land, a country/territory/region or its people, the ground, or the soil. It is not a name for our entire world/planet in English and does not render a Hebrew or Greek word ('ga') that is a name for our world/planet either. In ancient times the enire world had not yet even been explored yet and the Copernican model, which called for a NAME for our world as another planet among a whole family of such objects all orbiting the Sun, was still many centuries in the future compared to the Bible writers.
I hope this lengthy answer addrsses the question as you posed it.
Earth is not just the planet but the planet that supports human life. The earth perished in the flood but the planet didn't. 2Pet.3:6. Interpretation and definition cause us to differ on understanding the bible.
Thank you. Instead of a battle between religion and science, this view puts the emphasis back on the relationship between God and humanity, which is the ultimate story of all of Scripture.
Does it matter? Kind of like the end times. Does it matter when Jesus is coming back.? All we need to know is that Jesus is coming back. Just like all we need to know is that God created the world. We should spend our time more productively. Like spending those resources on debates like this on taking the gospel to the world. God ahead and flame me now.
You should be giving up all your wealth to help the poor.
We have science to tell us what and how, but only the Bible can (and does) tell us who and why.
That's why the days in the story go from Evening to Morning. The story is about moving from Chaos to Order.
The Jewish day begins in the evening. Which came first?
@@SuperpopeGaming Well yeah, but for poetic reasons. As the time passes from Night to Day, so does the Universe from Chaos to Order.
It's because it was dark before it was light. That's why the evening is first.
@@morganedwards839 yeah, chaos to order.
Let's believe the Holy Bible that there was no chaos before Day 1.
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
You are wrong from the jump.
Finally someone noticed that. I was looking for a comment like this one. This guy is simply a liar not mentioning the very first verse of the Bible, and what's worse, almost everybody praises him. Are y'all blind? Wake up, people. He's lying to you.
Interesting, until Vischer starts talking matter-of-factly about precisely why we have the account we have and what God intends to communicate from it. You don't know that. Just let the Bible speak for itself and quit trying to frame it in a way that aesthetically and intellectually appeals to you and your particular tribe.
AMEN!!
So, what is it that the Bible is speaking for itself? Literal 6000 yrs?
@@gamnamoo6195 Personally, I do not think so. Even the things that are said in the Genesis creation account to transpire within a day are not really possible within one day, and I think ancient people were better acquainted with and immersed in the limits of what one can accomplish during typical daylight hours than we are,
I think you do a good job of describing how the creation story might have been more abstract in nature, but the 6000 year calculation is pulled from the Biblical genealogies. So it would be helpful to detail how the writers viewed family trees and whether there might be flexibility in interpretation there
I'm a Gen X'er and this young earth stuff came out of left field to me. I grew up in a conservative church but never heard anything like it until I was an adult. A group from my church organized a field trip for the kids to the Ark Encounter and I did some research, and found that it contained explicit anti-science propaganda. In addition, I found some of our homeschool textbooks would also try to discredit things like carbon dating and attempting to justify the young earth position. And of course there was the pandemic and all the anti-vaccine sentiment. I'm disturbed at how many in the church want to pit religion against science, far more likely to drive people away from the church than towards it. It's a trend that needs to be reversed.
From one Generation Xer to another, I wanted to ask you something, since you brought up the importance of science:
How many genders are there?
A false presupposition leads to a false conclusion.
Either the scriptures are true or they're fiction.
@@larrybedouin2921 Likewise, believing the scriptures actually say what you wish to impose upon them is a fool's game. Presupposing that a collection of writings created over a period of thousands of years will somehow meet the standards of a modern history and science text is a bad place to start.
Maybe instead of imposing your expectations of "correct" and "true" on them, how about letting God decide what truths He chooses to reveal to us and what truths he chose not to reveal because he gave us enough sense to eventually figure it out on or own, if he even thought some of the things we are so concerned about were even important enough to talk about.
@@michaelclark9762
You're a hypocrite.
I can understand why this disturbs you if the goal is to drive people into the church, rather than away from it. I would have to agree that insisting on the literalness of the Bible even when it disagree with science, does indeed drive most people away from church.
But the Bible says that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). The truth of the gospel is, by its nature, against the wisdom of this world (e.g. "science", "scholars", media, etc.). This video attempts to reconcile the Bible with secular science & scholarship. But according to the Bible the two cannot be reconciled (1 Cor 1:20-21). The Bible says that "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:20), and even that God has "hidden these things from the wise and intelligent" (Luke 10:21).
So the approach taken in this video may, in fact, reconcile the churches to the secular world. But if you take that approach, then the world is your Authority. On the other hand, if you reject the clear teaching of Scripture, then you have rejected the Authority of God in your life, and your "Christianity" is worthless.
I know a lot of Christians who get hung up on the old earth/young earth theories when in reality that discussion does nothing whatsoever. The discussion that MUST happen for all Christian believers (and yes, I am one of them) is regarding pre-sin death. If creatures were living and dying before the fall, then death is not, as Scripture claims, the punishment for sin. Extrapolate that out and you inevitably come to the result that the Gospel is no longer good news at all. If death is not the punishment for sin, Jesus could not die for the sins of the world and His death on the cross achieved nothing whatsoever. It is a nonsense to talk about how certain people wrote poetry a few thousand years ago as though that amounts to a hill of beans. It amounts to nothing whatsoever. If All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, then the Bible is not about the people who wrote it or their poetic predilections, it is about the God who inspired men to write exactly what He wanted them to write, not only for people a couple of thousand years ago but for the people of the 21st century too. God is eternal and His Word is written from His perspective, not ours. It isn't about whether the Bible puts a date on when it all kicked off, it is about God getting His message across to His people throughout history. That is the Who and Why that really does matter :)
Please note, I claim no scholarly insights here and I utterly respect all that is said in this video and the person saying it. I am not up for an argument, that is sheer folly. I simply believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stand on the Word of God with this regard :)
If the Bible is what you claim it is, why did God "write it" in ancient languages? In addition to ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, why didn't God just inspire the same automatons who wrote down God's verbal dictation in their own languages to also make marks on paper they had no way of understanding so that there would already be a version for us in perfect English, modern French, Spanish, German, Chinese (all several thousand different dialects), etc.? After all, the difference between languages is more than just substituting vocabulary words in one language for vocabulary words in another language. It's more than the difference in syntax and grammatical structure. It's even more than the difference in cultural understandings based on the collective experiences of all who use each language.
Most fundamentalists don't have a clue that there are people living *right now at this very moment* in other places on this planet in cultures who do not see the world the same way they do, who do not think in the same categories that they do, and who are not concerned with the same questions they have. What chance do they have to understand that those living in the ancient world don't also think like 21st century Westerners? Or even more specifically, like 21st century American Evangelical Christians who can't tell the difference between Jesus Christ and our politicians on both sides of the divided aisle?
@@michaelclark9762 Interesting comments though clearly you've intended them from a pejorative paradigm. I must first correct the comment you made about God dictating the Scriptures. He didn't dictate them, He inspired them. People naturally wrote in the language that they would originally have been read. Are you saying that we can't translate things accurately today or that this is just an example of a cosmic fun and games exercise in which God plays with those little earthlings He's created? Sorry to be flippant but it's clearly not reflecting what the Bible says at all.
As for people thinking differently, absolutely, and so they should. After all, you don't have to be from a different culture and language base to think differently to each other, you and I speak the same language and possibly share quite a lot in common culturally but we clearly differ in how we think. If you look at a Bible written in English, Urdu and Japanese, do they not say the same thing but in a way that is understood by people of those language cultures? They are remarkably accurate in the way they read.
Well, I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of the validity of the Bible but do at least read it and see what it actually says. Good place to start :)
@@robbarron8635three documents written in English, Urdu, & Japanese CAN NOT say the same thing because those three languages ARE NOT based on the same ideas, cultural backgrounds, etc. The differences between how two 21st century Americans, even if one is a right wing radical & the other is a left wing radical, is relatively minor compared to the cultural and linguistic gulf between either and a Japanese speaking person.
@@robbarron8635 No, I am not writing from any perjorative point of view. I respect the scriptures enough to recognize that ANY translation from the original languages will lose a bit in translation, not only because of the differences I the two languages, but also due to the gulf in the differences in culture and the different worlds in which the ancient writers lived and modern readers live. There is no English translation of any book of the Bible that fully conveys to a modern 21st Century Western (i.e. Culturally descended from Hellenistic thought, not Eastern/Semitic thought) what the text meant to those who wrote it. To claim that any English translation says "the same thing" as what the ancient texts say is ludicrous. Then there's the issue of what, exactly, the ancient texts actually said. We have no autographs of any part of the Bible. The "earliest" manuscripts we have are at least a thousand years and who knows how many hand copied generations removed from any "originals". There are numerous variations among different strains of manuscripts. Most aren't very consequential to theological interpretation, but some are.
Thank you for articulating this so well. I agree completely.
What happens to the meaning in the Bible if you start reading it all from a perspective of relationships?
Who knows where it could go. What does the original Hebrew text reveal about Genesis 1-11? - Dr. Steve Boyd ua-cam.com/video/3txmpHQJ520/v-deo.html
It starts making a lot more sense, for one thing.
The Bible is primarily historical and focuses on relationships. Of course, those relationships and connections etc need to be - historically true.@@michaelclark9762
@@michaelclark9762 that's not what I was ever taught. Good to keep learning.
I am reborn Christians but cringe when some of my fellow believers say the earth is only 6000 years old and even more so that the earth is flat because the word firmament is used...My Lord and savior have ALWAYS only pointed my afford to spend time with Him, to Worship Him and praise Him.
Actually, there is not one shred of evidence showing that the world is older than around 6,000 earth years old. Every so-called "dating method" uses false assumptions to FORCE the results to give much older ages. Studies of earth's geological features over the last 100 years prove that the global flood of Noah's day is required to explain the origin of those features.
Evolutionists have never been able to explain how our geology could exist without the global flood, thus they only say "millions of years did it"i with zero logical explanation. An age around 6,000 years is a proven scientific fact while imagined ages of millions of years is garbage, invented only as an excuse to be an atheist.
The bible doesn't say how old the earth is, it's only assumed based on the time Adam sinned until the time he died and that is based on one prophets understanding of days and death which he believed a day to God is like a thousand years, that is based on what God told Adam what would happen if he sinned, he would die which took almost 1000 years, that prophet had no understanding of the spiritual man but only the physical man, Adam did die the day he sinned only it was a spiritual death not a physical death, that took about 1000 years, the real question should be how old was Adam before he sinned since he was created immortal in the beginning, it's assumed that on day 8 or 9 or so on that Adam sinned and death entered when in fact Adam could have been a million years old before he sinned, time is not a factor when there is no death, time is only a factor because of death, death is only the end of something after it's beginning, the day Adam sinned was the day Adam died only that death was a spiritual death, Adam and Eve had already populated the earth before they sinned as evidence of other men on the earth at that time plus the evidence of Adam giving Eve her name which meant the mother of all living before Cain and Abel were born plus the evidence of the curses God put on her by increasing her pain in child bearing, not creating pain in child bearing, the truth about one of God's days don't apply to Him, it's only to what He created and it's beginning and it's end, God had no beginning and will have no end just as the man that was created in His image, a spirit, a spirit cannot die, it can only be held captive somewhere awaiting judgement day and even then cannot be eliminated from existence but sent somewhere, there are actually two different types of death, one is physical and the other is spiritual, the spiritual death is only separation from God or a sense of shame and guilt that comes from sinning as evidenced by Adam's sinning and how he felt after he sinned, also as evidenced by us after we sin ( IF you believe in God ) people that don't believe in God have no guilt when they sin, they are what the bible calls dead to God, their not even in the equation, does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old? NO, men say that
Thanks for telling the truth, I hope you don't get tossed out of your church for that!
You know that happens right?
The Chaos had transpired because of Satan's fall.
Thank-you for recording a short shareable video on this topic, Phil! Well said. Well done. It's a much better story to be told!
Except that this video is against the Holy Bible: Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
There was no "chaos" here before God started creating.
@@statutesofthelordno Christian says that God did not originally create everything from nothing. Just that Genesis 1 is not about material creation.
@@missinglink_eth Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
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.
@@statutesofthelord what’s your point?
@@missinglink_eth Nate/missing, already given.
Genesis 1 is the true history of our world and its creation.
Time is man's invention. God doesn't need time. He's God.
Actually, God created time when He made the Earth and Sun's rotation after He made them.
Yes! Tgank you! God is timeless! Time does not "pass"! There are only events that spawn the "time" as we understand it. Earth's rotation&revolution are the events that are responsible for that.
If god is timeless, why does he have a plan that is revealed over time? Why did it take him 6 days to create everything from nothing at all, instead of doing it in a split second?
@@DocReasonable6 days to the Lord is 6000 years. One is a thousand years!
@@Danko_Sekulic Earth is fixed... It doesn't rotate.
So we are now interpreting the Bible according to what others are saying? Look, was Adam 930 years old when he died? Was Seth born to him at 130 years of age? Did Seth Die at 917 years of age and have Enosh at 105 years of age? The six thousand years is not based on Genesis 1 & 2 it is based on the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11. which cover about 2,000 years, Genesis 12 til the coming of the Messiah is about 2000 years and it has been almost 2000 years since the beginning of the church.
All you have done is come up with another theory that supports your view of an old earth. Both Biola and Wheaton have been in the old earth community for a long time.
The fact is that the earth is not billions of years old, that is based on scientific speculation, and dating techniques that are fundamentally flawed. These techniques are calculated on uniformity and the assumption that all decay processes have been constant and steady for millions of years. They are also based on the assumption of naturalism, that Jesus did not supernaturally accelerate the speed of light and the growth of trees etc.
Was the sun created on day one? Likely, but it does not matter because light and darkness were created on day one. Darkness is the absence of light, so the earth was lighted on one side by the light source, and dark on the other side of the earth because the earth blocked the light just as it does today.
These theory is just more of the same from the Old Earth community
The fact is, the earth is not the Godless worlds fake spinning cartoon ball. The earth is a flat stationary plane just as the Bible clearly tells us it is. If the earth was the God hating worlds manmade spinning baal, then there is no possibility of the Bible being true and has to be thrown out. And this is exactly the purpose of the Godless worlds fake spinning baal.
@@ForThoseSeparatedUntoThe-tc5jg Seek help.
"So we are now interpreting the Bible according to what others are saying?" - as if you don't? How much do you depend upon philologists to have your translations of the Bible? You also likely project your own culture onto those of the NT writers and the OT writers.
@@TheDanEdwards ,...Seek help for actually understanding the Bible? Seek help for being one who God has shown the truth to? Reject God and turn to Godless mankind?
Repent!
Great video, thanks! I’m unsure if you answered the question of the age of the Earth. In my experience a YEC would look at what you said and reply “Yes, God did all that in 6 24hr days (‘cause that is what the Bible literally says!) and than those literal genealogies we have in 5-11 tell us 6000 years or so for the age of the Earth. You didn’t address the Yoms of creation or the nature of those genealogies, which I think is the foundation for the young earth position, not a material v. Functional creation. I hope that makes sense lol. Thanks!
The genealogies are more indicative about the age of civilization than about the age of the earth itself. Which, interestingly, does historically trace itself to around 6000 years ago (there’s some evidence it may be older, but not by that much)
@@mikerivera373I agree, just wanted to point out this wasn’t addressed in the video lol. I would also say the genealogies are more about theological messaging than historical
In the beginning YAH created the heavens and the earth…the earth was without form or void
Of a truth from that piece of scripture tells us earth was made but not how long it took OR how long between the creation of earth to the time he started day 1.
But if I was a betting man I would lean towards it was all done at the same time meaning He creates earth and then gets right to work in bringing order and function to the creation.
@@mikerivera373this is a very euro centric perspective that ignores the far east. I would say we have evidence of civilization back to 8000 years ago at least and some evidence points to even older
A thousand years is a Day to God. It's in the Bible.
Got to love the "A Sound of Thunder" reference with the Dinosaur and Butterfly. Don't know if it was intentional or not, but I liked it.
Ugh. Thank you for this. Believing in an old earth and believing in an inerrant, infallable Bible are NOT mutually exclusive. The thing that frustrates me about those who defend a young earth -- which everyone just took for granted was true in the churches I grew up in -- is the assumption that if one believes in an old earth, then they *must* then believe in macroevolution of humans. Why is it not considered a possibility that the universe could be very old, but humans a more recent capstone addition? The typical response that I get from others is, "because death couldn't have existed before the fall of man". But is that actually true? Is it not possible for one to interpret passages such as Romans 5:12 and 6:23 to mean that death came to *humans* after the fall, and that other things within creation could have been experiencing death before then? Humans were NOT the first beings to commit sin. Otherwise, how would one explain the presence of the serpent in Genesis 3? Wasn't he already committing sin by trying to deceive Eve into questioning what God had told her?
I do not know a single Christian who does not believe in micro evolution. It absolutely is factual (i.e. there were not, aboard Noah’s Ark, two wolves, two coyotes, two dingoes, two foxes, two dogs. There were simply two wolves, or wolf-like animals).
A Christian certainly can not believe in macro evolution; the unbiblical belief that species become other species, in fact, all species, and I would call any self professed Christian who claims otherwise to repent and believe the Gospel. Theology matters.
The Bible can be infallible, our interpretation of it is very, very fallible.
The churches of traditional Christianity never consider that possibility because they generally overlook all of the passages that reveal that (1) Lucifer and the angels that were put under his command were here first and (2) the rebel angels launched their rebellion from this planet. Traditional Christianity's understanding of Gen. 1 is based on the false premise that this is God's world, and it never has been. Christ said so Himself before His arrest in John.
When you’re an immortal being (like God), why couldn’t one day be the equivalent of 2.28 billion earth years?
Who created years and days?
If he's immortal why doesn't he stop by and say Hi to everyone? It's been a few thousand years, maybe he got lost?
@@troywest7045 If He is immortal and you are not then He is not beholden to you and your "demands". Nobody can demand that God do anything :)
@@troywest7045 Why don't people stop by and accept the hospitality and free gift available from Jesus the Christ? God is near to those that seek him. To those who cannot see that he is near...it is because they are not seeking him in spirit and truth.
@@alantasman8273 You're right, I'm not seeking him in the same way I'm not seeking Santa Clause or the Tooth fairy. That's all your religion is to me, a fairy tale, a conjuring of the human imagination. You're also correct I'm not very spiritual, I tend to lean into science. If I do ever become spiritual, I've already decided to worship the Sun. That's the most logical entity to worship as it's existence is undisputable as you not only can see it, but also feel it. Science and basic common sense tells you the Sun is responsible for all life on this planet.
I've heard this line of argumentation articulated several times recently, and admittedly it has a sort of self-authenticating appeal. I do feel though that we need to pause first and examine all of the presuppositions presented here - and the list is large - lest we fall into the trap of reading scripture exclusively through the lens of 21st century theologians from California or Illinois. There are other legitimate conservative views that deserve thorough consideration.
"order out of chaos"? 10:15 "void" is not "chaos".
The Creation Story in Genesis 1 reads like an account of the building of an ancient temple. It follows that format. And in the position, within that format, in which the image of an ancient deity would have been erected in the temple, we are made in the image of God. It tells of our purpose, which is to express the glory of God and thus, to promote worship. If we can take this understanding to heart, we can be motivated to do a better job of cherishing & protecting Creation. (It is God's temple, after all.) We can also see, more clearly, why human sin is so awful. (It's the exact opposite of our purpose, and it defiles the most sacred aspect of God's temple.) And we can sense, more clearly, the reason that God's values should be our own.
Yep! Well said! Skye talks about that very concept with Dr. John Walton in our "How To Read Genesis 1" series
@@HolyPost
I do not know if I am speaking to either Phil, or Skye, but can you share why you feel why a literal understanding of creation is not possible but the virgin birth and resurrection are?
Certainly 2 Timothy 3 says that all (ALL) scripture is breathed out by God, so I was curious as to how you decide what is allegorical and what is literal.
@@patrickc3419the writing of genesis and the gospels are completely different, so it makes sense to read them differently.
It's not a theological argument, but I've always wondered about the fact that the gospels (or books like Kings) document history and are often part of an eye witness testimony. During creation, no human was present! The story of creation was probably given to a human via vision. There was no human who was watching from day 1 through 6; the story was given to provide an understanding of God and creation that's true, as opposed to what the other ancient religions at the time were teaching.
@@pastorofmuppets8834
So Genesis, as the rest of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were physically written by Moses, from the inspiration/guidance of God.
@@patrickc3419 most likely, though as far as I'm aware I don't think we know for sure who wrote Genesis. Most would have been written down after years of verbal communication given that very few would have been literate back then.
I've always thought that since God made animals, plants, and people fully grown, or at least that's what it seems like based on Genesis 1, then God would've made the earth already fully grown, seemingly an "adult" version of the earth like the adult people and animals. So, it makes sense to me that the earth would seem to be older than 6000 years even if it was created then. Just one perspective though.
Your "perspective" is a correct one.
god can't lie, if he made us think the earth is older than what it actually is, then he would be decieving us, and God can't do that. Only the devil decieves. So if we see the earth is old using the reason that god gave us (and it is old, and its undeniable), then god's word can't contradict god's work. YEC is not only a butchering fo scripture wanting to attribute stuff that it doesn't claim, its just plainly wrong.
@@marcel87688 ,...You have spoken in complete ignorance, it is your ignorance and unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state that is undeniable. Everything you just stated in not only wrong, but it is also 100% unbiblical.
The earth is only a few thousand years old. Period. You know nothing and are not a Christian. Repent!
@@marcel87688 God's Word is indeed inerrant in terms of truth but why is God deceiving us by creating the universe with an inherent history? He isn't deceiving us because He has told us exactly what He created and how long it took. He makes no mention of the time period before the creation of the world other than 'the beginning' which He says was formless and empty. It is only deceitful to add a pre-history if He then says that He didn't add such a thing. To say that our interpretation of it means He deceived us is because it doesn't mention a pre-history only means that our interpretation of it is wrong, not that God was trying to deceive us. As you correctly stated, God cannot lie, in Him is only truth.
The more I have thought about this pre-history over the years, the more it makes sense. Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? When they cut down trees, would they have had rings? Did Adam and Eve already know how to do gardening, know how to speak, the list goes on and on. The answer is clear if you reckon on there already being a history. Without any of that the arguments rage on and on but God does not require of us understanding of all that He has done, only that we believe in faith.
Thanks for your comments, they are food for thought as indeed are all the various ideas I hear from both Christians and non-Christians regarding the beginnings of our universe. The one thing I simply cannot reconcile is the argument that nothing became something and that the something became more and more complex in total defiance of science.
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Much like the story of Noah's Ark.
I have a good friend that reads, and speaks Hebrew very well and his explanation about creation in the language of Hebrew is excellent. His definition answers a lot. Yet many fundies rail against learning Hebrew or even Greek. I have had those debates and the fundies are more than glad to assign me to hell.
@frankmckinley1254 , it's very fine to think your advocate before the Father might be some "good friend that reads and speaks Hebrew very well", whose "explanation about creation in the language of Hebrew is (no doubt, in your humble but expert opinion) excellent"? I wish you well.
But, with several thousand years of scripture scholarship and many hundreds of competent translations having been made in your own mother tongue (not to mention the testimony of God's Own Spirit bearing witness to every human heart--including yours), one could see where your 'authenticating council' may seem a bit slim to "the fundies".
Fortunately, whatever our faith may appear to others, it is before our own Master that we stand or fall. Therefore, my sole concern is whether my own thoughts, words and deeds will bear me up on the last day, for those are the only substance I could lean upon...apart, that is, from those of the Lord in my stead.
I literally can't tell if you're supporting or attacking the original commenter. Since this is a religious discussion, I'm going to assume you're attacking him - it's usually the only time people comment.
@VinnieBartilucci , literally: "My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins."
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you."
“'My son, do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives.' Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
"Attacking"? Cite these, and I trust you entirely to draw a sober conclusion.
The ancient Hebrews had no actual "hell" as we know it. Only a sort of limbo in which souls walked around aimlessly with nothing really to do, until the Messiah comes along and redeems them, at which point many will go to heaven and the rest will continue to be separated from God. Which should be hellish enough.
Hebrew and Greek are great, but the meaning of terms (regardless of language) is still determined by context. You don't have to learn Hebrew to see that "Day" (Hebrew: yom) is a literal day in Genesis 1, based on the context. After all, "Day" is the time of the "light" (Gen 1:5), and "Night" is the time of "darkness" (Gen 1:5). And these periods of light/darkness are governned by a great light during the day, and a "lesser light" at night (1:16). These are the sun and moon, clearly.
The only reason anyone disputes that the days are literal is because we are more concerned with reconciling the Bible with science, which is our true Authority, not God. The speaker in this video clearly considers Geology, etc. authoritative, but the Word of God not.
Why would anybody refer to religious texts to determine the truth of anything.
Before the 1790's the Calendar had 13 Months all 28 days each. With March being the first month of the year, Not January. Now for how long, is a good question. And who is the 13th Disciple of Jesus? (It was Mary Magdalene). And what is the 13th Zodiac sign? And how does March being the first month affect all of the Zodiac signs? And who is the 13th Tribe of Israel? Before the Catholic Church decided to destroy the Knights Templar on Friday the 13th. The number 13 was considered a Lucky number. Yeah, nobody talks about how the calendar changed in the 1790's.
The ancients came to understand there world of history and experience through myth. This myth is not of the nature of how we understand fiction, but it is a living reality believed to have once occurred. For post enlightenment man to go back and make sense of what the ancients wrote, with our thought forms, leads to errors in understanding and meaning. Searching for an actual star of Bethlehem is an example of this.
"With the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day." GOD does not reckon time the way that we do. The six days of creation are not literal twenty-four-hour periods as we count time. They are periods of ordering the universe. They could easily be billions of years as we count time.
😂😂😂 mental gymnastics
Yet they're still out of order. Even if 1 "day" actually means 1 "billion years", it's still wrong.
Go back and read the full verse. (2 Peter 3:8)
Bible says when rhe world has been created.
Its a choice for each person either to believe a Holy Word of Eternal God, or a word of a men corrupted by devil (fake science and fake prophets like this one).
Adam and Eve have been created on day 6.
Adam lived 930 years, Bible says for each generation up to Noah exactly the numbers, which makes it easy to add up and compute the time from Creation to the flood.
😂
Please, everyone... Don't lose sight of the purpose of this video. It is not as much about convincing you of his point of view, but rather to make it clear that young earth probably isnt true (and that most Christians in history have not believed in it), and MOST OF ALL, stop putting so much emphasis on it and fighting over it.
That may be his point, but the reason people put emphasis on it is this: If you undermine the Creation account as a literal event, with literal days, then you have undermined the credibility of the whole of Scripture. At that point, why read it at all? Which is exactly the point. As Satan said in Genesis 3:1, "Has God truly said . . .?"
@@TimWismer if I interrupt Genesis 1 as poetry and not literal, why does that undermine the rest of scripture? The point of the scriptures is to reveal who God is and reveal his character. A non literal creation story does that and sets the tone for the rest of Scripture. The God of the universe reveals himself through the scriptures, but that does not mean that the creation story in Genesis one is literal, God may have inspired the authors to write it as poetry like they did to reveal His plan for all creation. God never owed any of us an explanation as to how he made all things. Genesis 1 simply establishes Yahweh and the one true king over all creation. Just like when Jesus came, he was established as the Christ/Messiah/King over all creation. The firstborn of all creation. None of that requires Genesis 1 to be literal.
Is Creation young or old? We are only given a choice of 2 wrong answers. When I read the Genesis account, I read the Earth is created "in the Beginning". An unknown number of years ago. It sat around "formless and empty" (KJV says void) until God prepared it to sustain life, which He creates on the 4th day. Then we do the math and figure out 6000 years from then until now; which the Jewish calendar verifies.
Great example of a video saying Genesis is allegorical rather than factual without using those words.
He did not say that Genesis is not factual. You drew a false conclusion. That would be horrible, worse than what liberal scholarship does. What this man said aligns with Dr. Walton, Dr. Heiser, Tim Mackie, and others. Rather, taken as an ANE document, and seen from that perspective, we undertand many motifs such as the Cosmic Mountain, Chaos and leviathan (the sea monster), the divine council, or the 3-tiered universe as their cosmology. Israel and their neighbors shared these views. That is not to mean they weren't true but that the message was predominately theological, not scientific. But the Scriptures are still holy and accurate!
@@TheNikolinho I am deeply puzzled by your comment on Phil Vischer's discussion of Genesis 1. You describe Genesis 1 as consisting of many ANE motifs. The components are all untrue for the Israelites just as they are for the Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures that preceded them by as much as two millennia.
The components are not factually true--but...what?...don't need to be true? Or aren't the kind of things which can be said to be true or false? Is the reader to understand that these descriptions are themselves not material to the account and only serve--like a fictional parable?--to illustrate the theological truths of Genesis 1?
If this is the case, we are left with only two "truths" from Genesis 1: "God created...man in his image, according to his likeness." All other details are not scientifically accurate. The things being made in Genesis 1 are mostly not real things at all, and they were not made in the way or the order indicated. (I can elaborate if you request it in a reply.)
Of the two theological truths remaining, Christians reject one of them. Modern Christians cannot or will not believe that we have bodies which look like our divine Parent. We believe it when we read, by this author and in the same story, "and [Adam] fathered a son in his image, according to his likeness, and called his name, Seth" (Genesis 5:3). But we cannot or will not believe the clear meaning of the identical words in Genesis 1:26. Today's Christians do not accept as "truth" that we look like God--that we have a genetic relationship to God, even.
This reduces the theological truth to be gleaned from Genesis 1 to just this: "God created..."
The writer of Genesis 1 is supposed to have enjoyed, with his audience, all the false things in this section of his Creation and Flood Account, but what modern readers can derive from it is just, "This is the genealogical record of the skies and the land when they were created...except not really...and trust me, bro, God made it."
@@TheNikolinho why do you people think it MATTERS how the people understood it? One of the biggest things ABOUT scripture is that God gave it to people in the past...and they DIDN'T fully understand it.
Take Isaiah 53. How could the Messiah come and DIE...but then also take up kingship and reign? They didn't understand when it was written that there would be TWO comings of the Messiah.
See? It didn't matter what they would have thought when they received it. God knew they wouldn't fully understand it but that people in later times would. So their "old understanding" doesn't dominate the interpretation. Just because they didn't understand that there would be two comings of the Messiah...doesn't mean that we today are WRONG in the knowing that there WILL be. We don't get to be like. "well they would have understood it differently...as ONE coming. So we need to go back to them and their interpretation of it."
Silly silly thinking. But oh so easy to accept to those with itching ears.
@@GrimdarkKing Dude, if you think you understand the biblical world and ancient context better than the people if old, congratulations - you're the only one in the history of the Church.
Also, you haven't addressed ANYTHING about the Ancient Near East, Hebrew language, well-known motifs and concepts among the old religions and myths, cultural-historical context, forms of speech, or so. Have you ever had Hermeneutics? Probably not. How many books have you read on OT biblical theology? Probably not many. How well do you know Hebrew? You probably don't. How many Genesis commentaries have you read? Probably none. Have you ever studied that there are names omitted in genealogies? Probably not. Yet, you wanna come, act smart, and try to correct strangers online? That's hysterical.
Yes, the ancients could've missed something, sure, but if you think that a modern-day Westerner knows their culture, history, Worldview, cosmology, the spiritual and religious life, then we have nothing to talk about 😎
The Bible has many scientific facts but is NOT a scientific book and was portraying many theological messages through symbols, patterns, numbers, and already known words, phrases, and terms. Huge portions of the OT are polemics, e.g. YHWH is the rider on the cloud, written to correct the previous pagan narrative that Baal was the cloud rider. Passages in Proverbs are found to be almost the same in older Egyptian wisdom literature. Yet, all we have is divinely inspired. God didn't tell the Jews how old is the planet, nor were they bothered with that. And guess what? Jesus, the apostles, and the early church fathers didn't care either! It's only important in the last century or so. I don't care if the planet is 50 or 50 billion years old. The same with the shape. It doesn't influence my faith at all
@@GrimdarkKingthe bible was written by man wtf are you talking about?
I get a similar picture reading older scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, John L. McKenzie, and others. The amazing thing is that you still have to explain this. Of course, there are a number of other creation texts in the Bible which provide different conceptions of creation.
You mean it's amazing that Christians read the Bible but not older scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, John L. McKenzie, and others? That's not amazing, it's encouraging.
@@TimWismer Huh! You made a division between reading the Bible and reading biblical scholar, not me. Are you saying that Phil Vischer and the scholar he refers to, John Walton, do not read the Bible? Biblical scholars try to figure out what the biblical texts meant to the authors and their audience. You rely on translations by other scholars.
I also pointed out very gently that Genesis 1 (and 2) are not the only creation texts in the Bible. You might try to find Bernhard W. Anderson's Creation in the Old Testament, which will point you to other biblical texts with differing conceptions of creation. Or do you not actually want to read the Bible?
@@TimWismer No Tim. I mean that there are other creation texts in the Bible which have different conceptions of creation. You obviously have not studied them. There are scholars who will point them out for you, such as B. W. Anderson
⭐️ THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "the last age in which God is saving man from the imminent destruction of this old world"
(All who come to this world should experience life and death, and many have experienced tuning death, and re Birth. Those who live will die later and the dead will bring back. This is the mystery of life granted to man by God and proof that life comes from Him. If the day God has had a sudden change of heart and want to recover all the living of the world again and take the life He gave, it will disappear all then. Now, let Me say a secret: the exaltation and power of God's life can not be understood by any creature. Any kind of life creature you, you will not be able to oppose the path of life set by God. In any case, My only request for man is to understand that without care, caution, and financing God, the person will not receive everything he should receive, no matter how much effort is or effort. And again, do not forget that God is the source of your life. When the person fails to love all that God has granted, God will not only recover all that is given, but more therefore, man must pay double as fees for all that God has spent.)
Almighty God said
ALL that COMES into this WORLD should EXPERIENCE LIFE and DEATH, and many have EXPERIENCED REPEATING DEATH and REBIRTH. THOSE who LIVE will DIE LATER and the DEAD will RETURN. ☀️
All this is the PASSING of the LIFE that GOD ORGANIZES for every LIVING CREATURE. However, THIS COURSE and this CYCLE is the FACT that GOD WANTS PEOPLE to SEE, that LIFE GOD has GIVEN to MAN is ETERNAL and can NOT RESIST the FLESH, TIME or SPACE. THIS is the MYSTERY of LIFE given to MAN by GOD and PROOF that LIFE COMES from Him. 🙏
Although MANY can NOT BELIEVE that LIFE COMES from GOD, people can NOT AVOID being ENJOYED by ALL from GOD, WHETHER they BELIEVE or DENY His PRESENCE. IF the DAY when GOD had a SUDDEN CHANGE of HEART and WANTED to RECOVER all the LIVING in the WORLD and TAKE the LIFE He GAVE, it WOULD be LOST.
GOD USES His LIFE to SUPPLY everything to be ALIVE or LIFELESS, BRINGS everything in GOOD ORDER in the EFFECTIVENESS of His POWER and authority. This is the fact that anyone can not imagine or understand, and those who do not understand the truth are truly declaring and evidence of the force of God's life. NOW, let Me SAY a SECRET: the GREATNESS and POWER of GOD'S life can NOT be UNDERSTOOD by ANY CREATURE. ☀️
It is now, then and it will be this time. The SECOND SECRET I will GIVE is THIS: The origin of life comes from God for all creation, regardless of the difference in appearance or structure. Any KIND of LIFE CREATURE, you will NOT be ABLE to OPPOSE the PATH of LIFE that GOD has SET. ☀️
In any case, My ONLY REQUEST for MAN is to UNDERSTAND that WITHOUT CARE, CAUTION, and FINANCING GOD, the PERSON can NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING He should RECEIVE, NO MATTER how much EFFORT is or effort. WITHOUT the PURSUIT of LIFE from GOD, PEOPLE will LOSE the SPIRIT of APPRECIATION of LIFE and will LOSE the SPIRIT of LIFE PURPOSE. How did God allow man to waste the significance of his life without worrying? 🛑
And AGAIN, do NOT FORGET that GOD is the SOURCE of your LIFE. WHEN the PERSON FAILS to LOVE all that GOD has GIVEN, GOD will NOT ONLY RECOVER all that is GIVEN, BUT more, MAN must PAY DOUBLE as a DAMAGES for ALL that GOD has SPENT. 🙏🛑
From "The Word shows the bodies" Holy book
Fulfill it in (John 1: 1) and (Ezekiel 2:9-10), (Revelation 19:9,13)
📥Calling and leading everyone to His lowered Kingdom or Church because it is still standing on earth in the holy place in the air/ youtube "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD 💐 this is the fulfillment of what He said to Peter 2,000 years ago, recorded in (Mat. 16:18'19).
This is the the only Church of each one of our spirit that we must listen to or eat and drink like how we eat, dress and sleep every day so that He can guide us and change us by rejecting the evil attached by satan so as to be perfect,
having attained eternal life that will enter the coming replacement of the New Heaven and New Earth. 💌
Life in the Kingdom is the life of people and God Himself. Humanity depends on My care and precaution, and all are engaged in fighting the great red dragon to the death. In order to win this last battle, and to end the great red dragon, all people must offer Me their entire being, for My Kingdom. When I say "KINGDOM", I mean it is the life lived under the protection of divinity, where all humanity I constantly guide, I teach directly, so that the life of all humanity, although in world is as if it were in heaven, the true spirit of life in the third heaven . 🙏 💌
This video needs to be retitled “How to not answer a question in
12 minutes “. Honestly man, 12 minutes!
While there does appear an element of what he's saying is true - ie, Gen. 1 is talking a lot about order - it still says in Gen. 1:1 that GOD "created" the heavens and the earth, and then in Ex. 20:11 that GOD made everything in heaven and on earth within 6 days.
That appears to me as a message about the material creation as well as its order.
What are the ancient Hebrew words used on those two passages? How do you have a clue what any of them actually meant to those who spoke that language at that time?
Genesis 1:1 - בָּרָא., Exodus 20:11 - עָשָׂה. First, I've studied Hebrew. Second, look at all the other places in the Old Testament these words are used, examine the context and what it's communicating, and you have a great idea what it means in these passages.
Welllll.... a valiant Try but you seem to be Overlooking one critical detail. That critical
detail is the fact that you are using your finite//Human reasoning for interpretation.
I think we can both agree of the fact that God Is supernatural as are His works which
do not have to follow the Reasoning/opinios of finite man.
Maybe. However, the Earth is still billions of years old and Evolution happened.
Thanks for this. My sole complaint: no mention of Michael S. Heiser.
Great video! Keep em coming!!
I guess the question I still have, as someone who can be back and forth between young and old earth, if we are looking at genesis one this way, how do we see chapter two, three and four? Creation story is intertwined with Adam and Eve story, and I can take this story allegorically, but then what do I with Adam and Cain and Seth being included in genealogy? And then what do I do with the genealogy where people live multi-century? Maybe all of Genesis is non-literal, what do you think? It’s hard to wrap my mind around it.
I'll go with actual science and carbon dating and other isotopes. I prefer the Lord of the Rings for my fantasy.
These seem like good (and honest) questions. But your problem is deeper than you think. Making all of Genesis non-literal isn't enough. You have to make the entire Bible non-literal, because Luke (see Luke 3:38), Paul (see Acts 17:26; Rom 5:12-14) and Jesus (Mt 19:4) also talk about Adam and Eve as if they are literal, and they build their teachings on this belief. Also, Jude argues from a statement of Enoch, who is "seventh from Adam" (Jude 14). Jude takes the geneology of Genesis literally.
The type of reasoning demonstrated in this video is never ending, because there is no shortage of scholars, no shortage of discoveries about ancient cultures, and no shortage of new scientific theories to displace the old ones. You have to take the whole Bible as true, or none of it. If you really want to know the truth, ask God to reveal it to you, and He will do it (please see Prov 2:3-7). But if you just want to be comfortable in this fallen world, then you have to dump the Bible and Christianity entirely.
I'll be praying for you tonight.
Credit deeper Christian
"In Genesis 5 there appears to be a seemingly unimportant genealogy of Adam. We realize this is significant as it relates to the line of Jesus (see Luke 3), but why take the time to mention all the details of each individual?
What is profound is when you begin to look at the meaning of each of the names.
Adam: man
Seth: appointed
Enosh: mortal, frail, or miserable
Kenan (Cainan): sorrow, dirge, elegy
Mahalalel: the Blessed God (coming from Mahalal: blessed or praise | El: name for God)
Jared: this is from the verb which means “shall come down”
Enoch: commencement or teaching
Methuselah: his death shall bring (coming from Meth: death | Shalach: to bring/send forth)
Lamech: despairing (root of this word is where we get our English word lament or lamentation)
Noah: comfort, rest (derived from nacham: to bring relief or comfort)
What may appear as an insignificant list of names becomes an incredible picture of the Gospel of Christ.
Man (is)
appointed
mortal
sorrow; (but)
the Blessed God
shall come down
teaching (that)
His death shall bring
the despairing
comfort, rest
When you read the meaning of the names (as it would have been understood to a Hebrew listing the genealogy) you see how God, even at the very beginning, weaved a picture of the coming Messiah even into the names/lineage of the first ten people through whom that coming Christ would be birthed through."
Almost the entire bible is non-literal and meant to be such. So yes all of Genesis is as well. They are stories, parables with morals. The entire message is to better ourselves in preparation for the after life. So our current life in insubstantial relatively speaking, and likely the reason why much of it rarely ever focuses on the physical real world beyond giving messages from God. The only times the bible _might_ be meant to be taken literally is when it gives more precise details. Such as giving the actual size dimensions of a building, etc. Does it give us precise details in how Adam and Eve was created? No. Does it give us precise details what Adam and Eve did from day to day? No. They are there for the messages and morals. And yes to provide allegory, some of which I suspect we no longer even get today. For instance like as was presented here in this video with the Genesis creation story.
@@robynlinquist7239so your faith is in science, which by history, everything in it will or has been proven wrong. carbon dating relies on c14:c12 isotopes being fixed at current levels as ONE assumption and even then only accurate to 30,000 years, as too low to measure beyond that due to short half life. They should really teach science history in school to give you an idea how wrong science has been. And no it does not improve, it revolutionizes with new ideas with new ideas the older generations try to suppress as they have staked careers supporting old ideas. Einstein took 25 years to get accepted for instance, as he overthrew Newton.
I'm a young earth creationist right now & I absolutely agree that we should give interpretive priority to what the Bible meant to its original audience, not our scientific worldview millennia later. Believers who interpret Genesis differently than me are no less Godly than me & are not in imminent danger of slipping into hell. I agree that the Bible does not exclude other interpretations. There are some quirks in creation science theory like the order of things being created that the video mentioned & maybe some circular logic about the 1st day being 24 hours b/c it says "day" & a day at the time of writing meant 24 hours. I'm not sure why many creation scientists seem opposed to the idea of human-induced global warming, despite all the evidence for it that is firmly within the young earth timescale. God made humans stewards of creation & we have a perfect track record of messing things up. I do think creation scientists have made some contributions to science, even if mainstream scientists don't accept them. But, I remain a firm believer in my own ability to be wrong about things & hope I'll never get so stuck in my views that God can't change my mind.
It seems to me that you actually are compromising the authority of scripture. Here you are limiting God to the understanding of men. Not just any men either, but men who believed in false gods. What about all the prophecies that have since been fulfilled, or the ones yet to be fulfilled that we don't completelyunderstand? Should we reject Jesus because the ancient Israelites didn't understand the prophecies and rejected him? Did Jesus go off the understanding of the pharisees, or did he correct their understanding? I don't think it's just a coincidence that over the last 100+ years since christians started to reject a straightforward understanding of the bible that christianity has significantly declined.
AMEN!!
Thank you!!! This woke wanna be Christian is literally taking Christianity and making it liberal.
Also worth adding that God has given us two sets of documentation about himself and his character and creation, and the other one is the trail of understanding provided by scientific discovery. Both being His Truth, they cannot actually conflict.
Didn't even answer the click bait title question
He did, but it's more complicated than yes or no.
@@AresAlpha No its not is it complicated if they say is AresAlpha INSERT YOUR NAMETHERE older than 25? it is either a yes or no
Is my dog 8 years old? yes / Is he older than seven? yes / Is my dog less than ten years old? yes /Is my dog 9? no
Amazing how reality works compared to mental gymnastics
@@cravenlestat7006 Fine. About 10:50 is where he answers yes/no.
@@cravenlestat7006wow, confining God to a yes or no of what we as humans understand as the age of the earth or length of a day… the thing I hate the most about YEC isn’t the idea of it. Its the fact that we have to limit God to what we as humans think a day is.
This guy is more intelligent than fundamentalists, he realises that the Earth is much older than just 6000 years. (He mentions that people realised this by the end of the 18th century.) Since he does not want to admit that the Bible is not inerrant, he has to reinterpret Genesis 1. And actually what he says about how the ancient Israelites interpreted the creation story makes sense. He is also right that the creation starts from chaos. Interestingly, fundamentalists, who hold on to a literal interpretation of a six-day creation never address the point, that according to Gen 1:6 God created a solid firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. Has any fundamentalist seen a solid firmament above the Earth, or waters above the "firmament"? They are cherrypicking, holding on tenaciously to those details that they have cherrypicked, while ignoring the details that they cannot explain away.
God I am a sinner. sinning is so tempting I don’t know if your real but I believe that you exist. I don’t know if the life I live would be blasphemous but I don’t think I deserve the love of my lord. Just because all the bad I do I just hope my brother can get salvation even if he’s done worse I don’t care about what happens to my soul I just want him to keep his love in the heart of my lord I know my chance to salvation has faded but I will never give up on my lord or my family but my brother is a crashout and so am I pray he can be in the lords grace when goes to the other side p.s I love all of gods children have a wonderful life in Jesus name I ask have mercy on all that have taken the wrong path
He also didn’t create Adam and Eve as babies but as adults. God’s ability to create isn’t limited on time or point of development of His creation.
Adam and Eve were created as adults and so were the animals that God created. So why do we think the earth was created as if without mature development?
Where do you find support for that view? What verse?
@@albertmiller3082jus by going on what is done Adam mature,so is Eve and all else created,so its logical to assume the universe is created with a semblance of maturity
@@mlafi7 Maturity biologically follows directly on adolescence, which follows childhood, which follows infancy.
If you don’t apply scientific standards, you can believe “God” made people fully mature. You can believe pigs fly, too. You can believe in unicorns and fire breathing dragons too. You can believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus. Or Zeus, Neptune and Thor. Beliefs are all over the board.
There is no direct Biblical reference to the age or stage of life Adam and Lilith and Eve were conjured up out of thin air. You are simply trying to apply your 21st century sensibility to Iron Age hand-me-down stories, ten times translated.
My question to you is simple: What difference does it make either way? Whether born young, or as teenagers or as adults, what difference does it make to the story that’s told about the Fall?
@@albertmiller3082 God does not follow mans way of understanding thats why man still has no clue how life came about,we just hypothesis ,if we can believe people like Homer,Socrates,Herodotus, I see no reason to doubt few more Jewish old men on their account of this story ,specially if we have others outside the circle attesting to events in the same book
@@mlafi7 Homer, Socrates and Herodotus did not claim to suspend the basic laws of nature. Christians like you insist the story where a homeless illiterate from a Jewish tribe was unique among earthly people and could suspend the enduring laws of nature, of time and of space simply by wishing for something?
That claim of being “uniquely holy and divine” cannot be compared with a poet like Homer telling a story in verse about imaginary people like “Odysseus”.
If you believe “God doesn’t follow man’s way of understanding” then how the hell DO YOU claim to understand this unknowable “God” and then SPEAK for that “God” as if God needed your explanations in order for me to understand God.
You are God’s Translator? Because you read a book? Help me understand why that isn’t an extraordinarily silly claim?
Beautifully said - thank you! Learning to ask the right questions is so important!
How long did it take to fall?
How long does it take to realize that trying to date the works of a God, who is outside of time, is a fool's errand?
The christian bible basically says that to god time is irrelevant..... but we now know that history goes much further back than 6000 years.....
@@Donathon-qx8kq
The question isn't whether time is irrelevant to God, but whether He intends to communicate to us or not. God knows that time is not irrelevant to us, so if He makes it clear that morning and evening are defined by light and darkness and day and night and "the greater light" and "the lesser light", but in fact He created in millions/billions of years, then He is not trying to communicate to us, but rather deceive us.
This was exactly the position of not just Christian scholars but all of Christendom. Which is why it took 1650 years for anyone to try to add it up. The ancients would have scoffed at the notion.
@@TimWismer Maybe you should try communicating with God.
He will listen, and in His time, which often isn’t our time, He will answer and bless.
God would not deceive us, but He loves us enough to wait, until we are ready to come to Him.
Peace be with you.
Added: Consider that the One, who is outside of time may have a perspective greater than ours.
And consider:
"Seek the Lord while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts."
I still love to use the example Phil shared in "What's In the Bible".
Asking the Bible to give the answer to how old the Universe is is akin to asking someone to measure how long the table is with a thermometer. It is not the right job for the tool.
Time is not linear only here in the physical world. God created everything all at once
You also have to understand two factors of “science”.
Christians are responsible for the study of this earth because they wanted to know more about God’s creation. 2. Current science has taken a different direction than originally intended and became its own religion with its own priests and converts. So why are we trying to explain Christianity through a religion that mostly denies it and God even though most of the facts they come across point to it being true?!
It's not just Christians, LOL, it's Jews. Why did you only mention Christians??
Great video! Well Holy Post, get ready for the AiG response that you have “compromised.”
That ship sailed years ago when they didn’t obey the fundamental value of conservative Christianity which is complete devotion to white supremacy.
The idea that Phil Vischer and Skye Jethani are liberal is extremely hilarious. But, yeah. AIG will mourn the loss of such a great Christian mind to the influence of darkness or whatever.
7:42 In addition to thinking of the sun, moon, and stars as lights, weren't they also sort of thought of as beings? Or at the very least used as a way to think about beings akin to angels and such?
That was one of the ways in which Genesis contradicted the surrounding cultures. They all saw them as divine beings, but Genesis reveals them as simply lights. That being said, I'm sure there were times where the Israelites faltered in that regard, as they were apt to do.
@@danielfitzpatrick4873 'Suppose it might not be the case, but the idea of stars as not just being thought of as lights in the sky was something I think I heard talked about in one of the Bible Project things I listened to.
Of course, they shouldn't be worshiping them, but personally, I don't think it'd really be an issue if the ancient Israelites did think the stars were beings to the effect of angels and such. They would still be created beings, not self-existent equals of the LORD God, who would still be above all of them in authority, power, etc.
“In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…: two dimensions
He created light and separated darkness from light, He brought order by separating day from night (molecular composition of aerosols), establishing a firmament which divides the dimensions (the heavenly waters from earthly waters liquids)) and detracted the earthly waters from land (solids), and so on..
The early Bible is the verbal Mythical history & then the rest of the Bible is the verbal historical history of one particular Tribe in the Levant.
The Bible does claim a 6,000 year old (or thereabouts) Earth. Luke 3:23-38 traces every single generation, name by name, from Adam down to Jesus. No gaps.
How do you know that
That would mean a 6,000 year existence of humans, not the earth. You're using apples to count oranges.
6000 yrs of the line of Israel, not all mankind
So . . . either we are interpreting it wrong or Luke was making stuff up . . . hummmm.
That still doesn't prove there was only 6 literal days before the birth of Adam. Yom is the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis. But Yom also means "Era" or also "Unspecified length of time". Not to mention there's an unspecified time period during the development of the cities of Cain. 6,000 year old earth is not only unbiblical, but unscientific and unchristian.
This whole hubbub seems to tap dance around calling a spade a spade - that is, that Genesis (and much of the Bible) is specifically NOT literal. Take the Flood story for instance. It's FILLED with hyperbole that most likely would have been recognized by its ancient audience as a figurative description of an event in order to produce an effect and make a theological point, and NOT an example of ancient journalism or accurate science.
Yes, the Bible is very literal. It actually is the Word of Yahuah. If you don't understand it, it is about you, not the truthfulness of Him.
@@jannaswanson271As soon as you claim that you show your religion to be false.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu No, it does not. There are many things that men claim that are false. The Scriptures help us see those lies. It is the plumb line of the world.
@@jannaswanson271 The Bible is full of probably false stories from a mythical creation story to Gospels which are not eyewitness accounts. It's also a book of questionable morality from exhortations to kill women and children, the subjugation of women, a failure to condemn slavery and oppression of gay people.
There's nothing hyperbolic about the Flood when God told Noah that He was going to put an end to _all_ flesh. God says what He means and means what He says. If God simply wanted to make a theological point, He wouldn't have had Noah spending 100 yrs of his life building an ark that was capable of surviving flood waters for over a month.
"And how can we have day and night on day one . . when there's no Sun until day four"?
Maybe God made some light on day one, as the Book says, to start a day count.
(Maybe, just maybe, an Entity that could make the Sun, could also make some photons ; )
Stop saying logical things like that! You’ll end up under house arrest for the rest of your life like Copernicus!
@@benjaminharris7091 - You're thinking of Galileo, the poster child of the meany dumb Christians denouncers. Copernicus published his model about a century earlier, in Latin, and didn't catch much flak.
Galileo was asked by the Pope to analyze the various models, thinking he would "debunk" moving earth stuff, but he confirmed it, and published in the common tung, so to speak.
He caught a lot of flak from the church muckily mucks, but the Pope gave him a symbolic punishment. Confinement to a friend's estate, which meant a very light sentence, since he was pretty old, and travel was not a good idea for old folks back then. He could write to people and have visitors. Slap on the wrist, basically.
The problem with denying Genesis 1 is literal is it that is compromises the fall of man accounts in Genesis 2-3; and to note, these chapters/verses we added to the books of the bible weren't present in the original texts, they were meant to be read together. If there is a compromise in the fall of man, there is a compromise in the understanding in the deliverance through Jesus Christ from our fallen status.
Very well put
Repent, and learn what the truth of the Bible actually is.
@@ForThoseSeparatedUntoThe-tc5jgThe Truth is The Bible is Nonsense
It does not, unless one treats it literarily and tries to patch up the inconsequences by adding up the years in an origin story that were never meant to be added up.
What you said is true. But you missed most of it. Ge 1 is a Hebrew thought rhyme. While english poets rhyme words at the ends of phrases, ancient Hebrews rhymed thoughts. Each day is a stanza in the poem. What God formed on day n, he filled on day n + 3. Now read again. Next you missed the repetition of phrases in each stanza. At the end of each day is the phrase, "And there was evening and morning, day N". We read that phrase at the end of days 1 thru 6. But the phrase does not exist for day 7. Why? Because day 7 is still occurring. Day 7 continues to this moment, for even "now you can enter God's seventh day rest". Heb 7:4. (Therefore a Genesis day is not a 24 hour period.)
You also missed the Hebrew language nuance that only days 1 and 6 are "first" and "sixth". The other days are "a day 2", "a day 3", etc. In other words, the days 2 thru 6 are not in chronological order. Now order the days as the rhyme goes: 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6. A scientist would even agree that order is indeed the cosmological and evolutionary record.
You also missed that Ussher wrongly assumed that the generations in Bible genealogies are back to back. The genealogies are not back to back. Ancient Hebrews telescoped genealogies. They deliberately omitted unimportant generations. For example, Jesus son of David. You will find that the genealogies have multiples of 4, 7 or 10 generations. 4, 7 and 10 is a literary device meaning "fullness". Ussher was ignorant of this.
Ussher did not study Hebrew or ancient Hebrew literature.
I appreciate this explanation. The creation of the earth is complicated and hard to figure out. I, also, have always believed that Genesis wasn't trying to tell us how God did it. He was trying to tell us that He did it.
Two books for you sometime:
NAVIGATING GENESIS/A SCIENTIST'S JOURNEY by Hugh Ross
GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH by Robert C. Newman et al.
There’s an Open Yale course that explains the reasons behind the Genesis creation story really well!
I will say, though, my pastor insisted that the creation story must be literal because of the story of the Fall. Without the fall of man, he argued, there is no need for Jesus. He was so adamant about this that the first friend I had to deconstruct did so in the span of a day after evolution was proven to him in college.
I am stunned how many people in those days could read and write
Not most vast majority was illiterate
@@landresking3988 and still it is written
what a joke, just another rationalization about creationism. Bottom line, this is just another scholars opinion, just like the nonsense of the gap theory, the day age theory, progressive creationism etc.
anything to get along with the lies of science and the long ages they propose. Its just an opinion, that you are presenting as a fact, if you were honest you would mention that it is just that.
The fact is, science is a religion. The one world religion of the entire Godless world as well as the entire 100% apostate church is scientism. What the church sells as Christianity is not the Bibles Christianity, it is the God hating worlds religion of scientism.
Anyone who thinks the earth is a spinning ball is in the Godless worlds religion of scientism. No one can be a Christian and think the earth is a spinning ball.
There goes Phil the critic, leaning unto his own understanding, again
😂😂 also sad
Actually he is right. It is sad that the church is not current in these matters. There are scholars that are bringing their knowledge to the lay, knowledge that was kept only to an elite, the academia.
This is the view prominent and respected scholars held, like the one he mentioned Dr. John Walton.
Let's get educated church. 😊❤
I love how Phil Vischer's works in VeggieTales ministered to me as a kid, and now these videos are ministering to me as an adult and are super healing for a lot of the fundamentalist upbringing I had. Phil truly knows how to minister to Gen Z lol
Undermining the trustworthiness of the Scriptures is not a "ministry" to believers. Beware, because many of Satan's "ministers" masquerade as "ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor 11:14-15, NKJV).
It's just about making money instead of teaching truth
You explained your point really well.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the author was also explaining to ancients who thought one god created one aspect of the world - one diety created the sun, another created the sea, yet another created man, etc. - that it was the other way around: one God created everything.
Not as worried about what the Church thinks or scientists for that matter. What God said is most relevant. I believe our focus should be Christ.
Interesting to bring up Paul's letters to Timothy, because the scholarly consensus (I'm borrowing heavily from Dan McClellan here! Sorry!), is that those letters weren't written by Paul. I'm not trying to attack Phil here at all (in fact, I think quite well of him!). But I do want to point to something that's frustrated me, and that is that Evangelical scholarship of the Bible only goes so far.
There's a whole deep ocean of Biblical scholarship that the Evangelical community seems to avoid. I have pondered a lot as to why that is. Are they afraid of what it might reveal? Does it challenge Evangelical dogma? Please understand, I was deep in the Evangelical world most of my life. I know that world well.
While there are scholars who don't think Paul wrote the letters to Timothy, there certainly isn't scholarly consensus on that. 19th century German literary critics were the first to doubt Pauline authorship. It's been a while since I've looked at this in more depth, but a weighty argument for me was that the early church fathers wouldn't have accepted them if there had been doubt that they were genuinely written by Paul.
@@chriskeiller As far as I can tell, most scholars currently dispute Pauline authorship for the pastoral epistles. Of course, this doesn't mean that it's an irrefutable fact that they're forgeries, but most people who study this seem to think that they are.
@@pnwmeditations Looks like that's a fair assessment of the current scholarly landscape. It seems to be mostly based on textual evidence (Paul couldn't have written in this particular way). When I studied this (about 20 years ago admittedly) the other argument I found compelling was that the way we speak or write often changes significantly depending on who we're addressing. You'd expect a letter sent to a whole church or group of churches to look quite different from something written to a close friend struggling to lead a church.
@@chriskeiller "...a weighty argument for me was that the early church fathers wouldn't have accepted them if there had been doubt that they were genuinely written by Paul."
You're placing your own expectations for what should and should not be accepted as valid based on your experience as a 21st century Westerner upon those who lived 1800-1900 years ago in a non-Western culture. For them, it didn't matter if Paul personally penned them or not. Did they emerge from the Pauline community? Were they edifying for the church? Did they contain useful truth for the church? Did God inspire them?
@@chriskeiller Even when writing different types of correspondence to different audiences, people tend to use the same vocabulary and syntax. It's not the content contained in the communication, it's the structure upon which that content is hung that can point to different authorship.
Great video. Anytime we read a book in a way it could not have been understood by its original audience, we are reading it wrong.
Genesis explains that God created everything because he wanted it to exist, and that things like the sun, moon, stars, plants, mountains, and animals are just stuff God made, not things to be worshipped. This was revolutionary at the time, and it still is.
But if you try to make the creation story in Genesis contain scientific facts, you actually force it to contain lies. For example, it says that the moon is a "lesser light that governs the night". That’s just simply wrong. The moon isn't a light, and it's up in the day instead of the night half of the time, and sometimes you can't see it at all. If it were a scientific fact, it would say, "Then God created a rock much like earth in the sky that reflected the Sun - which was exactly like the stars, only much closer to us, and the earth and other planets orbited around it - and it was good."
"But it's just a figure of speech to call the Moon a light" you might say, but that's MY point, not yours.
I like to use this analogy to illustrate "truth:" A map of the MTA (NYC subway system) intentionally distorts geography, misrepresents distance and doesn't even have north at the top. So is it true or false? Is scripture true or false because of or in spite of its cultural underpinnings? What kind of information is it trying to convey in the first place?
@@ErictheHalf_bee This is a really good analogy!
@@SuperpopeGamingfeel free to steal it!
I would say, the earth is somewhat older, if the Sphinx is that young, The earth was 'without form', according to the book of Genesis. That is pretty old.
It was universal days not earth days A day of God is billions of years .
Universal days?? That's a new one.
A day of God is not a billion years, it is a trillion years and the weekend is like a gazillion years
@@markb3786Then there's his days off!
I must say, I am simply amazed that you consider yourself Christian, but maintain an open mindset. I thought that a closed mind was a requirement given the common example. I was raised Catholic myself, but have since drifted into non-religious territory.
As a writer, in all but the commercial sense, I have many times conscripted a creation for my many worlds and try to take all considerations into account. The What and How as well as the Who and Why. I just wrapped up one about an indifferent god who made the universe and kept the celestial bodies moving, but it was his five, nameless sons who made the Earth, or some such planet of occupancy, and fashioned man upon it, no women though, as they were a curse upon humanity. But it may not all be accurate as it is a story told by a patriarchal society to give reason for why women are kept under their thumb.
I find it very interesting that you separate knowledge from understanding. The ancient people weren't interested in knowing so much as understanding it. As such, God was forced to break down the major aspects and principles into bite-sized pieces. I believe it was one of Paul's letters that he said, When I was a child, I thought as a child. Now that I am a man, I think like a man. It makes me wonder what God's word on creation would be for this more modern audience.
The loudest to claim the label “Christian” are not at all representative of the faith.
@@Justanotherconsumer That is very true.