I have been a level2-5 agnostic for years. But after watching this man and his ideas for just a week i am around a level1-5. This guy actually makes sense. Im a historian and linguist and this astronomer is filling in a lot of gaps for me.
Its funny how an argument from an ancient book explain to you the gaps science cant answer. That is called the god of gapes, its not logicaly to think that way.
@@talancae Hugh Ross is simply just interpreting current scientific data and connecting it with the Bible though. If anything, isn't it astounding how an "ancient" book is somehow able to frame-by-frame, accurately depict our current scientific knowledge about the sequence on how Earth was made? Also, the "gaps" that were mentioned from the original comment wasn't about "the gaps science can't answer" it's more on the gaps in which he was curious about the information regarding the bible and its connection to science, not the gaps in science itself.
@@talancae God consistently uses those of little reputation or those who persecute Or even murdered as tools to further his will.. clearly he is not a respecter of man ,, hardly logical,, but God has no interest in pride or those who presume their worldly accumulation of knowledge somehow translates into Wisdom.. Man plans,, God laughs.
This is exactly why I appreciate this man as much as I do, he can explain Biblical facts as well as scientific facts in a way that anyone can understand.
Wow, Moses was right after all! Man Dr. Ross is just awesome. I don't understand why so many people are hating on him. In this stage of the game, we are understanding more about the natural world, and when it conflicts with what we believe, we find ways to intertwine them. He was a scientist first, THEN a Christian. He's such in a minority group, but that's okay. So many scientists are not Christians are hate religion, while so many Christians are anti-science. Dr. Ross shows we can be scientists and Christians!
You cannot be christian and scientist at the same time. You either have to believe that the earth is flat, that the sun was created after the earth, that the earth is the centre of our solar system, that evolution did not happen and that the earth was created in 6 days... if you are a christian of course. Or the opposite if you are a scientist. Bible is unscientific, and that’s because it was altered many times by priests, the vatican, poor translations etc.
@@tugrulc.1804 To be a Christian, you need to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and live by the spirit. Your "scientific" affiliations matter very little. Good day.
@@gabriellachang2967 - To each their own and to God His own. As a "woman of God" you should believe God. Remember how the first sin began ... "Yea, hath God said, ...?" The first sin began with the serpent suggesting that Eve question God's Word. Indeed, Eve's response was a distortion of God's Word. The serpent followed by directly contradicting God's Word - "Ye shall not surely die." Here we are today and all of Mankind is in such an awful mess because the first two people disbelieved God's word. Hugh Ross is as subtle as that old serpent. "Yea, hath God said?" But as you say - to each their own - and to God, His own. I am trying to convince you to change your mind and believe God, rather than Hugh Ross. "For _in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,_ the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." - Exodus 20.11 (KJV) (Emphasis added.)
I hope somebody continues his amazing legacy after he leaves us physically or mentally. The man is 76 years old. I know for a fact that people's mental faculties sharply decline in their late 70s and 80s. Gotta pray that God preserves his incredible intellect for at least another 5 years.
A true believer, and a child of God indeed,no one can interprete the whole formation of the universe apart from the Holy Spirit that dwells in them! His application to scriptures is undeniable and so convincing, May God bless you sir!!
Dr. Ross is always an inspiration! He gives me answers for my grandchildren's questions from the message they get at school. Logical, scientific answers! I thank God for you!
@@simclimie6045 I remember watching their debate at the twighlight of my YEC days. Ross spoke about the hebrew meaning of "day"....Kent's response was "you and I don't know hebrew! So don't act like you know hebrew!"...that was weak. Since then i'm sceptical of young earther's knowledge of hebrew.
Exactly. Often YECs make the claim that because this is what the word means in English, it must also be the only application in the Hebrew. I would also note the difference between them in the spirit with which they debate.
may God continue to use intellectual and intelligent people like Dr Hugh Ross to explain his word. Glory to God. Glory be to Jesus and the holy spirit.
I appreciated Dr. Ross' interpretation on Genesis 1, and he is likely correct, however I can't help but wonder if a more literal interpretation can't be squared with what we know of how the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Earth formed? Our best models of the formation of the Solar System suggest that the Earth formed alongside the Sun and other planets, however, it may be true that the Earth reached a stage of completion (albeit one that was without form and void) prior to the protosun undergoing fusion and becoming a main sequence star. That is to say, that whilst there may have been light from the protosun on day one, the sun itself would not be "born" until day four when it achieved fusion. [EDIT: I should add, that between the Protostar phase, and the Main Sequence "birth" of a true star, there is another phase or stage called the T Tauri stage, when these Pre-Main Sequence Objects (PMSO's) emit a great amount of light, and create winds that could easily be responsible for clearing enough of the early solar system dust away, so that the light of the PMSO could reach earth long before the T Tauri protostar undergoes fusion and becomes a true star, aka our Sun. Also worth noting, is that this stage is thought to have lasted as much as 100 million years during the development of our sun, marking a clear division of time between "Let there be light", on day one, and "Let there be lights", on day four.] As for the moon? Our best data suggests that the earth did indeed form prior to the moon. That just leaves the stars, at which point it is important to point out that the Bible is only talking about those stars that are visible with the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, as they are there to "give light" and to act as signs for the seasons, etc. As it so happens to turn out, whilst the majority of Stars in the Milky Way are older than our sun, they are not visible to the naked eye, and as such, are not the stars created on day 4. However, the vast majority or stars that _are_ visible to the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, are _younger_ than our sun, and therefore younger than the earth. So these would be the stars that "give light" and act as signs, etc. Created during the fourth Yom, just as the Scripture teaches.
Yes, and I mentioned that this passage is metaphorical (symbolic) just like most everything else from the book of Revelation. What part about that do you not understand?
God's People yes......the science which is about learning and being open to new evidence. What.....you prefer something that was written by primitives and then never ever change your mind ? I prefer to be open to evidence and having my mind corrected as I don’t presuppose some ancient people knew everything .
@@jerichosharman470 There is nothing that goes against the bible scientifically apart from the ignorant theory that you are an ape loool Search Trey Smith the theory of everything.
I would like to see Dr Ross make a you tube video with pictures on this, I like tosee the visuals so it could help people to understand how it cam to be. Just a thought.
Another easy way to answer as well is first sentence “God created the heavens and the earth” Sun moon and stars are part of heaven. The rest was let there be.
Correct . There was no word for universe in Hebrew ,except the phrase (the heavens and the earth) day 1 God creates all physical matter (the universe) the word create is only used 3 times in genesis. Day 1, day 5 , day 6, everything else he separates, forms and shapes.
In Genesis 1:6-8 since it says “Let there be a firmament” that means he didn’t create the firmament? Which logically means he didn’t create the heaven... right? Then who did? Who created light and the heaven?
I am a self taught historian and linguist. I am also a level 2/5 agnostic so i believe in God but im a bit skeptical of the bible and religion as well. However i cannot ignore the fact that there are many similar stories of the flood and rituals still performed in its honor that hint of a water canopy with references. History and linguistics are sciences too. Even though these may be mostly myth they should not be just brushed aside as useless.
Although I believe what you say but in day 3 there is grass, trees and fruits, wondering how can this be if the light of the sun was not getting through. thanks
Dr. Ross teaches that the light was getting through, but in a diffuse way, like on an overcast day, when its light enough outside to see everything, but you can't actually see the sun, because it's obscured by clouds.
it doesnt say that lol you now just try to safe his explanation in this video he himself just said that there was no sunlight hitting the earth and also if there was smoke around the earth as we know ,the planet earth was completle coverd with ice cause no sunlight come trough ....and in day 3 he god said : And God called the DRY land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He SEAS ; and God saw that it was good". so now i just disproveed ur argument that sunlight came trough cause we know that if the earth was coverd with smoke ther can be no seas and no dry earth cause the earth was covverd by ice and dont forget god said in verse 17 THAT HE PLACED THE SUN MOON AND STARS ON DAY 4 ! @@beowulf.reborn
In January '04, astronomer, James McNeil, discovered a small nebula that appeared unexpectedly near the nebula Messier 78, in the constellation of Orion. When observers around the world pointed their instruments at McNeil's Nebula, they found something interesting:its brightness appears to vary. Observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provided a likely explanation: the interaction between the young star's magnetic field and the surrounding gas causes episodic increases in brightness.
I wonder! If for us 1 day is 24 hours then how many hours it was for God to be 1 day while creating the earth because planets,sun,moon was formed on 4th day?
I was not putting forward the option it was a theory with no observation. I was asking whether the observations amount to: a) all stages but in diverse stars or b) all stages in one same star. And I would like to know what credible sources you refer to.
Excellent , intelligent and sensible. How can anyone claim to know definitively , when Moses is giving his account, he is speaking as an observer of a great and powerful happening, is it for us to confine/ confound into such simplistic , trite dogma .
Also, Genesis 1:2 (the spirit of God hovering over the waters) establishes the point of view for the entire creation text. That perspective is from an observer above the surface of the Earth. So when God says "let their be light", he is allowing light to be seen from that perspective. And when it says he is separating the light from the darkness, it means from the perspective of the observer (which is God). That means it must be talking about the Sun, not God being the source of light.
Light and sources of light are two different things. God created light on Day 1 of creation in transit (on its way). This explains how you can have distant starlight and a young earth created in six days. Hugh Ross explanation contradicts biblical account of creation.
How else would the process be known you ask? My point is precisely that if it has not been observed it is not known but a guess. That is the exact reason why I ask where and when it has been observed. What is your point in commenting, if you dare not argue and support your claims?
i want to know his thoughts on the first earth age (not ours,which is second) as described in 2Peter and jer the first earth was destroyed,why cant anyone talkon this/
Psalm 19 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Clearly God intended for us to witness the work God has done by looking at the stars. Since it is critical that both animals and humans have the ability to observe the stars, he would have to place us on the Earth at such a time when we would be able to observe them, which means billions of years after its creation.
@Tapiola2007 It doesent matter where the moon gets its light from any more than if a lamp gets is light from kerosine or wax.It is from the point of view of the observer.
It doesn't mean that it WASN'T either. When the first passage says he created the heavens and the Earth, "the heavens" means everything that exists in space (stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc). It is not logical to interpret the scripture as God being the source of light for "day". God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness. Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the "day". That means it must have existed on the first day.
"Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the 'day'. That means it must have existed on the first day." Does not mean it must have. "God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness." He is also creating light, He is not just an observer, remember?
the sun governs the day. the sun was created "in the beginning", known as New moon day, the beginning of months. The first day ever, new moon day, which took place BEFORE creation day 1, is defined as a day, therefore the sun had to be present, just not observable to the earth. God was on the face of the earth. The spirit was on the face of the earth. Therefore when the spirit of Jesus/God was hovering over the face of the earth, the sun moon and stars would not have been visible to him from his earthly position while creating things.
God has given you a great answer. It is Genesis 1 exactly the way it is written. My 6-year old grandaughter understands Genesis 1. She's got it right. Hugh Ross is a book salesman. The Bible is free.
I don't need to. Like I said, you don't need me to explain or reference the information. It's readily available to anyone who wants to learn.....including you.
Also, understand that I am not trying to convert anyone. What god you may or may not believe in is of no consequence to me. I personally am an atheist. However, I am not saying that it is impossible for a god to exist. I simply can't find any evidence that supports it and plenty to contradict the bible and its many versions and interpretations.
@masonTganes Same here. Some of these names of patriarchs that I have mentioned could have been names of regions in ancient times. In Byington's bible translations it mantions that one of the sons of japheth was Greece. His 4 sons were Spain,Italy,Rhodes,and Cyprus, In most bibles its Javan son of Japheth. The 4 sons are Tarshish,Elishah,Rodanim, and Kittim. Javan is a form of Ionia or Iowan. The ancients may have called greece Javan or Ionia named after the Ionians.
in ancient times, the people named their regions or cities after themselves. Like Job, who lived in the land of Uz. Uz was a person who created the city of Uz. Japeth was one of Noahs sons, and all 3 sons were assigned land rights. Were then told that many of the cities that were being named, were named after the people who founded them.
It would be worth mentioning that god is able to create light without a secondary source like a sun as backed by scripture in revelation that describes how we will live in the new city.
"There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated." The fact He will be the source of light in Heaven? Is that nothing?
Hey could you please rotate that switch so the city's power source can charge the small filament in that bulb, exciting its molecules so that they begin to glow and provide light in the room in which we are now sitting? There are tons of different ways to describe an event. Genesis chapter one was probably the best possible literary rendering of the process of creation to a group of primitive desert wanderers with a completely different perspective and understanding of the world than ours.
The Earth (and more precisely the universe) is billions of years old because that's exactly how old it needs to be in order for intelligent, human life to exist in the universe and have the ability to witness the creation. It would take billions of years for starlight to reach earth from billions of light years away. If God put humans or animals on earth immediately after he created it, we wouldn't be able to observe the stars at all, because the light from them wouldn't have gotten here yet.
"It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous." The Hebrew of Moses, the Greek of LXX, the Latin of Vulgate had no specific word for hydrogen as opposed to water. But hydrogenium means "water origin", wasserstoff means "water stuff" and väte means "wetness". If you have ever mixed hydrogen with air and lit it with a match, you know why. And you get a possible scenario of how "he flood gates of heaven were opened".
It does say god created the two great lights on day four, so what are we to do with that? It is interesting that it talks about lights in the firmament (sky) and then says "let the Light be" seeming to refer to us being able to now see those lights, but right after it specifically says "Then God created the two great lights, one to rule the day and one to rule the night", so that theory gets ruined.
I Kat Goat Interesting, I've read the epic of Gilgamesh but never read that creation story, they do have some similarities, not as many as the flood story but several. Thanks for the info.
Actually, that's not what it says. It says "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." It doesn't say any of this happened on day four. In fact we know that it wasn't because it uses the word "made" not "created" (in Hebrew they mean two different things). If something is made, it is crafted from already existing material. If something is created, it is brought into existence for the first time. And that's how those two words are treated throughout scripture. God created the heavens and the earth (all matter, energy, space, and time) "in the beginning". Light existed in the beginning. And we know this light came from the sun because God separated the light from the darkness creating day and night. Light is separated from darkness by the rotation of the earth, and which side faces the sun. Therefore we know the sun existed on day one.
"The X-ray/optical comparison of the region surrounding McNeil's Nebula shows that the position of a source detected by Chandra is coincident with that of a bright infrared and optical source at the apex of the nebula.Source 3, thought to be a very young star, is illuminating the fan-shaped cloud of gas, or nebula." Thought to be very young = not seen at its actual beginning. (continued)
"Otherwise the default meaning is simple past." That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past! It does not specify when in the past they were made, only "simple past". Scripture does not say that they were made ON day 4. It says that the light from them is allowed to be seen on day 4. Then in an elaboration the scripture tells us what happened in the "simple past", and relates that to the purpose of these lights which can now be seen on day 4.
@masonTganes I was raised one of Jehovah's witnesses. I see their point on a lot of issues but I found them a bit extreme on many topics as well. I resigned about 5 years ago because I no longer could pretend i was some one I wasnt. That was the main reason my first wife divorced me. I had a nervious break down and ended up in the hospital for a month because I had suicidal thoughts. I was trained for years that I was no longer wanted by god and I was not going to joiin the party ontheotherside.
5:08 "in the beginning, before the six days" Confer Exodus. If God takes his Sabbath rest at 18:00 Friday March 25, this means "the beginning" can be as early as Saturday March 19 at 18:00. Which in Jewish reckoning would count as the beginning of Sunday (March 20 being understood from Church Fathers, not from Jews).
I'm not sure what relevance Adam being created as a man has on the creation of the universe in terms of billions of years. Why would God have made him a child?
@masonTganes They even tried to influence her to take my 8 year old son far away from me. If it wasnt for the fact that I have some connections it would have been an even worse nightmare. The judge looked on them as fanatics and awarded me legal custody. This meant that she couldnt do that and I could see him whenever I wanted. I can also make certain decisions for him even medically which really drove them crazy. I am tired of arguing with people.
"That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
@masonTganes I am a self taught historian and linguist. I Am also a level 2-5 agnostic so iI believe in a god Im a bit skeptical of the bible and religion. However I cannot ignore the fact that there are many similar stories about the same event. There are rituals that the Inca perform around the winter solstice in memory of a global flood and hint toward a water canopy existing befor the flood. history and Linguistics are sciences too. Even though these stories may be myth they are there.
@masonTganes also the flood could have had a major effect on known dating methods used today by scientists. The formation of c14 could have been drastically different due to the different atmospherical conditions. Thats just one example, Thor in scandinavian legends is a form of thourus who is the biblically listed son of japheth. The bible is more believable because it remembers mosy of these "gods" as humans before they were diefied by their descendants.
(continued) "Such a scenario may explain why the brightness of McNeil's Nebula appears to vary with time. It appears in optical images taken of this region of Orion in the 1960s, but is absent from images taken in the 1950s and 1990s." No indication that same sharpness of observation has been applied since e g 1900 and only in 60's the first sighting came. Telescopes have been improving, and it seems this one could have been fluctuating before they could sight it - even back to Day Four. (ctd
I am not picking and choosing, but accepting tradition. "Getting back to Genesis, 'day' and 'night' means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation." It means there exists a light that by God's decree shines on half of the earth and not on the other at each moment, and which circles the earth. It does not have to be the sun, only equally strong or more so.
@@manfredconnor3194 What tradition are you even remotely talking about? I do not know _any_ tradition of not doing so. There may be places where one cannot, like in the woods a bit far from water, but there is no culture saying even in very old traditions one shouldn't - if you know one please cite it!
@@manfredconnor3194 What Semmelweis was arguing against was not a traditional practise. Male experts in gynaecology who were also doctors of medicine performing childbirth assistance in a hospital several times a day was definitely not traditional. It was modern. And precisely belief in miasma and sometimes demons _did_ inspire good habits of washing. Tell me when you have an actual point to make ...
@@manfredconnor3194 _"Yes this was perhaps a bad example"_ THANK YOU. _"but you cannot argue creationism not in this day and age,"_ Learned that phrase from some Masonic idiot in the 1940's? There was a time when those words were used to deny Hell and a real personal Satan. _"you simply have no leg to stand on, I am afraid,"_ And as some scared people you prefer checking your fears over checking what I do have to stand on. _"so falling back on centuries of false tradition and false belief will get you nowhere."_ How about proving them false before arguing from them - supposedly - being so? _"You cannot believe in Genesis when we know what we know about the earth and the universe these days,"_ How about proving that "social knowledge" actual KNOWLEDGE rather than socially accepted big mistakes? Or there never were any such - or admit there were? _"you would have to be a fool or a person so egotistical that they cannot admit they were on the wrong path."_ That's what you call an ad hominem. _"The evidence is their unlike the case made for the existence of God for which there is still no evidence."_ If the evidence "is there" why not present it instead of trying to make me "soft" first by mere mudslinging? And thanks for admitting yourself an Atheist or at least Agnostic, meaning you are really not _the_ best contributor to a debate I am trying to take with Hugh Ross ...
But even if we never figure this out, then we've succeeded to find that this God is forever unpredictable, unfathomable and impossible to understand. I imagine that's where He wants us. In a place where we know we are simply nothing without Him.
"There are clouds of dust called nebulae. When a nearby star explodes, these clouds collapse and form a new star." OK, who has observed a nebula forming a star? When? Is this the theory of how stars are formed and "different stages of it" are observed - or has this anywhere for any star now known been observed each stage successively by human astronomers?
Lately I've been hearing about people from ancient times saying there was a time before the moon. I've just been hearing this lately from other channels. Just got me thinking and wondering if that is even true.
Here's what I think about "accepting tradition": (Mark 7:6-9) "6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions. 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
Of course they didnt.They only wrote what they were told to write.The fact that today with modern science we can have insight into the creation account only highlights how scientificly viable the genesis account is.
@Hans....like I said, I will not do your homework for you. My sources are various science journals and astronomers. Besides, if the process was never observed, how would it be known? Guesses? Read and discover for yourself.
"Recounting a previous event" means Hebrew Perfect functions as European languages Pluperfect. It can do so, but that generally requires some kind of marker like (but not limited to) adverb meaning before. Otherwise the default meaning is simple past. Greek aorist, Latin praeteritus perfectus. English / French simple past. If there had been such a marker, early translators might have used pluperfect. They did not agree with Walter Kaiser. The seventy and St Jerome knew Hebrew too.
The idea i was stabbing at (over a year ago haha) is that in the beginning, God created Adam as a man. So we miss this whole biological process of him being an infant, a child, a teenager and eventually a man. There was no process. He was just a man. So similarly, why is it far-fetched to assume that the creation of earth was also created in maturity? That's all I was asking.
Traditional acceptance of Bible exegesis is quite another matter. The Church's tradition of OT exegesis starts in the 40 days when Christ exposed the Scriptures to the Apostles. It has not disappeared since, and needs no supplement from "Jewish theologians" who already rejected Christ when writing their Midrash to make sense.
Your apology is accepted. I don't just spit random information. I take the time to read and learn without the fog of religion to influence the facts. My aim is not to insult anyone, but to examine and discover the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong as much as right because the truth is what is paramount.
True the first light was God’s light which created the life of plants. He is the true source of life. Then he allowed the stars to shine to preserve the plant life
God CAUSED the big bang, HE IS NOT THE BIG BANG. That is idolatry to equal God with something of this natural world. God created the universe, Jesus is Lord amen.
What about the beasts on the next day? Did god not make them either? Answer: No, the beasts were hiding behind a bush and they just came out and appeared!
The Passage of the 4th Day in Genesis 1:14-19 has NOTHING to do with creating or recreating the luminaries as was done on the 1st day. It's literally and figuratively about God appointing/programming the Sun, Moon and Stars the specific divine purpose of being observable Signs, Seasons, Days and Years for all Sentient Beings. Having an intimate impact on the biology, cultures and spiritual Systems of all Sentient Beings made in the following (5th & 6th) days. Thought of another way...God took a Day for Intentionally willing future Sentient Beings to perceive and observe the Luminaries in a way that affects us as they do. Making sure that as soon as Sentient Beings were created, we would have an intimate, unbreakable relationship with the Lights.
5:03 Checking Job 38. I think you are overinterpreting that. It does not refer to darkness prior to light on day 1 being produced, since beginning with a reference to sea, obviously as distinct from land or earth (note, some parts where the Bible has "earth" become clearer if you read "land"). When God divided sea from land, evaporation concentrated on the sea, and this means that over the sea you get more clouds and mist than over vast stretches of land.
Hans-Georg Lundahl That sounds like more of an over interpretation than what Dr Ross just said. None of what you just said seems any more plausible than what Ross just posited. In fact it sounds like more of a stretch since there are no such qualifiers in the passage.
That the dragon is the devil does not stop him from being occasionally a dragon - at least an old serpent that literally misled as a serpent in Eden. That the beast is a human person is another matter, but does not preclude his getting literally defeated along with the false prophet at a literal battle at Harmageddon. And it is not exclusively about end times. The souls under the altar in Heaven are already there - as are the bodies under Catholic altars on earth. First chapters were back then
I have been a level2-5 agnostic for years. But after watching this man and his ideas for just a week i am around a level1-5. This guy actually makes sense. Im a historian and linguist and this astronomer is filling in a lot of gaps for me.
Its funny how an argument from an ancient book explain to you the gaps science cant answer. That is called the god of gapes, its not logicaly to think that way.
@@talancae Hugh Ross is simply just interpreting current scientific data and connecting it with the Bible though. If anything, isn't it astounding how an "ancient" book is somehow able to frame-by-frame, accurately depict our current scientific knowledge about the sequence on how Earth was made? Also, the "gaps" that were mentioned from the original comment wasn't about "the gaps science can't answer" it's more on the gaps in which he was curious about the information regarding the bible and its connection to science, not the gaps in science itself.
@@talancae
God consistently uses those of little reputation or those who persecute Or even murdered as tools to further his will.. clearly he is not a respecter of man ,, hardly logical,, but God has no interest in pride or those who presume their worldly accumulation of knowledge somehow translates into Wisdom.. Man plans,, God laughs.
@@talancae an ancient book maybe but one that's relevant to today and has the power to change lives
@@hymatwat9412 Lol you defenetly did not read it...
The more we learn about the universe, the more clear God becomes.
@Crazy Glasses Allah is an Arabic word for God
@Crazy Glasses funny 😂😂
Allah is pagan moon god..not Jevovah.
@@jvbest5k301 -cool story.
Now tell us the word “God” in 1000 other languages besides Arabic…..
@@blesson.thomas suttup
This is exactly why I appreciate this man as much as I do, he can explain Biblical facts as well as scientific facts in a way that anyone can understand.
I could listen to this man for yoms
haha. this made me chuckle.
Wow, Moses was right after all! Man Dr. Ross is just awesome. I don't understand why so many people are hating on him. In this stage of the game, we are understanding more about the natural world, and when it conflicts with what we believe, we find ways to intertwine them. He was a scientist first, THEN a Christian. He's such in a minority group, but that's okay. So many scientists are not Christians are hate religion, while so many Christians are anti-science. Dr. Ross shows we can be scientists and Christians!
if it makes you happy that is the main thing
I completely agree. :-)
You cannot be christian and scientist at the same time.
You either have to believe that the earth is flat, that the sun was created after the earth, that the earth is the centre of our solar system, that evolution did not happen and that the earth was created in 6 days... if you are a christian of course. Or the opposite if you are a scientist.
Bible is unscientific, and that’s because it was altered many times by priests, the vatican, poor translations etc.
@@tugrulc.1804 To be a Christian, you need to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and live by the spirit. Your "scientific" affiliations matter very little. Good day.
Kv Denko
A perfext example
This man has received some serious revelation
This man has _deceived_ many people.
@@rubiks6 As an aspiring scientist and woman of God, I disagree but that's okay! To each their own.
@@gabriellachang2967 - To each their own and to God His own. As a "woman of God" you should believe God.
Remember how the first sin began ...
"Yea, hath God said, ...?"
The first sin began with the serpent suggesting that Eve question God's Word. Indeed, Eve's response was a distortion of God's Word. The serpent followed by directly contradicting God's Word - "Ye shall not surely die."
Here we are today and all of Mankind is in such an awful mess because the first two people disbelieved God's word.
Hugh Ross is as subtle as that old serpent. "Yea, hath God said?"
But as you say - to each their own - and to God, His own. I am trying to convince you to change your mind and believe God, rather than Hugh Ross.
"For _in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,_ the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
- Exodus 20.11 (KJV) (Emphasis added.)
@@rubiks6 You're typing babble
@@chungusultimate - Did you not understand what I said?
I hope somebody continues his amazing legacy after he leaves us physically or mentally. The man is 76 years old. I know for a fact that people's mental faculties sharply decline in their late 70s and 80s. Gotta pray that God preserves his incredible intellect for at least another 5 years.
A true believer, and a child of God indeed,no one can interprete the whole formation of the universe apart from the Holy Spirit that dwells in them! His application to scriptures is undeniable and so convincing, May God bless you sir!!
Wow are you deceived..
Not at all
Gods words are timeless. As we learn, it doesn’t outdate God’s word it gives deeper understanding.
Dr. Ross is always an inspiration! He gives me answers for my grandchildren's questions from the message they get at school. Logical, scientific answers! I thank God for you!
I agree, but Kent Hovind thinks he is deluded !
@@anthonymeyer3735
I'll choose Hugh Ross over Kevin...any day...Hugh Ross does his research and he makes sense
@@simclimie6045 I remember watching their debate at the twighlight of my YEC days. Ross spoke about the hebrew meaning of "day"....Kent's response was "you and I don't know hebrew! So don't act like you know hebrew!"...that was weak. Since then i'm sceptical of young earther's knowledge of hebrew.
Exactly. Often YECs make the claim that because this is what the word means in English, it must also be the only application in the Hebrew. I would also note the difference between them in the spirit with which they debate.
Thanks Dr Ross you're the reason I believe In Christ
may God continue to use intellectual and intelligent people like Dr Hugh Ross to explain his word. Glory to God. Glory be to Jesus and the holy spirit.
Why doesn't he explain it himself?
I appreciated Dr. Ross' interpretation on Genesis 1, and he is likely correct, however I can't help but wonder if a more literal interpretation can't be squared with what we know of how the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Earth formed?
Our best models of the formation of the Solar System suggest that the Earth formed alongside the Sun and other planets, however, it may be true that the Earth reached a stage of completion (albeit one that was without form and void) prior to the protosun undergoing fusion and becoming a main sequence star. That is to say, that whilst there may have been light from the protosun on day one, the sun itself would not be "born" until day four when it achieved fusion.
[EDIT: I should add, that between the Protostar phase, and the Main Sequence "birth" of a true star, there is another phase or stage called the T Tauri stage, when these Pre-Main Sequence Objects (PMSO's) emit a great amount of light, and create winds that could easily be responsible for clearing enough of the early solar system dust away, so that the light of the PMSO could reach earth long before the T Tauri protostar undergoes fusion and becomes a true star, aka our Sun. Also worth noting, is that this stage is thought to have lasted as much as 100 million years during the development of our sun, marking a clear division of time between "Let there be light", on day one, and "Let there be lights", on day four.]
As for the moon? Our best data suggests that the earth did indeed form prior to the moon.
That just leaves the stars, at which point it is important to point out that the Bible is only talking about those stars that are visible with the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, as they are there to "give light" and to act as signs for the seasons, etc.
As it so happens to turn out, whilst the majority of Stars in the Milky Way are older than our sun, they are not visible to the naked eye, and as such, are not the stars created on day 4. However, the vast majority or stars that _are_ visible to the naked eye, from the surface of the earth, are _younger_ than our sun, and therefore younger than the earth. So these would be the stars that "give light" and act as signs, etc. Created during the fourth Yom, just as the Scripture teaches.
thanks for that explanation that helps to understand the passages better.
Yes, and I mentioned that this passage is metaphorical (symbolic) just like most everything else from the book of Revelation. What part about that do you not understand?
People need to read the original Hebrew. Hugh is right and is consistent with the original texts.
People need to stop believing this crap
Even better.......people should just go straight to science and skip the bible.....so as to get accurate information
@@jerichosharman470 You mean the science that keeps changing its mind?
God's People yes......the science which is about learning and being open to new evidence. What.....you prefer something that was written by primitives and then never ever change your mind ? I prefer to be open to evidence and having my mind corrected as I don’t presuppose some ancient people knew everything .
@@jerichosharman470 There is nothing that goes against the bible scientifically apart from the ignorant theory that you are an ape loool
Search Trey Smith the theory of everything.
I would like to see Dr Ross make a you tube video with pictures on this, I like tosee the visuals so it could help people to understand how it cam to be.
Just a thought.
This is so good...
Another easy way to answer as well is first sentence “God created the heavens and the earth” Sun moon and stars are part of heaven. The rest was let there be.
Correct . There was no word for universe in Hebrew ,except the phrase (the heavens and the earth) day 1 God creates all physical matter (the universe) the word create is only used 3 times in genesis. Day 1, day 5 , day 6, everything else he separates, forms and shapes.
Bible is overwhelming book
why is the date gone from this video?
August 7 2008
In Genesis 1:6-8 since it says “Let there be a firmament” that means he didn’t create the firmament? Which logically means he didn’t create the heaven... right?
Then who did?
Who created light and the heaven?
Sremm Lyphe in the beginning god created in the heavens in earth. It’s literally the first sentence
Polishsnipez7 _ Christians believe that there are multiple heavens so the one I’m referring to is the sky (Not where “he” lives)
@@sremmlyphe8064 the firmament means the sky
I am a self taught historian and linguist. I am also a level 2/5 agnostic so i believe in God but im a bit skeptical of the bible and religion as well. However i cannot ignore the fact that there are many similar stories of the flood and rituals still performed in its honor that hint of a water canopy with references. History and linguistics are sciences too. Even though these may be mostly myth they should not be just brushed aside as useless.
Although I believe what you say but in day 3 there is grass, trees and fruits, wondering how can this be if the light of the sun was not getting through. thanks
Dr. Ross teaches that the light was getting through, but in a diffuse way, like on an overcast day, when its light enough outside to see everything, but you can't actually see the sun, because it's obscured by clouds.
it doesnt say that lol you now just try to safe his explanation in this video he himself just said that there was no sunlight hitting the earth and also if there was smoke around the earth as we know ,the planet earth was completle coverd with ice cause no sunlight come trough ....and in day 3 he god said : And God called the DRY land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He SEAS ; and God saw that it was good". so now i just disproveed ur argument that sunlight came trough cause we know that if the earth was coverd with smoke ther can be no seas and no dry earth cause the earth was covverd by ice and dont forget god said in verse 17 THAT HE PLACED THE SUN MOON AND STARS ON DAY 4 ! @@beowulf.reborn
He’s the best!
In January '04, astronomer, James McNeil, discovered a small nebula that appeared unexpectedly near the nebula Messier 78, in the constellation of Orion. When observers around the world pointed their instruments at McNeil's Nebula, they found something interesting:its brightness appears to vary. Observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provided a likely explanation: the interaction between the young star's magnetic field and the surrounding gas causes episodic increases in brightness.
Amazing lecture
Yea...but how did photosynthesis work without the sun?
I wonder! If for us 1 day is 24 hours then how many hours it was for God to be 1 day while creating the earth because planets,sun,moon was formed on 4th day?
I was not putting forward the option it was a theory with no observation.
I was asking whether the observations amount to:
a) all stages but in diverse stars
or
b) all stages in one same star.
And I would like to know what credible sources you refer to.
Wao God is too great
Excellent
Excellent , intelligent and sensible. How can anyone claim to know definitively , when Moses is giving his account, he is speaking as an observer of a great and powerful happening, is it for us to confine/ confound into such simplistic , trite dogma .
This is BRILLIANT. OM gosh! Wow! Love this man. Don't "always" agree but generally, yes. This was great for me.
This guy can be my best teacher.
Also, Genesis 1:2 (the spirit of God hovering over the waters) establishes the point of view for the entire creation text. That perspective is from an observer above the surface of the Earth. So when God says "let their be light", he is allowing light to be seen from that perspective. And when it says he is separating the light from the darkness, it means from the perspective of the observer (which is God). That means it must be talking about the Sun, not God being the source of light.
Where is star formation seen today?
How is it day 1 evening and morning without a sun and moon?
Light and sources of light are two different things. God created light on Day 1 of creation in transit (on its way).
This explains how you can have distant starlight and a young earth created in six days. Hugh Ross explanation contradicts biblical account of creation.
Utterly brilliant 😇
How else would the process be known you ask?
My point is precisely that if it has not been observed it is not known but a guess.
That is the exact reason why I ask where and when it has been observed.
What is your point in commenting, if you dare not argue and support your claims?
i want to know his thoughts on the first earth age (not ours,which is second) as described in 2Peter and jer the first earth was destroyed,why cant anyone talkon this/
I agree there was light in Heaven before day one.
That does not mean the sun was there from day one.
Psalm 19 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Clearly God intended for us to witness the work God has done by looking at the stars. Since it is critical that both animals and humans have the ability to observe the stars, he would have to place us on the Earth at such a time when we would be able to observe them, which means billions of years after its creation.
@Tapiola2007 It doesent matter where the moon gets its light from any more than if a lamp gets is light from kerosine or wax.It is from the point of view of the observer.
Thank you Sir for providing us enough stuff to believe the truth.
It doesn't mean that it WASN'T either. When the first passage says he created the heavens and the Earth, "the heavens" means everything that exists in space (stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc). It is not logical to interpret the scripture as God being the source of light for "day". God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness. Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the "day". That means it must have existed on the first day.
"Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the 'day'. That means it must have existed on the first day."
Does not mean it must have.
"God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness."
He is also creating light, He is not just an observer, remember?
the sun governs the day. the sun was created "in the beginning", known as New moon day, the beginning of months. The first day ever, new moon day, which took place BEFORE creation day 1, is defined as a day, therefore the sun had to be present, just not observable to the earth. God was on the face of the earth. The spirit was on the face of the earth. Therefore when the spirit of Jesus/God was hovering over the face of the earth, the sun moon and stars would not have been visible to him from his earthly position while creating things.
I was wondering about this and I never thought I’ll come to a great answer
God has given you a great answer. It is Genesis 1 exactly the way it is written. My 6-year old grandaughter understands Genesis 1. She's got it right.
Hugh Ross is a book salesman. The Bible is free.
"Nature did catch up with him" sorry for the typo
I don't need to. Like I said, you don't need me to explain or reference the information. It's readily available to anyone who wants to learn.....including you.
Also, understand that I am not trying to convert anyone. What god you may or may not believe in is of no consequence to me. I personally am an atheist. However, I am not saying that it is impossible for a god to exist. I simply can't find any evidence that supports it and plenty to contradict the bible and its many versions and interpretations.
Because of hugh ross, I school people of genesis 😂😂😂. Its amazing
@masonTganes Same here. Some of these names of patriarchs that I have mentioned could have been names of regions in ancient times. In Byington's bible translations it mantions that one of the sons of japheth was Greece. His 4 sons were Spain,Italy,Rhodes,and Cyprus, In most bibles its Javan son of Japheth. The 4 sons are Tarshish,Elishah,Rodanim, and Kittim. Javan is a form of Ionia or Iowan. The ancients may have called greece Javan or Ionia named after the Ionians.
in ancient times, the people named their regions or cities after themselves. Like Job, who lived in the land of Uz. Uz was a person who created the city of Uz. Japeth was one of Noahs sons, and all 3 sons were assigned land rights. Were then told that many of the cities that were being named, were named after the people who founded them.
It would be worth mentioning that god is able to create light without a secondary source like a sun as backed by scripture in revelation that describes how we will live in the new city.
Ya but He didn't, He created the WHOLE UNIVERSE in the first 10 words, then he worked on the earth, just the way it says He did. dont over think it.
"There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated."
The fact He will be the source of light in Heaven? Is that nothing?
Dr. Ross hugh pleace you Can put text in spanish I am Cristian. sorry for may ortografic. tank you.
Hey could you please rotate that switch so the city's power source can charge the small filament in that bulb, exciting its molecules so that they begin to glow and provide light in the room in which we are now sitting? There are tons of different ways to describe an event. Genesis chapter one was probably the best possible literary rendering of the process of creation to a group of primitive desert wanderers with a completely different perspective and understanding of the world than ours.
The Earth (and more precisely the universe) is billions of years old because that's exactly how old it needs to be in order for intelligent, human life to exist in the universe and have the ability to witness the creation. It would take billions of years for starlight to reach earth from billions of light years away. If God put humans or animals on earth immediately after he created it, we wouldn't be able to observe the stars at all, because the light from them wouldn't have gotten here yet.
"It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous."
The Hebrew of Moses, the Greek of LXX, the Latin of Vulgate had no specific word for hydrogen as opposed to water.
But hydrogenium means "water origin", wasserstoff means "water stuff" and väte means "wetness".
If you have ever mixed hydrogen with air and lit it with a match, you know why.
And you get a possible scenario of how "he flood gates of heaven were opened".
It does say god created the two great lights on day four, so what are we to do with that? It is interesting that it talks about lights in the firmament (sky) and then says "let the Light be" seeming to refer to us being able to now see those lights, but right after it specifically says "Then God created the two great lights, one to rule the day and one to rule the night", so that theory gets ruined.
+95TurboSol : that guy Ross is an Apologetics gymnast or as we say on the streets , a bull shit artist !
I Kat Goat I think he's an authentic guy but yeah you do have to do some contortionist moves to get his idea here to work.
Genesis is a poor ass copy of Enuma Elish, with a few other mythologies sewn in.
One would have to be a bullshit artist in order to sell it as fact.
I Kat Goat Interesting, I've read the epic of Gilgamesh but never read that creation story, they do have some similarities, not as many as the flood story but several. Thanks for the info.
Actually, that's not what it says. It says "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." It doesn't say any of this happened on day four. In fact we know that it wasn't because it uses the word "made" not "created" (in Hebrew they mean two different things). If something is made, it is crafted from already existing material. If something is created, it is brought into existence for the first time. And that's how those two words are treated throughout scripture.
God created the heavens and the earth (all matter, energy, space, and time) "in the beginning". Light existed in the beginning. And we know this light came from the sun because God separated the light from the darkness creating day and night. Light is separated from darkness by the rotation of the earth, and which side faces the sun. Therefore we know the sun existed on day one.
"The X-ray/optical comparison of the region surrounding McNeil's Nebula shows that the position of a source detected by Chandra is coincident with that of a bright infrared and optical source at the apex of the nebula.Source 3, thought to be a very young star, is illuminating the fan-shaped cloud of gas, or nebula."
Thought to be very young = not seen at its actual beginning.
(continued)
Nice video
"Otherwise the default meaning is simple past." That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past! It does not specify when in the past they were made, only "simple past". Scripture does not say that they were made ON day 4. It says that the light from them is allowed to be seen on day 4. Then in an elaboration the scripture tells us what happened in the "simple past", and relates that to the purpose of these lights which can now be seen on day 4.
@masonTganes I was raised one of Jehovah's witnesses. I see their point on a lot of issues but I found them a bit extreme on many topics as well. I resigned about 5 years ago because I no longer could pretend i was some one I wasnt. That was the main reason my first wife divorced me. I had a nervious break down and ended up in the hospital for a month because I had suicidal thoughts. I was trained for years that I was no longer wanted by god and I was not going to joiin the party ontheotherside.
5:08 "in the beginning, before the six days"
Confer Exodus.
If God takes his Sabbath rest at 18:00 Friday March 25, this means "the beginning" can be as early as Saturday March 19 at 18:00. Which in Jewish reckoning would count as the beginning of Sunday (March 20 being understood from Church Fathers, not from Jews).
I'm not sure what relevance Adam being created as a man has on the creation of the universe in terms of billions of years. Why would God have made him a child?
@masonTganes They even tried to influence her to take my 8 year old son far away from me. If it wasnt for the fact that I have some connections it would have been an even worse nightmare. The judge looked on them as fanatics and awarded me legal custody. This meant that she couldnt do that and I could see him whenever I wanted. I can also make certain decisions for him even medically which really drove them crazy. I am tired of arguing with people.
"That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
So why does it say that he made it on that day? And he made the greater light..and lesser light...andbit was evening and morning, the.
If god is the almighty creator what super power created god?
@masonTganes I am a self taught historian and linguist. I Am also a level 2-5 agnostic so iI believe in a god Im a bit skeptical of the bible and religion. However I cannot ignore the fact that there are many similar stories about the same event. There are rituals that the Inca perform around the winter solstice in memory of a global flood and hint toward a water canopy existing befor the flood. history and Linguistics are sciences too. Even though these stories may be myth they are there.
@masonTganes also the flood could have had a major effect on known dating methods used today by scientists. The formation of c14 could have been drastically different due to the different atmospherical conditions. Thats just one example, Thor in scandinavian legends is a form of thourus who is the biblically listed son of japheth. The bible is more believable because it remembers mosy of these "gods" as humans before they were diefied by their descendants.
(continued)
"Such a scenario may explain why the brightness of McNeil's Nebula appears to vary with time. It appears in optical images taken of this region of Orion in the 1960s, but is absent from images taken in the 1950s and 1990s."
No indication that same sharpness of observation has been applied since e g 1900 and only in 60's the first sighting came.
Telescopes have been improving, and it seems this one could have been fluctuating before they could sight it - even back to Day Four. (ctd
I am not picking and choosing, but accepting tradition.
"Getting back to Genesis, 'day' and 'night' means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation."
It means there exists a light that by God's decree shines on half of the earth and not on the other at each moment, and which circles the earth. It does not have to be the sun, only equally strong or more so.
@@manfredconnor3194 What tradition are you even remotely talking about?
I do not know _any_ tradition of not doing so. There may be places where one cannot, like in the woods a bit far from water, but there is no culture saying even in very old traditions one shouldn't - if you know one please cite it!
@@manfredconnor3194 What Semmelweis was arguing against was not a traditional practise. Male experts in gynaecology who were also doctors of medicine performing childbirth assistance in a hospital several times a day was definitely not traditional. It was modern.
And precisely belief in miasma and sometimes demons _did_ inspire good habits of washing.
Tell me when you have an actual point to make ...
@@manfredconnor3194 _"Yes this was perhaps a bad example"_
THANK YOU.
_"but you cannot argue creationism not in this day and age,"_
Learned that phrase from some Masonic idiot in the 1940's? There was a time when those words were used to deny Hell and a real personal Satan.
_"you simply have no leg to stand on, I am afraid,"_
And as some scared people you prefer checking your fears over checking what I do have to stand on.
_"so falling back on centuries of false tradition and false belief will get you nowhere."_
How about proving them false before arguing from them - supposedly - being so?
_"You cannot believe in Genesis when we know what we know about the earth and the universe these days,"_
How about proving that "social knowledge" actual KNOWLEDGE rather than socially accepted big mistakes? Or there never were any such - or admit there were?
_"you would have to be a fool or a person so egotistical that they cannot admit they were on the wrong path."_
That's what you call an ad hominem.
_"The evidence is their unlike the case made for the existence of God for which there is still no evidence."_
If the evidence "is there" why not present it instead of trying to make me "soft" first by mere mudslinging? And thanks for admitting yourself an Atheist or at least Agnostic, meaning you are really not _the_ best contributor to a debate I am trying to take with Hugh Ross ...
how could there be night and day before the creation of the sun?
No sun , no night and day , no sun , no heat , everything would be frozen.
But even if we never figure this out, then we've succeeded to find that this God is forever unpredictable, unfathomable and impossible to understand. I imagine that's where He wants us. In a place where we know we are simply nothing without Him.
"There are clouds of dust called nebulae. When a nearby star explodes, these clouds collapse and form a new star."
OK, who has observed a nebula forming a star? When?
Is this the theory of how stars are formed and "different stages of it" are observed - or has this anywhere for any star now known been observed each stage successively by human astronomers?
???
Lately I've been hearing about people from ancient times saying there was a time before the moon. I've just been hearing this lately from other channels. Just got me thinking and wondering if that is even true.
Time began "in the beginning, the moon didnt form till about 9billion years later, so yes there was time ("a time"?) before the moon.
@@fudgedogbannana 9 billion wtf earth was created 4, 5billion years ago and moon around the same time
Here's what I think about "accepting tradition": (Mark 7:6-9) "6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions. 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
@mjh012363 Hugh Ross is simply stating what the Bible has taught all along.
Of course they didnt.They only wrote what they were told to write.The fact that today with modern science we can have insight into the creation account only highlights how
scientificly viable the genesis account is.
@Hans....like I said, I will not do your homework for you. My sources are various science journals and astronomers. Besides, if the process was never observed, how would it be known? Guesses? Read and discover for yourself.
Phenomenal!!!!!!!
As a Christian trained in science I can say this is sensational stuff. Awesome.
Yes, it is unbelievable. In that it is not true.
I respect your opinion. Jesus of Nazareth was not ( and in my opinion is not) a control freak. May you have a nice day. From Australia. :)
God bless Hugh Ross ...thank you God , for blessing us with him .
God is unfathomable, great !
"Recounting a previous event" means Hebrew Perfect functions as European languages Pluperfect. It can do so, but that generally requires some kind of marker like (but not limited to) adverb meaning before.
Otherwise the default meaning is simple past. Greek aorist, Latin praeteritus perfectus. English / French simple past.
If there had been such a marker, early translators might have used pluperfect. They did not agree with Walter Kaiser. The seventy and St Jerome knew Hebrew too.
@larjjlion Well explained. I respect your answer and intelligence on the subject matter.
Its this kind of dialoge I wish we all could have together.
Interesting 🧐
The idea i was stabbing at (over a year ago haha) is that in the beginning, God created Adam as a man. So we miss this whole biological process of him being an infant, a child, a teenager and eventually a man. There was no process. He was just a man. So similarly, why is it far-fetched to assume that the creation of earth was also created in maturity? That's all I was asking.
Traditional acceptance of Bible exegesis is quite another matter.
The Church's tradition of OT exegesis starts in the 40 days when Christ exposed the Scriptures to the Apostles. It has not disappeared since, and needs no supplement from "Jewish theologians" who already rejected Christ when writing their Midrash to make sense.
Your apology is accepted. I don't just spit random information. I take the time to read and learn without the fog of religion to influence the facts. My aim is not to insult anyone, but to examine and discover the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong as much as right because the truth is what is paramount.
True the first light was God’s light which created the life of plants. He is the true source of life. Then he allowed the stars to shine to preserve the plant life
GOD is the big bang.......
God CAUSED the big bang, HE IS NOT THE BIG BANG. That is idolatry to equal God with something of this natural world. God created the universe, Jesus is Lord amen.
What about the beasts on the next day?
Did god not make them either?
Answer: No, the beasts were hiding behind a bush and they just came out and appeared!
4:25 this guy is a genious
How?
The Passage of the 4th Day in Genesis 1:14-19 has NOTHING to do with creating or recreating the luminaries as was done on the 1st day. It's literally and figuratively about God appointing/programming the Sun, Moon and Stars the specific divine purpose of being observable Signs, Seasons, Days and Years for all Sentient Beings. Having an intimate impact on the biology, cultures and spiritual Systems of all Sentient Beings made in the following (5th & 6th) days.
Thought of another way...God took a Day for Intentionally willing future Sentient Beings to perceive and observe the Luminaries in a way that affects us as they do. Making sure that as soon as Sentient Beings were created, we would have an intimate, unbreakable relationship with the Lights.
A google just may work - if you give me a precise title to google for. Preferrably an article that is still there.
Does he think birds existed before land animals?
5:03 Checking Job 38.
I think you are overinterpreting that.
It does not refer to darkness prior to light on day 1 being produced, since beginning with a reference to sea, obviously as distinct from land or earth (note, some parts where the Bible has "earth" become clearer if you read "land").
When God divided sea from land, evaporation concentrated on the sea, and this means that over the sea you get more clouds and mist than over vast stretches of land.
Hans-Georg Lundahl That sounds like more of an over interpretation than what Dr Ross just said. None of what you just said seems any more plausible than what Ross just posited. In fact it sounds like more of a stretch since there are no such qualifiers in the passage.
That the dragon is the devil does not stop him from being occasionally a dragon - at least an old serpent that literally misled as a serpent in Eden.
That the beast is a human person is another matter, but does not preclude his getting literally defeated along with the false prophet at a literal battle at Harmageddon.
And it is not exclusively about end times. The souls under the altar in Heaven are already there - as are the bodies under Catholic altars on earth. First chapters were back then