I guess since when the New Testament writers mention Adam they have in mind the literary Adam, if that Adam is not historical then why posit another “Adam” much further back? It doesn’t seem that they could “fall” if there was no commandment to break, right?
If the Genesis account of human creation is mythical, what does that imply with regards to the "fall"? Was msnkind part of a perfect creation, do something sinful and caused the corruption of all of creation instantaneously? Please speak to anything remotely related to this line of thinking/questioning? Thank you
It frustrates me that people like Swamidass and Loke (and the gentleman here who was expressing Loke's position) feel it's relevant to say that the writer of Genesis wasn't concerned with "genetics". Of course not, and no one thinks that. The concern is whether the writer believed that *every human being who had ever existed had descended from Adam and Eve.* It doesn't matter if interbreeding eventually leads to everyone having common ancestors, and it certainly isn't about genetics. The Pentateuchal author just doesn't seem to believe there have ever been humans who weren't Adam, Eve, or there descendants.
For the last few years I've been challenged by the idea that Gen 1 and Gen 2 being two different accounts of creation. The more I think about it, the more of my questions get answered with this possibility. Without getting more involved here with my thinking, let me say I doubt God used macro-evolution at all in the 1st creation. The second creation was for a specific couple in a specific place from which all the final generations of humans would come, as all from the 1st creation and all but Noah from Adam's 'family' tree would perish in the world wide flood.
Oh Genesis is so deep, yeah it is mythical indeed. God saw humanity in Christ before creation, and Adam ,meaning human being (persons) Male and female was created. And humanity was created after animals were created, so the breath of God meaning his spirit was inserted in the already created primal, then evolved to be a human in hundredth of thousands of years, I assume. And the story of the tree in the garden must have been some kind of symbolism, which represents some sort of instruction written in the heart or mind of Adam(human) spiritually. The story of the ark also must have been some sort of symbolism aswell ,of God's eternal salvation plan. Other than that , it doesn't make any sense to say all species got in to the ark. It needs an exposition as it was said. Very interesting topic indeed. Blessings!
I don’t get this starlight idea. “Light has to travel, it wouldn’t be at the earth yet because of how far away they are, etc.” I if it all came into existence at once, why would it need to travel? Maybe the path of the light was instant or follows the path of the expansion of the universe or maybe God made the path of light as well as the light itself. And why don’t we see stars popping into view? If we do see that, I haven’t heard about it. Also the earth doesn’t have to be old in order to see stars. But the space the earth lives in may need to be. Seems not so self-explanatory
Light has a finite speed. Even God created the stars and the earth at the same instant, you need to wait until the light from the stars to hit your eyes.
@@petermui5329I understood OP’s question to suggest that God might have created an appearance of age by also creating the light that would eventually reach the earth. While this is theoretically possible, IMO it suggests that God created a deceptive universe, and I’m reluctant to accept that.
18:02 And prior to the 1880's, the majority position among _Catholics_ was, the Earth was young. Here's a Young Earth Creationist NOT regretting the conversion to Catholicism.
At least one of them thought each day was 1,000 years. 7x6=42k years. They all had a variety of belief’s on Gen 1-11. They did think “young earth” but did not really give an age. But, they didn’t have modern knowledge either just like flat earth, earth center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc…
@@richiejourney1840 That's completely false (your first claim). You're thinking of early millenarians, who said that each day of creation (and rest) corresponded to 1000 years of history, meaning that 7000 years after creation, Christ would return and the world would end. They noted that since (at their time) the world was about 4000 years old, there was still a long time to go.
Both of you. _"At least one of them thought each day was 1,000 years"_ Well, no, he said each day corresponds to 1,000 years subsequently after creation. He may have used the word "is" but it is pretty clear from context it was what he meant. I think that was St. Irenaeus of Lyons. _"They did think “young earth” but did not really give an age."_ Some did, some didn't. The admission they did think Young Earth pretty much confirms what I said. _"like flat earth, earth center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc…"_ Flat Earth were pretty few. Lactantius and possibly St. Hippolytus of Rome. St. Basil was undecided and uninterested. Some others accepted the Greek knowledge of a spheric earth, like St. Augustine did. Earth center of the universe and everything below the Heaven of God revolves around it, that is correct. I believe that too. _"You're thinking of early millenarians, who said that each day of creation (and rest) corresponded to 1000 years of history, meaning that 7000 years after creation"_ 1) You didn't have to be a Millennarian to believe that creation days correspond to 1000 years of history. 2) Millennarians thought Christ would return 6000 years after creation, since they thought He would reign visibly for another thousand years. 3) Other people thought that too. St. Augustine takes the thing corresponding to the creation Sabbath as the eternal reign of Christ after the general resurrection. For my part, I consider: 1) Christ came the sixth millennium (or sixth lifespan of Adam) after Creation (5199 after Creation, both before Anno Mundi 6000 and before Anno Mundi 5580) 2) Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday are creation days of the new creation. 3) So the Christian era begins in the remainder of the sixth millennium, then goes on to 1000 or 930 years corresponding to Holy Saturday, basically most of the Middle Ages if we take Adamic lifespans, and Christ returns from Heaven, as He returned from the grave, in the 8th millennium or 8th Adamic lifespan. We are in it. If it's Adamic lifespans, the world is likely to end before 2241 AD. _"They noted that since (at their time) the world was about 4000 years old, there was still a long time to go."_ Not quite true, they usually thought it was more than 5000 years old, since they used (typically) LXX based chronology. St. Hilary of Poitiers was so worried about some of the Emperors he expected the Antichrist to come within if not his time, the time of his younger contemporaries.
I guess it's up to me to address the elephant in the room in the form of Hermeneutics of Genesis Chapter 1 to 11, as deserving special consideration outside the rest of the bible. This is a hard pill to swallow because once we say God really did NOT create Adam & Eve from scratch, but were evolved from some earlier primate type , (Dr Craig's current view) than it opens up Pandora's box, scripturally speaking on when to interpret the rest of the bible, outside a literal narrative. Why accept the story of Noah as a literal person and the Flood as a literal event, and not mythos history, as well as the story of David and Goliath or New Testament ''stories'' like Jesus having authority over life and death with the ''story'' of Lazareth being raised from the dead? ( and so on and so on)
The answer, of course, is that one must analyze the genre characteristics of each of these stories in their literary contexts and make conclusions accordingly. This is why it is illicit to apply the genre of mytho-history to the Gospels, since the latter are of the ancient biography genre. So, it's not that Gen. 1-11 deserve special consideration. It's that these particular passages serve to show that a literalistic reading that fails to account for genre can be an impediment to proper hermeneutics. - RF Admin
14:47 A solution proposed (I think by a Jesuit) was that "Indians" / First Nations came over to the Americas on a land bridge, which according to Plato's account of Solon's acount of Egyptian priests sank. A giant island called Atlantis. As far as I am concerned, I'm very happy with this solution. Also, if the Black Sea was slowly rising and Atlantis had just sunk just before, Nimrod had an excuse, like what Josephus said. "He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!" (from Antiquities, Book I, chapter 4, § 2) Not a sufficient excuse, God had made a promise in Genesis 9, and He hadn't broken it and still hasn't broken it. But kind of a _social_ excuse for what he was telling the guys. Those who held on to God's promise _could_ be told "can't you see what's happening?"
The bible’s creation narrative isn’t about the creation of the universe, earth and life leading to a first man made from dirt whose wife was made from a rib who was deceived by a talking snake. It uses elements of creation myths that predated it to describe the creation of a primitive covenant religious system and temple community of Israel, referred to as heaven and earth, with Adam being symbolic for Israel’s first father (Isaiah 43:27) It’s a recapitulation (retelling) of ancient Israel’s history of decline. Genesis chapters 1-11 are an addition to the text, added to the front of the Hebrew canon by Jewish scribes late in Israel’s development. The original history of Israel begins in Genesis 12. It ends in the New Testament with the end of the original heaven and earth (old covenant religious system and temple community) and the new heaven and earth (Jesus’s new covenant religious system and temple community… the church, which were only the elect of Israel). Any modern day interpretation of Genesis as if it is a science textbook describing natural events or the beginning of an historical narrative concerning all humanity demonstrates zero knowledge of how ancient Hebrews thought and interpreted their world.
I wish Dr.Craig would update himself with John Waltons change/modification of his functional view point of creation. The term ", functional" was more an adoption of an older view. Walton now uses the "non- order, order, disorder" perspective. And Genesis 1 is God "ordering " creation from non order. It's similar to his prior functional view point in that it argues the material creation isn't in view. So in contrast to Dr. Craig. IMO, (Walton is correct and Dr.Craig simply misunderstood the Ancient Near Eastern thought world. This explains why many just don't get it unless they are trained in Anthropology or Ancient Near Eastern texts as Archeologists. It does not mean that ANE perspective is "true" so it's not a philosophical issue. That expecting more from the text than they intend Dr. Craig can still disagree, but he needs to update himself)
19:24 Evangelicals have long been emulating Freemasons in making the Galileo case a point against Catholicism. I haven't done that. When I converted, I was still a Heliocentric, but I had a very careful explanation why Geocentrism would have been the most reasonable position prior to 1820's. When I came across Distant Starlight Problem, I took the time off internet between two days, 23 and 24 of August 2001 to reflect on the answer which was not favouring Kent Hovind's reply "a very skinny triangle" ... while that is also true, finally, the parallax would seem to be reliably measured, and it gives rise to _other_ cues about stellar distances. Supposing the premise is true, as in "we view alpha Centauri move 0.76 arc seconds back and forth, because it's earth that's moving" ... If earth _isn't_ moving, if the parallax, aberration and proper movements of any star, like the retrogrades and spirograph patterns of planets, are angels moving celestial bodies, then the whole argument against YEC falls apart. So, I've been a strict YEC (again) since before last of June 2000. I've been no longer Heliocerntric since 24 Aug 2001. And I'm doing fine in debates. Though I tend to get fewer of them. I'd say, on day IV, stars were one light day up. 1) Adam and Eve could see them the first Sabbath evening, when day VI ended 2) fish and birds that have geolocation tied to star patterns could get that geolocation programmed on day V. Distant Starlight Problem - a non-problem. At least for a Geocentric.
You're probably not getting into many debates because you are intentionally disallowing an easily testable and provable theory in order to discredit a nearly equally provable theory by proxy. So you aren't willing to debate in good faith since you refuse to accept a very basic premise based purely on ulterior motives. The good news is none of this is necessary for one's salvation
You get fewer debates because you're not arguing in good faith. You don't like one theory and can't overcome it with evidence (star light) so you are arbitrarily abandoning a a totally different and easily testable scientific fact (heliocentric model). Since you didn't abandon it due to actual good faith reasons, there isn't much of a point of arguing with you. Fortunately, these issues aren't relevant to your salvation
@@jonathanw1106 Evidence about star light is, there is no evidence for 13.8 billion light years. You pretend Heliocentrism is easily testable, don't run away, what exact test?
@@jonathanw1106 Speaking of good faith, how about me more and more often getting answers from empty channels. I don't mean just they haven't made videos. I haven't either. But I did upload descriptions and links to youtube favourites, and give my (basically) full name. Afraid of the copy of this debate showing your arguments in such a bad light you prefer not to be personally tied to "Jonathan W" (which there are millions of, I presume)?
Wow, how foolish have I been to read the Bible at face value and believe it? I just dont see how it didn't dawn on me that when God has an important message for mankind, He naturally would communicate it in the form of an intellectual rubix cube! Brilliant.
@daviddivad777 Hey David, you are correct, it was sarcasm intended to make a point, but the point was not to make an argument against evolution. Rather, the point I was attempting to make is that God communicates clearly and in a very straightforward manner with regard to creation. Hmmm... on second thought, I do wonder why you supposed I was attempting to argue against evolution.... could it be that you yourself are aware of how clearly the word of God refutes that theory? Interesting!
@richiejourney1840 Richie, I would not deny proven science (not speculations falsely called science) that is consistent with a straightforward reading of the Bible. I would deny any theory which either implicitly or explicitly denies the straightforward reading. Based on Exodus 20, it seems quite clear to me that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days.
@@asureguidetolove8903 you are assuming the point at issue (question-begging). even if i would agree that for the lay person prima facie/intuitively the literal reading seems most obvious it doesn't follow that it is correct. also, even some church fathers and modern-day theologians reject such a reading regadless of evolution, purely based on theology exegesis/hermeneutics. and even IF you think the “ straightforward” interpretation is correct does that mean you should ignore or even reject the science?
There are no views other than the actual one: The inventors of the god of Abraham realised that, if god was even in the remotest part evil, no one would believe in heaven. It would be like accepting Lucifer always tells the truth. So they invented first sin, a logical impossibility, to shift the blame for evil from god to man. It is a logical fact that there is no possible scenario where a god could test Adam and Eve and if they disobeyed it, it would get a right to punish them. Simply put, that god would need to invent sin i.e. wilfully create a temptation (an entrapment) and thereby suffering by creating something and refusing to let them have it. It would also be compounded by that god refusing to provide the information required to make a considered decision i.e. inform them about lies, deception, right and wrong, punishment, death and a host of other things associated with evil and how to recognise it. Not to mention, also withholding the true extent of the punishment i.e. every evil that would befall man as the result of their actions. Doubt that? How many of the roughly 4 billion who follow the god would make the Adam and Eve choice today knowing the consequences?
The story of Adam and Eve revolves around them deciding to replace God with themselves as the final authority of their lives. That is the sin. Disobedience is simply the means by which they went about firing God and replacing him with themselves.
@@markrutledge5855 And that is supposed to offer a challenge to my comment how? How did they come to making that decision without being set up exactly as I said? Look, I realise you are so desperate for a heaven you have to make stuff up because the truth is it is all unsustainable rubbish but please don't reduce it to a complete joke. (Hint for the future: Atheists aren't delusional morons.)
I’ve had this book preordered for a while! I can’t wait to see Dr. Craig and Dr. Sparks interact!
Didn’t even know it was coming out but purchased on kindle the second I saw this video!
Do more of these joint conversations on the podcast!
Great!
I guess since when the New Testament writers mention Adam they have in mind the literary Adam, if that Adam is not historical then why posit another “Adam” much further back? It doesn’t seem that they could “fall” if there was no commandment to break, right?
Good stuff!
If the Genesis account of human creation is mythical, what does that imply with regards to the "fall"? Was msnkind part of a perfect creation, do something sinful and caused the corruption of all of creation instantaneously? Please speak to anything remotely related to this line of thinking/questioning?
Thank you
I can’t believe people didn’t see the mythical genre of Gen 1-11 like I did 50 years ago. Didn’t bother me.
It frustrates me that people like Swamidass and Loke (and the gentleman here who was expressing Loke's position) feel it's relevant to say that the writer of Genesis wasn't concerned with "genetics". Of course not, and no one thinks that. The concern is whether the writer believed that *every human being who had ever existed had descended from Adam and Eve.* It doesn't matter if interbreeding eventually leads to everyone having common ancestors, and it certainly isn't about genetics. The Pentateuchal author just doesn't seem to believe there have ever been humans who weren't Adam, Eve, or there descendants.
For the last few years I've been challenged by the idea that Gen 1 and Gen 2 being two different accounts of creation. The more I think about it, the more of my questions get answered with this possibility. Without getting more involved here with my thinking, let me say I doubt God used macro-evolution at all in the 1st creation. The second creation was for a specific couple in a specific place from which all the final generations of humans would come, as all from the 1st creation and all but Noah from Adam's 'family' tree would perish in the world wide flood.
Oh Genesis is so deep, yeah it is mythical indeed.
God saw humanity in Christ before creation, and Adam ,meaning human being (persons) Male and female was created.
And humanity was created after animals were created, so the breath of God meaning his spirit was inserted in the already created primal, then evolved to be a human in hundredth of thousands of years, I assume. And the story of the tree in the garden must have been some kind of symbolism, which represents some sort of instruction written in the heart or mind of Adam(human) spiritually.
The story of the ark also must have been some sort of symbolism aswell ,of God's eternal salvation plan. Other than that , it doesn't make any sense to say all species got in to the ark.
It needs an exposition as it was said.
Very interesting topic indeed.
Blessings!
I don’t get this starlight idea. “Light has to travel, it wouldn’t be at the earth yet because of how far away they are, etc.” I if it all came into existence at once, why would it need to travel? Maybe the path of the light was instant or follows the path of the expansion of the universe or maybe God made the path of light as well as the light itself. And why don’t we see stars popping into view? If we do see that, I haven’t heard about it. Also the earth doesn’t have to be old in order to see stars. But the space the earth lives in may need to be. Seems not so self-explanatory
Light has a finite speed. Even God created the stars and the earth at the same instant, you need to wait until the light from the stars to hit your eyes.
@@petermui5329I understood OP’s question to suggest that God might have created an appearance of age by also creating the light that would eventually reach the earth.
While this is theoretically possible, IMO it suggests that God created a deceptive universe, and I’m reluctant to accept that.
Why not? It seems Adam and Eve were created as adults. Deceptive as well?
18:02 And prior to the 1880's, the majority position among _Catholics_ was, the Earth was young.
Here's a Young Earth Creationist NOT regretting the conversion to Catholicism.
Do some actual research on the Church Fathers about Genesis 1-11 and their views.
They AREN'T YEC.
@@davidjanbaz7728What are you talking about? They were all YEC, can you cite even one who denied it?
At least one of them thought each day was 1,000 years. 7x6=42k years. They all had a variety of belief’s on Gen 1-11. They did think “young earth” but did not really give an age. But, they didn’t have modern knowledge either just like flat earth, earth center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc…
@@richiejourney1840 That's completely false (your first claim). You're thinking of early millenarians, who said that each day of creation (and rest) corresponded to 1000 years of history, meaning that 7000 years after creation, Christ would return and the world would end. They noted that since (at their time) the world was about 4000 years old, there was still a long time to go.
Both of you.
_"At least one of them thought each day was 1,000 years"_
Well, no, he said each day corresponds to 1,000 years subsequently after creation. He may have used the word "is" but it is pretty clear from context it was what he meant.
I think that was St. Irenaeus of Lyons.
_"They did think “young earth” but did not really give an age."_
Some did, some didn't. The admission they did think Young Earth pretty much confirms what I said.
_"like flat earth, earth center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc…"_
Flat Earth were pretty few. Lactantius and possibly St. Hippolytus of Rome. St. Basil was undecided and uninterested. Some others accepted the Greek knowledge of a spheric earth, like St. Augustine did.
Earth center of the universe and everything below the Heaven of God revolves around it, that is correct. I believe that too.
_"You're thinking of early millenarians, who said that each day of creation (and rest) corresponded to 1000 years of history, meaning that 7000 years after creation"_
1) You didn't have to be a Millennarian to believe that creation days correspond to 1000 years of history.
2) Millennarians thought Christ would return 6000 years after creation, since they thought He would reign visibly for another thousand years.
3) Other people thought that too. St. Augustine takes the thing corresponding to the creation Sabbath as the eternal reign of Christ after the general resurrection.
For my part, I consider:
1) Christ came the sixth millennium (or sixth lifespan of Adam) after Creation (5199 after Creation, both before Anno Mundi 6000 and before Anno Mundi 5580)
2) Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday are creation days of the new creation.
3) So the Christian era begins in the remainder of the sixth millennium, then goes on to 1000 or 930 years corresponding to Holy Saturday, basically most of the Middle Ages if we take Adamic lifespans, and Christ returns from Heaven, as He returned from the grave, in the 8th millennium or 8th Adamic lifespan. We are in it. If it's Adamic lifespans, the world is likely to end before 2241 AD.
_"They noted that since (at their time) the world was about 4000 years old, there was still a long time to go."_
Not quite true, they usually thought it was more than 5000 years old, since they used (typically) LXX based chronology.
St. Hilary of Poitiers was so worried about some of the Emperors he expected the Antichrist to come within if not his time, the time of his younger contemporaries.
I guess it's up to me to address the elephant in the room in the form of Hermeneutics of Genesis Chapter 1 to 11, as deserving special
consideration outside the rest of the bible. This is a hard pill to swallow because once we say God really did NOT create Adam & Eve from scratch, but were evolved from
some earlier primate type , (Dr Craig's current view) than it opens up Pandora's box, scripturally speaking on when to
interpret the rest of the bible, outside a literal narrative.
Why accept the story of Noah as a literal person and the Flood as a literal event, and not mythos history, as well as the story of David and Goliath or New Testament ''stories'' like Jesus having authority over life and death with the ''story'' of Lazareth being raised from the dead? ( and so on and so on)
The answer, of course, is that one must analyze the genre characteristics of each of these stories in their literary contexts and make conclusions accordingly. This is why it is illicit to apply the genre of mytho-history to the Gospels, since the latter are of the ancient biography genre. So, it's not that Gen. 1-11 deserve special consideration. It's that these particular passages serve to show that a literalistic reading that fails to account for genre can be an impediment to proper hermeneutics. - RF Admin
14:47 A solution proposed (I think by a Jesuit) was that "Indians" / First Nations came over to the Americas on a land bridge, which according to Plato's account of Solon's acount of Egyptian priests sank. A giant island called Atlantis.
As far as I am concerned, I'm very happy with this solution.
Also, if the Black Sea was slowly rising and Atlantis had just sunk just before, Nimrod had an excuse, like what Josephus said.
"He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!"
(from Antiquities, Book I, chapter 4, § 2)
Not a sufficient excuse, God had made a promise in Genesis 9, and He hadn't broken it and still hasn't broken it. But kind of a _social_ excuse for what he was telling the guys.
Those who held on to God's promise _could_ be told "can't you see what's happening?"
The bible’s creation narrative isn’t about the creation of the universe, earth and life leading to a first man made from dirt whose wife was made from a rib who was deceived by a talking snake. It uses elements of creation myths that predated it to describe the creation of a primitive covenant religious system and temple community of Israel, referred to as heaven and earth, with Adam being symbolic for Israel’s first father (Isaiah 43:27)
It’s a recapitulation (retelling) of ancient Israel’s history of decline. Genesis chapters 1-11 are an addition to the text, added to the front of the Hebrew canon by Jewish scribes late in Israel’s development. The original history of Israel begins in Genesis 12. It ends in the New Testament with the end of the original heaven and earth (old covenant religious system and temple community) and the new heaven and earth (Jesus’s new covenant religious system and temple community… the church, which were only the elect of Israel).
Any modern day interpretation of Genesis as if it is a science textbook describing natural events or the beginning of an historical narrative concerning all humanity demonstrates zero knowledge of how ancient Hebrews thought and interpreted their world.
I wish Dr.Craig would update himself with John Waltons change/modification of his functional view point of creation. The term ", functional" was more an adoption of an older view. Walton now uses the "non- order, order, disorder" perspective. And Genesis 1 is God "ordering " creation from non order. It's similar to his prior functional view point in that it argues the material creation isn't in view. So in contrast to Dr. Craig.
IMO, (Walton is correct and Dr.Craig simply misunderstood the Ancient Near Eastern thought world. This explains why many just don't get it unless they are trained in Anthropology or Ancient Near Eastern texts as Archeologists. It does not mean that ANE perspective is "true" so it's not a philosophical issue. That expecting more from the text than they intend
Dr. Craig can still disagree, but he needs to update himself)
19:24 Evangelicals have long been emulating Freemasons in making the Galileo case a point against Catholicism.
I haven't done that. When I converted, I was still a Heliocentric, but I had a very careful explanation why Geocentrism would have been the most reasonable position prior to 1820's.
When I came across Distant Starlight Problem, I took the time off internet between two days, 23 and 24 of August 2001 to reflect on the answer which was not favouring Kent Hovind's reply "a very skinny triangle" ... while that is also true, finally, the parallax would seem to be reliably measured, and it gives rise to _other_ cues about stellar distances.
Supposing the premise is true, as in "we view alpha Centauri move 0.76 arc seconds back and forth, because it's earth that's moving" ...
If earth _isn't_ moving, if the parallax, aberration and proper movements of any star, like the retrogrades and spirograph patterns of planets, are angels moving celestial bodies, then the whole argument against YEC falls apart.
So, I've been a strict YEC (again) since before last of June 2000. I've been no longer Heliocerntric since 24 Aug 2001. And I'm doing fine in debates. Though I tend to get fewer of them.
I'd say, on day IV, stars were one light day up.
1) Adam and Eve could see them the first Sabbath evening, when day VI ended
2) fish and birds that have geolocation tied to star patterns could get that geolocation programmed on day V.
Distant Starlight Problem - a non-problem. At least for a Geocentric.
19:52 _"supposedly 120 000 light years away"_
Thank you very much for "supposedly" ...
You're probably not getting into many debates because you are intentionally disallowing an easily testable and provable theory in order to discredit a nearly equally provable theory by proxy. So you aren't willing to debate in good faith since you refuse to accept a very basic premise based purely on ulterior motives. The good news is none of this is necessary for one's salvation
You get fewer debates because you're not arguing in good faith. You don't like one theory and can't overcome it with evidence (star light) so you are arbitrarily abandoning a a totally different and easily testable scientific fact (heliocentric model). Since you didn't abandon it due to actual good faith reasons, there isn't much of a point of arguing with you. Fortunately, these issues aren't relevant to your salvation
@@jonathanw1106 Evidence about star light is, there is no evidence for 13.8 billion light years.
You pretend Heliocentrism is easily testable, don't run away, what exact test?
@@jonathanw1106 Speaking of good faith, how about me more and more often getting answers from empty channels.
I don't mean just they haven't made videos. I haven't either.
But I did upload descriptions and links to youtube favourites, and give my (basically) full name.
Afraid of the copy of this debate showing your arguments in such a bad light you prefer not to be personally tied to "Jonathan W" (which there are millions of, I presume)?
Adam and Eve never existed lmao!
Wow, how foolish have I been to read the Bible at face value and believe it? I just dont see how it didn't dawn on me that when God has an important message for mankind, He naturally would communicate it in the form of an intellectual rubix cube! Brilliant.
this sarcastic rethorical question does nothing for you in terms of arguing against evolution.
@daviddivad777 Hey David, you are correct, it was sarcasm intended to make a point, but the point was not to make an argument against evolution. Rather, the point I was attempting to make is that God communicates clearly and in a very straightforward manner with regard to creation. Hmmm... on second thought, I do wonder why you supposed I was attempting to argue against evolution.... could it be that you yourself are aware of how clearly the word of God refutes that theory? Interesting!
@@asureguidetolove8903I’m just wondering if you are saying there was no “evolution” at all? What is your opinion on “Let the earth bring forth…”
@richiejourney1840 Richie, I would not deny proven science (not speculations falsely called science) that is consistent with a straightforward reading of the Bible. I would deny any theory which either implicitly or explicitly denies the straightforward reading. Based on Exodus 20, it seems quite clear to me that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days.
@@asureguidetolove8903 you are assuming the point at issue (question-begging). even if i would agree that for the lay person prima facie/intuitively the literal reading seems most obvious it doesn't follow that it is correct. also, even some church fathers and modern-day theologians reject such a reading regadless of evolution, purely based on theology exegesis/hermeneutics.
and even IF you think the “ straightforward” interpretation is correct does that mean you should ignore or even reject the science?
There are no views other than the actual one: The inventors of the god of Abraham realised that, if god was even in the remotest part evil, no one would believe in heaven. It would be like accepting Lucifer always tells the truth. So they invented first sin, a logical impossibility, to shift the blame for evil from god to man.
It is a logical fact that there is no possible scenario where a god could test Adam and Eve and if they disobeyed it, it would get a right to punish them. Simply put, that god would need to invent sin i.e. wilfully create a temptation (an entrapment) and thereby suffering by creating something and refusing to let them have it. It would also be compounded by that god refusing to provide the information required to make a considered decision i.e. inform them about lies, deception, right and wrong, punishment, death and a host of other things associated with evil and how to recognise it. Not to mention, also withholding the true extent of the punishment i.e. every evil that would befall man as the result of their actions.
Doubt that? How many of the roughly 4 billion who follow the god would make the Adam and Eve choice today knowing the consequences?
Yet human beings make bad decisions every day knowing the consequences
(2/2) your whole argument depends on it being true that you know more than an all-knowing God
The story of Adam and Eve revolves around them deciding to replace God with themselves as the final authority of their lives. That is the sin. Disobedience is simply the means by which they went about firing God and replacing him with themselves.
@@markrutledge5855 And that is supposed to offer a challenge to my comment how? How did they come to making that decision without being set up exactly as I said?
Look, I realise you are so desperate for a heaven you have to make stuff up because the truth is it is all unsustainable rubbish but please don't reduce it to a complete joke.
(Hint for the future: Atheists aren't delusional morons.)
@@stephenglasse9756 Wow, I believe you just defined "delusional". Unfortunately, even a god can't deny fact and what I said is biblical fact.