That was fantastic. I believe in God/higher power, but I am also a science nerd myself. I understood that much of the Bible was figurative, but I've been looking for that rationale that bridges science and God for a long time. I'm so glad I stumbled on this video... and it clearly was not by accident. Blessings to you, your loved ones, and subscribers. Thank you 🌞🙏⭐️
Thank you so much for your kind words. There is a lot of pushback on this film because it's different than what is traditionally taught in Sunday school. Not contrary, just different. It seems the message and intent are getting lost on many. I'm happy to hear it resonated with you. Your fresh perspective is a welcome encouragement. God bless ❤️
i think the whole "day" thing was what bothered me the most but the way you described it makes more sense than ive ever heard anyone else describe it. thumbs up k?
This video was SO interesting. I'm a bit of a mixed/combination biblical+science believer as well, and many of your points and explanations make a lot of sense to me. Particularly the section on the meaning of the term "day." I always thought, "Ok, sure, God created man on the 6th day, but how long is a day??? Suppose it's NOT 24 hours, as we know it? Suppose it's millions of years long? Suppose human beings evolved out of the dust into Adam and Eve, as we know/interpret them??....." 🤔 Very interesting stuff.
Thank you for the series, I was very blessed by it. Found your channel surfing UA-cam on Astrophotography, Devine providence in action, Praise the Lord!
Praise the lord! My channel is new and it's fundamentally going to be about things that interest me. I love the bible, science, and astronomy. So those will certainly be recurring themes. But I think there will be a little bit of something for everyone here. It's really about lifelong learning. And I don't like to limit my learning to a single area. I made another video about the star the Magi followed to find Jesus. It's a good blend of Bible and astronomy if you're into both things. It's based off of a DVD I saw once. My video attempted to be a summary of that DVD, but I'm not sure I did the original Justice. If you choose to check it out, let me know what you think.
The purpose of this film is to show that the explanation for the origins of the universe and mankind suggested by science correspond exactly with the account in the bible. I can answer other questions about the Bible, but your particular inquiry isn't related to the origin story or the science related thereto, and the answer will reflect that. At the end of the day, we see that God did create everything. What is less obvious is the scientific means by which he did it. Make no mistake, however; God is still capable of miracles and things that defy scientific understanding. (I have witnessed a great many first hand) Therefore because of His supernatural nature, I won't be able to offer a scientific explanations for clearly miraculous feats such as the parting of the Red Sea, for example. But such things aren't part of the origin story either and therefore don't undermine or discredit the message of this film. I suspect your inquiry might have been rhetorical or sarcastic. But if you do indeed have questions about the lake of fire or other Biblical topics, I'd be happy to answer them. But those answers may not be scientific if they fall into this latter category.
You missed one big thing! "1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH. 2. The EARTH was formless and empty..." That means that the earth (and heavens) was created before the universe.
Thank you for your insight. I love talking about the Bible and the opportunity to discuss things like this is a key reason I made this video. Verse 1 is the introduction, and isn't chronological. It's purpose is to set the scene for the story that is about to be told. The author tells us straight away that God is *responsible* for the creation of both the Earth and universe, full stop. Now in verse 2, he begins telling us *how* he did it and the chronology begins. Verse 2 states that the Earth and heavens were without form. How can they be without form if they were created in verse 1? That would be a contradiction, and as the rest of the film points out, there can be no contradictions in God's word. The film points out the process by which God created the Earth, "separating the waters from the waters and the dry land appears" etc. If the Earth was already created in verse 1, then these later verses don't make sense. God is not the author of confusion and a timeline that begins with the earth fully formed in verse 1 can't be correct.
The biggest question I have was world created with limestone and were plants and animals created fully grown. If you believe in the concept of no death before the fall there would be no limestone at creation. I would like to see you do research on Noah.
According to the interpretation laid out in this video, other people did exist at the time of Adam and Eve, but were completely separated from Adam and Eve by The garden of eden. God created Adam and Eve and isolated them in the garden for the purpose of starting a new people, set apart from the other sinful people on the Earth. And most importantly this lineage would ultimately lead to Jesus christ who would save all who would believe, including those other people. The question then is why did god do it this way? The answer is the same as why we have the old testament at all. A great and timeless deception of the devil is that we can get into heaven by being a "good" person. If that were true, then how "good" do you have to be? What, for that matter, is the definition of "good". Well God sought to give us that answer in the "law" of the old testament. He said "you think you're good enough? Well here's the definition: If you can keep all of these laws to perfection then you'll be good enough to get into heaven on your own. But I know you can't do it, so I'll set up this system of sacrificing animals to give you virtually unlimited retrys. That still won't work, so I'll give you my son as the ultimate sacrifice, and a great many of you won't even accept him!" People aren't good enough to get into heaven on their own and we have thousands of years of humanity proving otherwise to support that claim. We *need* Jesus. Adam and eve are part of the proof. Through their story God is telling us "even if I create man in a vacuum, separate from the influence, temptation, and sin of others, even if I provide for every need. Even if i walk and talk with them daily to prove my existence... man will still sin." Thus when the unbeliever finds himself before God, he won't have any argument to claim. He won't be able to blame his sin on others, or circumstance, or anything else. Adam and eve could have lived forever in the garden, but it sounds like their time there was short lived. They were expelled before they could even start having children.
I've tried looking into Noah, but the Lord hasn't provided me with any revelations the way he did with the details recorded in this film. Barring that in the future, I have to take Noah on faith. There is geological evidence supporting catastrophic flooding in many parts of the world, and virtually every culture in the world has a flood story. So it looks like it really did happen. So for now, the details as recorded in the Bible are the only ones I have to offer.
FULL DOCUMENTARY???? the title of this is clickbait. this is nothing but ones own cherrypicking facts and scripture to reinforce ones own belief. ignoring things that dont fit with ones belief. there was so much here that was simply just ignored (or not even discussed) that it defies belief
I'm sorry you didn't feel the film was comprehensive enough. The title wasn't intended to be misleading. At over an hour in length, the video was quite a bit longer than the ones I usually make. For that reason, I split the film into five separate pieces so people could watch it in easier to digest episodes. I also knew that others would rather binge the entire thing all at once. The title "full documentary" was intended to convey that this was the full version rather than the episodic version. I'm always looking for ideas for future videos. Is there a particular biblical concept you thought I left out that would be a good fit for a future episode? The Bible is a lengthy book and you're right, it would be probably impossible to cover all scientific concepts with relation to the entire Bible in a single video. This film was primarily concerned with how the creationary story fits with the evidence science has to say about the same subject since so many people think they are at odds with one another. It was my intent to show that science and God's word are both in sync. This would, after all, be a logical expectation if God created both the universe and the science/laws that govern its operation.
I watched only a bit of the beginning and jumped into the section where you are explaining about Adam, I was waiting for an explanation of how Eve was made from Adam's rib. There wasn't one. Anyway, the style of how it was presented seems to me like cold reading. Mr. Wilson why don't you give a chance and watch Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris?! You could learn something. 🙂
Decent little video, well produced, well laid out. Idk why you don't get more views. I do want to say, don't try to hard to connect our current understanding of science with the beginning of the bible or any of it really because sometimes things are just as simple as they sound. It literally says he created heaven and earth then he created light and separated it from darkness. And the evening and morning were the first day. I guess if you want to argue that their intention wasn't to say all those first activities happened in the first day and that maybe they're just saying evening and morning every paragraph to separate the events is really not them separating the events because it's not explicitly said, I guess but it doesn't make any sense that way unless you're forcefully marrying it to our current understanding of science. Brother, it's God, God can do whatever God wants to in whatever amount of time he chooses because God is most likely outside of time. Time is irrelevant to God so he could do anything, in any amount of time and call it a day. I get the argument also that it seems like the 4th day is when he created the sun, moon, and stars to separate the night from day but there was light and dark on the first day. It doesn't mean a mistake was made in the wording. The moon and other stars could have been the 4th day or even just the moon and since they were on the subject of the moon and stars they also brought in a further explanation of the whole system not just what was created that day. The seventh day is the Sabbath. That's pretty simple so if he sanctifies the 7th day and puts it in the commandments I'm pretty sure he meant it to mean days.
I agree with you here. It would be a more logical argument for long periods of time as this video is suggesting that during the 6 days of creation that evening and morning wasn't referenced. Question next would be, how long is an evening and morning? and how can one make any sense of that if it's not our normal 1 day/ 24 hour cycle. Jesus return is suppose to be in a blink of an eye 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. look at that line. "I tell you a mystery" interesting choice of words This clearly tells that us things will be happening in a blink of an eye when Jesus returns and the universe/heavens and earth probably also happened in a blink of an eye as it's written. That would be scripture being compatible with scripture. This video is a scientist 1st and a God believer 2nd, whose trying to squeeze his biblical beliefs into his scientific beliefs
I think you guys may have missed some key aspects of the film in which the very questions you ask were addressed. The question as to how long is in the evening and morning which is repeatedly referred to in the scripture: as stated in the film, with a traditional day it is defined as the span time that encompasses both evening and morning. Once the events of both evening and morning have transpired, then a day has elapsed. With this interpretation, as the evening and morning defines a day, the events described in each step of the biblical creation process define each "day". Because the Bible is using the analogy of a "day" to define each step, a reference to the events of a traditional day (evening and morning) fits the analogy, and the amount of time elapsed is as long as God wants it to be in order to complete his work. The presence of the evening and morning mark a clear delineation between each step. The film points out that the traditional interpretation causes numerous contradictions in God's word and therefore cannot be accurate. Contradictions in God's word would make God a liar, which certainly is not the case. An interpretation that does not cause contradiction must therefore be found. The translation of the church spoken of in Revelation refers to events that are taking place at the end of creation, not the beginning and therefore isn't applicable here. The Bible is clear that the rapture will take place in the twinkling of an eye, in an instant. The purpose of that haste is to prevent someone from having the time to repent before the rapture has completed. This requires us to all be ready in advance. None of that has anything to do with the creation process. Isaiah 1:18 God utters the phrase "come let us reason together", though he speaks of the need for cleansing and following his word, the indication that our God is "reasonable", is important. Why would a reasonable God put all of this evidence of creation into his creation if it spoke contrary to his word? Why would the order of events listed in Genesis exactly match the order of events science has deduced if such dramatic errors in the timeline existed? Why would he put evidence of a longer timeline into his creation if it didn't happen that way? It is unreasonable to think He would do such a thing. The interpretation presented in the film reconciles these conflicts and explains how science, which has been perverted to explain away god, actually proves his existence in a measurable and quantifiable way. Christianity's war on science is un "reasonable". We should be using it to justify our faith, especially if our enemies intend to use it to undermine it.
@@MrWilsonsChannel Thank you for your comment. I'll continue to look further into this. One of my concerns when it comes to historical science such as the age of the earth is I personally cannot verify it, so there is always a leap of faith, regardless of what the truth may be, be it excepting mainstream science version of events or YEC. A question for you. Do historical geology and Paleontology scientist consider or think it relevant to consider the impact Noah's world wide flood and the destruction it would cause on the surface of the earth when observing the geological column and assigning dates to the different layers? As far as I know these sciences do not put a catastrophic world wide flood into their calculation. I think most scientist feel more comfortable suggesting a localised flood instead of a global flood.
Excellent question, and I wish I had an answer for you. This film addresses primarily Genesis 1 & 2. I've looked into the story of Noah and don't have corroborating scientific evidence either for or against it, which is why it wasn't addressed in this film. I think that would need to be its own documentary all together. When it comes to things like that, I always default to the Bible. If the bible says it happens and I can reconcile it with science then I simply have faith in Gods word. This may sound like a scientific surrender, but actually it fits the model. For hundreds of years, science said the universe revolved around the Earth. But then we did better science with more precise measurements and more accurate equipment and determined the truth. As we continue to learn more about our world, I'm confident the science will ultimately corroborate the biblical account of the flood as well as it does the origins of the universe. One thing worth noting is that almost all cultures around the world have a great flood built into their history and myology. How can so many people groups, many who never had contact with one another all have the same story unless it really happened?
Starting with your explanation of Genesis, I think you're making some pretty astounding leaps. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep." Genesis 1:1-2 It's a giant leap, I think, to compare this to the singularity described by science at the "origin" of the known the universe. For starters, when has "earth" ever been used to describe anything other than our own planet? I have never heard "earth" to mean "the entire universe." And earth did not exist until several billion years after the big bang, so the Bible saying "God created the earth in the beginning" is directly contradictory to what science tells us today. In the beginning, and for several billions of years afterwards, there was no earth.
"Then God said let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and evening passed and morning came, marking the first day." Genesis 1:3-5 Here, you're completely ignoring the middle part of these verses, cherrypicking only the beginning and end to represent the big bang and the metaphorical "day" that really could have been any number of years long for God. Okay, fine, but what about the separation of light and darkness into day and night? You can only have day and night on a rotating planet, in which the rotation of the planet causes the star which the planet orbits to "rise and fall" across the planet's sky. Again, as in verses 1 and 2, we have a very clear description of a planet existing first in the Christian creation myth, and then light being created to cause a night and day on that planet. This is contrary to scientific theory.
"And then God said, let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth, and that is what happened. God made the space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. God called the space sky, and evening past and the morning came, marking the second day." Genesis 1:6-8 If you ignore the previous verses, and the explanations I've given already, then I could see your interpretation making some sense. It requires assumptions, but okay. However, in the context of the previous verses, the most reasonable interpretation of this is someone on a completely water-covered earth trying to imagine where the sky came from separating the planet from the celestial bodies seen in the sky at night. The version of the verses you are using is also the first I've seen not to use the word "firmament," which is rather convenient because "space" and "firmament" provide two completely different interpretations.
"Then God said, let waters beneath the sky flow together into one place so that dry land may appear. And that is what happened. God called the dry ground land, and the waters he called seas, and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:9-10 Here you are clearly ignoring that the writer understands what "water" is. The writer doesn't differentiate between the "water" that you're describing as space dust, and the actual liquid water that becomes the seas. Why would the writer of this text call them by the same thing? They would obviously be very different, with one "water" forming the ground of the earth through accretion and the other water forming the liquid seas. At the very least, the writer would have called them by two different kinds of water, or said something to explain how they are different. It seems much more reasonable that what the author is describing is a completely water-covered planet, where the water flows and sinks into the earth to reveal land masses. It seems that the only reason you would interpret this the way that you do is to maintain the giant leap you made in the previous verses to define "water" as space dust. The presence of a completely water-covered planet first before land is, by the way, contrary to scientific theory. In the earliest millions of years of earth's existence, it was a completely barren volcanic hellscape with no liquid water. It wasn't until the earth cooled down enough that liquid water could form, which eventually flowed into basins separating the volcanically formed landmasses. Your explanation of singular "land" in the Bible as being Pangaea is also ignoring that Pangaea was not the first orientation of the continents to exist. The continents were separated before Pangaea formed, and in fact they have repeatedly separated and crashed together to form several different supercontinents throughout earth's history. Why would the writers of Genesis arbitrarily know about Pangaea, but not know about the others prior to it? No, much more likely, the writers of these biblical texted were just ignorant to the idea that the earth at the time was divided into multiple continents. To them, the "earth" was what they saw around them, which was one large land mass surrounded by several bodies of water.
I'm going to address all of these replies with one post, because I'm feeling a little lazy right now 😉 Let me begin by saying I'm not sure what side of the table you are advocating for (the biblical account, or the scientific account). So I don't know which side I should be defending. But since this video seeks to reconcile the two, it shouldn't really matter either way. The primary claim 9f the video is that the Biblical description of creation perfectly coincides with scientific claims. Thus scientific evidence can be used to support the Bible. As a Christian myself, this claim has significant implications. If our science, which was conducted without religious bias (often quite the opposite) supports the claims of the Bible, that provides major justifications for our faith. Christians should welcome such an interpretation. Non believers may well have a problem with this, however. If science can be used to justify the claims of the Bible, then it makes denying the claims of the Bible all the more difficult. But if an unbeliever is truly being objective, they should be willing to embrace all forms of tangible evidence (either for or against) when deciding what side of the fence they want to put their stock into. The video does not claim that the earth was created instantly, nor does the Bible claim such. According to the Bible, the universe was created in 6 "days". This video makes the argument that the generally accepted meaning of "day" is better rendered as a "step" instead of a literal 24 hours. The video points out Biblical precedent for this interpretation of the word "day" and cites the historical context for it as well by referencing the definition of the word in the original hebrew. To answer your question about the word "Earth", it can of course mean the planet Earth, but can also mean "dirt". The video makes no claim for it meaning "universe". The bible and the video both clearly state that the planet Earth is not created until the 3rd day/step of creation. This allows for an interval of time from the moment of the big bang until the creation of the planets. As previously mentioned, since we are not limiting our interpretation to literal 24 hours days, but rather to an unspecified interval of time for each "step" of creation, this can absolutely allow for the billions of years predicted by science without invalidating the Word of God. In fact, the video details a great many contradictions associated with the traditional interpretation of creation taught in Sunday school classes. The interpretation presented in the video resolves all of those contradictions while also reconciling the biblical account with the evidence presented by science. The question is, in light of this revelation, why would anyone continue to embrace a version of the creation story that creates contradictions in God's word? God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. So if the traditional interpretation contains these problems, then that interpretation must be rejected. The opening phrase "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" is best described as an "abstract" that you would find at the beginning of an academic paper. It summarizes what the rest of the paper will detail. In this case the author (Moses) is basically saying "look, let's get this clear... God created everything. The rest of what I'm about to tell you is *how* He did it". He goes on to give us the 6 days/steps account. When God separates the light from the darkness, there is clearly a difference between the two. Picture a star at night. When you look at the star, it is a point of light. Look just to the side to see the darkness of space. You've got to call that difference something, right? The use of the word "night" to describe the blackness of space is common and ancient. When you are actually *in* space, there is no atmosphere to scatter light and create a blue sky. Thus it appears black as night, even when the sun is up. Photos from our astronauts on the moon brilliantly depict this phenomena. The astronauts are illuminated, indicating the sun is up (day?) but the sky is black as night. Both would seem to apply simultaneously, and yet when you look at the sun from the surface of the moon, set against the blackness of space, there is no doubt that the light and darkeness are still separate. But again... you have to call it something. --------------- Pay careful attention to Gen 1:9-10 and note there are two distinct parts to this: 1) (verse 9) "Then God said, let waters beneath the sky flow together into one place so that dry land may appear. And that is what happened." 2) (verse 10) "God called the dry ground land, and the waters he called seas, and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:9-10 In keeping with the contention of the video, God caused the "waters beneath the sky to flow together into one place" this is the accretion of the nebular material to form the planet. Verse 9 concludes with stating that it happened. Now we move on to a completely new verse where we are told the ground and water of this planet which was formed in the previous verse shall be called land and sea respectively. Regarding pangea, you are correct, the landmasses have moved around substantially and continue to do so. The geologic timescale scale specifies the planet was a rocky, volcanic mass during the hadean eon. After this, the planet was likely entirely flooded. Volcanism then expelled huge quantities of granite to form the continents. This is evidenced by the differences in composition of continental and oceanic lithosphere. When these first granite masses first appeared, one of them would have been first, creating the first, singular, land mass. It wasn't Pangea, but it was a singular land mass on the ancient Earth. As for the pangea claims in the video, most of the geologic record from a pre-pangea time doesn't exist anymore due to erosion and lithospheric recycling through subduction and volcanic processes. This means science doesn't have a lot of evidence to explain what was happening that early on. Most of our conclusions from those early periods, therefore, is speculation or based off of observations of processes happening on other planets like Mars. One of the contentions of the video is that Moses, the author of Genesis could not have known about the things he was writing about and the fact that science supports his writings is evidence of the divine influence behind his writings. If God really was writing evidence for us to find into the geologic record, then your question "Why would the writers of Genesis arbitrarily know about Pangaea, but not know about the others (land masses) prior to it?" is answered by the fact that God is most interested in the things our science will be able to prove which will serve as evidence to support His existence. Evidence from a pre-pangea time certainly does exist, but evidence from Pangea forward is exceedingly abundant by comparison. For example, the 6 steps of creation move pretty quickly through the first several billion years and all of the early steps are described with broad strokes. Then significantly more detail is provided once animals and plants are mentioned. Why is so much more detail available in the second half of the story? I would argue it's because we have an abundance of fossil data available to support that latter timeline. Evidence Moses wouldn't have known about apart from divine intervention.
@@MrWilsonsChannel Thank you for the response. I apologize for breaking my original comment into multiple posts, but UA-cam deletes my comments if they are too long. I will likely have multiple shorter comments again as a response because of this. On your first point, I don't think you can separate Genesis 1:1 as if it's an "abstract" as you say. G 1:1 states that God created the heavens and the earth, and then G 1:2 continues immediately describing specifically what that "earth" looked like: formless and void, with most translations also stating God, or God's breathe was "over the waters" of this earth. By almost every account including the oldest translations of Genesis, it is obvious that G 1:1-3 is describing a completely liquid water-covered planet in empty space in the very beginning of the universe. The fact that the writer of Genesis uses the word "earth" necessarily means that in the beginning there was either "dirt," or a planet present at the beginning. As you've admitted, these are the two most acceptable definitions of the word. Clearly the writer doesn't mean dirt because they describe later how dirt came into existence on the planet, so the most obvious and reasonable explanation is that the writer is describing a planet.
I agree. The young earth claim isn't supported by the geologic record or even the Bible for that matter. The video discusses the problems with that claim and details an interpretation that reconciles the scientific record with what the bible really says
LA PHYSIQUE CLASSIQUE EST AU CHAMEAU CE QUE LA PHYSIQUE QUANTIQUE EST AU TROU D'UNE AIGUILLE La Bible en mentionne deux : Jésus déclare qu'il est plus facile à un chameau de passer par le trou d'une aiguille qu'à un riche d'entrer dans le royaume de Dieu (Mt 19:24) et il apostrophe les conducteurs aveugles qui filtrent le moucheron et avalent le chameau (Mt 23:24). Dans ces deux images hyperboliques, le chameau est cité comme le plus gros animal du pays, opposé à des objets minuscules (vo
It's also possible the other living beings were not human at all but lesser beings like neanderthals. Hence the flood came to destroy the impurity that had permeated the human race. It's also possible that there were two creations..'' thou sendest forth thy spirit and renewest the face of the earth...'' Isaiah.. Maybe God renewed everything the second time round and did not create from scratch. Maybe Adam came in the second creation and the earth is possibly billions of years old but 6 thousand yrs from Adam.
According to jesus's genealogical account in Luke, Noah is a descendant of Adam. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala, Lamech, *Noah*... Etc. I like where you're going with this. Something clearly caused our early ancestors to die off, the flood would certainly have been able to do that.
Agreed, but that isn't what's happening here. For decades atheists have used science to justify the claim that God does not exist. It's a compelling argument because science can be tested. The Bible specifically tells us not to test the Lord God and repeatedly reminds us of the emphasis he puts on faith. Believers are quick to point out that evidence of God is abundant. I myself have been the recipient of countless miracles that defy all rational understanding. Our opponents would again claim that this is coincidence or a trick of the mind rather than a true miracle. While we know the truth, the challenge becomes how to convince those who do not recognize that evidence. This is that way. When we recognize that the same science they use to discredit the Bible can be used to prove it, suddenly the same tests they apply to justify rejection of the Bible can be used to certify its truth. I believe God will honor that.
I enjoyed tjis video, the man's voice is very easy to listen to. But i have some major issues with his interpretation of things. For instance it seems to me this Dr.Wilson absolutely refuses to allow any scientific theories invented by man regarding the origin of our universe to be just that Theories invented by man... That somehow Scripture is supposed to be Molded and Altered to fit Theoties of Man instead of the other way around. He is willing to alter the scripture to the point of using a totally different word in place of the word Day when he adds "Step" to the discussion. The word Moses used in Genesis is Day perioid... not Step, not Span,. I love the arrogance of men of every new generation. This notion that the previous man from the previous generation is somehow less intelligent than present man. Dr. Wilson goes as far as to say Moses had a primitive way of thinking. And that is really where Wilson's true beliefs lie. That somehow we today are just so much more adcanced and intelligent than those from the past why? Because we have "Modern" science to help us along through life as far greater smart beings. Moses was given the task by God to record the origin of our Universe but according to Wilson's reasoning does that then prove Moses as being the absolute smartest Israelite alive at that time? I would have to think not, and im okay with God having all the faith in hanfing Moses the task of writing the first 5 books of the Bible including Genesis. This whole arguement of figurative and literal meaning of scripture is a favorite among Atheists and even Christians who prescribe to the Old Universe theory. That somehow the common Christian CANNOT read the Bible by himself without having a person such as Dr Wilson there to interpret it for them in fear of them not getting it right is once again arrogance.
The point of the film is that the claims of the Bible are supported by science. The opposite is generally believed by both Christians and scientists alike. The video proves otherwise.
Oh man, this guy should have started the video with the ending when he says “need to take a leap of faith”. There’s no science in this at all. He just made it fit into what he already “interpreted”...probably why it took 23 years. But then again I guess I’ve conveniently been tainted by the enemy. Plus, didn’t Moses write down exactly the words of god...isn’t it a bit risky to just take it upon ones self to know what was figurative vs literal or is it ok if it makes it fit into a biblical jello mold? I’d also argue that the nonbeliever scientists are the quite ones. I’ve heard far less try to disprove the Bible let alone make that their life goal.
ETERNAL GLORY TO THE ONLY HEAVENLY FATHER YAHUAH AND HIS SON YAHUSHA! THE RIGHT NAME OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS YAHUAH, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON OF OUR SAVIOR IS YAHUSHA! LORD, GOD ETC ... THESE ARE ONLY PAGAN TITLES REPLACED BY REAL HEBREW NAMES. ALL PRAISE TO THE MOST HIGH YAHUAH! HalleluYAH!
You are, of course, correct. YHWH is the proper name for God. This is known as the tetragrammaton. The first authors of the Bible revered and feared His name to the extent that they were unwilling to write it out in its entirety. Thus the Hebrew equivalent of vowels were removed creating the tetragrammaton YHWH. Other words for God including "Lord", etc aren't really names at all but rather titles. For example, if I were to meet Ronald Reagan I wouldn't refer to him as "Ronald" but rather out of respect I would refer to him as "Mr President". It isn't his name, but rather a reference to his position. In this case, something like "Lord" is a title for someone who has power. Since God is truly the king of kings, it makes him the ultimate "Lord".
Wow watching you jump through hoops trying to spread 10’000 years into 4 billion was mind numbing. Can’t wait to see how you explain the Bible’s pro slavery stance. Stick to Astronomy and leave religion in your home.
You could have just as easily made up an understanding that supports the existance of zeus. There is no satan. It's a human construct, just like the bibile. I like a lot of your video's Wilson, but the bible series is a disappointment.
My goal in this video was to show that it took the entirety of mankind's scientific history (to date) in order to arrive at the big theory. The theory offers a timeline for the origin of the universe and Earth starting with the detonation of the singularity, the coalescing of energy into the first forms of matter, the accretion of material to form stars, then planets, Earth, the origin of our atmosphere, and even the order in which life on Earth appeared and evolved. We have tremendous scientific evidence that lead us to this scientific understanding of our origins and it is important to note that the majority of that evidence required the development of sophisticated instruments and technologies in order to make the measurements that led us to these conclusions. Now here's the great part, and the heart of the message of the film: When we compare this scientific timeline to the timeline presented in the Bible, we see they are the same. As you pointed out, a man (Moses) wrote the origin story in Genesis. But how does his timeline *exactly* match our modern scientific understanding? It isn't possible for him to have known these things and described them in such detail circa 1400BC. And yet, he has provided us with the *same* timeline presented in the big bang theory. As you mentioned, there might be similarities here and there with other origin stories from various cultures (ie Zeus), but the one in the Bible is an *exact match*, item for item, with the big bang timeline. No other origin story contains this level of accuracy. This truth leads us to an inevitable question; how did Moses know this? His story is evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Yes, penned by man, but dictated by God. The Bible does things like this frequently. In fact, John 14:29 describes this behavior thusly: "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe"
That was fantastic. I believe in God/higher power, but I am also a science nerd myself. I understood that much of the Bible was figurative, but I've been looking for that rationale that bridges science and God for a long time. I'm so glad I stumbled on this video... and it clearly was not by accident. Blessings to you, your loved ones, and subscribers. Thank you 🌞🙏⭐️
Thank you so much for your kind words. There is a lot of pushback on this film because it's different than what is traditionally taught in Sunday school. Not contrary, just different. It seems the message and intent are getting lost on many. I'm happy to hear it resonated with you. Your fresh perspective is a welcome encouragement. God bless ❤️
i think the whole "day" thing was what bothered me the most but the way you described it makes more sense than ive ever heard anyone else describe it. thumbs up k?
This is honest biblical teaching to help others. I am definitely blessed by this teaching thanks.
This video was SO interesting. I'm a bit of a mixed/combination biblical+science believer as well, and many of your points and explanations make a lot of sense to me. Particularly the section on the meaning of the term "day." I always thought, "Ok, sure, God created man on the 6th day, but how long is a day??? Suppose it's NOT 24 hours, as we know it? Suppose it's millions of years long? Suppose human beings evolved out of the dust into Adam and Eve, as we know/interpret them??....." 🤔 Very interesting stuff.
How long does an evening and morning last in the 6 days of creation if not referencing a 24 hr day?
Thank you for the series, I was very blessed by it. Found your channel surfing UA-cam on Astrophotography, Devine providence in action, Praise the Lord!
Praise the lord! My channel is new and it's fundamentally going to be about things that interest me. I love the bible, science, and astronomy. So those will certainly be recurring themes. But I think there will be a little bit of something for everyone here. It's really about lifelong learning. And I don't like to limit my learning to a single area. I made another video about the star the Magi followed to find Jesus. It's a good blend of Bible and astronomy if you're into both things. It's based off of a DVD I saw once. My video attempted to be a summary of that DVD, but I'm not sure I did the original Justice. If you choose to check it out, let me know what you think.
Amen to all that you’ve said in the name of the Lord!! To God be the Glory. Thanks very much for those revelations!!
GOD deliver me from all evil thy will be done
Scientifically elaborate on that lake of fire plz, where, how long, origins, chemical make up, temp, etc. report due Friday.
The purpose of this film is to show that the explanation for the origins of the universe and mankind suggested by science correspond exactly with the account in the bible. I can answer other questions about the Bible, but your particular inquiry isn't related to the origin story or the science related thereto, and the answer will reflect that. At the end of the day, we see that God did create everything. What is less obvious is the scientific means by which he did it. Make no mistake, however; God is still capable of miracles and things that defy scientific understanding. (I have witnessed a great many first hand) Therefore because of His supernatural nature, I won't be able to offer a scientific explanations for clearly miraculous feats such as the parting of the Red Sea, for example. But such things aren't part of the origin story either and therefore don't undermine or discredit the message of this film. I suspect your inquiry might have been rhetorical or sarcastic. But if you do indeed have questions about the lake of fire or other Biblical topics, I'd be happy to answer them. But those answers may not be scientific if they fall into this latter category.
ty much
You missed one big thing! "1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH. 2. The EARTH was formless and empty..."
That means that the earth (and heavens) was created before the universe.
Thank you for your insight. I love talking about the Bible and the opportunity to discuss things like this is a key reason I made this video. Verse 1 is the introduction, and isn't chronological. It's purpose is to set the scene for the story that is about to be told. The author tells us straight away that God is *responsible* for the creation of both the Earth and universe, full stop. Now in verse 2, he begins telling us *how* he did it and the chronology begins. Verse 2 states that the Earth and heavens were without form. How can they be without form if they were created in verse 1? That would be a contradiction, and as the rest of the film points out, there can be no contradictions in God's word. The film points out the process by which God created the Earth, "separating the waters from the waters and the dry land appears" etc. If the Earth was already created in verse 1, then these later verses don't make sense. God is not the author of confusion and a timeline that begins with the earth fully formed in verse 1 can't be correct.
cool doc yo. interesting. i gave you a big thumbs up k?
If indeed “many will be called but few are chosen” - you would one of those chosen as an instrument by God to speak of his glory!!
The Lord was probably a scientist too!!
The biggest question I have was world created with limestone and were plants and animals created fully grown.
If you believe in the concept of no death before the fall there would be no limestone at creation.
I would like to see you do research on Noah.
According to the interpretation laid out in this video, other people did exist at the time of Adam and Eve, but were completely separated from Adam and Eve by The garden of eden. God created Adam and Eve and isolated them in the garden for the purpose of starting a new people, set apart from the other sinful people on the Earth. And most importantly this lineage would ultimately lead to Jesus christ who would save all who would believe, including those other people. The question then is why did god do it this way? The answer is the same as why we have the old testament at all. A great and timeless deception of the devil is that we can get into heaven by being a "good" person. If that were true, then how "good" do you have to be? What, for that matter, is the definition of "good". Well God sought to give us that answer in the "law" of the old testament. He said "you think you're good enough? Well here's the definition: If you can keep all of these laws to perfection then you'll be good enough to get into heaven on your own. But I know you can't do it, so I'll set up this system of sacrificing animals to give you virtually unlimited retrys. That still won't work, so I'll give you my son as the ultimate sacrifice, and a great many of you won't even accept him!" People aren't good enough to get into heaven on their own and we have thousands of years of humanity proving otherwise to support that claim. We *need* Jesus. Adam and eve are part of the proof. Through their story God is telling us "even if I create man in a vacuum, separate from the influence, temptation, and sin of others, even if I provide for every need. Even if i walk and talk with them daily to prove my existence... man will still sin." Thus when the unbeliever finds himself before God, he won't have any argument to claim. He won't be able to blame his sin on others, or circumstance, or anything else. Adam and eve could have lived forever in the garden, but it sounds like their time there was short lived. They were expelled before they could even start having children.
I've tried looking into Noah, but the Lord hasn't provided me with any revelations the way he did with the details recorded in this film. Barring that in the future, I have to take Noah on faith. There is geological evidence supporting catastrophic flooding in many parts of the world, and virtually every culture in the world has a flood story. So it looks like it really did happen. So for now, the details as recorded in the Bible are the only ones I have to offer.
FULL DOCUMENTARY???? the title of this is clickbait. this is nothing but ones own cherrypicking facts and scripture to reinforce ones own belief. ignoring things that dont fit with ones belief. there was so much here that was simply just ignored (or not even discussed) that it defies belief
I'm sorry you didn't feel the film was comprehensive enough. The title wasn't intended to be misleading. At over an hour in length, the video was quite a bit longer than the ones I usually make. For that reason, I split the film into five separate pieces so people could watch it in easier to digest episodes. I also knew that others would rather binge the entire thing all at once. The title "full documentary" was intended to convey that this was the full version rather than the episodic version. I'm always looking for ideas for future videos. Is there a particular biblical concept you thought I left out that would be a good fit for a future episode? The Bible is a lengthy book and you're right, it would be probably impossible to cover all scientific concepts with relation to the entire Bible in a single video. This film was primarily concerned with how the creationary story fits with the evidence science has to say about the same subject since so many people think they are at odds with one another. It was my intent to show that science and God's word are both in sync. This would, after all, be a logical expectation if God created both the universe and the science/laws that govern its operation.
I watched only a bit of the beginning and jumped into the section where you are explaining about Adam, I was waiting for an explanation of how Eve was made from Adam's rib. There wasn't one. Anyway, the style of how it was presented seems to me like cold reading. Mr. Wilson why don't you give a chance and watch Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris?! You could learn something. 🙂
Decent little video, well produced, well laid out. Idk why you don't get more views. I do want to say, don't try to hard to connect our current understanding of science with the beginning of the bible or any of it really because sometimes things are just as simple as they sound. It literally says he created heaven and earth then he created light and separated it from darkness. And the evening and morning were the first day. I guess if you want to argue that their intention wasn't to say all those first activities happened in the first day and that maybe they're just saying evening and morning every paragraph to separate the events is really not them separating the events because it's not explicitly said, I guess but it doesn't make any sense that way unless you're forcefully marrying it to our current understanding of science. Brother, it's God, God can do whatever God wants to in whatever amount of time he chooses because God is most likely outside of time. Time is irrelevant to God so he could do anything, in any amount of time and call it a day. I get the argument also that it seems like the 4th day is when he created the sun, moon, and stars to separate the night from day but there was light and dark on the first day. It doesn't mean a mistake was made in the wording. The moon and other stars could have been the 4th day or even just the moon and since they were on the subject of the moon and stars they also brought in a further explanation of the whole system not just what was created that day. The seventh day is the Sabbath. That's pretty simple so if he sanctifies the 7th day and puts it in the commandments I'm pretty sure he meant it to mean days.
I agree with you here. It would be a more logical argument for long periods of time as this video is suggesting that during the 6 days of creation that evening and morning wasn't referenced. Question next would be, how long is an evening and morning? and how can one make any sense of that if it's not our normal 1 day/ 24 hour cycle.
Jesus return is suppose to be in a blink of an eye
1 Corinthians 15:51-52 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
look at that line. "I tell you a mystery" interesting choice of words
This clearly tells that us things will be happening in a blink of an eye when Jesus returns and the universe/heavens and earth probably also happened in a blink of an eye as it's written. That would be scripture being compatible with scripture.
This video is a scientist 1st and a God believer 2nd, whose trying to squeeze his biblical beliefs into his scientific beliefs
I think you guys may have missed some key aspects of the film in which the very questions you ask were addressed. The question as to how long is in the evening and morning which is repeatedly referred to in the scripture: as stated in the film, with a traditional day it is defined as the span time that encompasses both evening and morning. Once the events of both evening and morning have transpired, then a day has elapsed. With this interpretation, as the evening and morning defines a day, the events described in each step of the biblical creation process define each "day". Because the Bible is using the analogy of a "day" to define each step, a reference to the events of a traditional day (evening and morning) fits the analogy, and the amount of time elapsed is as long as God wants it to be in order to complete his work. The presence of the evening and morning mark a clear delineation between each step. The film points out that the traditional interpretation causes numerous contradictions in God's word and therefore cannot be accurate. Contradictions in God's word would make God a liar, which certainly is not the case. An interpretation that does not cause contradiction must therefore be found. The translation of the church spoken of in Revelation refers to events that are taking place at the end of creation, not the beginning and therefore isn't applicable here. The Bible is clear that the rapture will take place in the twinkling of an eye, in an instant. The purpose of that haste is to prevent someone from having the time to repent before the rapture has completed. This requires us to all be ready in advance. None of that has anything to do with the creation process. Isaiah 1:18 God utters the phrase "come let us reason together", though he speaks of the need for cleansing and following his word, the indication that our God is "reasonable", is important. Why would a reasonable God put all of this evidence of creation into his creation if it spoke contrary to his word? Why would the order of events listed in Genesis exactly match the order of events science has deduced if such dramatic errors in the timeline existed? Why would he put evidence of a longer timeline into his creation if it didn't happen that way? It is unreasonable to think He would do such a thing. The interpretation presented in the film reconciles these conflicts and explains how science, which has been perverted to explain away god, actually proves his existence in a measurable and quantifiable way. Christianity's war on science is un "reasonable". We should be using it to justify our faith, especially if our enemies intend to use it to undermine it.
@@MrWilsonsChannel Thank you for your comment. I'll continue to look further into this. One of my concerns when it comes to historical science such as the age of the earth is I personally cannot verify it, so there is always a leap of faith, regardless of what the truth may be, be it excepting mainstream science version of events or YEC.
A question for you. Do historical geology and Paleontology scientist consider or think it relevant to consider the impact Noah's world wide flood and the destruction it would cause on the surface of the earth when observing the geological column and assigning dates to the different layers?
As far as I know these sciences do not put a catastrophic world wide flood into their calculation.
I think most scientist feel more comfortable suggesting a localised flood instead of a global flood.
Excellent question, and I wish I had an answer for you. This film addresses primarily Genesis 1 & 2. I've looked into the story of Noah and don't have corroborating scientific evidence either for or against it, which is why it wasn't addressed in this film. I think that would need to be its own documentary all together. When it comes to things like that, I always default to the Bible. If the bible says it happens and I can reconcile it with science then I simply have faith in Gods word. This may sound like a scientific surrender, but actually it fits the model. For hundreds of years, science said the universe revolved around the Earth. But then we did better science with more precise measurements and more accurate equipment and determined the truth. As we continue to learn more about our world, I'm confident the science will ultimately corroborate the biblical account of the flood as well as it does the origins of the universe. One thing worth noting is that almost all cultures around the world have a great flood built into their history and myology. How can so many people groups, many who never had contact with one another all have the same story unless it really happened?
Starting with your explanation of Genesis, I think you're making some pretty astounding leaps.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep." Genesis 1:1-2
It's a giant leap, I think, to compare this to the singularity described by science at the "origin" of the known the universe. For starters, when has "earth" ever been used to describe anything other than our own planet? I have never heard "earth" to mean "the entire universe." And earth did not exist until several billion years after the big bang, so the Bible saying "God created the earth in the beginning" is directly contradictory to what science tells us today. In the beginning, and for several billions of years afterwards, there was no earth.
"Then God said let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and evening passed and morning came, marking the first day." Genesis 1:3-5
Here, you're completely ignoring the middle part of these verses, cherrypicking only the beginning and end to represent the big bang and the metaphorical "day" that really could have been any number of years long for God. Okay, fine, but what about the separation of light and darkness into day and night? You can only have day and night on a rotating planet, in which the rotation of the planet causes the star which the planet orbits to "rise and fall" across the planet's sky. Again, as in verses 1 and 2, we have a very clear description of a planet existing first in the Christian creation myth, and then light being created to cause a night and day on that planet. This is contrary to scientific theory.
"And then God said, let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth, and that is what happened. God made the space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. God called the space sky, and evening past and the morning came, marking the second day." Genesis 1:6-8
If you ignore the previous verses, and the explanations I've given already, then I could see your interpretation making some sense. It requires assumptions, but okay. However, in the context of the previous verses, the most reasonable interpretation of this is someone on a completely water-covered earth trying to imagine where the sky came from separating the planet from the celestial bodies seen in the sky at night. The version of the verses you are using is also the first I've seen not to use the word "firmament," which is rather convenient because "space" and "firmament" provide two completely different interpretations.
"Then God said, let waters beneath the sky flow together into one place so that dry land may appear. And that is what happened. God called the dry ground land, and the waters he called seas, and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:9-10
Here you are clearly ignoring that the writer understands what "water" is. The writer doesn't differentiate between the "water" that you're describing as space dust, and the actual liquid water that becomes the seas. Why would the writer of this text call them by the same thing? They would obviously be very different, with one "water" forming the ground of the earth through accretion and the other water forming the liquid seas. At the very least, the writer would have called them by two different kinds of water, or said something to explain how they are different. It seems much more reasonable that what the author is describing is a completely water-covered planet, where the water flows and sinks into the earth to reveal land masses. It seems that the only reason you would interpret this the way that you do is to maintain the giant leap you made in the previous verses to define "water" as space dust. The presence of a completely water-covered planet first before land is, by the way, contrary to scientific theory. In the earliest millions of years of earth's existence, it was a completely barren volcanic hellscape with no liquid water. It wasn't until the earth cooled down enough that liquid water could form, which eventually flowed into basins separating the volcanically formed landmasses.
Your explanation of singular "land" in the Bible as being Pangaea is also ignoring that Pangaea was not the first orientation of the continents to exist. The continents were separated before Pangaea formed, and in fact they have repeatedly separated and crashed together to form several different supercontinents throughout earth's history. Why would the writers of Genesis arbitrarily know about Pangaea, but not know about the others prior to it? No, much more likely, the writers of these biblical texted were just ignorant to the idea that the earth at the time was divided into multiple continents. To them, the "earth" was what they saw around them, which was one large land mass surrounded by several bodies of water.
I'm going to address all of these replies with one post, because I'm feeling a little lazy right now 😉
Let me begin by saying I'm not sure what side of the table you are advocating for (the biblical account, or the scientific account). So I don't know which side I should be defending. But since this video seeks to reconcile the two, it shouldn't really matter either way. The primary claim 9f the video is that the Biblical description of creation perfectly coincides with scientific claims. Thus scientific evidence can be used to support the Bible. As a Christian myself, this claim has significant implications. If our science, which was conducted without religious bias (often quite the opposite) supports the claims of the Bible, that provides major justifications for our faith. Christians should welcome such an interpretation. Non believers may well have a problem with this, however. If science can be used to justify the claims of the Bible, then it makes denying the claims of the Bible all the more difficult. But if an unbeliever is truly being objective, they should be willing to embrace all forms of tangible evidence (either for or against) when deciding what side of the fence they want to put their stock into.
The video does not claim that the earth was created instantly, nor does the Bible claim such. According to the Bible, the universe was created in 6 "days". This video makes the argument that the generally accepted meaning of "day" is better rendered as a "step" instead of a literal 24 hours. The video points out Biblical precedent for this interpretation of the word "day" and cites the historical context for it as well by referencing the definition of the word in the original hebrew.
To answer your question about the word "Earth", it can of course mean the planet Earth, but can also mean "dirt". The video makes no claim for it meaning "universe". The bible and the video both clearly state that the planet Earth is not created until the 3rd day/step of creation. This allows for an interval of time from the moment of the big bang until the creation of the planets. As previously mentioned, since we are not limiting our interpretation to literal 24 hours days, but rather to an unspecified interval of time for each "step" of creation, this can absolutely allow for the billions of years predicted by science without invalidating the Word of God. In fact, the video details a great many contradictions associated with the traditional interpretation of creation taught in Sunday school classes. The interpretation presented in the video resolves all of those contradictions while also reconciling the biblical account with the evidence presented by science. The question is, in light of this revelation, why would anyone continue to embrace a version of the creation story that creates contradictions in God's word? God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. So if the traditional interpretation contains these problems, then that interpretation must be rejected.
The opening phrase "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" is best described as an "abstract" that you would find at the beginning of an academic paper. It summarizes what the rest of the paper will detail. In this case the author (Moses) is basically saying "look, let's get this clear... God created everything. The rest of what I'm about to tell you is *how* He did it". He goes on to give us the 6 days/steps account.
When God separates the light from the darkness, there is clearly a difference between the two. Picture a star at night. When you look at the star, it is a point of light. Look just to the side to see the darkness of space. You've got to call that difference something, right? The use of the word "night" to describe the blackness of space is common and ancient. When you are actually *in* space, there is no atmosphere to scatter light and create a blue sky. Thus it appears black as night, even when the sun is up. Photos from our astronauts on the moon brilliantly depict this phenomena. The astronauts are illuminated, indicating the sun is up (day?) but the sky is black as night. Both would seem to apply simultaneously, and yet when you look at the sun from the surface of the moon, set against the blackness of space, there is no doubt that the light and darkeness are still separate. But again... you have to call it something.
---------------
Pay careful attention to Gen 1:9-10 and note there are two distinct parts to this:
1) (verse 9) "Then God said, let waters beneath the sky flow together into one place so that dry land may appear. And that is what happened."
2) (verse 10) "God called the dry ground land, and the waters he called seas, and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:9-10
In keeping with the contention of the video, God caused the "waters beneath the sky to flow together into one place" this is the accretion of the nebular material to form the planet. Verse 9 concludes with stating that it happened. Now we move on to a completely new verse where we are told the ground and water of this planet which was formed in the previous verse shall be called land and sea respectively.
Regarding pangea, you are correct, the landmasses have moved around substantially and continue to do so. The geologic timescale scale specifies the planet was a rocky, volcanic mass during the hadean eon. After this, the planet was likely entirely flooded. Volcanism then expelled huge quantities of granite to form the continents. This is evidenced by the differences in composition of continental and oceanic lithosphere. When these first granite masses first appeared, one of them would have been first, creating the first, singular, land mass. It wasn't Pangea, but it was a singular land mass on the ancient Earth.
As for the pangea claims in the video, most of the geologic record from a pre-pangea time doesn't exist anymore due to erosion and lithospheric recycling through subduction and volcanic processes. This means science doesn't have a lot of evidence to explain what was happening that early on. Most of our conclusions from those early periods, therefore, is speculation or based off of observations of processes happening on other planets like Mars. One of the contentions of the video is that Moses, the author of Genesis could not have known about the things he was writing about and the fact that science supports his writings is evidence of the divine influence behind his writings. If God really was writing evidence for us to find into the geologic record, then your question "Why would the writers of Genesis arbitrarily know about Pangaea, but not know about the others (land masses) prior to it?" is answered by the fact that God is most interested in the things our science will be able to prove which will serve as evidence to support His existence. Evidence from a pre-pangea time certainly does exist, but evidence from Pangea forward is exceedingly abundant by comparison. For example, the 6 steps of creation move pretty quickly through the first several billion years and all of the early steps are described with broad strokes. Then significantly more detail is provided once animals and plants are mentioned. Why is so much more detail available in the second half of the story? I would argue it's because we have an abundance of fossil data available to support that latter timeline. Evidence Moses wouldn't have known about apart from divine intervention.
@@MrWilsonsChannel Thank you for the response. I apologize for breaking my original comment into multiple posts, but UA-cam deletes my comments if they are too long. I will likely have multiple shorter comments again as a response because of this.
On your first point, I don't think you can separate Genesis 1:1 as if it's an "abstract" as you say. G 1:1 states that God created the heavens and the earth, and then G 1:2 continues immediately describing specifically what that "earth" looked like: formless and void, with most translations also stating God, or God's breathe was "over the waters" of this earth. By almost every account including the oldest translations of Genesis, it is obvious that G 1:1-3 is describing a completely liquid water-covered planet in empty space in the very beginning of the universe.
The fact that the writer of Genesis uses the word "earth" necessarily means that in the beginning there was either "dirt," or a planet present at the beginning. As you've admitted, these are the two most acceptable definitions of the word. Clearly the writer doesn't mean dirt because they describe later how dirt came into existence on the planet, so the most obvious and reasonable explanation is that the writer is describing a planet.
I don't believe in a young Earth but I like this video .
I agree. The young earth claim isn't supported by the geologic record or even the Bible for that matter. The video discusses the problems with that claim and details an interpretation that reconciles the scientific record with what the bible really says
LA PHYSIQUE CLASSIQUE EST AU CHAMEAU CE QUE LA PHYSIQUE QUANTIQUE EST AU TROU D'UNE AIGUILLE
La Bible en mentionne deux : Jésus déclare qu'il est plus facile à un chameau de passer par le trou d'une aiguille qu'à un riche d'entrer dans le royaume de Dieu (Mt 19:24) et il apostrophe les conducteurs aveugles qui filtrent le moucheron et avalent le chameau (Mt 23:24). Dans ces deux images hyperboliques, le chameau est cité comme le plus gros animal du pays, opposé à des objets minuscules (vo
What about Noah? The Bible says all humans today originate from the eight in the ark..
It's also possible the other living beings were not human at all but lesser beings like neanderthals. Hence the flood came to destroy the impurity that had permeated the human race. It's also possible that there were two creations..'' thou sendest forth thy spirit and renewest the face of the earth...'' Isaiah.. Maybe God renewed everything the second time round and did not create from scratch. Maybe Adam came in the second creation and the earth is possibly billions of years old but 6 thousand yrs from Adam.
According to jesus's genealogical account in Luke, Noah is a descendant of Adam. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan,
Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala,
Lamech, *Noah*... Etc. I like where you're going with this. Something clearly caused our early ancestors to die off, the flood would certainly have been able to do that.
Could Moses have been a scientist too?
there is a price to pay for leading people in the wrong direction.
Agreed, but that isn't what's happening here. For decades atheists have used science to justify the claim that God does not exist. It's a compelling argument because science can be tested. The Bible specifically tells us not to test the Lord God and repeatedly reminds us of the emphasis he puts on faith. Believers are quick to point out that evidence of God is abundant. I myself have been the recipient of countless miracles that defy all rational understanding. Our opponents would again claim that this is coincidence or a trick of the mind rather than a true miracle. While we know the truth, the challenge becomes how to convince those who do not recognize that evidence. This is that way. When we recognize that the same science they use to discredit the Bible can be used to prove it, suddenly the same tests they apply to justify rejection of the Bible can be used to certify its truth. I believe God will honor that.
I enjoyed tjis video, the man's voice is very easy to listen to.
But i have some major issues with his interpretation of things.
For instance it seems to me this Dr.Wilson absolutely refuses to allow any scientific theories invented by man regarding the origin of our universe to be just that Theories invented by man... That somehow Scripture is supposed to be Molded and Altered to fit Theoties of Man instead of the other way around.
He is willing to alter the scripture to the point of using a totally different word in place of the word Day when he adds "Step" to the discussion. The word Moses used in Genesis is Day perioid... not Step, not Span,.
I love the arrogance of men of every new generation. This notion that the previous man from the previous generation is somehow less intelligent than present man.
Dr. Wilson goes as far as to say Moses had a primitive way of thinking. And that is really where Wilson's true beliefs lie. That somehow we today are just so much more adcanced and intelligent than those from the past why? Because we have "Modern" science to help us along through life as far greater smart beings.
Moses was given the task by God to record the origin of our Universe but according to Wilson's reasoning does that then prove Moses as being the absolute smartest Israelite alive at that time? I would have to think not, and im okay with God having all the faith in hanfing Moses the task of writing the first 5 books of the Bible including Genesis.
This whole arguement of figurative and literal meaning of scripture is a favorite among Atheists and even Christians who prescribe to the Old Universe theory. That somehow the common Christian CANNOT read the Bible by himself without having a person such as Dr Wilson there to interpret it for them in fear of them not getting it right is once again arrogance.
If you add in the supernatural it is no longer science
The point of the film is that the claims of the Bible are supported by science. The opposite is generally believed by both Christians and scientists alike. The video proves otherwise.
Oh man, this guy should have started the video with the ending when he says “need to take a leap of faith”. There’s no science in this at all. He just made it fit into what he already “interpreted”...probably why it took 23 years. But then again I guess I’ve conveniently been tainted by the enemy. Plus, didn’t Moses write down exactly the words of god...isn’t it a bit risky to just take it upon ones self to know what was figurative vs literal or is it ok if it makes it fit into a biblical jello mold? I’d also argue that the nonbeliever scientists are the quite ones. I’ve heard far less try to disprove the Bible let alone make that their life goal.
ETERNAL GLORY TO THE ONLY HEAVENLY FATHER YAHUAH AND HIS SON YAHUSHA! THE RIGHT NAME OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS YAHUAH, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON OF OUR SAVIOR IS YAHUSHA! LORD, GOD ETC ... THESE ARE ONLY PAGAN TITLES REPLACED BY REAL HEBREW NAMES. ALL PRAISE TO THE MOST HIGH YAHUAH! HalleluYAH!
You are, of course, correct. YHWH is the proper name for God. This is known as the tetragrammaton. The first authors of the Bible revered and feared His name to the extent that they were unwilling to write it out in its entirety. Thus the Hebrew equivalent of vowels were removed creating the tetragrammaton YHWH. Other words for God including "Lord", etc aren't really names at all but rather titles. For example, if I were to meet Ronald Reagan I wouldn't refer to him as "Ronald" but rather out of respect I would refer to him as "Mr President". It isn't his name, but rather a reference to his position. In this case, something like "Lord" is a title for someone who has power. Since God is truly the king of kings, it makes him the ultimate "Lord".
Wow watching you jump through hoops trying to spread 10’000 years into 4 billion was mind numbing. Can’t wait to see how you explain the Bible’s pro slavery stance. Stick to Astronomy and leave religion in your home.
You could have just as easily made up an understanding that supports the existance of zeus. There is no satan. It's a human construct, just like the bibile. I like a lot of your video's Wilson, but the bible series is a disappointment.
My goal in this video was to show that it took the entirety of mankind's scientific history (to date) in order to arrive at the big theory. The theory offers a timeline for the origin of the universe and Earth starting with the detonation of the singularity, the coalescing of energy into the first forms of matter, the accretion of material to form stars, then planets, Earth, the origin of our atmosphere, and even the order in which life on Earth appeared and evolved. We have tremendous scientific evidence that lead us to this scientific understanding of our origins and it is important to note that the majority of that evidence required the development of sophisticated instruments and technologies in order to make the measurements that led us to these conclusions. Now here's the great part, and the heart of the message of the film: When we compare this scientific timeline to the timeline presented in the Bible, we see they are the same. As you pointed out, a man (Moses) wrote the origin story in Genesis. But how does his timeline *exactly* match our modern scientific understanding? It isn't possible for him to have known these things and described them in such detail circa 1400BC. And yet, he has provided us with the *same* timeline presented in the big bang theory. As you mentioned, there might be similarities here and there with other origin stories from various cultures (ie Zeus), but the one in the Bible is an *exact match*, item for item, with the big bang timeline. No other origin story contains this level of accuracy. This truth leads us to an inevitable question; how did Moses know this? His story is evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Yes, penned by man, but dictated by God. The Bible does things like this frequently. In fact, John 14:29 describes this behavior thusly: "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe"