Creation Debate: Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Dr. Jack Collins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лют 2017
- A debate held at Trinity International University. Does Scripture Speak Definitively to the Age of the Universe.
0:01:13 Opening Prayer
0:02:38 Opening Remarks
0:07:13 Introduction of Dr. Jack Collins
0:08:27 Introduction of Dr. Albert Mohler
0:09:53 Moderator opening remarks
0:17:38 Dr. Albert Mohler's argument
0:47:48 Dr. Jack Collins's argument
1:22:37 Discussion of "Old Earth" vs "Young Earth" views
This is probably the best debate I have seen covered on this topic from two Christ-following men. Very respectable and commendable on a tough topic. Thanks to you both!
look up Kyle Butt
The spirit of the men behind the debate is exemplary. There is open-mindedness and candidness and willingness to listen and understand the other side. Not out there to win an argument. This happens so rarely.
If you wish to skip the intro to the intro to the intro, in which there is much lamentation about time limitations, Mohler starts speaking at 17:37, but that's just his intro to his intro. His real intro starts at 19:44, and his presentation starts in earnest at 23:57. The Earth got old just waiting for all of the intros to pass! kerygma - the preaching of the gospel of Christ.
TULIP
For anyone in a hurry, the facts of the debate start around the 30 minute mark in my opinion.
Thanks
What debate? This is not a debate.
This is a fricken joke is what it is. Just bein honest.
Togetherness as Believers is Trinnatarianism for the debate,an opine vieqs by wisdom, to the Glory of God. Watching live, fro zonkwa, Kaduna state, Nigeria.
This is a great debate. I apriciate the irenic and professional manner in which both debaters adressed eachother and would like to see more of it in debates around these issues.
The rationale for the Sabbath commandment given in Exodus 20:11 clears up most of these discussions over the meaning of Genesis 1. It plainly says, "for in 6 DAYS, God created the Heavens, the Earth, the seas, and ALL THAT IS WITHIN THEM." There isn't much to debate here. The real issue is how are we to reconcile the clear meaning of God's Word with things in the Cosmos that appear to have existed for billions of years? The best reconciliation I've heard uses relativity to allow differing ages for different parts of the Universe. You can have the Earth being 7000 years old while a Galaxy created on day four of the creation week might be billions of years old. Spacetime is putty in God's hands. He is truly transcendent.
Very interesting interpretation. I’m honestly so excited to see how He actually did it.
Space time is putty in God’s hands. So eloquent. I’m going to use that. God bless you.
time relativity due to space expansion!
Just stay here on earth. Geologist in the late 18th century, before Darwin was even born, discovered that the earth must be millions of years old. A century ago nobody in their right mind, including very fundamentalist Christians, had no problem with a cosmos millions of years old. This idea of a 6,000 year old cosmos emerged in the 1960s.
That’s absolutely not true. Read the ante nicene fathers. They all taught the earth was around 6k years old and taught against the Gnostic idea of an eternal universe
It was interesting that the one fellow was reading Gen 1 as an analogy of the work weak rather than the other way around.
So, according to Dr.Collins, scientists are not publicly honest due to a sociological pressure, and yet, we are to accept their public statements about what is scientifically true? Great discussion, watched it all....
Corey Whittaker that is completely true. Look at Einstein for instance, he hated the idea of the universe having a beginning so much, that he divided his own formula by Zero in order for stady state universe to be right.
Joel:
That is a key example of the scientist being unable to get beyond his intuitions.
Even Einstein, a truly great mind and with no compelling mental/spiritual need for the universe to be eternal, nonetheless so strongly intuited/believed the universe is eternal that he made that strange modification of his own otherwise accurate mathematical model.
For what it's worth a lot of Theologians are not publicly honest either. Look at what happened to Bruce Wilkie.
Steve Rowe Bruce waltkie is a liberal scholar from the get go. He always believed the framework hypothesis. He always believed that Adam and Eve were not literal people. Peter enns and others follow that line of thinking.
If you think Wilkie is a liberal scholar you don't get out much!
This was very good.
the question for OECs is this - what Purpose would 13.8 billion years serve God?
you ascribe a time period to God as if he isn't an Eternal being. God isn't bound by linear time.
The question for creationists is this: why the hell are you assuming there IS a god in the first place? Or for that matter, what makes you think that god is YOUR god and not one of the thousands of other gods you choose to not believe in?
@@deamonic456820 Not exactly relevant to the discussion, but the simple answer to the first question is that the reality of God is abundantly apparent from nature around us and our own conscience, and there are various logical deductive arguments that demonstrate the necessity for God. regarding the second question, it is because of the evidence pointing to the biblical God being the actual God, particularly with regards to the consistency of the biblical documents, the accuracy of biblical history, and the reliability of biblical prophecy, but most of all in regards to the historicity, actions, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his coming return.
@@DustinBenton That does not answer the question. Again, why would God have taken so much time and put his creation through so much suffering (even calling it "very good") when he could just do it the way it's written in the Bible?
@@Xenosaurian Life being ard is short, so a creation of 6 days then mankind for 6000 yrs is evil. Billions of years of creation and big guess of 100,000 years of man is a finger snap
Longest intros ever...
My exact thought… About 27 Minutes before they really got started with their arguments.
I am not seeing a date. When was this debate held? Thanks.
Mohler needs to check out david berlinski. He knows and criticizes the scientific community for everything Collins is talking about. And berlinski is an atheist that doesnt believe in evolution. Check him out, hes awesome. He wrote a book called the Devils delusion, in response to Dawkins book.
I need to fast forward Dr. C's presentation, as I believe that My Saviour wants me to know his 'Rest' as received by Ananias in Acts 9v1-17, rather than carry too many interpretations to correct His Word in Genesis 1& 2, and in the rest of His Word.
Ahm, Adam & Eve brought sin into the world, & yet I believe I am responsible for being a sinner because of my choice, that separated me from God in my youth. I am not sure that Adam & Eve caused/ forced/ tempted , Able or Cain or me, to choose to disobey their/my conscience. When I knew God, I did not go to His Word, nor consulted Him Matt.6v6, Psa 3v5-6, but listened to my own thoughts & chose to go my own way, & I completely forgot for 20 year how He had rescued me out of going into a nervous breakdown with the verse Psa.50 v15, which I had read on a poster in the street.
Dr Jack Collins opening statement has an error i think around 52 minute mark. He is speaking to the idea of the audience of Moses work being the children of Israel. This is true, however, we find later in the Bible that Christians at the end of time are referred to as spiritual Israel. So in fact the audience and application of the principles in Genesis 1:1 and indeed chapters 1-11 are absolutely directed at providing an equal understanding to us as modern Christians as it was to be used by the children of Israel after they left Egypt. I think that is is largely forgotten that the reason for Gods inspired instruction recorded by Moses was a reminder to the Israelites after hundreds of years in captivity in Egypt. They had largely forgotten and even lost their culture and beliefs (especially those of the origins of mankind) to the pagan ways of the Egypt and its gods...this must be kept in mind when considering whether or not to take a literal reading of Genesis chapters 1-11.
Dr. Collins said that Moses himself chose to write Genesis chs. 1- 2- 11, in his own poetic way. Did I hear correctly?
See William Lane Craig and mythohistory. As mentioned, it's akin to Packer's "dramatic history."
The underlying issue is: presuppositionalism or evidentialism.
Do we believe because God said it - or - because of external (to the Scripture) evidence?
John Lavender
interestingly enough- one of Van Til’s students, friend, and, arguably of course, most influential proponents of presuppositionalism in Meredith Kline actually popularized the “Framework Theory” and that which comes along with the study of Ancient Near Eastern idea(l)s associated with Collins, Walton, Enns, D. Kinder, Wright, Irons, Wenham, et al’s views. I get and grant your point to an extent, but many Reformed and Fundamentalist’s ideas suggest a popularized *excuse* to allow for simply reading the Bible and not resources relevant to, ironically enough, the real work and its thinking inhabitants despite Kline’s (for example) laying of the groundwork for the Reformed tradition’s trajectory toward Collins’ view.
*takes breath*
I’m summation, your comment, while partially correct, is a false dichotomy.
Apologies in advance.
Both?
30:30 Why not just join and affirm a universe that is billions of years old?
1st argument: I believe I am bound by scripture
2nd argument: Not in keeping with the consensus fidelium
3rd argument: It will have potentially desastrous theological consequences
4rd argument: Not required by the evidence
And here you have in in a nutshell, why no natural scientists will see creationists as serious debateters. Arguments 1 to 3 are no valid arguments in the scientific world and argument 4 is simply wrong.
This is also why the debate is not an apologetic one. It’s among believers. A purely naturalistic scientists lacks the mental furniture (no commitment to Scripture) to engage in this particular conversation.
@@jbotkin47 Arrogance combined with ignorance: In a nutshell: You are a true believer, a naked emperor.
" It’s among believers."
This argument holds as much water as a bank robbers complaint about police interference.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Thanks, friend. "Among believers" simply means that there is going to be a different kind of conversation with unbelievers, not that we will not engage at all or defend our position. Take care.
My question is, if the world is very, very old, why did God not say so in Scripture?
Your examples don't work, because while God did not reveal the laws of thermodynamics, or the fact that the solar system is heliocentric, He also did not reveal that these things are not true, but with the age of the earth He DID reveal information about that. If the earth is really millions of years old, why did God tell us, in plain language, that it is only thousands of years old?
Adding up the years given in the genealogical records of Genesis gives us an earth of several thousand years age. There may be gaps in the genealogies, but such will only add a few thousand more years, at most.
A genealogy might skip one or two generations between listed persons (and then only for those people for whom we have no other information), but it will not skip dozens of generations, else it ceases to be a genealogy in any real sense of the term. The genealogies in the Bible contain most (if not all; I am not saying there ARE gaps, but that there MIGHT be) of the people in the line, so that even if you say the complete line is 1/3 larger you will still add a few thousand years, at most.
Micah:
There is no possibility of a gap in the years of the geneologies until Jacob or Joseph.
Up until that point, *every single* generation is characterized as "Igitiop *begat* Blipitiblop when he was X years old", or the statement in Genesis 11 that Shem's son Arpashad was born a year after the Flood so it doesn't offer skipped generations. This means the Flood was in 2356 BC, which is *extremely* hard to fit into geological and archaeological evidence.
Also (oddly) the Jews actually have an *even shorter* (by 244 years) "history of the earth". It is 6020 years since creation by Ussher's chronology and 5786 by the Jewish calendar. I read the Wikipedia article on this question and still couldn't follow it.
I don't know what to do with this mess and I don't think it helps people find Jesus, which is why I'm angry at Mohler for insisting on making this an essential point in Christianity.
Micah:
*Yes,* I must say in this discussion Mohler did *not* treat this as a salvation issue (although he has sounded this way in others I've heard). I had not listened to the finish before firing my first angry salvos.
Also, *yes,* the *real* question is, does the phrase "when he was X years old" indicate when Blipitiblop was born, or does it indicate when Igitiop had a son, who was either Blipitiblop or someone from whom Blipitiblop descended?
I think the "literal" reading assumes no intervening generations, but of course one can always postulate others.
I think it is *really* sad that all the excellent purely scientific evidence (which is what interests me and I find compelling) that God *must* have created matter and *must* have organized the first self-reproducing life *and must* have superintended all the bajillions of reasonably healthy genetic reproductions since then gets bogged down in arguments like this about Genesis 1-11.
When I have discussions like that with atheists here on YT, flannelgraph presentations by Ken Ham and the Creation Museum *don't* help. Mohler isn't doing that, but he's making it sound like Christianity really isn't coherent if those chapters aren't literal.
The moderator does not know how to moderate. His views should not enter into the discussion; that is what the debaters are there for. In terms of information, this was excellent; Drs Mohler and Collins did a fantastic job, even though I believe both could have gotten to the point faster. When I hear "Scientific Consensus," I wonder about the benafactor.
Dear Mr. John Botkin & others, I am not sure I could quickly decide on all who claim to be a believer.. is it just a believer in the verse Jn.3v16? The pharisees claimed to be believers. Some contraversial denomination leaders can sound powerfully as believers. What do I believe: the proven promises & warnings of God, Jn.18v37, Rom.15v8, Prov. 21v16, & Prov.8v32-36, & Psa.34v10- 14. What benefit do I obtain from human interpretation of God's promises? Jer.17v5. Am I supposed to trust a human to re- interpret Exodus 20 v11? What kind of a believer would I be, one that wants to be accepted by the secular world, or one that displays Jn.3v21, Jn.13v34-35, or one that displays the promises of God, believing & living Prov. 22v4, & Matt.5v5 - Matt. 7v24 by His provisions Matt.6v6, 7v7; & his promises: Jn.8v31+.. Jesysxsaid to the apostles " Are there not 12 hours in the day, when a man can work..., ? So as a believer in God, why should I think that Exodus 20v11, & Gen. "Evening & morning", means something other than our 24 hr day?
Big Al for the win!
Man alive, the more I listen to these compromising Christians who advocate for an old earth, the more I am dumbfounded how in the world can they not understand their presuppositions and uniformitarian worldviews??
Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Mohler, John MacArthur, and Dr. James White are the most complete thinkers on ALL these subjects, in my humble opinion.
I love those people you’re mentioning but they’re not Old Testament Scholars. We have to be faithful to Scripture not tradition.
everyone has their own interpretation of things, thats why you have ard 6 catholic sects battle ard 30,000 protestant sects. Even before the protestants arrived, they debated wether the earth spun/moved or did the sun circle the earth. They could find scripture to defend both sides of the argument. John lennox, john walton, hugh ross, michael hieser can give you the old earth arguement. Over all, I think its better to go by how hebrew explains things, not how english does. yum in hebrew is a time frame, english translated it as the word day, which is wrong. morning and evening represent start and finish. So thats why the 7th day has no morning or evening, were in its time grasp. but there was an era when god started to make animals then stop. another words start a creation then finish, morning day evening. morning means start, day is a time frame, evening it comes to a end. Yum can mean era, day, and so on,,,,, So when the day of the lord comes, will it just last one day/yum
Do the scriptures say that I need Dr. Collins, Dr. Hugh Ross, or Dr. J.I.Packer to help me understand what the author of the scriptures meant?
yes
2 Peter 3:15-16
Some things in the Bible are hard to understand, so we need people like Hugh Ross to help us understand.
So the answer to your question is Yes
", And God said" , does this frase indicate the beginning of the day, if I heard Dr.Collins correctly? I though that in this case God started working as he created the heaven, & the earth, and there was the waters & there was darkness in his creation.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Amen.
The assertion that the human genome disproves an original human pair, from which we are all descendants, only holds up if we are talking about recent ancestry. Anything more than about 500,000 years ago, and we very well could be (as the Bible teaches) the descendants of a primordial pair.
Also, Reasons to Believe have put out a two part article, dealing with this issue, where the propose that Eve, as the mother of all living, could have been created in such a way, that each of her eggs (which girls are born with) contained their own unique genetic variance. So that each of Adam and Eve's children would have been genetically diverse, more akin to half-siblings, or cousins, than full siblings. This too could easily account for the variation we see in the modern human genome.
Add the two together, and there is simply no scientific reason to object the Biblical account of a primordial pair, serving as the sole progenitors of the human race.
Im not sure I came away w much in the way of arguing for an old or young earth. I was hoping for more of an evidence based discussion. However, what I did come away with was some salient points on how we are to read the Genesis, verbs, nouns, etc, and how we are to treat each other as Christians in the matters of differences. Im not sure Id agree the topic is a tertiary belief because it directly affects the primary beliefs! Both speakers seemed to be a little vague on a few points. But again neither gave evidences of their position other than a cursory treatment.
For evidence, see Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe. YECers base their position solely on how they interpret Genesis 1-11. After listening to William Lane Craig, you'll understand that there are multiple plausible interpretations of early Genesis. One of which is YEC, but it is not the only one. In fact, it is certainly not the best one.
What is the difference between the Bible being written to the true believer & the Bible written for the true Believer?
I wonder why many in the church side with secular scientists over a young earth scientists which does not have to reinterpret scripture.
Frightening right? It's so simple. 7 days.
How can man test conditions here to determine conditions in a completely environment? Earth and Eden, two different eviornments, they are not comparable.
What
That's a good point. I had not caught that bit but you are right.
In God we trust, this concept of some how the Bible is true but most of what it says in regards to how God did everything is false is nonsense. If God has to use deception in order tell you a story then you could say the entire Bible is purely metaphor, including the kingdom of heaven. To which I'd say then there makes no difference what you believe. I trust the Bible is true, God does not need to lie.
amen to that
The title should be creation debate and humongous intro. 🤣
A debate on the age of the universe and not one mention of dating methods, wow! This is what you get with science educations influenced by those in power grasping at their closely held drilled in since infancy beliefs, 10-20% tithings, tax exempt statuses, and housing write-offs. The use of "evolutionism, darwinism" and the "high table of Darwin" is telling. Yes evolution is a theory, special creation and/or theistic evolution is a hypothesis, learn the difference as it relates to science. Gravity is "just" a theory. The way they rail against a "naturalistic" view is ridiculous. We all operate day to day with a naturalistic understanding of the world around us. What get's results, medical intervention or prayer? Demonstrate the supernatural and I'll reexamine. Thankfully this seeming "men's only club" is getting on in their years. To the later generations, take any wisdom you can from these gentlemen, but please kick the rest to the curb. We are an evolved mammal with a mind to know it. 4 billion years of random mutation and non random selection to you. You were once star dust, and it's amazing!
Prayer can and does work. Medical intervention is not dependent on a belief of how old the Earth is.
At least the tithe to the church to promote its teachings is voluntary. The local public school peddling its evolution, atheism, and immorality filches money from my pocket by force every year.
Did Colins say @1:59:30 That the question of the debate is a matter of "theological indifference"? In other words it don't make a difference what you believe?
Perhaps that;s why I;m comfortable sitting on the fence with this one.
Question: was Adam fully grown when God made him? Was Eve fully grown when God made her? We believe they were fully grown when God breathed life into them. So there is good reason to suggest that God created the universe fully formed w
The plants, vegetation, and garden were planted and grew fully on the 6th day. Genesis 4:2-9
@ 1:49:35 Dr. Mohler says that he is not trying to impose to any Christian the YEC belief.
Plz brothers and sisters in Christ, let's respect everyone's opinion in regards to this issue of the Days.
Let's follow Paul's example in 1 Corinthians 8:13.
Blessings!
..and when He said, let there be light, he commsnded the morning to begin with the light he created, & not necessarily making tge sun yet. HE IS GOD, HE PUT THINGS IN ORDER EVEN BEFORE MAKING THE SUN.. WHY SHOULD I NEED SCIENCE TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND MY CREATOR, PROVIDER & SAVIOUR?
Some of the comments use words with which I am not familiar and don't care to know. Regardless, why is it some of us want to believe the Word of God does not mean a 24 hour day when all the rest of scripture makes it relatively clear the a day is 24 hours? God certainly made man and woman or so it appears as grown why can't He make the earth and the cosmos to appear old when in fact it may be approx 7000 years old?
Is the Pentatuch the word of Moses, OR The Word of God? Does Moses & the Hebrew lifestyle at that time , determine the words & phrasiology used in the Bible, OR is the THE Creator of Heaven & Earth, who is Sovereign over ALL? Did He need Moses to choose the poetic style of writing, so that we would consult learned men to interpret His verses of Genesis 1-4 ? I need to remember Gen 4v7, & Prov 3v5& 6, Prov 2v1-7, Psa.34v10, & Mark 11v24- 26, when I need to understand what GOD means in His verses. Wonderfully, I have heard pastors apologize to congregations for a serious misinterpretation , and then bring the correction after The Lord had chastised them, for the remaining congregation to see, & as The Lord spoke to that pastor subsequently, to bring His corrected message, saying " without consulting my old notes". I once heard a 'pastor' ( Dr. M. M.) speak on youtube ,referring to a verses in John 14 on the purpose of The Holy Spirit. I opened the Bible to check & was shocked at the contradiction I had just heard. Perhaps you know of his end.
The earth is young, but the universe is much older. Am I correct ?
Only if you call 4.5 billion years young and 13 billion years old.
Earth 4 bill, universe 14 bill.
Oops. From what I read, God's initial act of creation didnot begin before the day began, because He started creating as He made the heavens & the evening, before He said: Let there be light", which he called 'Day'. Here we then have the second usage of the word " day" , i.e daytime, or time of light , dawn to dusk, which Lord Jesus alluded to. Amongst the Hebrews led out of Egypt by Moses, there were mature believers, & non- believers, such as those who died in the wilderness, & Aachan. I receive the writings of Moses to be both to me and for me, even though I am a gentile. Matt.4v4.
The Creationist says that the Genomic Structure of human beings is incompatible with an original pair of parents. Of course, the bible says that the we are from Noah's family. That would be more than one pair.
Either we believe the Bible or we don’t. The philosophical gymnastics required of the old earth position render the gospel meaningless and fragile
.." this climate cycle had been in effect for a year, if not longer. My point is that..."
Bird's eye perspective: These gentlemen were not arguing the same points, because they didn't share the same presuppositions.
Genesis 1:1 is indicative of the ability of general revelation to speak into the narrative of the rest of the chapter, or even the next several chapters. If natural science cannot discern the Creator in the analysis of the evidence of the origin of the universe, then it is inadequate to dictate terms to the interpretation of the text of Scripture. Creation is a supernatural act, not a natural process. Supernatural revelation is far better to speak to supernatural acts than natural science.
Jack Collins @1:41:01 does not answer the question other than a vague reference to the creation of Adam from existing material. And as he said there are difficulties with this, notwithstanding (IN TIME) how close God create Adam to the rest of creation as noted by Gen 2:5-7
"And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up, for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. But there went up from the earth a mist and watered all the face of the ground. And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Question for creationists: What useful inventions or disease cures have come directly from creationism or creationist schools?
Roger Foster You are not aware of what the Bible says about the blood are you.Study that it was revolutionary and saved millions.
Mark. This is what your link shows:
#1 Rated Male Enhancer - Fixes Erectile Permanently
Was this discovery "about the blood" made from testing a biblical idea, or is this just another one of those "hindsight discoveries"?
Even if that's true. Score one for theism. Still have millions to go with real science. Seems more like one of those lucky guesses that psychics always use. Keep trying though. ;-)
First, nice avatar... Second, many classic scientists (like Newton) believed in God. Their ideas/observations/insights have provided the foundation of modern science. When it comes to modern labs, inventors, etc., whether or not you believe in God/creationism has little practical-bearing. This actually came up in the debate. I have family and friends who are pharmacists, nurses, engineers... all Christian believers who excel at their jobs. On the other hand, the beginning of the universe isn't observable, repeatable, or testable. This seems like a difficult spot for those employing the scientific method.
@@jbotkin47 Yes, but what does fantasizing about magic anthropomorphic immortals contribute to science? That is the question. How is making up causes, any better than saying you don't yet know the cause? In fact, isn't just relying on fantasy more apt to give you an excuse to not look for actual answers? I'm glad the people you mentioned were curious beyond their fave fantasies, but too many are satisfied with voodoo as an answer. (which it really isn't)
@@LogicAndReason2025 Why do you assume God is a fantasy?
So if the universe is so complex that it HAD to have a more complex creator, who made the creator?
Time is part of this universe. God made space,time and matter, therefore He is outside of our consciousness of what we can understand.
Only if He entered into this space time continuum would you get to know Him.
Jesus was real.
The question was did He rise from the dead.
Was He God in human form fulfilling scriptures.
I trust He was.
Rick Knight so who’s to say it wasn’t Zeus that created the universe and is “outside of our consciousness” whatever the hell that means. The only thing your gods got going for him is a book, and last time I checked there’s plenty of other religions with their own books as well
TokyoRoyalty
Yeah, I see where you’re coming from.
I didn’t believe in Jesus for 40 years.
It took a lot of open minded research to get my mind to see the truth in the historical narrative and scientific evidence .
Sounds like you might at least concede the need for a designer.
That is the first step in open minded research.
The Creator (God) always existed. He was never created.
The greatest evidence that convinced me of the age of the Earth and universe is if Genesis states long periods of time, then animals would have been born and died many times. Then God says after each day that his creation is "good" and then "very good" when humans are created.
First of all this means that God created life to die before Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. Secondly, this means that God thinks death is "good."
Believing in an old earth makes the doctrine of sin and the consequences of sin Irrelevant. For, why would God allow death when sin was not in the world until Adam and Eve first sinned?
The old earth doctrine is death came before sin.
The young earth doctrine is death came after sin. The wages of sin is death.
Thus, it is obvious the earth has to be young, unless the law of sin and death is irrelevant.
Do you believe that the wages of sin is death?
Or do you believe death came before sin?
If there was no death before sin then why was there a tree of life in the midst of the garden? Doesn't that seem unnecessary? If sin changed our physical nature from eternal to dying then why was us not living forever dependent on God *exiling* us from the tree?(**important theme in the Bible) Why is the tree of life highlited in Revelation at the consummation of all things and resurrection to eternal life? If animal death is bad then why do you kill and eat animals?
@@michaelfischer5095 Very good questions. I found a good study on the tree of life on earth and the one going to be in heaven. Here is a sample of this study:
"The first time a “tree” is mentioned in Scripture is in Genesis 1:11. It was part of the vegetation God created on the third day. Genesis 1:12 says the trees bore fruit, and Genesis 1:29 says God gave the fruit of the trees as food for man, a command echoed in Genesis 2:16. The following verse, however, states there was one tree that was forbidden-the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “From [this tree],” God said, “you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). A few verses later the serpent is shown tempting the woman. The text says she “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, [so] she took from its fruit and ate” (Gen 3:6). This is known as “The Fall,” an act that ushered in the physical and spiritual death of mankind.
Mankind lost access to the tree of life after disobeying God’s command to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In fact, God went to lengths to guard Adam and Eve from ever getting near the tree again (Gen 3:22-24). The beauty of Revelation 22:2 is that it shows that what was forfeited to them will be freely available to heaven’s residents.
Therefore, while the first mention of a tree in Scripture shows how it was used by Satan to devastate man’s eternality, as well as his personal relationship with God, the last mention of a tree in Scripture describes a “Tree of Life” that will bear twelve kinds of fruit, symbolizing man’s eternal life and redeemed relationship with God. The leaves of this tree heal the nations, and “there will no longer be any curse.” The image that was used to curse the world will now sit in the middle of the new heaven and earth as a symbol of eternal life and blessing." www.google.com/amp/s/www.answersonheaven.com/single-post/2017/01/18/What-about-the-Tree-of-Life-in-heaven
It is important to focus on one topic at a time. So, why will there be a tree of life in heaven? I thought when we go to heaven that we have eternal life. Yes, of course we will live forever in heaven. The tree of life is a symbol of the reality.
Likewise, the tree of life in the garden of Eden was a symbol of the eternal life God gave Adam and Eve when He created them. God would not call His creation very good if He designed Adam and Eve to die, but remain alive by literally eating from the tree of life.
Adam and Eve would have lived forever as long as they obeyed God perfectly. The tree of life symbolized the eternal life they already had, just as the tree of life in heaven symbolizes the eternal life we will already have in heaven.
We can't have eternal life, then get life again by eating from a tree. Once you have eternal life, you always have eternal life.
So, since Adam and Eve already had eternal life, their genome would have been different than after they sinned. Their genome went from having the ability to live forever, to having the ability to die.
We are now designed to die. God changed their genome from eternal life, to being able to grow old and die.
We will get to your other questions first, but I want to hear if you have more to say on this subject.
The creationists have a bizarre idea that their assertion that a supernatural being created the universe could be supported without verifiable evidence
A very tired, worn out, and unsubstantiated accusation. The existence of the Creator is axiomatic - and most of the population of the world throughout most of history have recognized what modern evolutionary "scientists" (those that deny a Creator at least) can't seem to recognize - everything that exists cannot come from nothing of it's own accord. I can't think of anything that has less evidence for it than that assumption. If you can present reasonable evidence that from nothing, something can begin to exist unaided, and uncaused, then let's have it. The Creation itself is evidence of the "Supernatural Being" you speak of.
True
Dr. Collins perhaps shouldn't be the spokes person for "old earth" theory if they want to prove their side.
If Christ existed, prove it. With facts, not stories.
Adam was certainty not 1st man. Scripture means what it says & says what it means. So when Jesus said
from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female’.. Gen1:1 Mk10:6 Matt19:4 Mk13:19 Heb1:10
The wonderful thing about believing holy scripture is freedom from doubt. This act to which Jesus referred was:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male & female created he them & God blessed them’, & God said to them, “Be fruitful, & multiply, & replenish the earth, & subdue it: & have dominion over the fish of the sea, & over the fowl of the air, & over every living thing that moves upon the earth & God said, Behold, I have given you
EVERY. ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive )
herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, &
EVERY tree, ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive)
in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.” Gen1:27-29
But when God made Adam and placed him in GARDEN God was very specific ;
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: ] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:16-19
Adam was specifically told v2:17 not eat of Tree knowledge of good and evil. Gen1 and Gen2 are separate accounts. Time betwixt 2event unspecified
Jesus was clear also. For He did not say from time of Garden He made Adam and Eve. But rather Jesus spoke on this wise.
from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female
Not Adam and Eve, not from the time of garden. Jesus meant what was said and said what he meant Adam and Eve were not in the creation... accept that scripture means what is said and says what it means
Man in Gen1 was made From nothing Ex-Nehlio... Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Yet Adam in Gen2 was formed from dust of ground and Eve was formed from Adam's rib... thus Adam and Eve of Gen2 are not made Ex-nehlio from nothing as were the man and woman in the beginning thus Gen1 and Gen2 are completely different events
I wish that the presenters had been required to prove original sin (the idea that all human beings are inclined towards sin from birth due to being descendants of Adam) before having a discussion in which they believe they are required to find a single couple who are the ancestors of every human born. While there are certainly passages which read COMPATIBLY with original sin there is no passage in the bible which ESTABLISHES original sin - to ESTABLISH original sin one must show that there are no other interpretations of how human beings come to sin which are credible - there must be only one sensible interpretation. Both presenters believe original sin - leading them to have to find a single man and woman who are ancestors for every person born - when science suggests that there are no such couple.
I believe that scripture shows that babies cannot sin because they do not have knowledge of right and wrong (Deut 1:39). I believe that the bible says that human beings were born upright (not inclined towards sin) - Ecc 7:29. And I believe that Rom 5:12 shows that the way human beings came to sin is not due to their being descendants of Adam but because people around them in the world sinned (this influencing them to sin).
With original sin shown to be incorrect doctrine we are free to recognise that in the same way that people who live before and after Christ can be in Christ - people before and after Adam can be "in Adam" (in the sense that the events of Adam and Eve are supposed to demonstrate not just how they came to sin but also how ALL human beings come to sin (we each rebel against God with an act of free, knowing, and wilful sin).
you all spent 30 minutes saying introductions - why not just jump to the debate
Al taking 20 minutes when 2 would do..
The greatest confusion comes from equating (Adam, Eve, and Garden of Eden in Gen2) to (man & woman & earth of Gen1) these 2 accounts are completly different & try make as same is great confusion. Bible is but a love story of a jilted lover and the apple of his eye. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world... so when was this sinful world founded but upon the day of Adam & Eve disobedience for it was then that God discarded Adam and Eve fig leaves and gave them covering of animal skins.. of necessity was the shedding of the lambs blood and Christ was appointed as He who would give his life as seed of woman to redeem men from their sins
Jesus was clear and precise doubt no more. He drew a line into the sands of time by saying
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John and there remain 3k years from Jesus 3 day prophesy
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
From Christ baptism & anointing unto the anointing dedication of Solomons temple was one God day of 1000yrs and from that dedication unto Adam's sin is yet another 3000yrs from OT chronology... but to equate Gen2 with Gen1 is a grave error leading to great confusion. The time between events of Gen2 and Gen1 is wholly unspecified by scripture
So here is the problem with creation vs big bang etc. What we know is this. We and the universe exist. We know things exist because things existed before them and as a result things interacted causing new life and so on. But at the same time. If everything needed something before it. Then nothing can exist because you can never reach a starting point. So there for things must be able to exist without cause. Both sides of the arguement correctly point out. Show me where you started from. Then both sides iqnore the fact their position iqnores that problem. If God can exist without cause then the universe can exist without cause. If the universe can exist without cause then God can exist without cause. At least with evolution we can physically examine things and show things do change over time. But at the end of the day. All we really know is we exist and have models for why. Be it god or the big bang.
If worship is wrong, why do humans worship all over the world? If humans are animals, why don't animals worship? If evolution is science, why does it take faith to believe it? If we are not created, then we are not bound to morals, so why do all humans have a conscious, which animals don't have? If life has no other meaning than to survive, how did it begin from non- living matter? The truth is, the fool says in his heart, there is no God, but the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. God Bless you all! May you know Him, before you die.
John Emerick, How do you get morality from a book that endorses slavery?
Using the old “god will destroy you unless you stroke his ego” argument? creationists are mindless robots
Wow horrible debate, intro to long, Al takes his ego opening statement to get people to believe their all brothers. Really horrible.
I actually believe that the Bible does give ages through the genealogies in Genesis. The only debatable topic is how long before Jesus, Abraham lived. Archaeological evidence would suggest about 2000 b.c., so that leads me to take the age of the earth as roughly 6,300 years
Also, the distinction between Matthews genealogy and the Genesis genealogy is that the Genesis genealogy gives ages, Matthew doesn’t.
Oh my, this video needs to be editted for wordiness in the beginning. It's so dry people are going to blank out before giving the speakers a chance. Go directly to 18mins. Also I have found that Dr. Mohler is not a good starting pt. public speaker or teacher to learn about this area lacking snappy insightful delivery of the key facts. His talk does the young age argument a disservice here although he is a lucent thinker and sees extremely clearly the issues at stake. There are simple more sophisticated arguments against long age. The q&a is more helpful.
TIME is Matter in motion, surely adam did not name all the animals in one day or one week. again the bible trys to communicate from an infinite perspective to us as finite beings. its not saying specifically that GOD created it in &7 literal days - jesus spoke an the universe came into existence. could have been seconds or years from our pt of view! Even the Hebrew word YOM has different periods of time as used. So its unimportant in my humble opinion to whether its seconds, days or many years. To look at the expansion of the Universe from our point, it seems like a much older Universe. I have a masters in astronomy and I am a bible believing Christian -there are no discrepancies here but I will not try to Know the mind of God.
Are angels descendants of dinosaurs or is it just birds?
The moderator does not know much, and reads from writings that are not to have any bearing on the debate. Bad on him.
Great debate and very good explanations by Dr. Collins.
If a perfect omnipotent, omnipresent god existed, who wanted us to believe in him, that god would know exactly how much evidence it would take to convince every single person of its
existence!
Not bothered about perhaps! I don't see lies, only logic and evidence.
Yes... and isn't interesting that up until about 200 years, every human being looked at the world around them and believed in a God of some kind? Maybe we've just made it easier to ignore in these modern times.
@@jbotkin47 Science has replaced ignorance and superstition.
@@twosheds1749 Really? This is why noted atheists have posited that life was seeded by aliens? That sounds way more superstitious to me. But beyond that, the odds of the universe forming in the exact way that allows for the rise of humanity is so astronomical that it defies imagination. So much logical to see the hand of a Creator who set things in place and established order for the cosmos.
@@jbotkin47 So you see the hand of a creator in forming the Cosmos do you? You think the odds are more astronomical that life evolved through increasing complexity over billions of years than they are of a god suddenly appearing and deciding to make everything? No explanation required of how a god got there in there in the first place? A god that by the very definition would have to be the most complicated thing in the universe!! LMAO No lets just ignore that!!!
Is that why we have earthquakes, tsunamis, climate change, asteroid strikes etc? Ah now it makes perfect sense, God did all that just for the fun of it!?
Oh and while we are at it, how come 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct? Did god just get tired of them?
I understand the desire to "meet" people where they are. But one does not have to compromise either God or scripture to do so. Watch Ray Comfort, who is not an intellectual at all, but like Christ, cuts to the chase of the conscience, which tells people what God wrote. The assumption that people who believe in the young earth described Biblically are somehow not intellectual is EXACTLY what God intended, so that anyone with intellectual pride will trip over the cornerstone.
1 Corinthians 1:20-24
"20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
And I would add
Romans 14:22
"The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. "
I agree and it is a amazing that the Lord has given us good news!! But do you think , debates like these are using philosophy or scientific arguments should be avoided? Maybe in some situations but in others maybe God would want us to?
the Bible declares and proclaims truth--it never tries to prove itself--it is its own proof--the
I love dr mohler an think he is very astute and a fine Christian but the earth is NOT 6,000 years old. There is just too much evidence that its much much older. the bible is not crystal clear as to formulate a young earth perspective-it allows for much more as far as Time is concerned.
To a human race that has a current lifespan of a mere 60 to 100 years, the view of "ancient", seeing as we don't have any historical documents beyond 10,000 years is an intellectual cop-out. Also, it turns the exegesis of the entire view of Scripture on its head. Jesus accepted the Old Testament as natural history, and taught as such. Long age teaching is against the teaching of Moses, Jesus, Paul and Peter.
Well as a scientist myself with 3 degrees, masters in astronomy, cosmology and world religions,plus being a bible believing Christian I must say I had my issues trying to discern a 7 day creation and observing stars being born in galaxies in my younger years. We can see with our own eyes and sophisticated equipment the expansion of the Universe all around us, an we can measure with great accuracy thru Light how this is being played out. Using the narrative of genesis and the Hebrew word Yom it gives no Real evidence of how long a day might be, it could be days,years and long periods. I never really trusted carbon-dating myself but there is so much evidence that the UNIverse is much older.backround radiation,rotating starts an light itself an how fast it moves. the Bible says God stretches out the universe an this we found out is exactly what is happening.. genesis is a book about nature and is replete with metaphoric language. So scripture tries to communicate from an Infinite point of view to our finite minds. But to take seriously 7 days is reading into the text whats not there. Jesus spoke and the universe leapt into exisistence. it could have taken seconds -Let there be life. in the beginning God created it does NOT say in what period of TIME. Time is matter in MOTION!!
I was assuming you were a Christian an I didnt want to just disagree on a young earth creation to cause any friction. so many Christians are throwing rocks at each other an even saying there going to hell if one accepts a somewhat much older earth. There is a preponderance of evidence that the earth is way over millions of years old. Fossil records, an the Big bang -we have backround radiation , hubble telescope, many instruments that can verify that are univers has been expanding for a long time. birth and death of stars. our sister galaxy an the light that comes from it(Andromeda Galaxy is 2 1/2 million light years away. we can see the light an even use instruments to break down the chemical lines-its signature vast distances away.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that a star has been born in our time (generation), only data implications to suggest what one hopes he/she might see. There IS convincing scientific evidence that the geologic layers of the earth were formed by a catastrophic global event, ie., the global flood in the time of Noah. There is historical as well as grammatical exegesis of the 66 books of the Bible that clearly teach that Jesus, Paul, Moses, David, etc., all taught Genesis as regular history, with God as creating the world, setting up the family, and the Messiah's lineage going directly back to the first man, Adam. Thus, a young earth is more likely to have been understood by Adam, Moses, David, Jesus, and Paul. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, and can teach the origin of the universe much better than any scientist.
Look im a Christian an put my Trust in Christ, I also have degrees in astronomy my first Love, Cosmology and World religions.The Bible tries to communicate to Us from an infinite perspective an uses metaphors,figures of speech and narratives to try an get its point across.I don't claim to have all the answers but the best explanation of the facts is heavily against a young earth.We have extraodinary evidence for an Expanding Universe -indeed there are many passages in the bible that GOD stretches out the universe. Even the Famous atheist and physicist Fred Holye who coined the tem BIG Bang an fought all his LIfe against it -had to give it up and Said Someone Has tinkered with the Universe. HE went on to add, one must be a Dummy NOT to believe that an intellIgeance was behind it all. WE have Direct evidence of galaxies like buttons on a balloon all receding from a central point in space ie singularity. All time,space and matter IS contained in the expansion an so far as we know there was no Before, as Time started there.Time IS matter in motion - GOD said in the beginning he created the Heavens an the Earth. WE can observe baby stars being formed using spectrographic light from those infant stars. NOW we do know that the faster one goes Time slows down. So from gods perspective time is irrelevant but to us it is.Thats what RELATIVTY is all about. Some of what you say is true from those people in scripture but you cant compare that once you travel fast outside of the Earth. Again almost all Hebrew scholars are in agreement, that 7 literal days using the Hebrew does prove out. But its an in house debate an we should never divide on these things.God Bless
Notice God didn't create light until the 4th day? How do you get day 1,2, and 3 without light?
Sherant, My bad, you're right but how do we get light without the sun or stars?
Sherant s,
The author just screwed up there, it's pretty evident. You're a believer, I'm not. But there are many more mistakes and contradictions in the bible than that. The gospels are full of them. The infancy narratives of Luke 2 and Matthew 2 are two different stories. This is a big one.
Luke 2 has the holy family traveling from their home in Nazareth to Judea for a census/Jesus is born in Bethlehem/Mary goes through the Rites of Purification and 42 days later, they return to Nazareth.
Matthew 2 has the family residing in Judea/ Jesus is born in Bethlehem/They flee to Egypt to escape Herod's killing of the newborns/ They don't head back to Judea until after the death of Herod.
There are even more problems with these 2 narratives.
The only thing these 2 stories have in common is Jesus being born in Bethlehem.
The author of Luke has Jesus born during the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE when Judea became a Roman province.. According to Matthew, Jesus would've had to have been born before the death of Herod in 4 BCE so there's at least a 10 year discrepancy for the time of his birth.
There are no Roman records of an empire wide census making it's subjects return to the home of their ancestors from 1000 years prior as Luke claims.
Rome could've cared less where their ancestors were from because censuses were for tax purposes.
At that time, Galilee(where Nazareth is located) was a silent kingdom which means it was neither directly taxed nor administered by Rome, so Joseph wouldn't have been required to go to Judea in the first place.
It was a sloppy way for the author of Luke to have Jesus born in Bethlehem.
Sherant s, We're talking about contradictions in your holy book that render it as non
historical. A trinity would make Christianity polytheistic. If the three entities are not capable of individual thoughts and actions, then you don't have a trinity. If they are, that's the definition of polytheism.
Sherant s, I don't think the Jews would agree and that's why you have to call it a mystery. That's the only way you can explain it. You're certainly not using logic and reason.
Sherant s, How did they screw up the infancy narratives that bad? Couldn't be any worse.
452 likes after 4 years.....something is askew. Sorry, I'm out
I'm tuning out halfway though Albert's intro. So much worry about stepping on toes. Theistic evolution makes zero sense. It's embarrassing really. Back to reality.
Jack Collins loses the debate because his watch is on sideways... 1:36... also, because his analogies are not orthodox methods of exegesis. History is taken as history, as Jesus referred to actual history.
When you believe a book written thousands of years ago is scientifically accurate you run into major problems.
Thank Gid for Biologos, John Walton and Michael Heiser
A lot of talking and beating around the question but not much substance or evidence at all just a bunch of bullshit my goodness
Al Mohler for the win. 👍
The bible is about as qualified to speak to the age of the earth as the Harry Potter books are to epidemiology.....honestly this whole debate is about 200 years too late
The Bible is the only book to inspire the Holy Spirit.
It states clearly not to add or take away from God,s Word, not to interpret. All verse and books sync with each other to "test" for truth. If information does not lead to Jesus Christ then its safe to say its not Truth.
Whilst this video was interesting, it did not lead me to the teachings of Christ.
6 billion people don’t believe in what you believe is truth. You are a faith; don’t make yourself a fact.