Jason Lisle really took 2 Corinthians 10:5 to heart… “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,” God bless this scientific brother of ours
You do know that Joshua ben-joseph never used the word god in his entire life, and told his pupols never to*believe* anything, because he understood men very well because he was a man and knew that men believe passively mechanically and that that is their greatest weakness that stupefies them because it is a form of dreaming
If you areso keen on the wisomof Paul of tarsus why do you not adopt his religion Judaism which was the religion of the authors of the book you call the book(bible meaning no more and no less that book. Why are you so attached to that book of all the millions of books otherwise available to you? What is the magic in our jewbook, which is little more than the almanac of an obscure Arab tribe which we Jews are. What is so special obiut our-the Jews' book?
@@vhawk1951kl Are you really that interested in understanding Gods word, or are you just trying to belittle Christianity? I would say to you don’t worry about it then if you’re just trying to belittle others, in order to make yourself appear taller in your own eyes. But if you’ve come on here to go put your own foot in your mouth in your pride, and fall upon your own sword in your humility so that another correct you and you would humble yourself recognizing that you’re unrighteous just like everyone else, in that God might not smite you down on judgment day, not because of any of your works that you did….Then God can also save you like he did the apostle Paul of tarsus who once persecuted Christians having them killed while he held the coats of those doing the killing. I would be happy to continue to dialogue with you - answering a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit. However I will not answer the fool according to his own folly lest I be like him. Jesus only came for the humble of heart, not for the proud. Jesus came to save the unrighteous, not the self righteous.
@@vhawk1951kl You see - you weren’t really interested in Christianity at all. You didn’t really want answers to your quandaries. You really wanted to cut others down in order to make yourself “feel” taller. That’s why you’re feeling oriented driven by your emotions, rather than principally oriented driven by the truth. Just as I suspected. You weren’t asking a real question with any real intelligibility - you’re just interested in making unsubstantiated conjecture about the past. Well I suppose you can enjoy your ignorance since you’re really not coming to the table with any real thirst for biblical wisdom nor any spiritual insight. You just came on here to play games. God‘s word is nothing to fool around with friend. You’re better off as being completely ignorant then being a Christ rejecter with full knowledge. God hasn’t opened your eyes of your heart so that you can see and perceive and understand the wondrous mercy of His glorious grace for sinners. You probably think you’re a good person by your own standards of morality - you probably think you’ve already arrived. And you will get the shock of your death on judgment day at the return of Christ, for every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord - and that means you too my friend.
@@RevealedApologetics Do you think that on this current “day” that we are in…..the Sixth Day….that Satan is working to create his own type of man, the Transhuman who technically will live forever.
@@RevealedApologetics1 thing here concerning the genealogy in Genesis 5 (edited see below) those men (6 in total) did not have the mentioned children in their 30s. Look up "were the pyramids built before the flood" explanation and information is presented by NathanH83. It will become clear why this occurred and it makes sense logically as well. Edit: Genesis 11 starting at verse 10.
Lisle is a scam artist, all his arguments are nonsense. Hugh Ross invited him to have a science debate in front of his peers. But he refused because he cannot scam them, so he goes on live podcasts to scam gullible Christians. This is YEC in a nutshell
Remember too, not only was Sarah long past the age for childbearing, but she had been barren her whole child bearing years. Very presumably, she was unable to have a child.
It's only a *story* titch; ninety nine percent of the Torah(which has Fcuk_Nothing* to do with the -now extinct way-of-christ) is psychological allegory and does not even purport to be any sort of record of events, do you kindelander not have any common sense?
As usual, Lisle is respectful of opposing people's positions, while simultaneously demonstrating (in this case, fatal) flaws in their arguments and calling them what they are...WRONG!
Young Earth Creationists are some of the most DISRESPECTFUL and ARROGANT and prideful individuals I have ever seen. I used to go along with the Dr. LENNOX suggestion that OLD EARTH and YOUNG EARTH CHRISTIAN believers should respect each other and I still believe in this suggestion for genuine Christian brethren that only DISAGREE on the age of some rocks. Unfortunately I have now witnessed the terrible arrogance and disrespect of Lisle against the absolute kind gentleman Dr. Hugh Ross that is so humble and kind to everyone and Lisle gets so arrogant and high on his horse against Dr. Ross that I just can't take it anymore. I went to school with Dr. Stephen Meyer of INTELLIGENT DESIGN fame and that authored countless texts on INTELLIGENT DESIGN and CHRISTIANITY and I have learned lately that 99.99% of CHRISTIAN PhD Physicists, CHRISTIAN PhD Earth Scientists/ Geologists, and PhD Christian Astronomers ALL BELIEVE in OLD EARTH Creationism. Why is this? I'll tell you it's because AS A GROUP WE UNDERSTAND HOW the dating occurs and the technology behind these dating techniques. It's not just a matter of the YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM argument that "you weren't there " and "you don't know the initial conditions " arguments because NONE OF THESE HOLD WATER and that is because the Science behind YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM is NONEXISTENT!! The YEC crowd doesn't publish in PEER-REVIEWED scientific journals because they do garbage science that wouldn't pass the PEER REVIEWS and all these "scientists" know this quite well. They solved this problem by creating their own CREATIONISM Journal but it's total nonsense and complete garbage to anyone that's trained in the Hard Sciences like Physics! It's not a question of FAITH or WORLDVIEW because I am talking about Dedicated Christians that believe all the Doctrines and Tenants of Christianity, the belief in the holy TRINITY, the salvation of Jesus Christ and his RESSURECTION, and the authority and inerrancy of the HOLY BIBLE!! Not only are the YEC arrogant and prideful of their garbage "science" they try and PUT DOWN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS that publish in actual peer reviewed journals. If my Science and Research was so poorly accepted I would be a little more humble but that doesn't stop these people. Kent Hovind was the big ring leader of this YEC nonsense and that Dinosaurs coexisted with Man nonsense until he got arrested for tax evasion and divorced about 4 times and his family finally stopped associating with him. Now Ken Ham and his MINIONS have taken this up and they PPI T BACKWARDS TOWARDS GENESIS to make their money and sell some video tapes. Their THEOLOGY is also full of major holes about GENESIS and MATT WALSH did a great job about ripping YEC Theology apart and he didn't even have to resort to the horrible Science that YEC tries to hang their hat on! Despicable people at the top of this YEC Worldview. I don't blame the YEC believers as much because they don't know any better for the most part...
@@Shabeck100 Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I have already drawn the inescapable inference
@@Shabeck100Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable, but if that is what you *wish*, that is entirely your affair .
God bless you both. Dr Lisle is wonderful, I remember him through answers in Genesis. I admire his learning generally, and his Bible knowledge specifically. Especially commendable is his respect for God's word. I now have watched your show multiple times as you have brought on Dr. Lisle often. Thank you so much. I appreciate your attitude and heart. Now that I have been able to move beyond your movie star good looks to see your great humility and ability to ask sharp and useful, provocative, relevant questions. You are a terrific compliment to Dr. Lisle's questions. Working on my prejudice toward extremely good looking people I think I've been let down often by famous people and people in the media. Hey I was young and beautiful once too, lol. Much love from California.
😊 i came across an old episode of 'Origins' with him featured, he must have JUST gotten his doctorate lolo same enthusiasm and delivery just as a baby faced kid lolo.
Which specific " word" of which specific language is whatever you mean by but have no idea " god's " word? Is it a moun or a verb. You have no the faintest idea what " god's" word is? This you are about to demonstrate
@@johnroemeeks_apologetics ,...Lisle is not a Christian, his religion is the Godless worlds religion of scientism. The whole church is apostate and the real religion of everything called the church is scientism, not the Bibles Christianity. You are all completely steeped in deception. Anyone that believes in and defends the Godless worlds 100% fake spinning ball earth has disqualified themselves from being a Christian. No Christian believes in, holds with, nor defends the Godless worlds atheist belief that the earth is a spinning ball/planet. Only counterfeit christians do this. If the earth was a spinning ball/planet, then there is no possibility that the Bible could be true and has to be thrown out as nothing but the fables of men. The Bible clearly tells us that the earth is a flat stationary plane, and this is what every actual Christian understands, believes, holds to, and defends. No Christian fails to understand and rejects what the Bible says and instead turns to the Godless world for their belief as everyone that thinks the earth is a planet has done. The belief in the God hating worlds manmade graven image of their spinning ball is the atheist religion of scientism and is the opposite of and is 100% opposed to the Bibles Christianity.
@johnmeeks2799,...Lisle is not a Christian, his religion is the Godless worlds religion of scientism. The whole church is apostate and the real religion of everything called the church is scientism, not the Bibles Christianity. You are all completely steeped in deception. Anyone that believes in and defends the Godless worlds 100% fake spinning ball earth has disqualified themselves from being a Christian. No Christian believes in, holds with, nor defends the Godless worlds atheist belief that the earth is a spinning ball/planet. Only counterfeit christians do this. If the earth was a spinning ball/planet, then there is no possibility that the Bible could be true and has to be thrown out as nothing but the fables of men. The Bible clearly tells us that the earth is a flat stationary plane, and this is what every actual Christian understands, believes, holds to, and defends. No Christian fails to understand and rejects what the Bible says and instead turns to the Godless world for their belief as everyone that thinks the earth is a planet has done. The belief in the God hating worlds manmade graven image of their spinning ball is the atheist religion of scientism and is the opposite of and is 100% opposed to the Bibles Christianity.
You understand that bible is merely another word for book? No, probably not. If you are not a juudaist or Jew why do you suppose our jewbook- the book of the religion Judaism to be magic, which is a queer thing to do given that judsism specifically forbibds your kind of idolatry- An image need not be graven to be an idil it can be in image in themind od oe image_ination. THE Mister god idil / image is a clasic example of the idolatry forbidden by all the semitic peoples that have a horror of god substitutes and you do not get mor idolatrous than *image*_ining god to be a person or the lowest of the low an human being, or dreaming machine which is not only idolatry but laisse majeste, which is like making god in the image of a turd, so you can understand why the semites/Arabs have a horror of that sort of idolatry. Why do the mad hillbilly bigots set such store by the book which is little more than a species of almanac of some obscure Arab tribe? Why the jewbook of all the available books? It seems queer just to pick just the plums out of the plum duff and leave the duff behind. Not just queer but entirely arbitrary.
I think @ 1hr12 mins where Dr. Lisle points out that in order to make a hyperbole we need to reference something real. We can't reference another imaginary thing. The bear syllogism is brilliant. This point needs to be hashed out much more
@@timffoster there's a small flaw in your logic. Unicorns and leprechauns aren't hyperbole they are mythical creatures but they're not hyperbole a hyperbole compares One thing with another whether real or imaginary.
There is no pure English verb to reference which latter is the invention of savages(Americans) that cannot spesk English, snd by the same token there is no to parent, impact or debut
On point #9, "....the tops of the mountains were seen." does not necessarily mean they were above water. They could have been seen below the water line, which would be a very good reason for Noah to send out a dove to check for land above the water, but out of their sight.
I started a garden this year, and currently am looking at tomato, corn, peppers and broccoli growing in a box I built rigged with lights, not all specifically grow lights. Also the seeds usually are germinated in a dark and warm, area in moist soil. Light isn't needed even. I used lights though, and instead of 7-10 days, they sprouted (without the sun!) In 2-4 days! If the Light pre sun was the Light of God, I wonder how quickly the fauna and flora grew?!
I was talking with a Christian man yesterday who could not comprehend that there could be a day and a night, prior to God establishing sun and moon an stars on the third day. I find it extraordinary when we have an account as described by God, to the scribe, that men and women cannot accept God’s narrative that he did things in periods of time that He described as days and nights. These people are able to believe miraculous interventions like virgin-birth, water into wine, resurrection etc, but the thought that the uncreated God who is outside time and space and matter, and is Light, could ‘work’ inside days and nights, His words, without solar bodies that move, and move away, and move back etc, is beyond me. I love gardening too!
Reason 9: I see no contradiction. The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, when the tops of the mountains could be *seen*. I would suggest that the mountain peaks could be seen *through the shallow waters* while they were still submerged under the surface.
Not only this, but like Dr. Lisle pointed out, if this was only the flooding of a region and Noah had about a century to build the ark, why didn't he just move? If only that animals were in that region were going to die, then who cares? You can do just fine with the ones from other regions. Not only this, but even on foot you can get pretty far in 100 years, far enough away for it to not have mattered. It also would have made God's whole plan of wiping out the sinful masses of men on the earth a pretty pathetic "reset" if it didn't take kill the vast majority of men who populated the earth. Lots of holes in this theory.
You understand that the mythof Noah was a straight crib from the epic of gilgamesh which not doubt the israelites picked up during the babylonian captivity, bur its inlty a story like the odddysssey or the iliad, whick kicks off with irrevocably have the gods decided to flood the land of Shurupak. the jewish Noah myth(which incidentally is also a Musselman or Muslim myth, is almost word for word taken from the epic of Gilgamesh. It is simply a copy. The Mediterranean basin from Egypt to Mesopotamia has ben subjected to many tsunamis from volcanic activity for millions if not billions of years. The Minoan civilisation being a case in point and if you survive a tsunami by clinging to flotsam you probably would end up at the tirkiah end of the Med which was supposedly formed after themd end of the last ice agewhen the barrier between the atlantic and what is now the Mediterranean gave way thus creating the Mediterranean. Human memory history is littered with flood myths; it is a only mad bihoted hill bullies too thich to grasp that world and flood wil admit of a multitudeof interpretations. If you live in a village and it gets wwahed away by some sort of flood, for you,you whole wor;d would have been washed away. For men(human beings/dreaming machines they have their little " worlds - see also the delightful " little world of Don Camillo, which is his parish. For world the mad bigoted hillbillies in their pignorance read planet. It is of course physically impossible to flood a planet and anyone that says otherwise and knows better is what we lawyers call*Ly-i-n-g* The word world" in mythology/race memory simply means immediate locale. For some inexplicable reason the hillbilly kinderlander(Americans) suppose the almanac of the an obscure tribe of Arabs who came to call themselves israelites to be some how or other magic or authoratative- the call our Jewbook book, or bible, but being pignorant hillbilly kinderlander hve no idea that bible is simply another name for book, although why they don't write their own book preferin to adipt our Jewbbook, is a mystery.. faor fcuk's sakec*Why* suddenly andout of the blue decide to turn the book of an obcure arab tribeinto you your magic book? Pope was correct when he said a little learning is a dangerous thing, it can obviously turn other wise harmless hillbilly hslfwits into mad bigotsthat iin in the bigoted insanity suggedt that what cannot possibly be true is true, but then said mad bigots - for no apparent reason suddenly decide to latch onto the book of some obscure Arab tribe as a source of magic mumbo jumbo and monkey business For fcuk's sake *Why* do that??!! Why single out a book of an obscure tribe of Arabs that you have never met and never *will* meet if contemporary israelites get round to using the atomic weapons that they are supposed to have. in which event I would not like to be living near a missile silo when it all kicks off in spades doubled. For all I know the fantasy mister god of thre bigoted loon hillbillies is a fond of mass destruction as he/it is of homosexualists and prostitutes, Nazis and concentration camps, may may be my likes and dislikes do not coincide with hose of the idol of the md bigoted hillbilly non-doctors, who-if they are so fond of our Jewbook would do well to follow the logic and become Judaists or Jews; after all Brian was supposedly a Jew. *If*Brian ecr existed for which there is not a shred, trac e or scintilla of extrinsic evidence. Wht pu\\les me is why various kinderlander that deceive themselves that they are capable of being christians which they can no more do than they can fly suppose the Jewbook to have anything whatsover to do with the teaching of the method of the Buddha known as jesus christ, which it does not since they are wholly unrelated; it makes as much sense to tack the Jesussey onto a compilation of issues of popular mechanics or the no less famous growing orchids by candlelight.
@@vhawk1951klwrong, Gilgamesh is Nimrod that later became the same god for other religions: Apollo, Osiris, shiva, Baal, Molech,Thor on and on and on… and all following the occult that the Creator has warned, from 1 Enoch that is actually the oldest book ever written, before the flood. All pagan gods are the same and all roads lead to Babylon regarding the occult, being Gilgamesh (aka Nimrod) one of them… if you don’t understand that the world is not just a materialistic utilitarian reality but it also has spiritual metaphysical processes you will be forever restricted to delusion and debased from historical and even scientifical evidences (true science not current cult of scientism). Good luck in your path of understanding, it is clear you are still a child in matters of wisdom. Relinquish your pride and seek truth, even if makes all your current “knowledge” to be thrown out the window, the world has been gaslighted with fakery and lies for decades so don’t be discouraged, you were not the only one deceived, but one can become one to the few currently that understands. Now if you are paid to not understand what I’m saying then I pray for you to understand it anyway no matter if it costs you something.
@@PaDutchRunner Shrug, that is merely a tantrum and you advances no reasoned argument because you have no reasoned argument to advance but rather illustrate that you - like the writer, are the abject slave of your functions and a pignorant kinderlander that misuses the English word liberal which simply means free, generous or tolerant - from the Latin liber, meaning free, but I expect nothing a else from a grunting pignorant savage that is entirely innocent of any kind of intellectual accomplishment or ability. in that dialect of English or pidgin american or kinderlander liberal has come to mean to some of the more pignorant savages such as your goodself *It*-doesn't-like- it, which is merely an automatic- mechanical reaction to the function of which you are the abject slave and anything but *free*; now go and boil your head for a turnip or re-arrange the following words into a well-know phrase or saying: Off Fcuk.
What on earth"theistic evolution"?You clearly have no idea what oxymoron means.Evolution merely means unrolling, but you are clearly more than a little hazy on the meaning of *that* word as well, your problem being that you use words without yourself having any clear idea what you seek to convey by them. The difficulty of the religion of unrolling is that it is -like many religions, based on a fundamental misapprehension - the supposed or imagined mechanism being non-existent; moreover it presumes that nothing is impossible for the implied or assumed misster evolution; you creatures seeming to struggle to be able to accommodate the concept of impossibility.
@@vhawk1951kl you’re funny. you creatures? Are you not of the human species? If theistic creation is true, then evolution is false and vice versa. They contradict each other. And example of an oxymoron is a married bachelor. If he’s married, he can’t be a bachelor, and if he’s a bachelor, then he’s not married. Same thing, if God created how it says in scripture, then evolution can’t be true and if evolution is true, then God didn’t create it how he said. Both can’t be true.. is that easier for you to understand?
@@vhawk1951kl oh, I’ve heard that before …. I’m so smart and you just don’t understand the complexity of it. Evolution is actually quite simple and basic. It’s not that it’s complex, it’s that it’s not true. When somebody doesn’t have anything intelligent to add, they attack the person personally… this says more about you than me. If I’m not intelligent enough for you to talk to you then don’t talk to me. I didn’t ask you to respond to my comment. Have a good day.
@@sandina2cents779 If you are trying to earn my contempt, congratulations you have succeeded ;in english smart means well or neatly and tidily dressed, sand I am not interested in how you cover up your complete an utter insignificance.You are clearly an half-wit and how you dress cannot alter that.
Abraham is surprised at having a son at 90 because they had been trying to conceive for over 70+ years. Ive known people that have struggled to conceive for less than a year and they feel hopeless.
Probably-actually certainly a good thing since hoping like believing is just another form of stupefying dreaming. The jewbook is full of implausible lies like the dead coming back to life which is impossible. however those that wish to destroy their er reason need merely pound it out of existencet that stupefying hammer that is the psyvchological illness that is belief, which is the antithesis or *Exact_Opposite of faith, belief - like hope being a form of the dreaming that stupefies men(hanuman beings)
I often wonder why people read the Bible so different than other written works. In #4 I was thinking of stories where an event is mentioned in 1 chapter or scene, followed by an expansion of the event. A man mentions the one that got away to a friend, followed by explaining how they met in detail. Or reading a series of tragic events in US history, ending with "on 9-11 the towers came down." followed in the next section with a detailed account of the day's events from 1 eyewitness' perspective. Gen 1 is the grand overview of the the series of events of the creation of all things, including Mankind, followed by the story of how Mankind came to be specifically, from the only eyewitness', the Lord God. Actually, isn't Gen 1:2 through 2:4 an expansion on Gen 1:1?
@@tonybasoni8443 With your statement above you have demonstrated you don't understand scripture by falsely accusing these men of not being part of the body of Christ.
@@jason.martin ,....No, actually I have in fact demonstrated that I do know scripture, and it is all of you ungodly people of the Godless world snared into the atheist worlds false religion of scientism that do not understand scripture. I have absolutely not falsely accused anyone, but have spoken the truth for your edification. You have all been deceived. You are all in an entirely different religion to that of Biblical Christianity. You are in the God hating worlds false christianity that is under the umbrella of scientism. You are all serving two masters and the truth is, you hate one (actual Christianity) and love the other, (the worlds false religion of scientism). You have all rejected God and the truth of the Bible and have instead turned to the God hating world and their fables of men. And Jesus will reject all of you on the last day. Repent, and learn the actual truth of God and his word.
@@jason.martin ,.....Yes, absolutely demonstrated. To those with eyes to see and ears to hear that is. And that takes out anyone and everyone from any church. You have shown how absolutely lost the people in/of the church are. When presented with the actual truth of the Bible, they accuse the bringer if truth of sounding like a cultist. And the fact is, the few true believers, those that Jesus has raised from their spiritual deadness, are like a cult. A separated group called out of the Godless world and Godless church by Jesus. As I have stated, you have been deceived and are of the God hating world and its false christianity that is under the umbrella of the antigod/antibible/antichrist religion of scientism.
A problem with one of the AiG claims, - the claim that all six creation days were 24-hour days as seen clearly in Genesis - is that the marking off of days into our current system of time measurement was not created in Genesis 1 until day four of creation week. One could argue that the day 4 creation is telling us that the first three days were not measurable as 24-hour days, or that the day 4 creation is neutral regarding how long the first three creations days each lasted, or that the day four creation can be explained as not changing the 24-hour days that the first three days each lasted. But the difference in interpretation of what day 4 meant regarding the measured length of days 1-3 tells us that it is not clear from the text of Genesis 1 how long the first three days of creation week each lasted. How long days 1, 2, and 3 each lasted is up for debate among serious literal Bible readers who see 24-hour creation days for days five and six (after day 4).
How do you say, “the marking off of days into our current system of time measurement was not created in Genesis 1 until day four of the creation week.”?? No version of the Bible that I have ever seen says anything like maybe “God created the rotation of the earth on day 4”, which is what determines the length of a day. It doesn’t take a sunrise with light shining bright and a sunset with the darkness taking over to measure the 24 hour day. If it’s totally stormy for 3 days and you never see the sun doesn’t mean that 3 days haven’t passed. In the Arctic at the pole where the sun doesn’t shine for about six months doesn’t mean that about 180 days haven’t happened. (Anyway, even if you needed a “sun”, there was a light source from the first day - verse 3) there was a morning and evening of each of the 3 days so it was 72 hours that passed, not an immensely long undetermined time period.
So it’s ok to take things out of chronological order once we get to Genesis 12? I would agree with that but why aren’t we allowed to do that before Genesis 4?
Wow, IP, very disappointed in the lack of reverence for God's word. Thank you Doctor Lisle for not allowing secular views to influence your reading of scripture.
When Mike mentioned that barah had instances in which the word couldn't mean something out of nothing, wouldn't that imply that there are examples that it must?
At about 16:23, the ages of the genealogy from Shem are incorrect in our modern English Bibles. If we look at Genesis 11:12 for example, we see that Arpachshad was 35 years old when his son was born. When we look at the Septuagint however, we see that Arpachshad was 135 years old when his son was born, not 35, and this same omission of 100 years is seen in each one of the descendants of Shem, giving the impression that they were all in their 30’s when their sons were born. But it is not just the Greek Septuagint that bears witness to their ages, the same numbers are also seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the writings of Flavius Josephus, all bearing witness to a much older and more accurate text than is represented by the Masoretic text seen in our modern Bibles. This is significant, because if one is using the incorrect ages from the Masoretic texts used in our modern Bibles, then that would place the flood at 2350BC; meaning that the great pyramids of Giza were under the waters of the flood and yet were not destroyed. Rather, when the proper dates are understood, it places the flood farther back at 3000BC. So, while Michael Jones is way off regarding the age of the earth, men in Abraham's line were in fact having children in their old age.
I loved this conversation. I really appreciate Lisle and all that he does! Surely Michael Jones would want to do a response/debate/conversation/etc on this, but no matter. Gods Word is clear. It was never meant to be vague.
Correct. It wasn't meant to be vague. That's why you can't understand it to be saying something that an ancient person wouldn't have understood it to be saying including the hard sky dome over the flat circular Earth in which there are windows and doors through which divine beings like angels enter and exit. But the world isn't like that in reality, so we have to adjust our thinking on those kinds of things.
Misses the point on the very first one. Whether Abraham is in disbelief, or excitement at the prospect makes no difference to the fact that being fertile at 90 is typically not possible in Abraham's view
Lisle doesn't understand the "When God began to create" view. He thinks IP is arguing that bereshit is not definite in Genesis 1:1 because there is no "the" in the translation. He also confuses why IP mentions that there is no definite article which is IP's main argument (Therefore it's no surprise that Lisle rejects it). IP's view is equivalent to "In *the* beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth," where bereshit is made definite by the phrase "heavens and earth". "When God began to create" is more of a conceptual translation rather than a one to one translation. To anyone familiar with this discussion, there's a long list of arguments for reading bereshit in construct (When God began to create). While we can't fault Lisle for not responding to something that wasn't argued, watching either IP's video or Lisle's response barely scratches the surface for why one should read Genesis 1:1 as a relative clause.
Genesis 8:1 says "... and the waters subsided." 8:3 says "And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased." THEN 8:4 says Then the ark rested in the seventh month ... on the mountains of Ararat." 8:5 says "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. (So for 3 more months after the ark came to rest) In the TENTH MONTH, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. So his claim that the flood could not have covered the whole earth if the tops of the mountains were seen is just inexcusably poor representation of what the Genesis account actually says. Genesis 8:5 itself says "And the waters decreased continually" just before it says the tops of the mountains could be seen. Never mind 8:1, 8:3 and 8:4 which state the waters subsided, receded continually, decreased and decreased again. Never mind Genesis 7:20 saying the mountains were covered. This is a completely invalid position that has zero foundation in the Bible and is a classic example of selective interpretation of one partial verse while ignoring the rest of the same verse and all the other verses around it. Nothing this guys says should be taken seriously, he clearly is picking and choosing verses, making wild speculations on the verses then making huge leaps in logic that have no basis in reality to make his points. As anyone would have to do to disagree with the Word of God!
John 1:1 uses "en arche" like Genesis 1:1 because it is copying Gen 1:1. At the same time, Gen 1:1 is ambiguous whether it refers to the absolute beginning or an initial period due to there being no definite article.
Also, I suggest reading Jason BeDuhn's work on Biblical translation. Part of the reason most English translations translate passages similarly is because they have the same biases. BeDuhn discusses this in the concept of the trinity most specifically, but this could apply to any passages where the translators have a common bias. I am not saying Dr. Lisle is incorrect that Genesis 1:1 is translated incorrectly, simply that by comparing it to other translations and validating it on that is fallacious reasoning.
I wonder how Lisle would interpret genesis 2:10. I know the Pre flood earth was much different than today, but dividing a river into four rivers doesn’t normally happen in the rivers today and if it does, it’s brief and they come back together into one again. It would definitely require very specific conditions.
@Σά ββας you barking up the wrong tree my friend. Just because I’m trying to figure out how things worked in the Pre flood world doesn’t make me a Deist. Yes God can do anything he wants, I’m no naturalist. God sustains everything by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3) but I’m not going to automatically assume a miracle, which as far as I can tell would be necessary to split rivers in that way. I just wanted to know what Lisle’s explanation for that is because honestly it’s a weird part of scripture I am having a hard time understanding. I hope you can extend some grace on this issue. Peace!
@Σά ββας It’s cool man! You’re right he could split river arhat way if he chose to. Although I try not to insert a miracle where the Bible doesn’t explicitly say it.
The way I naturally interpret that is you have this river and as you follow the river there is a portion that is divided. I don't think it's saying something miraculous or supernatural occurred.
I dont think his appeals to authority are fallacious, because he only appeals to people who are actual authorities. Appealing to an authority is only fallacious when you appeal to someone who is not an authority.
@@TheCASSMAN777 Not true, but half true. That is a one of the categories of an appeal to authority fallacy, but there are actually three categories to it. The first one, however, is what I was referring to. This is the one where you cite an authority without citing the evidence, and therefore imply that your "authority" is infallible, which only God is infallible. Whenever you argue in such a way that it makes it look like you're presenting the "authority" as the evidence, then you are implying that your source is infallible. Also, keep in mind, it depends on where in the discussion we are referring to. Sometimes he was appealing to authority, and sometimes he wasn't. I just referring to the moments where I saw him make such appeals. Also, if you ever seen Michael Jones in a debate, he commonly does this. Thanks for the reply! Blessings!
@@vedinthorn Yes, at times he showed his sources, but more often than not, he appeared to be assuming his particular interpretation of a passage was right because there was others who held it. However, anyone can find someone somewhere that agrees with them. The catch is to demonstrate from the text where your particular interpretation is the right one. The sheer fact that you can find someone who agrees with you, does not exclude the possibility that you both might be wrong. Blessings!
Mike never cites someone as if their authority makes them right. That's an uncharitable interpretation. You can say he's not skeptical but when he cites someone, he does it because they represent a view well or because he agrees with the argumentation that made them come to the conclusion@@apologetics-101
God bless Dr Lisle. Defending the foundation of the Faith! I like the other gentleman’s content except for his anti creationist views. If death came before sin than death can’t be the wages for sin and Jesus’ death was for nothing?
Adam did not physically die when he sinned! He became separated from God, spiritual death. Animal death has NOTHING to do with Jesus on the cross. There is 76 quadrillion tons of biodeposits in the Earth's crust caused by billions of years of DEATH! So believe what you do or you are a heretic? - pffft!
"You can't counter fiction with fiction." I think this was a standout moment for me. If the account of Genesis can't be taken literally and is instead a lot of symbolism and flowery language with no substance, then how is it any better than the creation myths of other cultures? It's like professional fencers dueling with baguettes rather than than our side using an actual sword. And not only that, but it just would seem to indicate that God is being intentionally unclear in what He was trying to convey to His people, but He has stated that He is not the author of confusion.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 Those are not religions. You see, unlike religion we rely on evidence. And the best evidence for these theories is DNA. It has proven without a shadow of a doubt that these are indeed the best explanations
@@Edward-bm7vw "Beyond a shadow of a doubt". Pretty arrogant response. Darwin had his doubts, he was concerned that he couldn't account for the sudden appearance in the fossil record of fully developed and distinct species; yet he had blind faith that paleontology would discover "interminable intermediate" fossils. None have shown up. I'd note that we're using the same evidence. As a Christian, I'd point to DNA as great evidence of intelligent design: it's coded information, like blueprints, for body plans. Specified, orderly information only comes from an intelligent mind in our experience. How can a blind, unguided process create something so irreducibly complex, specific, coherent and purpose-driven as DNA? You also didn't address chemical evolution, or abiogenesis. How did life come from non-life? It flies in the face of elementary biology. If you subscribe to either or both of these types of evolution, you have a religion, my friend! A false one at that.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 If you understood the evidence you would understand why I'm making that claim. And no Darwin did not necessarily have any doubts on his theory he nearly had questions he did not have the means to answer yet or had the means to experiment for. That is typical with most theories. Darwin lived before we understood better what DNA was. And yes we have found some intermediate species such as with Tiktaalik. An archeopteryx is also an intermediate between a bird and a dinosaur. There are other examples as well. And to know DNA is not any indication of intelligent design. And there have been many court cases across the years where intelligent design proponents were asked to demonstrate how ID was a science and not a religion and they failed colossally. ID fails to make any accurate predictions that can be tested. Because it is a pseudoscience. It is a pathetic attempt at injecting religion into public schools. Secondly this "irreducibly complex" term is something made up by Christians and other religious apologetics. There is no evidence to suggest any of these systems qualify for such a distinction. We have already shown how they can be broken down into smaller systems such as with RNA. RNA is a slightly different version than DNA so it is the next logical step. And abiogenesis is a vastly different theory than evolution. It tries to answer a very different question. And you know it does not fly in the face of biology, It is a question better answered by chemistry. I suggest you look into the Miller Urey experiment and pick up a book on origin of life studies.
In the 52:00 min mark Dr. Lisle sites Genesis 3:19, indicating that a physical change in Adam has occured. Mainly, that Adam is now mortal and will return to dust. But Genesis 2:7 says that "God formed the man from the dust of the ground" initially. Now maybe Dr. Lisle is saying that dust was "immortal dust" idk..I'm just saying 🤷🏻♂️🤔
49:00 if there was no animal death before the fall, the entire sacrificial system for substitutionary atonement makes no sense. Why would it make any difference to sacrifice an animal as a substitute for man, if they already knew death before the fall. Maybe I'm missing something in my line of reasoning but that's what just came to mind when I heard the discussion and felt like maybe I should share it. I'm still not clear on what would have happened if the animals (and humans for that matter) had reached max population, if there hadn't been a fall to bring about death. But I guess because God knew what was going to happen, that might be irrelevant. Also did lions evolve to have fangs and sharp claws before the fall, after the fall but before the flood, or after the flood? Curious and curiouser lol
Perhaps tips of mountains could have been seen yet periodically covered with waves, large or small...you can't REST on a spot where waves are occuring 🤔
Conversation and debate while loving one another is biblical and a great example. Jesus said that the world would know we are Christians if we show love one to another.
@@thehylers1021 I agree, and too often the YEC crowd has been very dogmatic and condescending and accusatory of those who do not hold to 100% literal views of the Creation Event.
@@RealCaptainAwesome Condesention is not unique to any particular position. William Lane Craig holds YECs in derision and has publicly stated as much (several times, if I'm not mistaken). Personally, I'm not bothered which side derides the other as long as the derision is focused on the denial of obvious proof. (That's what "fool" means)
I think an obvious reason that Abraham was excited and laughed at the idea of Sarah having a child at age 90 would be the fact that they were infertile for decades not able to have a child, how exciting/amazing that would be for them to now be able to have a child
they have been arguing and debating this subject using the bible for many years and there's no clear cut winner. how can either side be so sure of themselves? there's also many books written that support each side.
Second question - Astrophysicists recently used gravity wave detectors to detect a pair of colliding neutron stars. The light arrived at almost the same time (They are trying to explain a 1.7 second discrepancy over 130 million light years..). Means that gravity and light both seem to travel at C. How does this work? Means that both the light and the disruption to gravity waves can only have been created 'in transit' and the event must never happened because it occurred 1,300,000 years before creation. I can find no comfort in explanations that God's physical laws were changed in this period.
The only honest and coherent argument is the idea of the young universe created old so as not to arouse suspicion. That is, the creator tricked you into believing that everything looked old. So obviously all science shows that the universe is very old.
"the very fact that it's possible means that there's not a problem in the text" "that is a possible interpretation so therefore it's not a necessary conflict there". No. We should look at what is most probable in these cases.
Jesus Christ is known to have quoted from the Septuagint which was heavily in use in his day. Why do modern scholars always ignore studying it but prefer to bring study along in the Hebrew only which is a translation from Latin which was translated from the Septuagint.
An OEC has to work very hard with very few verses to prove his point while the YEC takes the Bible as it reads. Reading the Bible from 12 years old to 30 years old, I never saw Old Earth or Calvinism in scripture. I had to hear someone tell me how to look for both. Way too convoluted I believe.
If you read carefully, you can find pretty much all of TULIP right there in the Pentateuch. I kid you not. Try this: read all of Deut 28, and then ask yourself "why on earth are these people so disobedient!" The answer is 4 verses later, in Deut 29:4. The solution for their dilemma is in Deut 30:6. It's something only the Lord can do to you. And them. Thanks.
Faot point but my guess is that the writer was trying to warn people off all that good/evil right/wrongmorality religion, mumbo jumbo. the clues? a talking snake and a supposed 'god' asking questions, the preposterous being code or a flag for this is allegory, so what would be the fruit of the tree of the(knowledge* of good and evil, evil if not all that morality monkey businesswhich causes nothing but trouble?Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil won't necessarily kill you but it will surely do for plenty others, like the man that has never had a car accident, but has caused hundredssprings to mind The absurdity if an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent being asking questions is truly hilarious and if that and the talking snaje are big enough allegory flag, I don't know what is, and of course it is not a coincidence that it is passivity symbolised by a being of the passive sex, Eve,is the source of the trouble for as we say in Persia, almost all the troubles of this earth com fro the wiseacreing of women. Mo sooner do men(human beings) catch religion or all the morality mumbo jmbo that they set about imposing their religion/morality(all one)on others, which can only possibly lead to trouble. Essentially Mr Od, is saying don't start labelling things good or evil- which is the fruit of the tree of the*knowledge* of good and evil and what else could that be but labelling things either good or evil- or simply reactions of the emotional(like/dislike)function, from which it is but a short step to the right/wrong morality religious monkey business which it is idiotic ti link wirg rgw mr Od fantasy given that Od is supposedly not just omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent, but inextricably bound up in eveything that happens from concentration camps to the slaughter of the unborn in numbers that makes the holocaust seem not only amateur but positively benevolent, the net effect of being omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent is that *Everything* that happens or takes place anywhere is the will of Od, that being an inescapable concomitant being omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent is that ypu cannot be heard to say nufink to do with me guv, and of course you know why the loons are so keen of the what is called free will fantasy, don't you ?For without it what can you *not* do which is so bound up with the worship(simply means valuation- see worth_ship)of their inner god/Od self calming A man's god/Od, call it what you will is that which is more important to him than anything else at any given moment for which there are any number of candidates quite apart from self calming, and *all* of them concomitants of being the passive slave of the functions, and on function in particular. Whoever wrote Genesis was clearly a canny man with a good understand of the psyche of men(human beings) was most likely the product of one or another esoteric school, and of course he had to be subtle about his message because men creatures are awful fond of the morality/religion monkey business especially when they catch that dreadful for the sufferer and all others disease I-am-right whereupon*someone* shall surely die, for it is but a short route from good/evil to right/wrong to I-am right which is shown on many a death certificate as a cause of death, s it is not just the consumer of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that will surly die but as a number of others as the typhoid Mary of religion/morality goes her merry way hither and yon .
Good stuff. IP (Jones) usually comes armed with a lot of scientific data, which is good. But his process for endorsing various "scientific" views has seemed a little dodgy in the past, as he can be too quick to throw the Bible under the bus. This is one such instance, and it's good to see someone well-credentialed opponent set the record straight. Considering God's "Two Books" approach (Scripture and Nature), only one claims to be Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible. Based on that fact alone, we're much better off if we stretch Nature to fit Scripture and not the other way around.
After finishing this discussion, I just want to thank both Eli and Dr. Lisle, it was a great refutation. The other thing is it is pretty clear that IP does not have any sort of theological or hermeneutical training, but only in philosophy. He was ignoring the clear passages in scripture and then running wild on the unclear and just adding in whatever he felt like (unlike Dr. Lisle who clearly states when his positions may not be accepted across the board). To paraphrase John Calvin, where the bible speaks, we can speak, where it is silent, we are to be silent. Based on the things IP was saying, it is likely IP does not sit under any accountability at a local church, which is very problematic (This is speculation though based on the first observation on how bad IP's theology is). Philosophy on it's own is literally something the Bible warns us about (Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ).
@@retrograd332 well he's publicly stated that he attends and is a member of a church, so that's one. And basically all his statements in his videos are gleaned from experts in each of the fields he's speaking. So that's another. Sorry if you don't like it, but plenty of people with Phds in biblical language, culture, and history aren't YEC. In fact, most aren't.
Martial, I’ve followed IP for a couple of years. IP, As an avowed idealist, if you truly grasp what an idealist is, is exceedingly problematic with the historic, orthodox Christian faith. Believing ALL is mind is painfully close to Mary Baker Eddy the founder of christian science. I’m praying for Michael and would love to see him clearly embrace orthodoxy! Not orthodoxy as in the denomination, but the Historic True Faith. He’s so very bright!!!
@@NelsonAerial Indeed... because many conclusions Michael comes to are outside the pale (very problematic... as you said). It's really troubling. He actually ends up ironically in "commonalities" with atheism... and then reifies their plausibility. (nothing against him personally... at all)
I was raised in liberal Christianity. I was agnostic - God was a concept. It was my personal study in geology that made me a young earth creationist after being a theistic evolutionist. I still have trouble understanding how anyone thinks that there is evidence for evolution. It is just not there. Not only do we not see transitional forms. We do not see transitional characteristics.
@@theodoreturner5567 Since the earth was created the earth first (the sun, moon, and stars on day 4), how can you say that “the universe was much older”? Another way of looking at it (besides just what God said in Genesis chapter 1) - Jesus stated, “from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” Obviously since Adam and Eve were created on day 6 that makes sense. If the beginning of the universe was over 13.7 billion years ago, well, let’s say, not so much sense…
@@1000DavidK "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", is expanded in the next 30 verses. The creation of man is expanded upon in Genesis 2:4ff. This is the "repeat and enlarge" of Hebrew narrative. The earth is "without form and void", thus already in existence, when God addresses what happens to the earth. "Let there be light" addresses the first light that comes to the earth, however that occurs. On Wednesday, the sun, moon and stars (planets) are created. Days had already existed and are literal 24 hour days. Satan fell prior to the creation of the earth, as described in the six days of creation.
@@theodoreturner5567 I think that I agree with your first 3 paragraphs (although I don’t think that I have ever heard of the “repeat and enlarge” terminology before). The 4th paragraph has me stumped. What does Satan’s fall have to do with the age of the universe versus the age of the earth? How do you get that he fell prior to the creation of the earth? Colossians 1:16 “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.” Exodus 20:11 “ in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,“ and reiterated again in Exodus 31:17 “ in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, "
I agree with Jason 99.999% I love that he speaks of the Nephalim as those who fall from grace. Their fathers are the prophets of God who chose to marry gentile women. The wives didn't know God, and the Nephalim (children) were still prominent powerful Elites in their day.
I’m only 16 minutes in and I’m surprised by the weakness of Dr Lisle’s counter arguments on Abraham so far. He says Abram laughed out of joy, happy to know another son was coming to him. What?! If that were true, why is the vocabulary of his skepticism about Sarah’s age the same as his own? (Can a man…? Can a woman…?) Moreover, why did Abram immediately plead for Ishmael to be chosen? Clearly Abram was not laughing out of expectant joy. And the video doesn’t even address the Michael’s major point of 15:05!! I don’t agree with all the points in Michael’s position, but I have to give him this point.
I do not agree that the word in question that is said to mean "out of nothing" has to mean so in Gen. 1 because to mean something else would be heretical. I don't agree with the video makers assertions generally, being a YEC myself. However there is one substance that is "co-eternal" with God as it is the substance of God Himself, namely spirit. And I do not imply that things made of spirit are made from God Himself. I am no pantheist. My conclusion is that "the Beginning" refers to the beginning of space and time, not to the beginning of everything. The "third heaven, at the very least, refers to something immaterial, and supernatural, and outside of space and time. And things there are spiritual, and also eternal. I derive this from Heb. 11:3.
God is outside of time (after all, He created time). But He also made the angels, even though they're spirit-beings. So I'm curious as to why you believe that the immaterial and supernatural (ie, angels and the occupants of the third heaven) are outside of space and time? Just because they're invisible doesn't mean they're outside of time. See Rev 8:1.
Because running around looking for sources is not incompatible with being under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Christians don’t teach that divine inspiration is equivalent to God simply downloading the information into our heads:)
Enjoyed this but honestly not sure all answers really show a young earth. The simple interpretation of the Bible would therefore clearly show there isn't a young earth depending clearly on a pre-bias. Enjoy these discussions, still ending towards Michael thinking.
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."
Inspiring Philosophy very well could be a shill / agent. One thing many people aren't aware of is the number of controlled opposition agents within religious matters, particularly very popular ones (their popularity is largely inflated / fake).
You don't know God as Abraham did. It would have been from joy and amazement. Else the same type of reprimand would be directed at Abraham, as was Sarah. God knows our hearts.
The problem I have with Michael Jones' interpretations is that he never uses Hebrew scholars for his word meanings, he always refers to Western scholars.
23:45 The idea that the Bible is somehow outside of its cultural context seems wrong to me. Using symbolism common to the time period is not a lie any more than saying “the sun rises.” Different cultures value different things, and we can see examples of this all throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments. The Bible had its own cultural context, we cannot expect it to conform to our own cultural standards. Also Lisle’s argument is presupposing Genesis is not a metaphorical text.
46:50 Jason is so right on about so many things but not about what death is. He believes death is life in heaven or hell. Death is the cessation of consciousness and that is what sin brought about. Adam was mortal and if he had remained obedient and not sinned his mortal body would've died but at that point, in a twinkling of an eye, he would've been given an eternal spirit body. Yes just like those alive "in Christ" at his return. There would've been no need for a resurrection or the shedding of Jesus' innocent blood. Death of mortal bodies was not brought about by Adam's sin. Eternal permanent death - cessation of conscious existence - was the result of his disobedience.
Dr. Lisle's defense of point 7 about initially being immortality seems shallow. John's point is still valid in that a God design can still be good while it involves a perfect balance of eating from the Tree of Life to sustain immortality. Man's sin would then cause the loss of this quasi immortality by getting himself banish from Eden i.e. the source of fruit that sustains this "immortality". Also God who has created all the diverse animals of the world from nothing does not need to kill an animal to get skins, he can just speak the skins into existence unless you are saying he did all the waiting to do the human way of creating skins leaving them to dry etc for 4-5 weeks.
Inspirational philosophies video should be renamed, " Top 10 twisted interpretations of the Bible that disagree with young Earth creation." However, if this is the best they've got then we really have no Biblical issues to worry about. Talk about a disappointing list, I was hoping there'd be at least one that requires at least some thought to answer. All but one or two I could not even see what the problem was supposed to be until they explained it to you. How can a verse be a problem for position, if you need the person making the claim to reinterpret it for you before you see the alleged point?
We need to pray for these poor Theistic Evolutionists for being so desperate to reconcile their faith in keeping favour with secular evolution and taking 'man's' word over that of our Lord - just so very sad!
How do you accept the Bible as true and the Resurrection as fact while denying evolution? The Resurrection is justified through historical study and evolution is justified through science and the fossil record. One could even argue that an old earth and evolution have way more evidence supporting them than the Resurrection.
It is sad, I agree. When two irreconcilable stories of origins are forced together to come out with the truth then that third thing can be nothing else but monstrous.
CG,.....Absolutely correct. These guys have nothing to do with Christianity, they are men of the Godless world and its atheist false manmade religion of scientism. These guys as well as all those deceived by them are Gods enemys.
Eli and Dr. Lisle thank you so much for this! What are the chances we could have another one like this in the same style to interact with the video Michael Jones put out ua-cam.com/video/RLcNTAi0Cw4/v-deo.html Many blessings!
And at 20:30, Jason claims that when Genesis is critiquing the pagan creations myths of surrounding nations, that he is suggesting that this is a case of "countering fiction with fiction," which is strawman-ing the case made by InspiringPhilosophy, which is not the argument being made. IP's argument is that Genesis is countering fiction with truth. To strawman someone else is a logical fallacy, and Jason Lisle should know better. That is, unless Jason really believes that extensive use of metaphor in Genesis is equivalent to fiction. But then, he makes the argument that he reads Genesis "literarily" and not "literally." So, it is really hard to figure out what he exactly means by "literarily"..... the best thing that Jason Lisle says is that Kent Hovind is not the best representative of Young Earth Creationism.
The whole of creation was cursed. Tell me, how does Adam only get cursed, but from now on he will work hard for food. ""Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.'" Whole creation was cursed.
I believe Michael is completely sincere. It’s just that he denies the scriptures and denies the testimony of God when he rewrites scripture by way of hyper scrutinizing the text.
Two points to consider in defense of a local flood and/or a flood that would fit better with the available geological record: 1) The Egyptians did not have a deluge level "worldwide flood" in their mythology, whereas the Sumerians did. This could be due to the collective memory of those passed down from Noah via immediate proximity to the event. 2) As the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers both have mountain sources, and because there is no geological evidence of cataclysmic deviant topography (that I am aware of, correct me if I am wrong), and since both rivers were mentioned pre-flood, it can be inferred that massive geological upheavals from the flood should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism. So what kind of flood are we dealing with here? Looking at Genesis 7:20 in the NASB, we read "The water prevailed 15 cubits higher and the mountains were covered." Fifteen cubits gives us about maybe around 22-23 feet? But what is what is this 'higher' measurement in relation to? Perhaps it depends on how we translate the word. What if, for example, we translate the word as it is translated in Joshua 3:13 or the variant in Isaiah 45:8, namely, 'down from above'. In other words, what Moses could simply be doing is recording the amount of water that fell from heaven, a total quantity of around 22-23 feet-worth. This amount of rain would have been utterly devastating to life, but not deep enough to cover tops of mountains, that is, unless you consider what waters Moses is referring to. The first consideration is that the word 'cover' and the word 'submerge' are not necessarily synonymous. 'Cover' could alternatively mean to 'blanket over' or 'conceal'. What water is Moses referring to in this concealment? One consideration would be the same water Moses refers to in Genesis 1:6-7, namely, the water of the sky, or heavy clouds. In this light, Genesis 8:1 makes more sense, as in the 'waters' being blown away are actual rain clouds.
Jason Lisle really took 2 Corinthians 10:5 to heart…
“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,”
God bless this scientific brother of ours
You do know that Joshua ben-joseph never used the word god in his entire life, and told his pupols never to*believe* anything, because he understood men very well because he was a man and knew that men believe passively mechanically and that that is their greatest weakness that stupefies them because it is a form of dreaming
If you areso keen on the wisomof Paul of tarsus why do you not adopt his religion Judaism which was the religion of the authors of the book you call the book(bible meaning no more and no less that book. Why are you so attached to that book of all the millions of books otherwise available to you? What is the magic in our jewbook, which is little more than the almanac of an obscure Arab tribe which we Jews are.
What is so special obiut our-the Jews' book?
@@vhawk1951kl
Are you really that interested in understanding Gods word, or are you just trying to belittle Christianity?
I would say to you don’t worry about it then if you’re just trying to belittle others, in order to make yourself appear taller in your own eyes.
But if you’ve come on here to go put your own foot in your mouth in your pride, and fall upon your own sword in your humility so that another correct you and you would humble yourself recognizing that you’re unrighteous just like everyone else, in that God might not smite you down on judgment day, not because of any of your works that you did….Then God can also save you like he did the apostle Paul of tarsus who once persecuted Christians having them killed while he held the coats of those doing the killing.
I would be happy to continue to dialogue with you - answering a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit. However I will not answer the fool according to his own folly lest I be like him.
Jesus only came for the humble of heart, not for the proud. Jesus came to save the unrighteous, not the self righteous.
Christ.Brian very dead chum.
If he ever existed for which there s not a shred of extrinsic evidence, but then there would not be would there?
@@vhawk1951kl
You see - you weren’t really interested in Christianity at all.
You didn’t really want answers to your quandaries.
You really wanted to cut others down in order to make yourself “feel” taller. That’s why you’re feeling oriented driven by your emotions, rather than principally oriented driven by the truth.
Just as I suspected.
You weren’t asking a real question with any real intelligibility - you’re just interested in making unsubstantiated conjecture about the past.
Well I suppose you can enjoy your ignorance since you’re really not coming to the table with any real thirst for biblical wisdom nor any spiritual insight. You just came on here to play games. God‘s word is nothing to fool around with friend. You’re better off as being completely ignorant then being a Christ rejecter with full knowledge.
God hasn’t opened your eyes of your heart so that you can see and perceive and understand the wondrous mercy of His glorious grace for sinners. You probably think you’re a good person by your own standards of morality - you probably think you’ve already arrived. And you will get the shock of your death on judgment day at the return of Christ, for every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord - and that means you too my friend.
Please keep inviting Dr. Lisle on your program! This is awesome :D
Lisle the scam artist
So glad I stumbled onto your channel. Been enjoying it immensely. Also Jason Lisle is great!
I am glad you are enjoying the channel :-) blessings!
@@RevealedApologetics Do you think that on this current “day” that we are in…..the Sixth Day….that Satan is working to create his own type of man, the Transhuman who technically will live forever.
@@RevealedApologetics1 thing here concerning the genealogy in Genesis 5 (edited see below) those men (6 in total) did not have the mentioned children in their 30s. Look up "were the pyramids built before the flood" explanation and information is presented by NathanH83.
It will become clear why this occurred and it makes sense logically as well.
Edit: Genesis 11 starting at verse 10.
Lisle is a scam artist, all his arguments are nonsense. Hugh Ross invited him to have a science debate in front of his peers. But he refused because he cannot scam them, so he goes on live podcasts to scam gullible Christians. This is YEC in a nutshell
Remember too, not only was Sarah long past the age for childbearing, but she had been barren her whole child bearing years. Very presumably, she was unable to have a child.
Really good point
It's only a *story* titch; ninety nine percent of the Torah(which has Fcuk_Nothing* to do with the -now extinct way-of-christ) is psychological allegory and does not even purport to be any sort of record of events, do you kindelander not have any common sense?
I was surprised they didn’t say this! Good point!
great topic ... found Dr Lisle a little bit ago and loving your channel Eli. THANKS!!!!
It sure would be nice to see these two dudes debate! I would definitely watch it.
Me too...Lisle would almost certainly take it :-)
The aren’t debating.
@@Shabeck100 Lisle won't debate IP
@@anunknownentity1637 how do you know this?
@@Shabeck100 Watch the video on this channel about Jesus and Pagan mythology with Inspiring Philosophy
this was really good thank you so much for inviting Jason Lisle on I did not mean to dislike
This was the most informative video I’ve ever seen regarding the creation account. So thankful for this
Lisle is a scam artist
This is one of the best interviews I have ever watched.
Well done James - keep up the good work. Glad to hear from Dr. Lisle - thanks for all of your faithful hard work.
James??
As usual, Lisle is respectful of opposing people's positions, while simultaneously demonstrating (in this case, fatal) flaws in their arguments and calling them what they are...WRONG!
Young Earth Creationists are some of the most DISRESPECTFUL and ARROGANT and prideful individuals I have ever seen. I used to go along with the Dr. LENNOX suggestion that OLD EARTH and YOUNG EARTH CHRISTIAN believers should respect each other and I still believe in this suggestion for genuine Christian brethren that only DISAGREE on the age of some rocks. Unfortunately I have now witnessed the terrible arrogance and disrespect of Lisle against the absolute kind gentleman Dr. Hugh Ross that is so humble and kind to everyone and Lisle gets so arrogant and high on his horse against Dr. Ross that I just can't take it anymore. I went to school with Dr. Stephen Meyer of INTELLIGENT DESIGN fame and that authored countless texts on INTELLIGENT DESIGN and CHRISTIANITY and I have learned lately that 99.99% of CHRISTIAN PhD Physicists, CHRISTIAN PhD Earth Scientists/ Geologists, and PhD Christian Astronomers ALL BELIEVE in OLD EARTH Creationism. Why is this? I'll tell you it's because AS A GROUP WE UNDERSTAND HOW the dating occurs and the technology behind these dating techniques. It's not just a matter of the YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM argument that "you weren't there " and "you don't know the initial conditions " arguments because NONE OF THESE HOLD WATER and that is because the Science behind YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM is NONEXISTENT!! The YEC crowd doesn't publish in PEER-REVIEWED scientific journals because they do garbage science that wouldn't pass the PEER REVIEWS and all these "scientists" know this quite well. They solved this problem by creating their own CREATIONISM Journal but it's total nonsense and complete garbage to anyone that's trained in the Hard Sciences like Physics!
It's not a question of FAITH or WORLDVIEW because I am talking about Dedicated Christians that believe all the Doctrines and Tenants of Christianity, the belief in the holy TRINITY, the salvation of Jesus Christ and his RESSURECTION, and the authority and inerrancy of the HOLY BIBLE!!
Not only are the YEC arrogant and prideful of their garbage "science" they try and PUT DOWN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS that publish in actual peer reviewed journals. If my Science and Research was so poorly accepted I would be a little more humble but that doesn't stop these people. Kent Hovind was the big ring leader of this YEC nonsense and that Dinosaurs coexisted with Man nonsense until he got arrested for tax evasion and divorced about 4 times and his family finally stopped associating with him. Now Ken Ham and his MINIONS have taken this up and they PPI T BACKWARDS TOWARDS GENESIS to make their money and sell some video tapes.
Their THEOLOGY is also full of major holes about GENESIS and MATT WALSH did a great job about ripping YEC Theology apart and he didn't even have to resort to the horrible Science that YEC tries to hang their hat on!
Despicable people at the top of this YEC Worldview. I don't blame the YEC believers as much because they don't know any better for the most part...
Calm down dear
@@vhawk1951kl Calm as a cucumber here mate. Blessings😌
@@Shabeck100 Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I have already drawn the inescapable inference
@@Shabeck100Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable, but if that is what you *wish*, that is entirely your affair .
Awesome conversation!
Thanks!!
God bless you both. Dr Lisle is wonderful, I remember him through answers in Genesis. I admire his learning generally, and his Bible knowledge specifically. Especially commendable is his respect for God's word. I now have watched your show multiple times as you have brought on Dr. Lisle often. Thank you so much. I appreciate your attitude and heart. Now that I have been able to move beyond your movie star good looks to see your great humility and ability to ask sharp and useful, provocative, relevant questions. You are a terrific compliment to Dr. Lisle's questions. Working on my prejudice toward extremely good looking people I think I've been let down often by famous people and people in the media. Hey I was young and beautiful once too, lol. Much love from California.
😊 i came across an old episode of 'Origins' with him featured, he must have JUST gotten his doctorate lolo same enthusiasm and delivery just as a baby faced kid lolo.
Which specific " word" of which specific language is whatever you mean by but have no idea " god's " word? Is it a moun or a verb.
You have no the faintest idea what " god's" word is?
This you are about to demonstrate
Thank you, Eli for your work and ministry.
Great discussion! Dr. Lisle did a great job.
SFT,.....Yes, a great job of defending his atheist religion of scientism.
@@tonybasoni8443What the heck are you talking about?
@@johnroemeeks_apologetics ,...Lisle is not a Christian, his religion is the Godless worlds religion of scientism. The whole church is apostate and the real religion of everything called the church is scientism, not the Bibles Christianity. You are all completely steeped in deception.
Anyone that believes in and defends the Godless worlds 100% fake spinning ball earth has disqualified themselves from being a Christian. No Christian believes in, holds with, nor defends the Godless worlds atheist belief that the earth is a spinning ball/planet. Only counterfeit christians do this.
If the earth was a spinning ball/planet, then there is no possibility that the Bible could be true and has to be thrown out as nothing but the fables of men. The Bible clearly tells us that the earth is a flat stationary plane, and this is what every actual Christian understands, believes, holds to, and defends.
No Christian fails to understand and rejects what the Bible says and instead turns to the Godless world for their belief as everyone that thinks the earth is a planet has done. The belief in the God hating worlds manmade graven image of their spinning ball is the atheist religion of scientism and is the opposite of and is 100% opposed to the Bibles Christianity.
@johnmeeks2799,...Lisle is not a Christian, his religion is the Godless worlds religion of scientism. The whole church is apostate and the real religion of everything called the church is scientism, not the Bibles Christianity. You are all completely steeped in deception.
Anyone that believes in and defends the Godless worlds 100% fake spinning ball earth has disqualified themselves from being a Christian. No Christian believes in, holds with, nor defends the Godless worlds atheist belief that the earth is a spinning ball/planet. Only counterfeit christians do this.
If the earth was a spinning ball/planet, then there is no possibility that the Bible could be true and has to be thrown out as nothing but the fables of men. The Bible clearly tells us that the earth is a flat stationary plane, and this is what every actual Christian understands, believes, holds to, and defends.
No Christian fails to understand and rejects what the Bible says and instead turns to the Godless world for their belief as everyone that thinks the earth is a planet has done. The belief in the God hating worlds manmade graven image of their spinning ball is the atheist religion of scientism and is the opposite of and is 100% opposed to the Bibles Christianity.
Michael Jones consistently uses eisegesis to read his beliefs into Scripture.
That is because he is a witles and pignorant bigot
Great video! Thanks guys.
excellent interview and resource - I have been constantly going to my bible to make some margin notes from Dr. Lisle's responses.
You understand that bible is merely another word for book?
No, probably not. If you are not a juudaist or Jew why do you suppose our jewbook- the book of the religion Judaism to be magic, which is a queer thing to do given that judsism specifically forbibds your kind of idolatry- An image need not be graven to be an idil it can be in image in themind od oe image_ination.
THE Mister god idil / image is a clasic example of the idolatry forbidden by all the semitic peoples that have a horror of god substitutes and you do not get mor idolatrous than *image*_ining god to be a person or the lowest of the low an human being, or dreaming machine which is not only idolatry but laisse majeste, which is like making god in the image of a turd, so you can understand why the semites/Arabs have a horror of that sort of idolatry. Why do the mad hillbilly bigots set such store by the book which is little more than a species of almanac of some obscure Arab tribe? Why the jewbook of all the available books?
It seems queer just to pick just the plums out of the plum duff and leave the duff behind. Not just queer but entirely arbitrary.
I think @ 1hr12 mins where Dr. Lisle points out that in order to make a hyperbole we need to reference something real. We can't reference another imaginary thing. The bear syllogism is brilliant. This point needs to be hashed out much more
Usually this is true. But if we said someone was like a unicorn or Leprechaun....
@@timffoster there's a small flaw in your logic. Unicorns and leprechauns aren't hyperbole they are mythical creatures but they're not hyperbole a hyperbole compares One thing with another whether real or imaginary.
There is no pure English verb to reference, nor can one" make "a"(sic) hyperbole
@@vhawk1951kl who said anything about english...
There is no pure English verb to reference which latter is the invention of savages(Americans) that cannot spesk English, snd by the same token there is no to parent, impact or debut
Great informative video!
On point #9, "....the tops of the mountains were seen." does not necessarily mean they were above water. They could have been seen below the water line, which would be a very good reason for Noah to send out a dove to check for land above the water, but out of their sight.
Great talk, fellas .
I started a garden this year, and currently am looking at tomato, corn, peppers and broccoli growing in a box I built rigged with lights, not all specifically grow lights. Also the seeds usually are germinated in a dark and warm, area in moist soil. Light isn't needed even. I used lights though, and instead of 7-10 days, they sprouted (without the sun!) In 2-4 days!
If the Light pre sun was the Light of God, I wonder how quickly the fauna and flora grew?!
Angels and humans glow when the get exposed to the light of god. I wonder how lesser creatures react? Perhaps the burning bush was such an example.
I was talking with a Christian man yesterday who could not comprehend that there could be a day and a night, prior to God establishing sun and moon an stars on the third day. I find it extraordinary when we have an account as described by God, to the scribe, that men and women cannot accept God’s narrative that he did things in periods of time that He described as days and nights. These people are able to believe miraculous interventions like virgin-birth, water into wine, resurrection etc, but the thought that the uncreated God who is outside time and space and matter, and is Light, could ‘work’ inside days and nights, His words, without solar bodies that move, and move away, and move back etc, is beyond me.
I love gardening too!
No matter the age… Grateful for the Gospel #1Cor22 #Gal220
Grateful for your Biblical focus! Thank you for this video! Both of you!
Why latch onto our Jewbook as your magic book if, if you are not Jewish? It specifically prohibits your kind of pagan idolatry.
Has Michael Jones and Jason Lisle ever have a debate on this? That would be amazing to see!
Reason 9: I see no contradiction. The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, when the tops of the mountains could be *seen*. I would suggest that the mountain peaks could be seen *through the shallow waters* while they were still submerged under the surface.
Not only this, but like Dr. Lisle pointed out, if this was only the flooding of a region and Noah had about a century to build the ark, why didn't he just move? If only that animals were in that region were going to die, then who cares? You can do just fine with the ones from other regions. Not only this, but even on foot you can get pretty far in 100 years, far enough away for it to not have mattered. It also would have made God's whole plan of wiping out the sinful masses of men on the earth a pretty pathetic "reset" if it didn't take kill the vast majority of men who populated the earth. Lots of holes in this theory.
You understand that the mythof Noah was a straight crib from the epic of gilgamesh which not doubt the israelites picked up during the babylonian captivity, bur its inlty a story like the odddysssey or the iliad, whick kicks off with irrevocably have the gods decided to flood the land of Shurupak. the jewish Noah myth(which incidentally is also a Musselman or Muslim myth, is almost word for word taken from the epic of Gilgamesh. It is simply a copy. The Mediterranean basin from Egypt to Mesopotamia has ben subjected to many tsunamis from volcanic activity for millions if not billions of years. The Minoan civilisation being a case in point and if you survive a tsunami by clinging to flotsam you probably would end up at the tirkiah end of the Med which was supposedly formed after themd end of the last ice agewhen the barrier between the atlantic and what is now the Mediterranean gave way thus creating the Mediterranean. Human memory history is littered with flood myths; it is a only mad bihoted hill bullies too thich to grasp that world and flood wil admit of a multitudeof interpretations. If you live in a village and it gets wwahed away by some sort of flood, for you,you whole wor;d would have been washed away. For men(human beings/dreaming machines they have their little " worlds - see also the delightful " little world of Don Camillo, which is his parish. For world the mad bigoted hillbillies in their pignorance read planet. It is of course physically impossible to flood a planet and anyone that says otherwise and knows better is what we lawyers call*Ly-i-n-g* The word world" in mythology/race memory simply means immediate locale.
For some inexplicable reason the hillbilly kinderlander(Americans) suppose the almanac of the an obscure tribe of Arabs who came to call themselves israelites to be some how or other magic or authoratative- the call our Jewbook book, or bible, but being pignorant hillbilly kinderlander hve no idea that bible is simply another name for book, although why they don't write their own book preferin to adipt our Jewbbook, is a mystery..
faor fcuk's sakec*Why* suddenly andout of the blue decide to turn the book of an obcure arab tribeinto you your magic book? Pope was correct when he said a little learning is a dangerous thing, it can obviously turn other wise harmless hillbilly hslfwits into mad bigotsthat iin in the bigoted insanity suggedt that what cannot possibly be true is true, but then said mad bigots - for no apparent reason suddenly decide to latch onto the book of some obscure Arab tribe as a source of magic mumbo jumbo and monkey business
For fcuk's sake *Why* do that??!!
Why single out a book of an obscure tribe of Arabs that you have never met and never *will* meet if contemporary israelites get round to using the atomic weapons that they are supposed to have. in which event I would not like to be living near a missile silo when it all kicks off in spades doubled. For all I know the fantasy mister god of thre bigoted loon hillbillies is a fond of mass destruction as he/it is of homosexualists and prostitutes, Nazis and concentration camps, may may be my likes and dislikes do not coincide with hose of the idol of the md bigoted hillbilly non-doctors, who-if they are so fond of our Jewbook would do well to follow the logic and become Judaists or Jews; after all Brian was supposedly a Jew.
*If*Brian ecr existed for which there is not a shred, trac e or scintilla of extrinsic evidence.
Wht pu\\les me is why various kinderlander that deceive themselves that they are capable of being christians which they can no more do than they can fly suppose the Jewbook to have anything whatsover to do with the teaching of the method of the Buddha known as jesus christ, which it does not since they are wholly unrelated; it makes as much sense to tack the Jesussey onto a compilation of issues of popular mechanics or the no less famous growing orchids by candlelight.
@@vhawk1951klwrong, Gilgamesh is Nimrod that later became the same god for other religions: Apollo, Osiris, shiva, Baal, Molech,Thor on and on and on… and all following the occult that the Creator has warned, from 1 Enoch that is actually the oldest book ever written, before the flood.
All pagan gods are the same and all roads lead to Babylon regarding the occult, being Gilgamesh (aka Nimrod) one of them… if you don’t understand that the world is not just a materialistic utilitarian reality but it also has spiritual metaphysical processes you will be forever restricted to delusion and debased from historical and even scientifical evidences (true science not current cult of scientism).
Good luck in your path of understanding, it is clear you are still a child in matters of wisdom. Relinquish your pride and seek truth, even if makes all your current “knowledge” to be thrown out the window, the world has been gaslighted with fakery and lies for decades so don’t be discouraged, you were not the only one deceived, but one can become one to the few currently that understands.
Now if you are paid to not understand what I’m saying then I pray for you to understand it anyway no matter if it costs you something.
@@vhawk1951kl You understand that you are promoting a bunch of liberal nonsense.
@@PaDutchRunner Shrug, that is merely a tantrum and you advances no reasoned argument because you have no reasoned argument to advance but rather illustrate that you - like the writer, are the abject slave of your functions and a pignorant kinderlander that misuses the English word liberal which simply means free, generous or tolerant - from the Latin liber, meaning free, but I expect nothing a else from a grunting pignorant savage that is entirely innocent of any kind of intellectual accomplishment or ability. in that dialect of English or pidgin american or kinderlander liberal has come to mean to some of the more pignorant savages such as your goodself *It*-doesn't-like- it, which is merely an automatic- mechanical reaction to the function of which you are the abject slave and anything but *free*; now go and boil your head for a turnip or re-arrange the following words into a well-know phrase or saying: Off Fcuk.
Can You make Dr Jason have a discusión with IP
On this?
Excellent content. Subscribed.
Excellent..
Very informative and enjoyable 👍👍
Thank you for doing this correction Eli and Dr Lisle!
So important that we call out error. Theistic evolution is major error and even an oxymoron.
What on earth"theistic evolution"?You clearly have no idea what oxymoron means.Evolution merely means unrolling, but you are clearly more than a little hazy on the meaning of *that* word as well, your problem being that you use words without yourself having any clear idea what you seek to convey by them.
The difficulty of the religion of unrolling is that it is -like many religions, based on a fundamental misapprehension - the supposed or imagined mechanism being non-existent; moreover it presumes that nothing is impossible for the implied or assumed misster evolution; you creatures seeming to struggle to be able to accommodate the concept of impossibility.
@@vhawk1951kl you’re funny. you creatures? Are you not of the human species? If theistic creation is true, then evolution is false and vice versa. They contradict each other. And example of an oxymoron is a married bachelor. If he’s married, he can’t be a bachelor, and if he’s a bachelor, then he’s not married. Same thing, if God created how it says in scripture, then evolution can’t be true and if evolution is true, then God didn’t create it how he said. Both can’t be true.. is that easier for you to understand?
@@sandina2cents779 You don't have a degree or any higher learning, do you?
And, yes, it*is* that obvious.
@@vhawk1951kl oh, I’ve heard that before …. I’m so smart and you just don’t understand the complexity of it. Evolution is actually quite simple and basic. It’s not that it’s complex, it’s that it’s not true. When somebody doesn’t have anything intelligent to add, they attack the person personally… this says more about you than me. If I’m not intelligent enough for you to talk to you then don’t talk to me. I didn’t ask you to respond to my comment. Have a good day.
@@sandina2cents779 If you are trying to earn my contempt, congratulations you have succeeded ;in english smart means well or neatly and tidily dressed, sand I am not interested in how you cover up your complete an utter insignificance.You are clearly an half-wit and how you dress cannot alter that.
Abraham is surprised at having a son at 90 because they had been trying to conceive for over 70+ years. Ive known people that have struggled to conceive for less than a year and they feel hopeless.
And even after the promise given to Him by God, they still had to wait decades. We can be so impatient these days.
Probably-actually certainly a good thing since hoping like believing is just another form of stupefying dreaming. The jewbook is full of implausible lies like the dead coming back to life which is impossible. however those that wish to destroy their er reason need merely pound it out of existencet that stupefying hammer that is the psyvchological illness that is belief, which is the antithesis or *Exact_Opposite of faith, belief - like hope being a form of the dreaming that stupefies men(hanuman beings)
I often wonder why people read the Bible so different than other written works. In #4 I was thinking of stories where an event is mentioned in 1 chapter or scene, followed by an expansion of the event. A man mentions the one that got away to a friend, followed by explaining how they met in detail. Or reading a series of tragic events in US history, ending with "on 9-11 the towers came down." followed in the next section with a detailed account of the day's events from 1 eyewitness' perspective.
Gen 1 is the grand overview of the the series of events of the creation of all things, including Mankind, followed by the story of how Mankind came to be specifically, from the only eyewitness', the Lord God.
Actually, isn't Gen 1:2 through 2:4 an expansion on Gen 1:1?
I ask myself that question all the time!!!! All logic is lost as soon as it comes to reading the Bible!!!
How do young earth people explain gobekli tepe and the other archaeological discoveries in Turkey that are 12-13k years old?
Who told you that and why do you believe them?
great show! love this and Jason Lisle hitting it home!!!
JM,....Neither of these two guys are Christians or understand the Bible. They are both of the atheist worlds religion of scientism.
@@tonybasoni8443 With your statement above you have demonstrated you don't understand scripture by falsely accusing these men of not being part of the body of Christ.
@@jason.martin ,....No, actually I have in fact demonstrated that I do know scripture, and it is all of you ungodly people of the Godless world snared into the atheist worlds false religion of scientism that do not understand scripture.
I have absolutely not falsely accused anyone, but have spoken the truth for your edification. You have all been deceived. You are all in an entirely different religion to that of Biblical Christianity. You are in the God hating worlds false christianity that is under the umbrella of scientism.
You are all serving two masters and the truth is, you hate one (actual Christianity) and love the other, (the worlds false religion of scientism). You have all rejected God and the truth of the Bible and have instead turned to the God hating world and their fables of men. And Jesus will reject all of you on the last day.
Repent, and learn the actual truth of God and his word.
@@tonybasoni8443 demonstrated? making a one sentence claim certainly is not that. You sound like a typical cultist with your last post.
@@jason.martin ,.....Yes, absolutely demonstrated. To those with eyes to see and ears to hear that is. And that takes out anyone and everyone from any church.
You have shown how absolutely lost the people in/of the church are. When presented with the actual truth of the Bible, they accuse the bringer if truth of sounding like a cultist.
And the fact is, the few true believers, those that Jesus has raised from their spiritual deadness, are like a cult. A separated group called out of the Godless world and Godless church by Jesus.
As I have stated, you have been deceived and are of the God hating world and its false christianity that is under the umbrella of the antigod/antibible/antichrist religion of scientism.
A problem with one of the AiG claims, - the claim that all six creation days were 24-hour days as seen clearly in Genesis - is that the marking off of days into our current system of time measurement was not created in Genesis 1 until day four of creation week. One could argue that the day 4 creation is telling us that the first three days were not measurable as 24-hour days, or that the day 4 creation is neutral regarding how long the first three creations days each lasted, or that the day four creation can be explained as not changing the 24-hour days that the first three days each lasted. But the difference in interpretation of what day 4 meant regarding the measured length of days 1-3 tells us that it is not clear from the text of Genesis 1 how long the first three days of creation week each lasted. How long days 1, 2, and 3 each lasted is up for debate among serious literal Bible readers who see 24-hour creation days for days five and six (after day 4).
How do you say, “the marking off of days into our current system of time measurement was not created in Genesis 1 until day four of the creation week.”?? No version of the Bible that I have ever seen says anything like maybe “God created the rotation of the earth on day 4”, which is what determines the length of a day. It doesn’t take a sunrise with light shining bright and a sunset with the darkness taking over to measure the 24 hour day. If it’s totally stormy for 3 days and you never see the sun doesn’t mean that 3 days haven’t passed. In the Arctic at the pole where the sun doesn’t shine for about six months doesn’t mean that about 180 days haven’t happened.
(Anyway, even if you needed a “sun”, there was a light source from the first day - verse 3) there was a morning and evening of each of the 3 days so it was 72 hours that passed, not an immensely long undetermined time period.
So it’s ok to take things out of chronological order once we get to Genesis 12? I would agree with that but why aren’t we allowed to do that before Genesis 4?
Excellent! Very good!
Wow, IP, very disappointed in the lack of reverence for God's word. Thank you Doctor Lisle for not allowing secular views to influence your reading of scripture.
Thankful for Jason! SDG!!!
When Mike mentioned that barah had instances in which the word couldn't mean something out of nothing, wouldn't that imply that there are examples that it must?
Michael Jones has been asking to debate Jason Lisle for some time now. May you please set up a discussion ?
Dr Lisle won't even say Jones' name.
Debate is a noun not a verb.
Dr. Lisles' books are easy reads and really help you to spot logical fallacies, even when "smart" people use them.
At about 16:23, the ages of the genealogy from Shem are incorrect in our modern English Bibles. If we look at Genesis 11:12 for example, we see that Arpachshad was 35 years old when his son was born. When we look at the Septuagint however, we see that Arpachshad was 135 years old when his son was born, not 35, and this same omission of 100 years is seen in each one of the descendants of Shem, giving the impression that they were all in their 30’s when their sons were born. But it is not just the Greek Septuagint that bears witness to their ages, the same numbers are also seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the writings of Flavius Josephus, all bearing witness to a much older and more accurate text than is represented by the Masoretic text seen in our modern Bibles.
This is significant, because if one is using the incorrect ages from the Masoretic texts used in our modern Bibles, then that would place the flood at 2350BC; meaning that the great pyramids of Giza were under the waters of the flood and yet were not destroyed. Rather, when the proper dates are understood, it places the flood farther back at 3000BC.
So, while Michael Jones is way off regarding the age of the earth, men in Abraham's line were in fact having children in their old age.
I loved this conversation. I really appreciate Lisle and all that he does! Surely Michael Jones would want to do a response/debate/conversation/etc on this, but no matter. Gods Word is clear. It was never meant to be vague.
@@phil42 ok got it, you are an atheist.
Amen brother
Correct. It wasn't meant to be vague. That's why you can't understand it to be saying something that an ancient person wouldn't have understood it to be saying including the hard sky dome over the flat circular Earth in which there are windows and doors through which divine beings like angels enter and exit. But the world isn't like that in reality, so we have to adjust our thinking on those kinds of things.
Misses the point on the very first one. Whether Abraham is in disbelief, or excitement at the prospect makes no difference to the fact that being fertile at 90 is typically not possible in Abraham's view
Lisle doesn't understand the "When God began to create" view. He thinks IP is arguing that bereshit is not definite in Genesis 1:1 because there is no "the" in the translation. He also confuses why IP mentions that there is no definite article which is IP's main argument (Therefore it's no surprise that Lisle rejects it). IP's view is equivalent to "In *the* beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth," where bereshit is made definite by the phrase "heavens and earth". "When God began to create" is more of a conceptual translation rather than a one to one translation.
To anyone familiar with this discussion, there's a long list of arguments for reading bereshit in construct (When God began to create). While we can't fault Lisle for not responding to something that wasn't argued, watching either IP's video or Lisle's response barely scratches the surface for why one should read Genesis 1:1 as a relative clause.
Let's have a dialogue or debate between Michael Jones and Dr Lisle. I imagine Dr Lisle will be more credible than GStar or Ken Hovind.
I agree.
It would be impossible for him not to be.
Agreed
💯
PH,....None of those you mention are men of God, they are all men of the worlds 100% false, manmade religion of scientism.
I have given IP answers on that video that are similar to Dr Lisle (thanks be to God for giving wisdom) but have not received any answers.
Genesis 8:1 says "... and the waters subsided." 8:3 says "And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased." THEN 8:4 says Then the ark rested in the seventh month ... on the mountains of Ararat." 8:5 says "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. (So for 3 more months after the ark came to rest) In the TENTH MONTH, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. So his claim that the flood could not have covered the whole earth if the tops of the mountains were seen is just inexcusably poor representation of what the Genesis account actually says. Genesis 8:5 itself says "And the waters decreased continually" just before it says the tops of the mountains could be seen. Never mind 8:1, 8:3 and 8:4 which state the waters subsided, receded continually, decreased and decreased again. Never mind Genesis 7:20 saying the mountains were covered. This is a completely invalid position that has zero foundation in the Bible and is a classic example of selective interpretation of one partial verse while ignoring the rest of the same verse and all the other verses around it. Nothing this guys says should be taken seriously, he clearly is picking and choosing verses, making wild speculations on the verses then making huge leaps in logic that have no basis in reality to make his points. As anyone would have to do to disagree with the Word of God!
I wonder if John 1:1 uses the same "In the beginning" as Genesis 1:1.
Yes, it does, and teaches thus, in John 1:1-14
John 1:1 uses "en arche" like Genesis 1:1 because it is copying Gen 1:1. At the same time, Gen 1:1 is ambiguous whether it refers to the absolute beginning or an initial period due to there being no definite article.
Also, I suggest reading Jason BeDuhn's work on Biblical translation. Part of the reason most English translations translate passages similarly is because they have the same biases. BeDuhn discusses this in the concept of the trinity most specifically, but this could apply to any passages where the translators have a common bias. I am not saying Dr. Lisle is incorrect that Genesis 1:1 is translated incorrectly, simply that by comparing it to other translations and validating it on that is fallacious reasoning.
I wonder how Lisle would interpret genesis 2:10. I know the Pre flood earth was much different than today, but dividing a river into four rivers doesn’t normally happen in the rivers today and if it does, it’s brief and they come back together into one again. It would definitely require very specific conditions.
@Σά ββας you barking up the wrong tree my friend. Just because I’m trying to figure out how things worked in the Pre flood world doesn’t make me a Deist. Yes God can do anything he wants, I’m no naturalist. God sustains everything by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3) but I’m not going to automatically assume a miracle, which as far as I can tell would be necessary to split rivers in that way. I just wanted to know what Lisle’s explanation for that is because honestly it’s a weird part of scripture I am having a hard time understanding. I hope you can extend some grace on this issue. Peace!
@Σά ββας It’s cool man! You’re right he could split river arhat way if he chose to. Although I try not to insert a miracle where the Bible doesn’t explicitly say it.
The way I naturally interpret that is you have this river and as you follow the river there is a portion that is divided. I don't think it's saying something miraculous or supernatural occurred.
I also notice Micheal Jones in the video making appeals to authority fallacies.
I dont think his appeals to authority are fallacious, because he only appeals to people who are actual authorities. Appealing to an authority is only fallacious when you appeal to someone who is not an authority.
@@TheCASSMAN777 Not true, but half true. That is a one of the categories of an appeal to authority fallacy, but there are actually three categories to it. The first one, however, is what I was referring to. This is the one where you cite an authority without citing the evidence, and therefore imply that your "authority" is infallible, which only God is infallible. Whenever you argue in such a way that it makes it look like you're presenting the "authority" as the evidence, then you are implying that your source is infallible. Also, keep in mind, it depends on where in the discussion we are referring to. Sometimes he was appealing to authority, and sometimes he wasn't. I just referring to the moments where I saw him make such appeals. Also, if you ever seen Michael Jones in a debate, he commonly does this. Thanks for the reply! Blessings!
@@apologetics-101 but he did cite the evidence in referring to the books the evidence is in. If he didn't do that each video would be an hour long.
@@vedinthorn Yes, at times he showed his sources, but more often than not, he appeared to be assuming his particular interpretation of a passage was right because there was others who held it. However, anyone can find someone somewhere that agrees with them. The catch is to demonstrate from the text where your particular interpretation is the right one. The sheer fact that you can find someone who agrees with you, does not exclude the possibility that you both might be wrong. Blessings!
Mike never cites someone as if their authority makes them right. That's an uncharitable interpretation. You can say he's not skeptical but when he cites someone, he does it because they represent a view well or because he agrees with the argumentation that made them come to the conclusion@@apologetics-101
Loved this!! Thank you so much!!
Thanks!
God bless Dr Lisle. Defending the foundation of the Faith! I like the other gentleman’s content except for his anti creationist views. If death came before sin than death can’t be the wages for sin and Jesus’ death was for nothing?
Adam did not physically die when he sinned! He became separated from God, spiritual death. Animal death has NOTHING to do with Jesus on the cross.
There is 76 quadrillion tons of biodeposits in the Earth's crust caused by billions of years of DEATH! So believe what you do or you are a heretic? - pffft!
How old was Job & his wife when he had his second set of children?
Good stuff
"You can't counter fiction with fiction." I think this was a standout moment for me. If the account of Genesis can't be taken literally and is instead a lot of symbolism and flowery language with no substance, then how is it any better than the creation myths of other cultures? It's like professional fencers dueling with baguettes rather than than our side using an actual sword.
And not only that, but it just would seem to indicate that God is being intentionally unclear in what He was trying to convey to His people, but He has stated that He is not the author of confusion.
You're closer to realizing that religion is just a myth
@@Edward-bm7vw do you mean the religion of chemical evolution and common ancestry?
@@bobbyfischersays1262 Those are not religions. You see, unlike religion we rely on evidence. And the best evidence for these theories is DNA. It has proven without a shadow of a doubt that these are indeed the best explanations
@@Edward-bm7vw "Beyond a shadow of a doubt". Pretty arrogant response. Darwin had his doubts, he was concerned that he couldn't account for the sudden appearance in the fossil record of fully developed and distinct species; yet he had blind faith that paleontology would discover "interminable intermediate" fossils. None have shown up. I'd note that we're using the same evidence. As a Christian, I'd point to DNA as great evidence of intelligent design: it's coded information, like blueprints, for body plans. Specified, orderly information only comes from an intelligent mind in our experience. How can a blind, unguided process create something so irreducibly complex, specific, coherent and purpose-driven as DNA?
You also didn't address chemical evolution, or abiogenesis. How did life come from non-life? It flies in the face of elementary biology. If you subscribe to either or both of these types of evolution, you have a religion, my friend! A false one at that.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 If you understood the evidence you would understand why I'm making that claim. And no Darwin did not necessarily have any doubts on his theory he nearly had questions he did not have the means to answer yet or had the means to experiment for. That is typical with most theories. Darwin lived before we understood better what DNA was. And yes we have found some intermediate species such as with Tiktaalik. An archeopteryx is also an intermediate between a bird and a dinosaur. There are other examples as well.
And to know DNA is not any indication of intelligent design. And there have been many court cases across the years where intelligent design proponents were asked to demonstrate how ID was a science and not a religion and they failed colossally. ID fails to make any accurate predictions that can be tested. Because it is a pseudoscience. It is a pathetic attempt at injecting religion into public schools.
Secondly this "irreducibly complex" term is something made up by Christians and other religious apologetics. There is no evidence to suggest any of these systems qualify for such a distinction. We have already shown how they can be broken down into smaller systems such as with RNA. RNA is a slightly different version than DNA so it is the next logical step.
And abiogenesis is a vastly different theory than evolution. It tries to answer a very different question. And you know it does not fly in the face of biology, It is a question better answered by chemistry. I suggest you look into the Miller Urey experiment and pick up a book on origin of life studies.
In the 52:00 min mark Dr. Lisle sites Genesis 3:19, indicating that a physical change in Adam has occured. Mainly, that Adam is now mortal and will return to dust. But Genesis 2:7 says that "God formed the man from the dust of the ground" initially. Now maybe Dr. Lisle is saying that dust was "immortal dust" idk..I'm just saying 🤷🏻♂️🤔
49:00 if there was no animal death before the fall, the entire sacrificial system for substitutionary atonement makes no sense. Why would it make any difference to sacrifice an animal as a substitute for man, if they already knew death before the fall. Maybe I'm missing something in my line of reasoning but that's what just came to mind when I heard the discussion and felt like maybe I should share it. I'm still not clear on what would have happened if the animals (and humans for that matter) had reached max population, if there hadn't been a fall to bring about death. But I guess because God knew what was going to happen, that might be irrelevant. Also did lions evolve to have fangs and sharp claws before the fall, after the fall but before the flood, or after the flood? Curious and curiouser lol
Did Dr. Lisle ever respond to the cognitive dissonance video?
Perhaps tips of mountains could have been seen yet periodically covered with waves, large or small...you can't REST on a spot where waves are occuring 🤔
Interesting perspectives from Dr Lisle... but I am still not convinced that this is a debate worth dividing the brethren.
Conversation and debate while loving one another is biblical and a great example. Jesus said that the world would know we are Christians if we show love one to another.
@@thehylers1021 I agree, and too often the YEC crowd has been very dogmatic and condescending and accusatory of those who do not hold to 100% literal views of the Creation Event.
@@RealCaptainAwesome Condesention is not unique to any particular position. William Lane Craig holds YECs in derision and has publicly stated as much (several times, if I'm not mistaken).
Personally, I'm not bothered which side derides the other as long as the derision is focused on the denial of obvious proof. (That's what "fool" means)
Know the truth, and you know God. Don't let the mistake go unattended
I think it matters because it’s not biblical and undermines the Gospel
I think an obvious reason that Abraham was excited and laughed at the idea of Sarah having a child at age 90 would be the fact that they were infertile for decades not able to have a child, how exciting/amazing that would be for them to now be able to have a child
they have been arguing and debating this subject using the bible for many years and there's no clear cut winner. how can either side be so sure of themselves? there's also many books written that support each side.
At best the ages of the genealogies tell us how old the humanity is not the age of the planet , because if it is infered then wherw?
Second question - Astrophysicists recently used gravity wave detectors to detect a pair of colliding neutron stars. The light arrived at almost the same time (They are trying to explain a 1.7 second discrepancy over 130 million light years..). Means that gravity and light both seem to travel at C. How does this work? Means that both the light and the disruption to gravity waves can only have been created 'in transit' and the event must never happened because it occurred 1,300,000 years before creation. I can find no comfort in explanations that God's physical laws were changed in this period.
The only honest and coherent argument is the idea of the young universe created old so as not to arouse suspicion. That is, the creator tricked you into believing that everything looked old. So obviously all science shows that the universe is very old.
"the very fact that it's possible means that there's not a problem in the text" "that is a possible interpretation so therefore it's not a necessary conflict there".
No. We should look at what is most probable in these cases.
Yes, but not for the reasons Mike Jones lays out. Someone should donate for a mic for Jason Lisle.
Jesus Christ is known to have quoted from the Septuagint which was heavily in use in his day. Why do modern scholars always ignore studying it but prefer to bring study along in the Hebrew only which is a translation from Latin which was translated from the Septuagint.
An OEC has to work very hard with very few verses to prove his point while the YEC takes the Bible as it reads. Reading the Bible from 12 years old to 30 years old, I never saw Old Earth or Calvinism in scripture. I had to hear someone tell me how to look for both. Way too convoluted I believe.
Keep reading to encounter Calvinism
If you read carefully, you can find pretty much all of TULIP right there in the Pentateuch. I kid you not.
Try this: read all of Deut 28, and then ask yourself "why on earth are these people so disobedient!"
The answer is 4 verses later, in Deut 29:4.
The solution for their dilemma is in Deut 30:6. It's something only the Lord can do to you. And them.
Thanks.
11:53 Jason says Shem was dead at the time Abraham was 100. Didn't Shem die when Abraham was 150?
But didn't God say in genisis that "from that day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" ? Would seem kinda redundant if they were mortal already
Faot point but my guess is that the writer was trying to warn people off all that good/evil right/wrongmorality religion, mumbo jumbo. the clues? a talking snake and a supposed 'god' asking questions, the preposterous being code or a flag for this is allegory, so what would be the fruit of the tree of the(knowledge* of good and evil, evil if not all that morality monkey businesswhich causes nothing but trouble?Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil won't necessarily kill you but it will surely do for plenty others, like the man that has never had a car accident, but has caused hundredssprings to mind The absurdity if an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent being asking questions is truly hilarious and if that and the talking snaje are big enough allegory flag, I don't know what is, and of course it is not a coincidence that it is passivity symbolised by a being of the passive sex, Eve,is the source of the trouble for as we say in Persia, almost all the troubles of this earth com fro the wiseacreing of women.
Mo sooner do men(human beings) catch religion or all the morality mumbo jmbo that they set about imposing their religion/morality(all one)on others, which can only possibly lead to trouble. Essentially Mr Od, is saying don't start labelling things good or evil- which is the fruit of the tree of the*knowledge* of good and evil and what else could that be but labelling things either good or evil- or simply reactions of the emotional(like/dislike)function, from which it is but a short step to the right/wrong morality religious monkey business which it is idiotic ti link wirg rgw mr Od fantasy given that Od is supposedly not just omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent, but inextricably bound up in eveything that happens from concentration camps to the slaughter of the unborn in numbers that makes the holocaust seem not only amateur but positively benevolent, the net effect of being omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent is that *Everything* that happens or takes place anywhere is the will of Od, that being an inescapable concomitant being omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent is that ypu cannot be heard to say nufink to do with me guv, and of course you know why the loons are so keen of the what is called free will fantasy, don't you ?For without it what can you *not* do which is so bound up with the worship(simply means valuation- see worth_ship)of their inner god/Od self calming A man's god/Od, call it what you will is that which is more important to him than anything else at any given moment for which there are any number of candidates quite apart from self calming, and *all* of them concomitants of being the passive slave of the functions, and on function in particular.
Whoever wrote Genesis was clearly a canny man with a good understand of the psyche of men(human beings) was most likely the product of one or another esoteric school, and of course he had to be subtle about his message because men creatures are awful fond of the morality/religion monkey business especially when they catch that dreadful for the sufferer and all others disease I-am-right whereupon*someone* shall surely die, for it is but a short route from good/evil to right/wrong to I-am right which is shown on many a death certificate as a cause of death, s it is not just the consumer of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that will surly die but as a number of others as the typhoid Mary of religion/morality goes her merry way hither and yon .
Good stuff. IP (Jones) usually comes armed with a lot of scientific data, which is good. But his process for endorsing various "scientific" views has seemed a little dodgy in the past, as he can be too quick to throw the Bible under the bus. This is one such instance, and it's good to see someone well-credentialed opponent set the record straight.
Considering God's "Two Books" approach (Scripture and Nature), only one claims to be Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible. Based on that fact alone, we're much better off if we stretch Nature to fit Scripture and not the other way around.
After finishing this discussion, I just want to thank both Eli and Dr. Lisle, it was a great refutation. The other thing is it is pretty clear that IP does not have any sort of theological or hermeneutical training, but only in philosophy. He was ignoring the clear passages in scripture and then running wild on the unclear and just adding in whatever he felt like (unlike Dr. Lisle who clearly states when his positions may not be accepted across the board). To paraphrase John Calvin, where the bible speaks, we can speak, where it is silent, we are to be silent. Based on the things IP was saying, it is likely IP does not sit under any accountability at a local church, which is very problematic (This is speculation though based on the first observation on how bad IP's theology is). Philosophy on it's own is literally something the Bible warns us about (Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ).
You don't know anything about Mike Jones, do you?
@@vedinthorn If you want to provide some information related to my criticisms, I am more than willing to read and be corrected.
@@retrograd332 well he's publicly stated that he attends and is a member of a church, so that's one.
And basically all his statements in his videos are gleaned from experts in each of the fields he's speaking. So that's another. Sorry if you don't like it, but plenty of people with Phds in biblical language, culture, and history aren't YEC. In fact, most aren't.
Martial, I’ve followed IP for a couple of years. IP, As an avowed idealist, if you truly grasp what an idealist is, is exceedingly problematic with the historic, orthodox Christian faith. Believing ALL is mind is painfully close to Mary Baker Eddy the founder of christian science. I’m praying for Michael and would love to see him clearly embrace orthodoxy! Not orthodoxy as in the denomination, but the Historic True Faith. He’s so very bright!!!
@@NelsonAerial
Indeed... because many conclusions Michael comes to are outside the pale (very problematic... as you said). It's really troubling. He actually ends up ironically in "commonalities" with atheism... and then reifies
their plausibility. (nothing against him personally... at all)
I was raised in liberal Christianity. I was agnostic - God was a concept. It was my personal study in geology that made me a young earth creationist after being a theistic evolutionist. I still have trouble understanding how anyone thinks that there is evidence for evolution. It is just not there. Not only do we not see transitional forms. We do not see transitional characteristics.
How " young" is " young"?
@@vhawk1951kl I believe the earth to be just over 6000 years old. However, the universe itself is much older.
@@theodoreturner5567 Since the earth was created the earth first (the sun, moon, and stars on day 4), how can you say that “the universe was much older”? Another way of looking at it (besides just what God said in Genesis chapter 1) - Jesus stated, “from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” Obviously since Adam and Eve were created on day 6 that makes sense. If the beginning of the universe was over 13.7 billion years ago, well, let’s say, not so much sense…
@@1000DavidK "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", is expanded in the next 30 verses. The creation of man is expanded upon in Genesis 2:4ff. This is the "repeat and enlarge" of Hebrew narrative.
The earth is "without form and void", thus already in existence, when God addresses what happens to the earth. "Let there be light" addresses the first light that comes to the earth, however that occurs.
On Wednesday, the sun, moon and stars (planets) are created. Days had already existed and are literal 24 hour days.
Satan fell prior to the creation of the earth, as described in the six days of creation.
@@theodoreturner5567 I think that I agree with your first 3 paragraphs (although I don’t think that I have ever heard of the “repeat and enlarge” terminology before). The 4th paragraph has me stumped. What does Satan’s fall have to do with the age of the universe versus the age of the earth? How do you get that he fell prior to the creation of the earth? Colossians 1:16 “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.” Exodus 20:11 “ in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,“ and reiterated again in Exodus 31:17 “ in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, "
Have you had IP on the channel?
Yes
If you scroll through past episodes you will find it
I agree with Jason 99.999% I love that he speaks of the Nephalim as those who fall from grace. Their fathers are the prophets of God who chose to marry gentile women. The wives didn't know God, and the Nephalim (children) were still prominent powerful Elites in their day.
I’m only 16 minutes in and I’m surprised by the weakness of Dr Lisle’s counter arguments on Abraham so far. He says Abram laughed out of joy, happy to know another son was coming to him. What?! If that were true, why is the vocabulary of his skepticism about Sarah’s age the same as his own? (Can a man…? Can a woman…?) Moreover, why did Abram immediately plead for Ishmael to be chosen? Clearly Abram was not laughing out of expectant joy. And the video doesn’t even address the Michael’s major point of 15:05!! I don’t agree with all the points in Michael’s position, but I have to give him this point.
I do not agree that the word in question that is said to mean "out of nothing" has to mean so in Gen. 1 because to mean something else would be heretical. I don't agree with the video makers assertions generally, being a YEC myself. However there is one substance that is "co-eternal" with God as it is the substance of God Himself, namely spirit. And I do not imply that things made of spirit are made from God Himself. I am no pantheist. My conclusion is that "the Beginning" refers to the beginning of space and time, not to the beginning of everything. The "third heaven, at the very least, refers to something immaterial, and supernatural, and outside of space and time. And things there are spiritual, and also eternal. I derive this from Heb. 11:3.
God is outside of time (after all, He created time).
But He also made the angels, even though they're spirit-beings. So I'm curious as to why you believe that the immaterial and supernatural (ie, angels and the occupants of the third heaven) are outside of space and time? Just because they're invisible doesn't mean they're outside of time.
See Rev 8:1.
“Under the influence of the Holy Spirit?” Then why was Luke running around collecting sources?
Because running around looking for sources is not incompatible with being under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Christians don’t teach that divine inspiration is equivalent to God simply downloading the information into our heads:)
@@RevealedApologetics it would’ve saved the errors in the bible. Okay, let me ask you, what is “under the influence of the Holy Spirit mean?”
Enjoyed this but honestly not sure all answers really show a young earth. The simple interpretation of the Bible would therefore clearly show there isn't a young earth depending clearly on a pre-bias. Enjoy these discussions, still ending towards Michael thinking.
Are you familiar with William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross?
Jesus be praised
“I’m gonna wreck you so hard it’ll be like you were never born.” Is basically what’s going on with the referencing Genesis by Jeremiah.
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."
Inspiring Philosophy very well could be a shill / agent. One thing many people aren't aware of is the number of controlled opposition agents within religious matters, particularly very popular ones (their popularity is largely inflated / fake).
I’ve never heard ANY minister ever interpret Abrahams laugh as joy versus incredulity, same for Sarah. That’s a completely wild interpretation..
You don't know God as Abraham did. It would have been from joy and amazement. Else the same type of reprimand would be directed at Abraham, as was Sarah. God knows our hearts.
The problem I have with Michael Jones' interpretations is that he never uses Hebrew scholars for his word meanings, he always refers to Western scholars.
23:45 The idea that the Bible is somehow outside of its cultural context seems wrong to me. Using symbolism common to the time period is not a lie any more than saying “the sun rises.” Different cultures value different things, and we can see examples of this all throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments. The Bible had its own cultural context, we cannot expect it to conform to our own cultural standards. Also Lisle’s argument is presupposing Genesis is not a metaphorical text.
That’s because it’s not. It’s literal.
do you have insta or discord? I agree with you and would love to talk
@@prissylovejoy702 How do you know?
@@stars1190 Thanks, but I keep my accounts separate. We can talk here!
@@gigahorse1475 OK 😁. So can I know how you exegete Genesis?
46:50 Jason is so right on about so many things but not about what death is. He believes death is life in heaven or hell. Death is the cessation of consciousness and that is what sin brought about. Adam was mortal and if he had remained obedient and not sinned his mortal body would've died but at that point, in a twinkling of an eye, he would've been given an eternal spirit body. Yes just like those alive "in Christ" at his return. There would've been no need for a resurrection or the shedding of Jesus' innocent blood. Death of mortal bodies was not brought about by Adam's sin. Eternal permanent death - cessation of conscious existence - was the result of his disobedience.
Dr. Lisle's defense of point 7 about initially being immortality seems shallow. John's point is still valid in that a God design can still be good while it involves a perfect balance of eating from the Tree of Life to sustain immortality. Man's sin would then cause the loss of this quasi immortality by getting himself banish from Eden i.e. the source of fruit that sustains this "immortality". Also God who has created all the diverse animals of the world from nothing does not need to kill an animal to get skins, he can just speak the skins into existence unless you are saying he did all the waiting to do the human way of creating skins leaving them to dry etc for 4-5 weeks.
Inspirational philosophies video should be renamed, " Top 10 twisted interpretations of the Bible that disagree with young Earth creation."
However, if this is the best they've got then we really have no Biblical issues to worry about.
Talk about a disappointing list, I was hoping there'd be at least one that requires at least some thought to answer. All but one or two I could not even see what the problem was supposed to be until they explained it to you. How can a verse be a problem for position, if you need the person making the claim to reinterpret it for you before you see the alleged point?
We need to pray for these poor Theistic Evolutionists for being so desperate to reconcile their faith in keeping favour with secular evolution and taking 'man's' word over that of our Lord - just so very sad!
Maybe you should pray for humility instead.
How do you accept the Bible as true and the Resurrection as fact while denying evolution? The Resurrection is justified through historical study and evolution is justified through science and the fossil record. One could even argue that an old earth and evolution have way more evidence supporting them than the Resurrection.
It is sad, I agree. When two irreconcilable stories of origins are forced together to come out with the truth then that third thing can be nothing else but monstrous.
@@salarsheriff7639 Interesting assertion, but evolution from goo to you has no support in science or the fossil record.
CG,.....Absolutely correct. These guys have nothing to do with Christianity, they are men of the Godless world and its atheist false manmade religion of scientism. These guys as well as all those deceived by them are Gods enemys.
Eli and Dr. Lisle thank you so much for this! What are the chances we could have another one like this in the same style to interact with the video Michael Jones put out ua-cam.com/video/RLcNTAi0Cw4/v-deo.html
Many blessings!
And at 20:30, Jason claims that when Genesis is critiquing the pagan creations myths of surrounding nations, that he is suggesting that this is a case of "countering fiction with fiction," which is strawman-ing the case made by InspiringPhilosophy, which is not the argument being made. IP's argument is that Genesis is countering fiction with truth. To strawman someone else is a logical fallacy, and Jason Lisle should know better. That is, unless Jason really believes that extensive use of metaphor in Genesis is equivalent to fiction. But then, he makes the argument that he reads Genesis "literarily" and not "literally." So, it is really hard to figure out what he exactly means by "literarily"..... the best thing that Jason Lisle says is that Kent Hovind is not the best representative of Young Earth Creationism.
The whole of creation was cursed. Tell me, how does Adam only get cursed, but from now on he will work hard for food.
""Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.'"
Whole creation was cursed.
I believe Michael is completely sincere. It’s just that he denies the scriptures and denies the testimony of God when he rewrites scripture by way of hyper scrutinizing the text.
Two points to consider in defense of a local flood and/or a flood that would fit better with the available geological record:
1) The Egyptians did not have a deluge level "worldwide flood" in their mythology, whereas the Sumerians did. This could be due to the collective memory of those passed down from Noah via immediate proximity to the event.
2) As the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers both have mountain sources, and because there is no geological evidence of cataclysmic deviant topography (that I am aware of, correct me if I am wrong), and since both rivers were mentioned pre-flood, it can be inferred that massive geological upheavals from the flood should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism. So what kind of flood are we dealing with here? Looking at Genesis 7:20 in the NASB, we read "The water prevailed 15 cubits higher and the mountains were covered." Fifteen cubits gives us about maybe around 22-23 feet? But what is what is this 'higher' measurement in relation to? Perhaps it depends on how we translate the word. What if, for example, we translate the word as it is translated in Joshua 3:13 or the variant in Isaiah 45:8, namely, 'down from above'. In other words, what Moses could simply be doing is recording the amount of water that fell from heaven, a total quantity of around 22-23 feet-worth. This amount of rain would have been utterly devastating to life, but not deep enough to cover tops of mountains, that is, unless you consider what waters Moses is referring to. The first consideration is that the word 'cover' and the word 'submerge' are not necessarily synonymous. 'Cover' could alternatively mean to 'blanket over' or 'conceal'. What water is Moses referring to in this concealment? One consideration would be the same water Moses refers to in Genesis 1:6-7, namely, the water of the sky, or heavy clouds. In this light, Genesis 8:1 makes more sense, as in the 'waters' being blown away are actual rain clouds.
Never necessarily?