I don't understand why science and the Christian faith have to be pitted against each other in an either or debate. I believe in a creator and I am fascinated by science, not threatened. The more we learn about how life as we know it came to be, the closer I feel to the source of creation or the creator. Personally, I subscribe to old earth theory. I believe the creation story as told in Genesis was not meant to be taken literally. Imagine trying to tell a child about a complex topic they are too young to understand. You are likely going to break it down into a language they can relate to and better understand. That's what I believe God is doing with the creation story in genesis.
Also, the Bible is a multigenre text. It has some history, narrative, law, wisdom, parable, poetry, prophecy, epistle, romance, just to name a few. Why do people want to compare it to a science textbook? It wasn't meant to be able to explain all of life's questions.
@Jeremiah dolsin Well at least those scientists are educated and know the difference between the locational "there" and the possessive "their". Fact is "jeremiah" (who, but creatards name their kids like this?), you have zero clue what a scientific theory is, that religions were first created by men to control morons like yourself in a an unbelievable yet gullible doctrine based on no evidence whatsoever. Evolution was a theory designed to explain what the bible never could nor bothered to explain, because the purpose of the bible was to make sure people don't grow a brain and start questioning all the glaring errors in the bible which are historically, geographically, geologically, mathematically, biologically, so wrong that one has to be a brain-dead idiot in this day and age to give it any credence whatsoever. Thankfully, religion is dying out in the smarter, more educated countries like Canada, so we will carry on without the crazy book for the near and far future, while the US sinks further and further into superstition and witchcraft.
@Jeremiah dolsin Yeah well if you can't get simple spelling correct, then what else is lacking in your education? Here is the difference between science and the crazy book, There are some new theories being presented and peer reviewed that Darwin got some things wrong. This doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong, it means that there are some new variables in the theory that must be redressed regarding some new research that has happened in more enlightened countries than the US. www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong . There are also new avenues of research being conducted and peer reviewed stating that Darwin was correct about environment playing a significant role in the evolution of various species: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317215626.htm This involves natural selection versus environmental influences, When was the last time the crazy book got peer reviewed and updated? The answer is never. There are exactly zero articles in google saying that the theory of evolution is dying out, like all brain-dead worshippers, it is wishful thinking rather than hard facts that you wish to present in the assumption that the rest of us have lost our minds to the Dunning-Kruger effect. As to religion disappearing in Canada, well here are the sad facts for you people: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/churches-closing-1.5150876 Has something to do with our superior education system.
@Jeremiah dolsin Well you see Jeremiah, when these scientists were around doing their thing for science, well the church was doing things like persecuting said scientists with excommunication, and in some cases torture, because they were proving that the bible was so stupendously wrong about basic shit like the sun revolving around the Earth. www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right/ Copernicus published his books after he died in 1543 for that very reason. You bible thumping hacks were running the show and hence most of these scientists were christian by force, not necessarily by choice. And what exactly is "holy science"? There is nothing that remotely resembles science in the bible.
The term evolution needs to be defined each time. There is biological, geological and cosmological evolution. Old Earthers may reject biological evolution but cling to geological and or cosmological evolution.
@@javenewhyte6255 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." "and ALL that is in them" That is a powerful statement. Exodus 20:11
I'm not trying to cause opposition, but I have a little story. I believed in the old Earth creation, and then one day, my English teacher told me otherwise. He asked the class, "When God created Adam and Eve, did He create them aged (as adults), or as babies?" God obviously created Adam and Eve as adults. He then asked us the same question regarding animals. He said that if God created the humans and animals aged, He would have created the Earth aged. He also said (now don't quote me on this. I didn't look into it much) that as time goes on, layers get piled up on Earth's surface, and on some of those layers, dino footprints can be found at the same layers as human footprints.
English teacher stepping outside his expertise here. Taking theology very literal here, Adam and Eve were adults because the characters needed to play the parts of the story, the explication of the dominion of man over the earth, the rules of the garden and the tree, the temptation, the fall of man, etc, etc, etc. Doesn’t work if their babies, plus god would have to baby sit… and he’s a busy guy. Seriously though, the thought that the earth must be old because Adam, Eve and the animals were adults doesn’t logically follow. This is only a Christian’s attempt to absorb the findings of science to fit their theology, better than lying about a young earth I guess.
@@norswil8763 you misinterpret the comment what he's saying is that if God created adam and eve as adults and he created the animals as mature then is that not an incentive to believe that he would have done the same thing for the earth so that yes it might appear to be billions of years old but in actuality it is not
Because you put your Faith in other People's bias assumptions they must use to do Historical Science. Historical evidence relies on worldview assumptions that cannot be proven. All Radiometric Dating relies on assumptions to calculate the age, assumptions that cannot be proven certain. What about the counter arguments and the evidence that supports Young Earth, did you just dismiss that as false?
@@johnroemeeks Everything requires a degree of assumption and presupposition, even as basic as trusting that 1+1=2. And we can't know anything with absolute certainty. So how do we decide what to believe? On the balance of evidence and the degree to which that evidence is consistent with other evidence. And using that as a basis, the evidence for an an old world is far more persuading than that for a young Earth. Have I considered the evidence for a young Earth? Yes of course. It's mainly based on tenuous hypothesis which is incompatible with mountains of other evidence and often requires unquestioning acceptance of the truth of scripture without explaining WHY I should accept the truth of scripture. But try me. Give me an example of overwhelming evidence for a young Earth, what backs it up, and I will investigate it.
@@steph9195 No, but for it not to be true you would have to demonstrate a fact which cannot be doubted. Until shown that it is reasonable to assume my position.
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." "and ALL that is in them" That is a powerful statement. Exodus 20:11
[8] “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, [10] but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. [11] For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20) Hello. I am respectfully responding to those that uphold billions of years in creation. My question is, are the six days of work and one day of rest in the 4th commandment (above) literal days, or allegorical days? Both in Genesis 1-2, and Exodus 20, six days is mentioned. Is the creation mentioned in Genesis 1-2 in direct contradiction with Creation in the fourth commandment? If God’s creative work in Genesis is an old earth model, and we are to imitate God, regarding the Sabbath, we must work for six billion years and rest on the seventh billion year? Silly right? Or, If God worked six (literal) days and rested on the seventh, and commands his people to do the same, that would make sense, right? Or is the fourth commandment hyperbole, a metaphor, or figure of speech, allegorical? Also, Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45 states two things about creation, that God formed the earth and that he did not create it empty, and that God formed it to be inhabited. Why would God take billions of years if he created it to be inhabited? Furthermore, and once again, it says he didn’t create the earth empty. When he says inhabited, surely he's talking about people, right? In light of the verse above, I don't think the old earth model really makes sense. But the bigger picture is, do you understand God’s purposes for creating the universe, including our home, earth? If you did understand, then I believe you would appreciate why a young earth makes much more sense than an old earth. What are God’s purposes for all of creation? Sit and meditate on this question if you will. Maybe make a list of the his purposes for creating all things. Because this issue is the line drawn in the sand. We can talk about science and and biblical hermeneutics all day, but what are God's priorities for creating all thing?
In my personal view the old and new testament rhyme, and just as the NT ends in metaphorical prophecy, so too does the OT begin in metaphorical creation. As for what genesis means in a metaphorical interpretation I don't think I know yet, but I do know this, God is real (science and reason), Christ is risen (historical fact), and the Bible is true (apostolic authority and Jewish history).
lead takes about 4.5 billion years for it to be formed from the radioactive decay of uranium the existence of lead as an element in the earth disproves the young earth theory completely, while it also proves the old earth theory completely. also the bible says the earth was created about 6k years ago
@@tmo4330" in the last days there will be people misquoting scripture and making it say what they want it to say even when it says something else" 1 Making it up 3:5
@@gareth2736 It's called eisegesis. I have even had people tell me that God is ok with homosexuality and abortion! You give them scripture and they twist it. As a general rule, false teachers refuse correction.
@@tmo4330 the scoffers in the 2 Peter 3 chapter are people who doubt Jesus is returning rather than people questioning the historicity of the early genesis. The way 2 Peter uses those accounts is an argument on favour of the historicity of those genesis accounts but interpreting 2 Peter 3 as being primarily about people not believing the historicity of the Genesis accounts is eisigesis like you say. I'm confused now as to whether you did this accidently or deliberately to make an ironic point?
Anyone who claims the Bible only supports a “young earth” and any one who says otherwise is a hieratic…you are a delusional dogmatic liar. The scriptures DO NOT emphatically say the earth is young. You are only pushing YOUR interpretation, which is NOT some sound doctrine all Christians must believe. And anyone who says belief in an old earth means you believe In the ut interpreting what the earth says and what the Bible says. They both cannot contradict each other because both came from God. It is people’s preconceived notions, prejudices and interpretation which causes contradictions. Christians misinterpret the Bible and scientists misinterpreted what they see in nature. The Earth is not only above 6,000 yrs and nothing in nature evolved through random mutations.
Most young earth scientists do not claim that old earth believers are not saved. Most old earth scientists who may as well be secular, do regularly lob ad hominem attacks at creationists.
The problem with theistic evolution isn’t that it it is incoherent scientifically, you could make a case for it being coherent scientifically, it’s just doctrinally wrong. If the earth evolved through intelligent design and evolution, then death doesn’t become a bad thing, it becomes something to further the advancement of humans. And as we know, death and sin came into the world through Adam, therefore could not have been there through billions of years of evolution. If theistic evolution is true and death is a good thing for the advancement of human evolution, then what did Jesus die for? Young earth creation is the only argument that makes coherent sense with the foundational beginning of the earth while also being sound doctrinally. The biggest myth being peddled in the world today is that evolution is a fact and we can prove the earth is billions of years old. The world and scientists are lying to you and these are only suggested theories.
@@brandone.5106 “Most old earth scientist, who might as well be secular….” First of all you are wrong claiming that YEC do not deny people’s salvation if they hold to a old earth viewpoint. You just proved that they do. You implied that a Christian scientist who believes the earth is old must be “secular”. Why must they be secular? Because they don’t hold to your interpretation of the scriptures? Because they see evidence that shows that the earth is much older, you appear to be saying they are not biblical Christians; but secular. You are guilty of doing what you claim YEC don’t do.
If the bible said dinosaurs rode on skateboards and the oceans are made of pudding this guy would side with his Iron Age theology over simply looking at these things for mentioned and investigating them in their actual state. It never ceases to amaze me, the absolute dishonesty of theists to defend their scripture in light of an overwhelming, Everest sized mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Bible chronology indicates that the human race is around 6,000 years old, but it says nothing of the age of the earth. Genesis 1:1 suggests that the universe already existed before the six days of creation began. Also, the word for "day" in the Bible doesn't always mean a literal 24 hours. The Hebrew word "yohm", meaning day, can mean different lengths of time. William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies says: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” I believe in an old earth but I do not believe in macro evolution.
No one asked but... God created the chicken before the egg, in the same way that God created Adam as an adult, not as a fetus, an egg or a sperm. And yes, that means Adam (and Eve as well) did not have belly buttons. God created fully matured plants as well, not just the seeds and waiting for them to grow. Adam walked in the garden of eden with fully grown tree and plants, not a garden full of sprouts. And this also means that light rays coming from stars was fully travelled, which is why we can visibly see the stars that are millions of light years away--even though it takes millions of years for the light ray to travel to earth into our eyes, Adam still saw the stars because the light was already hitting the earth when God made the stars. The more you know.
Really? So Adam being able to see the light of stars billions of light years away means that the Earth is 6,000 years old? I agree, no one should ask to be lectured by a certifiable idiot.
@@Domtronic Gee Dominic, I am amazed at how utterly brain dead you people are. Suffice it to say that the answer provided: "And this also means that light rays coming from stars was fully travelled, which is why we can visibly see the stars that are millions of light years away--even though it takes millions of years for the light ray to travel to earth into our eyes, Adam still saw the stars because the light was already hitting the earth when God made the stars." is laughably wrong. In order for that idiotic statement to be true one has to admit that the Earth must be billions of years old. BECAUSE light travels through a vacuum at a fixed rate of speed, which is 299,792.458 m / s the source of that light had to have been created billions of years ago in order for it to be seen by us "fully travelled".
Noddler. Do you have Neanderthal genes? I dont see any in me? God said He created man. I look like a perfectly healthy man, just like all the other men I see around me. If you want to believe you're an ape, then speak for yourself. God said He made me and I will rather believe Him.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11
Then he set up the slave trade, hallelujah! Leviticus 25:44-46 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another. Kind of makes one yearn for the good old days where god told you your place. You really should find another god, this one isn't very black friendly.
@@dougdozier8782 Oh, I am sorry, you are worshipping a god that allows one of his creations to sell other of his creations? And what is even more hilarious, is that you find nothing wrong with this?
Why did he need 6 days? Why not just POOF it all into existence all at once. Jermaine, do you ever have a thought of your own or do you just quote verses from you little book of fables?
I think he should read John Walton. The theory he described seems to be a mix between gap theory and John Walton's view which is that the creation spoken of in Genesis 1 is about a pointing functions in order to things that already exist which would include the first two verses. The view he takes is not that different so I think he and I mostly agree on what Genesis 1 says but mostly disagree on what Genesis 2 says since he seems to take that more literal. I think a good case can be made The Genesis 2 uses symbolic metaphors calling Adam dust of the earth simply to refer to him as mortal and Eve coming from Adam's side as a way to explain there are two halves who are made whole when they are made one flesh. though I do agree with him that Adam and Eve were historical I don't think Genesis 2 is talking about how they came to be in a material sense.
@@tmo4330 sure do... But the context of Romans 5:12 tells us this is spiritual death. Romans 5:14, two verses later, says that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Clearly physical death did not stop with Moses, therefore the death spoken of in this passage is spiritual death.
@@chipan9191 So using exegesis, where do you pull "death before Adam" at. Book, chapter and verse. Birds were created before the land animals. That does away with the theory of evolution.
@@tmo4330 so I'm going to presume that you had no response on Romans 5:12 because you realize that I'm right or at the very least you can't refute what I said. With that in mind, we move on to your next objection... The presumption of your question is that if Genesis does not explicitly state that there was death before the fall then that means there wasn't... But isn't the opposite true? Since death is the status quo for our existence, isn't it safe to assume that death existed before the fall unless explicitly stated otherwise? I don't see how your position is the default position when your position assumes a special state of existence prefall that isn't explicitly stated in Scripture. As for the rest, I've already stated that I'm advocating for John Walton's position which is that Genesis 1 is not referring to the material creation of the things but rather their functional creation. So the order isn't a problem for evolution.
@@chipan9191 We strongly disagree with Romans 5:12. Do you also disagree that birds were created before land animals? Do you disagree the flood was worldwide? Or that plants were in the field before they grew. The "Titana boa" fossils found recently are said to be 65,000,000 years old! The "65,000,000 year old snake fossils" are no different than snakes today (except for size). The scientific implications are staggering because the fossilized snake is in its "fallen form" cursed to crawl on its belly since Adam sinned. You would be crazy if you place the fall at 65,000,000 years BC.
If God created everything that exist few thousand years ago, there was a time when he commenced to create. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was this God doing? Was God inactive prior to creation? He certainly did not think. There was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever happened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd that an infinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?
@Jeremiah dolsin "And second mistake is that all your arguments don't prove or mean anything" Then why are you so pissed off? stop crying bro. You can't prove your God either lmao!! lololol! You believe in a magician that created the entire universe in 6 days and then got so tired and rested in the 7th day? And what did he do on the 8th day? Pretty dumb isn't it? God is eternal in the past, but created everything just about 6000 years ago? Allow your self to think about that bro use your common sense if you have one. This God is eternal beyond time and He created everything including time itself? So what was in there back then before time came into existence? This allegedly deity existed all alone prior to the creation of everything, there is no time or being or thing or place prior to his existence. What would that even mean and how did it make any sense to your tiny little brain? It is an absolute nonsense and meaningless assumption. If there was a deity existing somewhere up in a vacuum of space of nothingness for an infinite period of time, so what was this deity doing in that infinity? He must have been inactive and wasting an eternity until He decides to create everything, or maybe He just pop out of nowhere and simultaneously spoke everything from nothing into existence. More so, your picture of somebody, creating something is completly taken from the physical world. That there must be a creator, or that a spirit exists beyond time and space is pure speculation. That a creating entity has to exist outside is not founded at all. Thus all your arguments are pointless and meaningless to the people with healthy mind who are able to think clearly, sensible, and logically reasonable. Sorry.
@Jeremiah dolsin Your picture of somebody, creating something is completely taken from the physical world. That there must be a creator, or that a spirit exists beyond time and space is pure speculation. That a creating entity has to exist outside is not founded at all. Thus all your arguments are pointless and meaningless to the people with healthy mind who are able to think clearly, sensible, and logically reasonable. Sorry.
So... yom = eon is not a valid theory? Evening morning have to be literally 24 hours (athough it's 12)... within that evening- morning period Adam had to name the animals (all of them), have a nap while Eve was created from his genetic material. To say that those are the only two viable explanations of Genesis 1&2 is a very narrow scholastic view.
I couldn't believe the stat that 40% of Americans think the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Then I watched this video and read the comments. I believe it now and I must say it is truly sad.
I’m surprised that the percentage is that low. Education failed us when more people believe that the earth is old and evolution is real than think the other way. There’s waaaayy too much evidence to support a young earth to deny it
@@sunsetpalms1923 Well yes, there is biblical evidence, which really isn't biblical evidence but some bat shit crazy bishop's interpretation of biblical evidence.
Coy Hampton I don’t actually think it’s 40%. Either that study is flawed, or from a long time ago. In 2019 there was some kind of survey or study where most people said they were atheists, and I don’t think there are a lot of young earth atheists.
Just curious how you would explain one thing then. This is open to anyone! If the sun and the moon and the stars weren't made the "first day" then how can we expect God to stand by a 24 hour literal day if there was no actual concept of this yet? We also know that God exists everywhere, so how can we be ignorant and say that He only exists on earth because earth is the ONLY planet that observes 24 hour days. Not arguing, just interesting.
On day 1 God creates light and with it, morning and night cycles which is why you have a day before the creation of the Sun, moon and stars. You also have to consider the original audience. All they knew were morning and day cycles on Earth, they likely weren’t aware that other planets even existed so it would be difficult for them to interpret the creation story to mean anything other than 24 hour days. Now that we know more, we can say that God isn’t limited by 24 hour days since a literal interpretation doesn’t match up with what we know from science. However I think the creation story in Genesis is not meant to be a super accurate account of all the details that went into creating the world. It’s a narrative geared towards the cultural context and understanding of the people at the time that explains what kind of God/creator God is.
I am not the first want to say this. So in someways, it is rhetoric. But we except that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days. We do not question three days. We do not believe that it was 300 billion years. Stop bending the knee to atheist. They will not love you. Six days. Sunrise, sunset. Why does it matter so much? Because it is everything to them. Atheist whole religion is built upon billions and millions of years. And they become extremely curious if you mess with their holy mother, Mary, millions and billions. Do not worship the mother Mary of atheists. Boy that sounded weird. But it’s true.
@Andy Ansell actually the word science in these verses is more properly translated as knowledge which was a common heresy at the time called gnosticism. Paul was telling Timothy to be weary of these gnostics who claim to have secret knowledge. He was definitely not talking about science in general as we understand it today
@Andy Ansell 1) yes but in context Paul was talking about gnosticism not science in general. Most translators agree with this which is why most translations say knowledge instead of science. It's like me saying that the my basketball team annihilated the another basketball team. I don't actually mean my team destroyed the other team and caused them to not exist, it's a figure of speech for my team beating the other team badly. It's one of the limitations of translation. Heres a good article explaining it: www.bibleref.com/1-Timothy/6/1-Timothy-6-20.html 2) Science is the observation and investigation into God's good creation. I feel like Science and Christianity are not at odds with each other but rather they are harmonious. God's word and God's creation are in unity with one another
@Andy Ansell 1) I'm not arguing from a language standpoint I'm arguing from a context standpoint. Whether the translation of that specific word is science or knowledge doesent matter, one of the limitations of translation. As you have point out Paul uses the word gnosi which can be translated to knowledge or science but what he is refering to in context is the group of HERETICS called to gnostics who practice the religion of Gnosticism and claim that they have secret knowledge about Jesus that nobody else had. Paul was warning Timothy about these heretics, not against knowledge. In fact Paul tells us to test everything to make sure that it is correct (1 Thessalonians 5:21). James says this too in James 1:3 Verses 20 and 21 of 1 Timothy 6 form the conclusion to one of Paul's most profound letters. Paul begins this verse with another personal appeal to Timothy. Paul referred to Timothy directly by name three times in this letter (1 Timothy 1:2, 18), reflecting their friendly perspective and close relationship. His challenge for Timothy to "guard the deposit" seems to be two-edged. One side is the reality of the kingdom of God, which needs to be proclaimed and defended. The other is a reference to the time and effort Paul had invested into Timothy's life. He shared these same words with Timothy shortly before his death, saying "by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you" (2 Timothy 1:14). Paul also repeats a common theme of his instructions to church leaders: steer clear of false knowledge and shallow arguments. Among the false teachings in Ephesus was a philosophy which would soon be known as Gnosticism, named from the Greek root word for "knowledge." Gnostic ideas presented matter as evil and spirit as good. Depending on the flavor of Gnostic teaching, the sins committed in the body either did not matter or all pleasures of the body were inherently wrong. Timothy was to stay away from such false teachings which contradicted the "sound doctrine" Paul had taught him (1 Timothy 1:8-11). Here are two great articles about Christianity and Science 1) biologos.org/common-questions/are-science-and-christianity-at-war/ 2) biologos.org/articles/should-christians-trust-scientific-experts Thanks for your time and your right this matter is rather trivial I just wanted to say my piece. As Paul also says "Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." 2 Timothy 2:14 NIV
Science is observing what God has made. It answers how the sky is blue, but not why it is blue. It's blue because God said so. Light travels, bends, and bounces in the way that it does because God made it that way.
The question was, "JOHN, do YOU accept old earth and evolution?" Piper responds, "Accept... (chuckles) meaning, are there people on our council of elders who hold to old Earth? Yes." How does Piper twist a question asking him HIS view to include the views of people on his council of elders? Piper is one confused man.
I know that's so hard to believe, right? A universe created by a Being with such immeasurable scale and precision, it's unfathomable that the Being couldn't manage to create a guy out of dirt....utterly preposterous and impossible.
The sun, moon, and all stars were not made until the 4'th day which was a literal 24-hour period. If a person denies the creation of Genesis 1-3 including God making man in His own image from the dust of the earth they are denying the Bible is God's word. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh affirmed the books of Moses and the account of creation. Why? Because HE was there and He is our Creator God. If you don't believe that you're not saved. The Bible is more than clear that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God and our Creator in more than one passage such as John chapter 1 and Colossians 1. There is no question who this passage is speaking about. Colossians 1:16,17 "For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
God can make things young and it looks old look at when adam was created he was not a baby but a young age men so god can make something young make look older
I believe in a higher power, good and evil, etc……but when I hear some Christians talk like this man does, i just feel like they’re missing out on a bigger picture.
The greatest confusion comes from equating (Adam, Eve, and Garden of Eden in Gen2) to (man & woman & earth of Gen1) these 2 accounts are completly different & try make as same is great confusion. Bible is but a love story of a jilted lover and the apple of his eye. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world... so when was this sinful world founded but upon the day of Adam & Eve disobedience for it was then that God discarded Adam and Eve fig leaves and gave them covering of animal skins.. of necessity was the shedding of the lambs blood and Christ was appointed as He who would give his life as seed of woman to redeem men from their sins Jesus was clear and precise doubt no more. He drew a line into the sands of time by saying Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John and there remain 3k years from Jesus 3 day prophesy John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. From Christ baptism & anointing unto the anointing dedication of Solomons temple was one God day of 1000yrs and from that dedication unto Adam's sin is yet another 3000yrs from OT chronology... but to equate Gen2 with Gen1 is a grave error leading to great confusion. The time between events of Gen2 and Gen1 is wholly unspecified by scripture
The Bible speaks truthfully but not always 100% literally in terms of human conception. God works outside of space and time and his version of “time” is irrelevant to ours. Both Psalm 9:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 state that for the Lord, one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand are like a day. Also the first verse of Genesis 2 says “these are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created” A billion years in the context of space time in the universe (give or take a few million) could pass as a single day for God. The universe (heavens) was the first thing created by God as well as, later on, the other planets including Earth, which, as the Bible says, was “formless and void” and God was hovering over the waters. Essentially, as both the Bible and science validate, the earth was rock and water before it was anything else. Billions of years later in spacetime but not God’s time, he created the sun as a means of “light” to govern our concept of time as well as allow for life to be sustained. From there he created the Earth and all its inhabitants over the course of billions of earth years (7 days in His time). I believe he also created things with the ability to evolve over time due to changes in their environment. The only exception I see to this is the human race because they are the only living creation he is very specific about in terms of how he creates them and the process he took to do so. He created man from the dust of the ground and the woman from the the rib of the man. Notice that all living creatures and organisms in general came last on His list of how creation occurred. Because everything they need to live was already created by Him in the billions of years of his work on the Earth. It is all compatible with science. It would not be possible for the earth to be created in seven literal days and with the age of earth material such as rocks, it certainly did not happen 6,000 years ago.
@@cinephile0620 I believe much as you do. God created the laws that govern his creation (including the requisite Physics, Chemistry, Biology for existence and life to even well..exist and thrive). And He created Man with a separate purpose from His other creations on Earth, as He created the Angels. And even if I’m wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that the Old Testament is historical (from the time of Moses onwards as Moses first recorded the oral traditions of his people), predicts accurately the coming of the Messiah, and that Jesus lived, died for our sins, and rose again and came to offer us a path to eternal salvation.
How to explain Neanderthals . There is physical evidence so could pastor John please explain where we get understanding of when god makes the decision to make us modern and do Neanderthals get to go to heaven please help . Getting lost in science and the mounting evidence of the length of time people have existed . Thank you 🙏
I studied biology in undergrad and in grad school now, so I understand the "theory" of evolution and it doesn't hold and its assumptions are shaky, to say the least. What I believe is that God did create the world in 6 literal days because He is God (Job 38). Now, regarding "neanderthals", I don't think they are what the scientific community makes them out to be. The pre-flood humans lived for hundreds of years and as such, parts of the body that grow constitutively, continued to grow, giving them that distinctive look. This is my thought. What we need to understand is that if we don't presuppose the bible is the inerrant, sufficient, Word of God, we cannot hold to any logical worldview because it is the revelation that the Creator of the Universe and giver of logical has made available to us.
All the "mounting evidence" is based on assumptions that their understanding and dating methods are correct. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions that are easily called into question and destroyed. the dating of fossils and "ancient human" bones is based on the assumption that the accuracy of their Radiometric dating of the rock surrounding the sedimentary layers containing fossils and such is high. Their entire structure is relative and can easily be collapsed. But no one will see it otherwise, not because they are intelligent and actually follow evidence where it leads - but because they hate God and have reprobate minds (Romans 1). All this to say, "let God be true, though everyone be a liar" (Romans 3:4). We don't get to put God on the judgement seat.
@@JB-yb4wn Maybe you should read my comment again because I never said carbon dating is used for fossils. I said radiometric dating is used to date rocks and the age of the fossils within is elucidated.
@@raghdalolabi1838 Well you would be breathtakingly wrong. You are not a physicist, but yet you can see the radiometric decay tables for yourself. You have zero evidence that there is something amiss with the procedure except that you assume that what you don't understand for some unfathomable reason, can be called into question and destroyed. You should be aware of how experiments are set up to prove or disprove a scientific theory. Should you be able to disprove radiometric dating as a viable way of dating objects, then a Nobel prize awaits for you. However, I am of the opinion that if someone who apparently had training in biology and believes that "pre flood" humans could live for hundreds of years by regenerating body parts (something we humans can't do now, neither could anyone who lived in Egypt or Babylon before the "flood" could either). because some bat shit crazy bronze age book says so, (where, I don't know), has squandered her parent's hard earned money on an education that she obviously didn't appreciate or use. Your god couldn't write a rule book to save his life, let alone create a universe. If you bother to read the tome you will find that it upholds the institution of slavery, allows his followers to slaughter innocent men, women and children in his name, while at the same time advocates the genocide of every living thing on this planet for really no good reason. He also doled out a death penalty for 42 children because they called someone "baldy", this is the amoral sack of crap that you worship. A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools! Proverbs 26:3
So it's not possibly an issue of tanslation or interpretation of time scales to ancient people or what's referenced in the bible. Because if I'm not mistaken there are many debates among unit's of measurement recorded in scriptures among christian scholars.
@@JB-yb4wn Assumptions! You know what they say about them!! Your comment seems to presume you know what the >discussion< states. I find most Christian denominations don't accept what they claim to believe in: namely, the Bible. I may be wrong, but your religion seems to be "science". Scientific facts change a lot over the decades. Just recently, the Big Bang has undergone great changes. Not so set in stone after all.😁
@@Grandliseur And you think that is bad? That is the beauty of the process, as we find out more information we reevaluate previous notions and put them up to scrutiny. Sometimes the original ideas stays put, sometimes it gets tweaked, and sometimes it is thrown out. But it is all peer reviewed. When was the last time the bible got peer reviewed? When was the last time the bible ever got updated and corrected? Never. So a bunch of idiots said that the sun revolves around the Earth. You still believe that? You think that there is now overwhelming evidence that disproves that laughable tenet in the bible? Or do you want to continue to believe that the guy who apparently created the universe had zero clue on how his "creation" worked and it took a bunch of secular or pagan HUMANS to tell him that. This sounds like a pretty dumb god to me.
@@JB-yb4wn What I think is >bad< is to have a mind so closed that isn't even interested in what is said in the so-called B. discussion because they only have room for the gods of science they so adore. I have nothing against science, but I take it as human efforts at making sense of the reality around us that is so error prone that what was taught as science a hundred years ago is now laughed at as funny. What was preached as fact 30 years ago is now rejected in place of new "facts." If you're blind to all except your chosen scientists, I pity you. But, each to his own. I like science, but it doesn't blind me to its flaws. I have nothing against the earth being around 4.5 billion years old, and it is not against what the Bible teaches. I'm just not convinced that scientists will not change this age in some future. Their manners of determining age is at times determined more by their beliefs than by the methods which may give several widely varying results where the scientist chooses the one that agrees with his evolutionary beliefs not based on facts but on personal likes. Anyway, we obviously have nothing in common in the search for truth.
@@Grandliseur What was preached two thousand years ago (in Latin or Greek, I may add), hasn't changed. The scripture hasn't changed and in fact a lot of what it says is laughable if not illegal today. What are your truths? The right to own slaves? That a loving god can justify murder, mass murder, and genocide? That the Sun revolves around the Earth? That there is a firmament above the Earth containing stars? Nobody needs these kind of "truths".
The global flood being a real event is critical in seeing Genesis as history. If the global flood occurred, old earth theories have nothing to hold on to.
@NeoBPP Scripture is clear enough concerning geneologies of Adam to Jesus. You will never get billions of years into the historical narrative if read plainly. Creation to the flood, the world was completely different, then wiped off the map geologically speaking. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics changed the world in a year not billions as uniformitarianism dictates. One ice age to follow which we have been warming from gradually.
Is God not smart enough to create evolution with natural selection, knowing that the process would produce Adam and Eve. As great as God is, are humans so arrogant to believe that God's day must be only 24 hours long? Are humans so arrogant to believe that the humans that wrote the words in the Bible, got things perfectly right such that the Bible is a technical manual, rather than a representative story that helps humans understand God just a little. Why do humans believe that the church men who picked which stories to put in the New Testament got it exactly right, putting some in and leaving many out. Why do so many humans seek power by quoting the Bible claiming only they understand its teachings? Why would God not have a book that every human can read to gain understanding of God and a just life? Science is the technical manual to the story representation of the Bible. I see NO real contradiction. The only contradictions are the ones that flawed humans invent.
"Young Earth"... what happens when an inability to read geology and physics textbooks becomes part of a cult based on the idea that a zombie carpenter was nailed to timber because of a talking snake and a man who ate fruit from a magic tree.
@@chrisa3289 why both where weiten by human one with facts and evidence the other with imaginary things wich doesn’t have an explanation. That’s why the bible is shit
The universe , earth , us and all things made were spoken into existence by the word of God. Whom is Jesus Christ. All this in spirit as God is a spirit. Spirit first which could not be seen then that would be seen , just make sure you see the light before it's too late
@@akinolawilliams161 Well that's a no-brainer, according to the Catholic crazy book encyclopedia, Jesus was the son of god, not god himself: www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm Do you guys ever read this stuff? Why can't you take a few precious seconds out of your all so squandered existence and look this stuff up yourself before asking stupid questions?
I have no issue with evolution! It makes more sense than a magical being speaking everything into existence! Religion provides no answers, only more questions, that cannot be answered! Science has answered more of my questions with backed proof, than religion ever has for me! I am ok with an I dont know here and there, I can see where it points me!
I disagree science like religion just add more questions. Science in terms of the beginning of the earth have theories and some are the popular theories taught at schools, but that does not make it fact. The question inside the theory is still "when, where and how?". At best science on this issue and evolution is intelligent guess work.....At best.
@@theflyingemu3647 the main difference between science and religion is that in what you call "popular theory" there are supported facts. Yes, in some cases 100% of all of the questions are not answered! But just because we discover a few more questions after we answer one, dosen't mean we didn't answer the question correctly!! Also, these so called "popular theory's" are only taught when and only when we have evidence to support the theory, and no evidence to falsify it, and even then it is years (just in case we got it wrong). The second topic is very simple, if and when we do find something wrong, we correct it and follow the data where it leads us, not just stick to the old dying dogma!!!
@@chrisa3289 why because I don’t believe in a thing witch has an ego tinder than an atom so he created an universe to worship him. If a God exist he won’t send anyone to hell because why would he care if I belief in him. And punish people for ever doesn’t teach anything he would show people what they done wrong
When your “desiring god” you will have to “not believe” in most rational thought. That’s why we have flat earther’s and holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorist, young earth creationist, Mormons...........etc.
Flat earh was a movement started buy cursing conspiracy theorists not christians. Young earth comes from an honest analysis of the evidence. Deltas, the salinity of oceans, erosion of waterfalls, the tails of comets, the dust in the moon, detectable carbon 14 in coal, diamonds, dinosaur bones etc.
@@thomasswedlund1097 boom, right on. They have found dinosaur tissue still in dinosaurs. That they say are millions of years old! Watch the truth about the dinosaurs. Really good.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who , 19 because . 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are , being , even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although , they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became , and their .22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, People do not want God to be true. They will view each line of evidence with the assumption there is no God.
Sounds good. Except that is NOT the consensus of scientist who study this. In fact the consensus is a very very old earth. For example young earth is off by the same factor as thinking Los Angeles is 30 meters from New York. Not a trivial error.....
@@mohanram8249 Look closer into carbon dating etc. It's not a stable science. They sometimes date the same rock different ages when they don't know it's the same rock. Research the dating methods. Are you a believer?
@@boltingpuppies I have researched the dating method and it's convincing ...and no not all old rock scientists come up giving different dates everytime .
Everybody is religious. All have their beliefs about the unobservable, unrepeatable, untestable past. Any beliefs about origins are based on faith. Both Creation and Evolution (molecules to man) are religious viewpoints. Science means knowledge. Observational Science disproves molecules to man evolution.
@@WillhideOnIce yeah, and the funny thing is the authors are often Not the ones claimed by Christians. For example the Pentateuch, a compilation of writings from different times and authors, not by the fictional Moses
@@aengor Most educated Christians don’t act like the Torah was 100% without a doubt written by Moses. That’s just traditional authorship, started not by Christians but by Orthodox rabbis. It’s unlikely that Moses was fictional given the testimony by the Lord Jesus Christ.
This man needs to study the Bible. And use exegesis as well. (Not eisegesis). Evolution is impossible. Why do you need billions of years anyway? I will be happy to answer any questions.
@NeoBPP💥 No he hasn't. Either he has never studied it at all, OR he doesn't understand simple implications (revealing his ignorance), or he is (I hate to say) a scoffer. Get your standard evolutionary timetable out. Notice it shows BIRDS evolving after land animals appear. Now get out God's Word. Notice BIRDS are created before any of the land animals. That fact alone completely destroys the theory of evolution. There are hundreds of other anomalies in the theory of evolution. Death entered the world by sin, and sin by Adam. WOW! Another fact that destroys evolution. The herb was in the field "before it grew". BAM! Another. I have hundreds of examples that prove the theory of evolution impossible. Please ask me questions! I will be delighted to answer them. I have studied this subject in depth since the 1970's. 💥.
Everybody is religious. All have their beliefs about the unobservable, unrepeatable, untestable past. Any beliefs about origins are based on faith. Both Creation and Evolution (molecules to man) are religious viewpoints.
I don't understand why science and the Christian faith have to be pitted against each other in an either or debate. I believe in a creator and I am fascinated by science, not threatened. The more we learn about how life as we know it came to be, the closer I feel to the source of creation or the creator. Personally, I subscribe to old earth theory. I believe the creation story as told in Genesis was not meant to be taken literally. Imagine trying to tell a child about a complex topic they are too young to understand. You are likely going to break it down into a language they can relate to and better understand. That's what I believe God is doing with the creation story in genesis.
Also, the Bible is a multigenre text. It has some history, narrative, law, wisdom, parable, poetry, prophecy, epistle, romance, just to name a few. Why do people want to compare it to a science textbook? It wasn't meant to be able to explain all of life's questions.
@@Caleb328
Yes it also has genocide, murder, slavery, incest, and all the other amoral things one would want in running a modern day society.
@Jeremiah dolsin
Well at least those scientists are educated and know the difference between the locational "there" and the possessive "their". Fact is "jeremiah" (who, but creatards name their kids like this?), you have zero clue what a scientific theory is, that religions were first created by men to control morons like yourself in a an unbelievable yet gullible doctrine based on no evidence whatsoever.
Evolution was a theory designed to explain what the bible never could nor bothered to explain, because the purpose of the bible was to make sure people don't grow a brain and start questioning all the glaring errors in the bible which are historically, geographically, geologically, mathematically, biologically, so wrong that one has to be a brain-dead idiot in this day and age to give it any credence whatsoever.
Thankfully, religion is dying out in the smarter, more educated countries like Canada, so we will carry on without the crazy book for the near and far future, while the US sinks further and further into superstition and witchcraft.
@Jeremiah dolsin
Yeah well if you can't get simple spelling correct, then what else is lacking in your education? Here is the difference between science and the crazy book, There are some new theories being presented and peer reviewed that Darwin got some things wrong. This doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong, it means that there are some new variables in the theory that must be redressed regarding some new research that has happened in more enlightened countries than the US.
www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong . There are also new avenues of research being conducted and peer reviewed stating that Darwin was correct about environment playing a significant role in the evolution of various species:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317215626.htm
This involves natural selection versus environmental influences, When was the last time the crazy book got peer reviewed and updated? The answer is never.
There are exactly zero articles in google saying that the theory of evolution is dying out, like all brain-dead worshippers, it is wishful thinking rather than hard facts that you wish to present in the assumption that the rest of us have lost our minds to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
As to religion disappearing in Canada, well here are the sad facts for you people:
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/churches-closing-1.5150876
Has something to do with our superior education system.
@Jeremiah dolsin
Well you see Jeremiah, when these scientists were around doing their thing for science, well the church was doing things like persecuting said scientists with excommunication, and in some cases torture, because they were proving that the bible was so stupendously wrong about basic shit like the sun revolving around the Earth.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right/
Copernicus published his books after he died in 1543 for that very reason. You bible thumping hacks were running the show and hence most of these scientists were christian by force, not necessarily by choice.
And what exactly is "holy science"? There is nothing that remotely resembles science in the bible.
Old Earth and evolution are not the same view. You need to stop insisting that old earth and evolution are one and the same.
Correct, they are both 2 different ideas that are well supported by evidence.
The term evolution needs to be defined each time. There is biological, geological and cosmological evolution. Old Earthers may reject biological evolution but cling to geological and or cosmological evolution.
@@javenewhyte6255 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." "and ALL that is in them" That is a powerful statement. Exodus 20:11
I'm not trying to cause opposition, but I have a little story. I believed in the old Earth creation, and then one day, my English teacher told me otherwise. He asked the class, "When God created Adam and Eve, did He create them aged (as adults), or as babies?" God obviously created Adam and Eve as adults. He then asked us the same question regarding animals. He said that if God created the humans and animals aged, He would have created the Earth aged. He also said (now don't quote me on this. I didn't look into it much) that as time goes on, layers get piled up on Earth's surface, and on some of those layers, dino footprints can be found at the same layers as human footprints.
English teacher stepping outside his expertise here. Taking theology very literal here, Adam and Eve were adults because the characters needed to play the parts of the story, the explication of the dominion of man over the earth, the rules of the garden and the tree, the temptation, the fall of man, etc, etc, etc. Doesn’t work if their babies, plus god would have to baby sit… and he’s a busy guy. Seriously though, the thought that the earth must be old because Adam, Eve and the animals were adults doesn’t logically follow. This is only a Christian’s attempt to absorb the findings of science to fit their theology, better than lying about a young earth I guess.
@@norswil8763 you misinterpret the comment what he's saying is that if God created adam and eve as adults and he created the animals as mature then is that not an incentive to believe that he would have done the same thing for the earth so that yes it might appear to be billions of years old but in actuality it is not
@@Frank-np4sp so God kept fossils which date back to millions of years just to trick all the scientists to not believe in God?
@@Frank-np4sp So all those fossilized animals never actually lived?
I have no idea if God exists, he may well do. But regardless, the evidence for an Earth that is billions of years old is overwhelming.
There are hundreds of anomalies in the theory of evolution. It is literally impossible.
Because you put your Faith in other People's bias assumptions they must use to do Historical Science. Historical evidence relies on worldview assumptions that cannot be proven. All Radiometric Dating relies on assumptions to calculate the age, assumptions that cannot be proven certain. What about the counter arguments and the evidence that supports Young Earth, did you just dismiss that as false?
@@johnroemeeks Everything requires a degree of assumption and presupposition, even as basic as trusting that 1+1=2. And we can't know anything with absolute certainty. So how do we decide what to believe? On the balance of evidence and the degree to which that evidence is consistent with other evidence. And using that as a basis, the evidence for an an old world is far more persuading than that for a young Earth. Have I considered the evidence for a young Earth? Yes of course. It's mainly based on tenuous hypothesis which is incompatible with mountains of other evidence and often requires unquestioning acceptance of the truth of scripture without explaining WHY I should accept the truth of scripture. But try me. Give me an example of overwhelming evidence for a young Earth, what backs it up, and I will investigate it.
@@EASYTIGER10 Do you know for certain that you can’t know anything for certain?
@@steph9195 No, but for it not to be true you would have to demonstrate a fact which cannot be doubted. Until shown that it is reasonable to assume my position.
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." "and ALL that is in them" That is a powerful statement. Exodus 20:11
[8] “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, [10] but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. [11] For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20)
Hello. I am respectfully responding to those that uphold billions of years in creation. My question is, are the six days of work and one day of rest in the 4th commandment (above) literal days, or allegorical days? Both in Genesis 1-2, and Exodus 20, six days is mentioned. Is the creation mentioned in Genesis 1-2 in direct contradiction with Creation in the fourth commandment?
If God’s creative work in Genesis is an old earth model, and we are to imitate God, regarding the Sabbath, we must work for six billion years and rest on the seventh billion year? Silly right?
Or, If God worked six (literal) days and rested on the seventh, and commands his people to do the same, that would make sense, right? Or is the fourth commandment hyperbole, a metaphor, or figure of speech, allegorical?
Also,
Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD,
who created the heavens
(he is God!),
who formed the earth and made it
(he established it;
he did not create it empty,
he formed it to be inhabited!):
“I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45 states two things about creation, that God formed the earth and that he did not create it empty, and that God formed it to be inhabited. Why would God take billions of years if he created it to be inhabited? Furthermore, and once again, it says he didn’t create the earth empty. When he says inhabited, surely he's talking about people, right? In light of the verse above, I don't think the old earth model really makes sense.
But the bigger picture is, do you understand God’s purposes for creating the universe, including our home, earth? If you did understand, then I believe you would appreciate why a young earth makes much more sense than an old earth. What are God’s purposes for all of creation? Sit and meditate on this question if you will. Maybe make a list of the his purposes for creating all things. Because this issue is the line drawn in the sand. We can talk about science and and biblical hermeneutics all day, but what are God's priorities for creating all thing?
I believe God created the universe for man. And He created man for Himself.
Well said ❤ thank you
In my personal view the old and new testament rhyme, and just as the NT ends in metaphorical prophecy, so too does the OT begin in metaphorical creation. As for what genesis means in a metaphorical interpretation I don't think I know yet, but I do know this, God is real (science and reason), Christ is risen (historical fact), and the Bible is true (apostolic authority and Jewish history).
lead takes about 4.5 billion years for it to be formed from the radioactive decay of uranium
the existence of lead as an element in the earth disproves the young earth theory completely, while it also proves the old earth theory completely.
also the bible says the earth was created about 6k years ago
And there will be willingly ignorant scoffers in the last days that do not believe in the creation and flood accounts. Second Peter chapter 3.
@@tmo4330" in the last days there will be people misquoting scripture and making it say what they want it to say even when it says something else" 1 Making it up 3:5
@@gareth2736 It's called eisegesis. I have even had people tell me that God is ok with homosexuality and abortion! You give them scripture and they twist it. As a general rule, false teachers refuse correction.
@@tmo4330 the scoffers in the 2 Peter 3 chapter are people who doubt Jesus is returning rather than people questioning the historicity of the early genesis. The way 2 Peter uses those accounts is an argument on favour of the historicity of those genesis accounts but interpreting 2 Peter 3 as being primarily about people not believing the historicity of the Genesis accounts is eisigesis like you say. I'm confused now as to whether you did this accidently or deliberately to make an ironic point?
Anyone who claims the Bible only supports a “young earth” and any one who says otherwise is a hieratic…you are a
delusional dogmatic liar. The scriptures DO NOT emphatically say the earth is young. You are only pushing YOUR interpretation, which is NOT some sound doctrine all Christians must believe. And anyone who says belief in an old earth means you believe In the
ut interpreting what the earth says and what the Bible says. They both cannot contradict each other because both came from God. It is people’s preconceived notions, prejudices and interpretation which causes contradictions. Christians misinterpret the Bible and scientists misinterpreted what they see in nature. The Earth is not only above 6,000 yrs and nothing in nature evolved through random mutations.
Most young earth scientists do not claim that old earth believers are not saved. Most old earth scientists who may as well be secular, do regularly lob ad hominem attacks at creationists.
The problem with theistic evolution isn’t that it it is incoherent scientifically, you could make a case for it being coherent scientifically, it’s just doctrinally wrong. If the earth evolved through intelligent design and evolution, then death doesn’t become a bad thing, it becomes something to further the advancement of humans. And as we know, death and sin came into the world through Adam, therefore could not have been there through billions of years of evolution. If theistic evolution is true and death is a good thing for the advancement of human evolution, then what did Jesus die for? Young earth creation is the only argument that makes coherent sense with the foundational beginning of the earth while also being sound doctrinally. The biggest myth being peddled in the world today is that evolution is a fact and we can prove the earth is billions of years old. The world and scientists are lying to you and these are only suggested theories.
@@brandone.5106 “Most old earth scientist, who might as well be secular….” First of all you are wrong claiming that YEC do not deny people’s salvation if they hold to a old earth viewpoint. You just proved that they do. You implied that a Christian scientist who believes the earth is old must be “secular”. Why must they be secular? Because they don’t hold to your interpretation of the scriptures? Because they see evidence that shows that the earth is much older, you appear to be saying they are not biblical Christians; but secular. You are guilty of doing what you claim YEC don’t do.
@@brandone.5106 there are no young earth scientists only young earth „scientists“
If the bible said dinosaurs rode on skateboards and the oceans are made of pudding this guy would side with his Iron Age theology over simply looking at these things for mentioned and investigating them in their actual state. It never ceases to amaze me, the absolute dishonesty of theists to defend their scripture in light of an overwhelming, Everest sized mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Bible chronology indicates that the human race is around 6,000 years old, but it says nothing of the age of the earth. Genesis 1:1 suggests that the universe already existed before the six days of creation began. Also, the word for "day" in the Bible doesn't always mean a literal 24 hours. The Hebrew word "yohm", meaning day, can mean different lengths of time. William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies says: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” I believe in an old earth but I do not believe in macro evolution.
No one asked but...
God created the chicken before the egg, in the same way that God created Adam as an adult, not as a fetus, an egg or a sperm. And yes, that means Adam (and Eve as well) did not have belly buttons. God created fully matured plants as well, not just the seeds and waiting for them to grow. Adam walked in the garden of eden with fully grown tree and plants, not a garden full of sprouts. And this also means that light rays coming from stars was fully travelled, which is why we can visibly see the stars that are millions of light years away--even though it takes millions of years for the light ray to travel to earth into our eyes, Adam still saw the stars because the light was already hitting the earth when God made the stars.
The more you know.
Yeah god made him with dick and balls so they can't have sex. Great biblical logic lol
Adam is not the first human. Get some education dude, real one
Really? So Adam being able to see the light of stars billions of light years away means that the Earth is 6,000 years old? I agree, no one should ask to be lectured by a certifiable idiot.
@@JB-yb4wn He addressed that in the comment. Try reading. Literacy is a blessing.
@@Domtronic
Gee Dominic, I am amazed at how utterly brain dead you people are. Suffice it to say that the answer provided:
"And this also means that light rays coming from stars was fully travelled, which is why we can visibly see the stars that are millions of light years away--even though it takes millions of years for the light ray to travel to earth into our eyes, Adam still saw the stars because the light was already hitting the earth when God made the stars."
is laughably wrong.
In order for that idiotic statement to be true one has to admit that the Earth must be billions of years old. BECAUSE light travels through a vacuum at a fixed rate of speed, which is 299,792.458 m / s the source of that light had to have been created billions of years ago in order for it to be seen by us "fully travelled".
Dr Piper, the problem with your proposal is that it does not explain why we as Homo sapiens sapiens have Neanderthal genes...
Look up Hugh Ross. He lectures on this
Noddler. Do you have Neanderthal genes? I dont see any in me? God said He created man. I look like a perfectly healthy man, just like all the other men I see around me. If you want to believe you're an ape, then speak for yourself. God said He made me and I will rather believe Him.
@@Christian_1980 "I don't see any in me" Umm... Where were you looking, as a matter of interest?
@@estant5129 he’s looking for them with 1x zoom, of course
Don’t you mean the fabricated Neanderthal have sapien genes? Lol
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11
Then he set up the slave trade, hallelujah!
Leviticus 25:44-46
44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
Kind of makes one yearn for the good old days where god told you your place. You really should find another god, this one isn't very black friendly.
@@JB-yb4wn So God doesn't exist because he set up regulations on slavery??? What kind of argument is that?
@@dougdozier8782
Oh, I am sorry, you are worshipping a god that allows one of his creations to sell other of his creations? And what is even more hilarious, is that you find nothing wrong with this?
@@JB-yb4wn Thank you for your reply John, but you didnt answer the question.
Why did he need 6 days? Why not just POOF it all into existence all at once. Jermaine, do you ever have a thought of your own or do you just quote verses from you little book of fables?
I think he should read John Walton. The theory he described seems to be a mix between gap theory and John Walton's view which is that the creation spoken of in Genesis 1 is about a pointing functions in order to things that already exist which would include the first two verses. The view he takes is not that different so I think he and I mostly agree on what Genesis 1 says but mostly disagree on what Genesis 2 says since he seems to take that more literal. I think a good case can be made The Genesis 2 uses symbolic metaphors calling Adam dust of the earth simply to refer to him as mortal and Eve coming from Adam's side as a way to explain there are two halves who are made whole when they are made one flesh. though I do agree with him that Adam and Eve were historical I don't think Genesis 2 is talking about how they came to be in a material sense.
So you don't believe Romans 5:12.
@@tmo4330 sure do... But the context of Romans 5:12 tells us this is spiritual death. Romans 5:14, two verses later, says that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Clearly physical death did not stop with Moses, therefore the death spoken of in this passage is spiritual death.
@@chipan9191 So using exegesis, where do you pull "death before Adam" at. Book, chapter and verse. Birds were created before the land animals. That does away with the theory of evolution.
@@tmo4330 so I'm going to presume that you had no response on Romans 5:12 because you realize that I'm right or at the very least you can't refute what I said. With that in mind, we move on to your next objection... The presumption of your question is that if Genesis does not explicitly state that there was death before the fall then that means there wasn't... But isn't the opposite true? Since death is the status quo for our existence, isn't it safe to assume that death existed before the fall unless explicitly stated otherwise? I don't see how your position is the default position when your position assumes a special state of existence prefall that isn't explicitly stated in Scripture.
As for the rest, I've already stated that I'm advocating for John Walton's position which is that Genesis 1 is not referring to the material creation of the things but rather their functional creation. So the order isn't a problem for evolution.
@@chipan9191 We strongly disagree with Romans 5:12. Do you also disagree that birds were created before land animals? Do you disagree the flood was worldwide? Or that plants were in the field before they grew. The "Titana boa" fossils found recently are said to be 65,000,000 years old! The "65,000,000 year old snake fossils" are no different than snakes today (except for size). The scientific implications are staggering because the fossilized snake is in its "fallen form" cursed to crawl on its belly since Adam sinned. You would be crazy if you place the fall at 65,000,000 years BC.
An example of the creation of Adam within a 24 hour time period is the vally of the dry bones in Jeremiah
If God created everything that exist few thousand years ago, there was a time when he commenced to create. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was this God doing? Was God inactive prior to creation? He certainly did not think. There was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever happened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd that an infinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?
@Jeremiah dolsin "And second mistake is that all your arguments don't prove or mean anything" Then why are you so pissed off? stop crying bro. You can't prove your God either lmao!! lololol! You believe in a magician that created the entire universe in 6 days and then got so tired and rested in the 7th day? And what did he do on the 8th day? Pretty dumb isn't it? God is eternal in the past, but created everything just about 6000 years ago? Allow your self to think about that bro use your common sense if you have one.
This God is eternal beyond time and He created everything including time itself? So what was in there back then before time came into existence? This allegedly deity existed all alone prior to the creation of everything, there is no time or being or thing or place prior to his existence. What would that even mean and how did it make any sense to your tiny little brain? It is an absolute nonsense and meaningless assumption.
If there was a deity existing somewhere up in a vacuum of space of nothingness for an infinite period of time, so what was this deity doing in that infinity? He must have been inactive and wasting an eternity until He decides to create everything, or maybe He just pop out of nowhere and simultaneously spoke everything from nothing into existence.
More so, your picture of somebody, creating something is completly taken from the physical world. That there must be a creator, or that a spirit exists beyond time and space is pure speculation. That a creating entity has to exist outside is not founded at all. Thus all your arguments are pointless and meaningless to the people with healthy mind who are able to think clearly, sensible, and logically reasonable. Sorry.
@Jeremiah dolsin lmao lololol! I am enjoying pissing off believers like you lololol! All my point is you just can't prove your God exist lololol!
@Jeremiah dolsin Your picture of somebody, creating something is completely taken from the physical world. That there must be a creator, or that a spirit exists beyond time and space is pure speculation. That a creating entity has to exist outside is not founded at all. Thus all your arguments are pointless and meaningless to the people with healthy mind who are able to think clearly, sensible, and logically reasonable. Sorry.
@Jeremiah dolsin And after all my point is not to prove God does not exist, I just don't believe He did.
@Jeremiah dolsin God bless you brother.. Peace on earth that is all that matters..✌✌✌
So... yom = eon is not a valid theory? Evening morning have to be literally 24 hours (athough it's 12)... within that evening- morning period Adam had to name the animals (all of them), have a nap while Eve was created from his genetic material. To say that those are the only two viable explanations of Genesis 1&2 is a very narrow scholastic view.
I couldn't believe the stat that 40% of Americans think the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Then I watched this video and read the comments.
I believe it now and I must say it is truly sad.
Spend less money on the military and more on education, it will do your country wonders.
I’m surprised that the percentage is that low. Education failed us when more people believe that the earth is old and evolution is real than think the other way. There’s waaaayy too much evidence to support a young earth to deny it
@@Curly4000 Evidence? Can you provide any evidence to support o a young earth?
@@sunsetpalms1923
Well yes, there is biblical evidence, which really isn't biblical evidence but some bat shit crazy bishop's interpretation of biblical evidence.
Coy Hampton I don’t actually think it’s 40%. Either that study is flawed, or from a long time ago. In 2019 there was some kind of survey or study where most people said they were atheists, and I don’t think there are a lot of young earth atheists.
The Creation is only 6,000 years old
And I'm only 2 days old.
I accept old earth and Evolution. Doesn't bother me at all.
Just curious how you would explain one thing then. This is open to anyone! If the sun and the moon and the stars weren't made the "first day" then how can we expect God to stand by a 24 hour literal day if there was no actual concept of this yet? We also know that God exists everywhere, so how can we be ignorant and say that He only exists on earth because earth is the ONLY planet that observes 24 hour days. Not arguing, just interesting.
On day 1 God creates light and with it, morning and night cycles which is why you have a day before the creation of the Sun, moon and stars. You also have to consider the original audience. All they knew were morning and day cycles on Earth, they likely weren’t aware that other planets even existed so it would be difficult for them to interpret the creation story to mean anything other than 24 hour days. Now that we know more, we can say that God isn’t limited by 24 hour days since a literal interpretation doesn’t match up with what we know from science. However I think the creation story in Genesis is not meant to be a super accurate account of all the details that went into creating the world. It’s a narrative geared towards the cultural context and understanding of the people at the time that explains what kind of God/creator God is.
I am not the first want to say this. So in someways, it is rhetoric. But we except that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days. We do not question three days. We do not believe that it was 300 billion years. Stop bending the knee to atheist. They will not love you. Six days. Sunrise, sunset. Why does it matter so much? Because it is everything to them. Atheist whole religion is built upon billions and millions of years. And they become extremely curious if you mess with their holy mother, Mary, millions and billions. Do not worship the mother Mary of atheists. Boy that sounded weird. But it’s true.
So no actual science, his answer is diplomatic but ultimately FAILS
@Andy Ansell actually the word science in these verses is more properly translated as knowledge which was a common heresy at the time called gnosticism. Paul was telling Timothy to be weary of these gnostics who claim to have secret knowledge. He was definitely not talking about science in general as we understand it today
@Andy Ansell
1) yes but in context Paul was talking about gnosticism not science in general. Most translators agree with this which is why most translations say knowledge instead of science. It's like me saying that the my basketball team annihilated the another basketball team. I don't actually mean my team destroyed the other team and caused them to not exist, it's a figure of speech for my team beating the other team badly. It's one of the limitations of translation.
Heres a good article explaining it:
www.bibleref.com/1-Timothy/6/1-Timothy-6-20.html
2) Science is the observation and investigation into God's good creation. I feel like Science and Christianity are not at odds with each other but rather they are harmonious. God's word and God's creation are in unity with one another
@Andy Ansell
1) I'm not arguing from a language standpoint I'm arguing from a context standpoint. Whether the translation of that specific word is science or knowledge doesent matter, one of the limitations of translation. As you have point out Paul uses the word gnosi which can be translated to knowledge or science but what he is refering to in context is the group of HERETICS called to gnostics who practice the religion of Gnosticism and claim that they have secret knowledge about Jesus that nobody else had. Paul was warning Timothy about these heretics, not against knowledge. In fact Paul tells us to test everything to make sure that it is correct (1 Thessalonians 5:21). James says this too in James 1:3
Verses 20 and 21 of 1 Timothy 6 form the conclusion to one of Paul's most profound letters. Paul begins this verse with another personal appeal to Timothy. Paul referred to Timothy directly by name three times in this letter (1 Timothy 1:2, 18), reflecting their friendly perspective and close relationship. His challenge for Timothy to "guard the deposit" seems to be two-edged. One side is the reality of the kingdom of God, which needs to be proclaimed and defended. The other is a reference to the time and effort Paul had invested into Timothy's life. He shared these same words with Timothy shortly before his death, saying "by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you" (2 Timothy 1:14).
Paul also repeats a common theme of his instructions to church leaders: steer clear of false knowledge and shallow arguments. Among the false teachings in Ephesus was a philosophy which would soon be known as Gnosticism, named from the Greek root word for "knowledge." Gnostic ideas presented matter as evil and spirit as good. Depending on the flavor of Gnostic teaching, the sins committed in the body either did not matter or all pleasures of the body were inherently wrong. Timothy was to stay away from such false teachings which contradicted the "sound doctrine" Paul had taught him (1 Timothy 1:8-11).
Here are two great articles about Christianity and Science
1) biologos.org/common-questions/are-science-and-christianity-at-war/
2) biologos.org/articles/should-christians-trust-scientific-experts
Thanks for your time and your right this matter is rather trivial I just wanted to say my piece. As Paul also says
"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."
2 Timothy 2:14 NIV
Science is observing what God has made.
It answers how the sky is blue, but not why it is blue.
It's blue because God said so.
Light travels, bends, and bounces in the way that it does because God made it that way.
The question was, "JOHN, do YOU accept old earth and evolution?" Piper responds, "Accept... (chuckles) meaning, are there people on our council of elders who hold to old Earth? Yes." How does Piper twist a question asking him HIS view to include the views of people on his council of elders? Piper is one confused man.
Did you finish watching the video? The first part of his answer was establishing context for what he believes.
"God created atom from the dust of the ground"
wut
Adam, not atom
I know that's so hard to believe, right? A universe created by a Being with such immeasurable scale and precision, it's unfathomable that the Being couldn't manage to create a guy out of dirt....utterly preposterous and impossible.
@@democratpro bro are u actually clueless. What is dead skin cells made of? Dust!
@@DHARMACreations111 YOU are clearly the clueless one.
No sir, dust is the dry epidermis falling off as we shed@@DHARMACreations111
The sun, moon, and all stars were not made until the 4'th day which was a literal 24-hour period. If a person denies the creation of Genesis 1-3 including God making man in His own image from the dust of the earth they are denying the Bible is God's word. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh affirmed the books of Moses and the account of creation. Why? Because HE was there and He is our Creator God. If you don't believe that you're not saved. The Bible is more than clear that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God and our Creator in more than one passage such as John chapter 1 and Colossians 1. There is no question who this passage is speaking about. Colossians 1:16,17 "For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
The bible very deliberately states exactly the truth; anyone who tries to fit an evil illusion propaganda view over that is purely mistaken.
God can make things young and it looks old look at when adam was created he was not a baby but a young age men so god can make something young make look older
I believe in a higher power, good and evil, etc……but when I hear some Christians talk like this man does, i just feel like they’re missing out on a bigger picture.
Right because you are so enlightened!! Pff!
Great video!
Yeah, I didn't know it was a comedy. 🤣
The greatest confusion comes from equating (Adam, Eve, and Garden of Eden in Gen2) to (man & woman & earth of Gen1) these 2 accounts are completly different & try make as same is great confusion. Bible is but a love story of a jilted lover and the apple of his eye. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world... so when was this sinful world founded but upon the day of Adam & Eve disobedience for it was then that God discarded Adam and Eve fig leaves and gave them covering of animal skins.. of necessity was the shedding of the lambs blood and Christ was appointed as He who would give his life as seed of woman to redeem men from their sins
Jesus was clear and precise doubt no more. He drew a line into the sands of time by saying
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John and there remain 3k years from Jesus 3 day prophesy
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
From Christ baptism & anointing unto the anointing dedication of Solomons temple was one God day of 1000yrs and from that dedication unto Adam's sin is yet another 3000yrs from OT chronology... but to equate Gen2 with Gen1 is a grave error leading to great confusion. The time between events of Gen2 and Gen1 is wholly unspecified by scripture
Why do these people give in to this secular idea, it just corrupts the understanding of the original sin.
Because religion is a scam targeted at gulible wackos
because religion isn't real, and the bible says some pretty bad things
He exactly voiced my personal views
Old earth can not be taken seriously. Give book, chapter and verse where you pull "old earth/evolution" from the Bible.
The Bible speaks truthfully but not always 100% literally in terms of human conception.
God works outside of space and time and his version of “time” is irrelevant to ours. Both Psalm 9:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 state that for the Lord, one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand are like a day. Also the first verse of Genesis 2 says “these are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created”
A billion years in the context of space time in the universe (give or take a few million) could pass as a single day for God. The universe (heavens) was the first thing created by God as well as, later on, the other planets including Earth, which, as the Bible says, was “formless and void” and God was hovering over the waters. Essentially, as both the Bible and science validate, the earth was rock and water before it was anything else.
Billions of years later in spacetime but not God’s time, he created the sun as a means of “light” to govern our concept of time as well as allow for life to be sustained.
From there he created the Earth and all its inhabitants over the course of billions of earth years (7 days in His time). I believe he also created things with the ability to evolve over time due to changes in their environment. The only exception I see to this is the human race because they are the only living creation he is very specific about in terms of how he creates them and the process he took to do so. He created man from the dust of the ground and the woman from the the rib of the man. Notice that all living creatures and organisms in general came last on His list of how creation occurred. Because everything they need to live was already created by Him in the billions of years of his work on the Earth. It is all compatible with science.
It would not be possible for the earth to be created in seven literal days and with the age of earth material such as rocks, it certainly did not happen 6,000 years ago.
@@cinephile0620 I believe much as you do. God created the laws that govern his creation (including the requisite Physics, Chemistry, Biology for existence and life to even well..exist and thrive). And He created Man with a separate purpose from His other creations on Earth, as He created the Angels.
And even if I’m wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that the Old Testament is historical (from the time of Moses onwards as Moses first recorded the oral traditions of his people), predicts accurately the coming of the Messiah, and that Jesus lived, died for our sins, and rose again and came to offer us a path to eternal salvation.
How to explain Neanderthals . There is physical evidence so could pastor John please explain where we get understanding of when god makes the decision to make us modern and do Neanderthals get to go to heaven please help . Getting lost in science and the mounting evidence of the length of time people have existed . Thank you 🙏
I studied biology in undergrad and in grad school now, so I understand the "theory" of evolution and it doesn't hold and its assumptions are shaky, to say the least. What I believe is that God did create the world in 6 literal days because He is God (Job 38). Now, regarding "neanderthals", I don't think they are what the scientific community makes them out to be. The pre-flood humans lived for hundreds of years and as such, parts of the body that grow constitutively, continued to grow, giving them that distinctive look. This is my thought. What we need to understand is that if we don't presuppose the bible is the inerrant, sufficient, Word of God, we cannot hold to any logical worldview because it is the revelation that the Creator of the Universe and giver of logical has made available to us.
All the "mounting evidence" is based on assumptions that their understanding and dating methods are correct. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions that are easily called into question and destroyed. the dating of fossils and "ancient human" bones is based on the assumption that the accuracy of their Radiometric dating of the rock surrounding the sedimentary layers containing fossils and such is high. Their entire structure is relative and can easily be collapsed. But no one will see it otherwise, not because they are intelligent and actually follow evidence where it leads - but because they hate God and have reprobate minds (Romans 1). All this to say, "let God be true, though everyone be a liar" (Romans 3:4). We don't get to put God on the judgement seat.
@@raghdalolabi1838
You must have failed miserably in school. Carbon dating isn't used for fossils, Potassium-Argon is.
@@JB-yb4wn Maybe you should read my comment again because I never said carbon dating is used for fossils. I said radiometric dating is used to date rocks and the age of the fossils within is elucidated.
@@raghdalolabi1838
Well you would be breathtakingly wrong. You are not a physicist, but yet you can see the radiometric decay tables for yourself. You have zero evidence that there is something amiss with the procedure except that you assume that what you don't understand for some unfathomable reason, can be called into question and destroyed. You should be aware of how experiments are set up to prove or disprove a scientific theory. Should you be able to disprove radiometric dating as a viable way of dating objects, then a Nobel prize awaits for you.
However, I am of the opinion that if someone who apparently had training in biology and believes that "pre flood" humans could live for hundreds of years by regenerating body parts (something we humans can't do now, neither could anyone who lived in Egypt or Babylon before the "flood" could either). because some bat shit crazy bronze age book says so, (where, I don't know), has squandered her parent's hard earned money on an education that she obviously didn't appreciate or use.
Your god couldn't write a rule book to save his life, let alone create a universe. If you bother to read the tome you will find that it upholds the institution of slavery, allows his followers to slaughter innocent men, women and children in his name, while at the same time advocates the genocide of every living thing on this planet for really no good reason. He also doled out a death penalty for 42 children because they called someone "baldy", this is the amoral sack of crap that you worship.
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!
Proverbs 26:3
So it's not possibly an issue of tanslation or interpretation of time scales to ancient people or what's referenced in the bible. Because if I'm not mistaken there are many debates among unit's of measurement recorded in scriptures among christian scholars.
John, if you're still active, I have a Biblical discussion on the earth's age and the days of Genesis 1. That is, if you have the time and energy.
A geologist would give you an honest answer, probably not the one you want to hear though.
@@JB-yb4wn Assumptions! You know what they say about them!! Your comment seems to presume you know what the >discussion< states. I find most Christian denominations don't accept what they claim to believe in: namely, the Bible. I may be wrong, but your religion seems to be "science". Scientific facts change a lot over the decades. Just recently, the Big Bang has undergone great changes. Not so set in stone after all.😁
@@Grandliseur
And you think that is bad? That is the beauty of the process, as we find out more information we reevaluate previous notions and put them up to scrutiny. Sometimes the original ideas stays put, sometimes it gets tweaked, and sometimes it is thrown out. But it is all peer reviewed.
When was the last time the bible got peer reviewed? When was the last time the bible ever got updated and corrected? Never.
So a bunch of idiots said that the sun revolves around the Earth. You still believe that? You think that there is now overwhelming evidence that disproves that laughable tenet in the bible? Or do you want to continue to believe that the guy who apparently created the universe had zero clue on how his "creation" worked and it took a bunch of secular or pagan HUMANS to tell him that. This sounds like a pretty dumb god to me.
@@JB-yb4wn What I think is >bad< is to have a mind so closed that isn't even interested in what is said in the so-called B. discussion because they only have room for the gods of science they so adore.
I have nothing against science, but I take it as human efforts at making sense of the reality around us that is so error prone that what was taught as science a hundred years ago is now laughed at as funny. What was preached as fact 30 years ago is now rejected in place of new "facts."
If you're blind to all except your chosen scientists, I pity you. But, each to his own. I like science, but it doesn't blind me to its flaws. I have nothing against the earth being around 4.5 billion years old, and it is not against what the Bible teaches. I'm just not convinced that scientists will not change this age in some future. Their manners of determining age is at times determined more by their beliefs than by the methods which may give several widely varying results where the scientist chooses the one that agrees with his evolutionary beliefs not based on facts but on personal likes.
Anyway, we obviously have nothing in common in the search for truth.
@@Grandliseur
What was preached two thousand years ago (in Latin or Greek, I may add), hasn't changed. The scripture hasn't changed and in fact a lot of what it says is laughable if not illegal today.
What are your truths? The right to own slaves? That a loving god can justify murder, mass murder, and genocide? That the Sun revolves around the Earth? That there is a firmament above the Earth containing stars? Nobody needs these kind of "truths".
The global flood being a real event is critical in seeing Genesis as history.
If the global flood occurred, old earth theories have nothing to hold on to.
@NeoBPP
Scripture is clear enough concerning geneologies of Adam to Jesus.
You will never get billions of years into the historical narrative if read plainly.
Creation to the flood, the world was completely different, then wiped off the map geologically speaking.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics changed the world in a year not billions as uniformitarianism dictates. One ice age to follow which we have been warming from gradually.
@NeoBPP
If the single catastrophic global flood occurred as written it rearranged the world as you know it.
You better read. The great flood has left evidence all around earth. In that evidence thousands of years were unearthed!
Is God not smart enough to create evolution with natural selection, knowing that the process would produce Adam and Eve. As great as God is, are humans so arrogant to believe that God's day must be only 24 hours long? Are humans so arrogant to believe that the humans that wrote the words in the Bible, got things perfectly right such that the Bible is a technical manual, rather than a representative story that helps humans understand God just a little. Why do humans believe that the church men who picked which stories to put in the New Testament got it exactly right, putting some in and leaving many out.
Why do so many humans seek power by quoting the Bible claiming only they understand its teachings? Why would God not have a book that every human can read to gain understanding of God and a just life?
Science is the technical manual to the story representation of the Bible. I see NO real contradiction. The only contradictions are the ones that flawed humans invent.
"Young Earth"... what happens when an inability to read geology and physics textbooks becomes part of a cult based on the idea that a zombie carpenter was nailed to timber because of a talking snake and a man who ate fruit from a magic tree.
Amen
We've read the textbooks. I'd rather believe the Bible!
@@chrisa3289 I doubt you've ever cracked open a legit textbook in your ignorant little life.
@@chrisa3289 why both where weiten by human one with facts and evidence the other with imaginary things wich doesn’t have an explanation. That’s why the bible is shit
I'd say its younger then what scientist think.
Why so?
@@juanjoyaborja.3054 because hes a deluded fairytalist maybe stoneage pea brain
@@johnnicholls2464 Ah, yes.
Science knows because other then you they have a brain to calculate and not speculate
I believe older. Just in the 90’s the homo naked I was found in Ethiopia, dozens of them!
blah, blah, blah.....this guy needs a new church..
The universe , earth , us and all things made were spoken into existence by the word of God. Whom is Jesus Christ. All this in spirit as God is a spirit. Spirit first which could not be seen then that would be seen , just make sure you see the light before it's too late
god is not jesus christ, read your crazy book.
@@JB-yb4wn facts
@@akinolawilliams161
Well that's a no-brainer, according to the Catholic crazy book encyclopedia, Jesus was the son of god, not god himself:
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
Do you guys ever read this stuff? Why can't you take a few precious seconds out of your all so squandered existence and look this stuff up yourself before asking stupid questions?
Do you know the difference between knowledge and belief?
and it doesnt matter whether 6000 or 13 000 000 000
I have no issue with evolution! It makes more sense than a magical being speaking everything into existence! Religion provides no answers, only more questions, that cannot be answered! Science has answered more of my questions with backed proof, than religion ever has for me! I am ok with an I dont know here and there, I can see where it points me!
I disagree science like religion just add more questions. Science in terms of the beginning of the earth have theories and some are the popular theories taught at schools, but that does not make it fact. The question inside the theory is still "when, where and how?". At best science on this issue and evolution is intelligent guess work.....At best.
@@theflyingemu3647 the main difference between science and religion is that in what you call "popular theory" there are supported facts. Yes, in some cases 100% of all of the questions are not answered! But just because we discover a few more questions after we answer one, dosen't mean we didn't answer the question correctly!! Also, these so called "popular theory's" are only taught when and only when we have evidence to support the theory, and no evidence to falsify it, and even then it is years (just in case we got it wrong). The second topic is very simple, if and when we do find something wrong, we correct it and follow the data where it leads us, not just stick to the old dying dogma!!!
Highway to hell
@@chrisa3289 why because I don’t believe in a thing witch has an ego tinder than an atom so he created an universe to worship him. If a God exist he won’t send anyone to hell because why would he care if I belief in him. And punish people for ever doesn’t teach anything he would show people what they done wrong
Why God didn't provide a solid evidence ???!
For what, His existence?
Ian Drennan yes
Evan Paul Is creation, ability for us to reason, and all of life on Earth not enough?
Ian Drennan I have one question first, what is your religion?
Evan Paul Christianity as based off the Bible
When your “desiring god” you will have to “not believe” in most rational thought. That’s why we have flat earther’s and holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorist, young earth creationist, Mormons...........etc.
not really. there are nutjobs of every religion .
Flat earh was a movement started buy cursing conspiracy theorists not christians. Young earth comes from an honest analysis of the evidence. Deltas, the salinity of oceans, erosion of waterfalls, the tails of comets, the dust in the moon, detectable carbon 14 in coal, diamonds, dinosaur bones etc.
@@thomasswedlund1097 boom, right on. They have found dinosaur tissue still in dinosaurs. That they say are millions of years old! Watch the truth about the dinosaurs. Really good.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who , 19 because . 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are , being , even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although , they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became , and their .22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
People do not want God to be true. They will view each line of evidence with the assumption there is no God.
These people make up society and built the foundation you sit on, shut up you buffon
Sounds good. Except that is NOT the consensus of scientist who study this. In fact the consensus is a very very old earth. For example young earth is off by the same factor as thinking Los Angeles is 30 meters from New York. Not a trivial error.....
The earth is about six thousand years old. Short and to the point!
the earth is not 6,000 years old
Then why does many rock formations exist which dates back to millions of years in it's age
@@mohanram8249 Look closer into carbon dating etc. It's not a stable science. They sometimes date the same rock different ages when they don't know it's the same rock. Research the dating methods. Are you a believer?
boltingpuppies how can you believe the earth is 6,000 years old there’s is so much scientific evidence that disproves that
@@boltingpuppies I have researched the dating method and it's convincing ...and no not all old rock scientists come up giving different dates everytime .
I cannot reconcile the knowledge of evolutionary science with some myth about a talking snake. I throw the Bible on the scrapheap of ancient legends.
Everybody is religious. All have their beliefs about the unobservable, unrepeatable, untestable past. Any beliefs about origins are based on faith. Both Creation and Evolution (molecules to man) are religious viewpoints.
Science means knowledge. Observational Science disproves molecules to man evolution.
@@javenewhyte6255 no one is based on thinking and logic the other is belive in old books like the bible
Oh it’s definitely rational to trust an anonymous book from 2000 years ago
Anonymous book? You obviously don’t know anything about the bible
...... it’s 66 different documents or “books” not 1 anonymous book. We have tons of manuscripts that support the authorships.
You are indeed clueless about the Bible.
@@WillhideOnIce yeah, and the funny thing is the authors are often Not the ones claimed by Christians. For example the Pentateuch, a compilation of writings from different times and authors, not by the fictional Moses
@@aengor Most educated Christians don’t act like the Torah was 100% without a doubt written by Moses. That’s just traditional authorship, started not by Christians but by Orthodox rabbis.
It’s unlikely that Moses was fictional given the testimony by the Lord Jesus Christ.
This man needs to study the Bible. And use exegesis as well. (Not eisegesis). Evolution is impossible. Why do you need billions of years anyway? I will be happy to answer any questions.
@NeoBPP💥 No he hasn't. Either he has never studied it at all, OR he doesn't understand simple implications (revealing his ignorance), or he is (I hate to say) a scoffer. Get your standard evolutionary timetable out. Notice it shows BIRDS evolving after land animals appear. Now get out God's Word. Notice BIRDS are created before any of the land animals. That fact alone completely destroys the theory of evolution. There are hundreds of other anomalies in the theory of evolution. Death entered the world by sin, and sin by Adam. WOW! Another fact that destroys evolution. The herb was in the field "before it grew". BAM! Another. I have hundreds of examples that prove the theory of evolution impossible. Please ask me questions! I will be delighted to answer them. I have studied this subject in depth since the 1970's. 💥.
@NeoBPP Hebrews 11:7. Noah was warned of things not yet seen. (Rain and flooding). That fact also destroys old earth and evolution.
I can't believe that my school thinks that the earth is 6000 YEARS OLD
WHAT SCHOOL
HOW DOSE A SCHOOL TEACH THIS STUFF
@@rinkerchris2474 Most Christian schools teach this
Christian schools do@@rinkerchris2474
Acts2:37-38..
Exodus 21:21
not science. Soli Deo gloria!
Non serviam!
so in conclusion,,,,,science is wrong, i need my imaginary friend boo hoo.....
The same scientists who believe in old earth believe there 58 genders
@@jafiagracelin3153 biologically Theirs not 58 genders I see what you are saying the Gender pronoun crowd who used to be called Gender dysphoria.
@@jafiagracelin3153 there are infinite,and they don’t believe in only 58,also that’s a fact too
@@jafiagracelin3153 mmm at least they bring proof with there claims unlike you
These religious people are SOOOOO cute!!
Everybody is religious. All have their beliefs about the unobservable, unrepeatable, untestable past. Any beliefs about origins are based on faith. Both Creation and Evolution (molecules to man) are religious viewpoints.
This is like asking if you believe in Batman and you responding: I do. On page 6 of the first Batman comic it says he was born and exists.
Tap dancing around the question. Jesus freaks being Jesus freaks :P