Hugh… I’ve been following you for so many years. I’m a lover of science. My nephew died in 07 in Iraq. Your program got me through 6 months of intense sorrow. Thank you for all you do.
I am very sorry to hear about your nephew...I was in Iraq as a medic in 07 so even though I didn't know him he was my brother...I'll keep you in my prayers
Once again, brilliantly answered Dr Ross.... I never stop learning from you.... A clear, concise response so logically explained, even a lay person can understand.... May God continue to use and bless your unique ministry, and endue you with wisdom and knowledge.
So when Jesus told his deciples in the renewed covenant, that Adam was created in the beginning, you believe Jesus was lieing, because you claim each day was thousands of years? If each day was as long as you claim, was Adam created in the beginning? Nope!
@@ojara wrong. Genesis chapter 1 tells us how long a day is. It says when the sun goes up, morning, it is light, and when the sun goes down, it is darkness. He says THIS constitutes the time period of 1 day. That means no matter how much you want to justify a long creation, you CANNOT leave those parameters. Sorry. You tried to be fancy with words, but failed. You see, the hebrew language is far more detailed than the english language you go by. The Hebrew says day 1 was YOM ECHAD. This means that only 1 day can preceed it. And the bible already defines a day as the sun coming up, then the sun going down, millions of years in timespan cannot fit that definition no matter how deceiving you are. You are wanting so bad for the earth to be extremely old, because that's all your manmade dating systems tell you to believe. The problem? The dating systems have already been proven to be wrong because they assumed the wrong half life.
@@ojara I dont. I let Genesis stand on its word. God gave an exact genealogy of Adam to Yahushua. That genealogy is by far less than 6000 years. Now it's up to you to have faith in Gods word, or deny it and side with science. His son Yahushua said Adam and Eve were from the beginning. Which means the first week of creation. God defined a week as 7 DAYS. God defined a day as the period of LIGHT. God defined the night as the period of darkness that was seperated from the light. This is exactly what Dr Ross rejects. He wants to deny the parameters of what constitutes a "day" and a "night" so that he can expand their lengths to fit his scientific beliefs, his scientific faith. He put more faith into mans understanding than Gods. If you cannot accept the very first chapter of scripture, that a day is 12 hours, that a night is 12 hours, but called "watches" in the Hebrew, and that consecutively these 2 phases of time equal 24 hours, not thousands of years, therefore establishing that there was 7 24 hour periods that constituted the beginning of creation, then my friend you have some pretty big issues with having faith in what God said. And if you lack faith in Gods word over mans, I promise you then you shouldn't be concerned with how old the earth is, you should be concerned about your faith.
I've read most of Ayn Rand's books. She darned near ruined my thinking. Thank goodness I've recovered a bit. The God of the Bible has been a great help. Dr. Ross is as good at twisting reality as Ayn Rand. The Bible speaks *_plain_* truth. Believe God, not Dr. Ross.
@Janna Kruger - Ayn Rand had a rough childhood and for that, she blamed God became angry at Him. Recognizing that the human experience did not work well without God, she invented a godless philosophy with Man as god and since her ideas could not exist in reality, she fictionized them. Howard Roark is that fictionalized man/god character. Yes. The real Man/God is Jesus Christ. Unlike Howard Roark, Jesus Christ is quite unselfish and quite self-sacrificial. Jesus Christ is the exact antithesis of Howard Roark. Jesus Christ demonstrated that you gain the most by giving the most away. God's ideas are usually quite opposite of man's ideas. God's ideas are usually counterintuitive. "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." - Proverbs 14.12 (NKJV) "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." - 1 Corinthians 1.25 (NKJV) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” Therefore let no one boast in men." - 1 Corinthians 3.19 - 21a (NKJV)
its not informed,the bible is clear,there IS evening and morning,the first day,day 1-6 is undisputedly 24 hour day because it says there was evening and morning,God already created NIGHT and daylight in the first day,he already create light in the first day
Gen 2 does not say that Adam worked the Garden of Eden, it just says that was God's purpose for Adam, we don't know if Adam spent any time doing that yet; we also see that immediately after GOD gave Adam HIS instructions, GOD recognized that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Gen 2 also does not say that Adam named all the birds and animals in one day, it just says that Adam did that and it could have been over many days with Eve's help. I looked at Gen 2:23 and the word "pah'-am" does not necessarily mean a long period of time, it could mean "now". As for the seventh day, GOD could have rested JUST on that day, HE didn't tell us what he did on the 8th. Maybe starting with the 8th day he began HIS work of salvation. Also, we know that a Gen 1 day consists of evening and then morning, and the beginning of the 7th day would be evening, if GOD meant that the 7th day is a continuous period then you could only have one evening and one morning, so we should have seen a night lasting thousands of years and a morning lasting thousands of years. we also have to look at the context, if the first 5 periods could possibly be actual days, then it makes more sense that the 6th and 7th are also actual days. the purpose of scripture is to give us clear knowledge not confusion; why would GOD suddenly change the meaning of day when it's clear HE is using it as a standard unit of measurement? and then of course in Gen 5 we have the genealogy which gives us the elapsed time since Adam, and Exodus 20:11 again clarifies that creation was in six days and the 7th day HE called Sabbath Day, which we know is an actual day of every week.
Exodus 20:11 Believe the bible for what it says, don't let science sway you from the Text! Remember the creation was created mature, just as Adam and Eve were.
Science is what made it possible for you to write a comment for everyone in the earth to see. Science has actually debunked some of the claims of bible. I still respect religious people, but i just dont want science to look like a bad thing.
@@chungusultimate , you have either not read the Bible or not read criticisms of claims made in the Bible, because the Bible is absolutely in contradiction with what we have discovered using the scientific method.
Besides the many explanations on (very) complicated matters dr Hugh Ross provides, I feel compelled to comment on his humbleness of character and the love he portrays through his tone of voice (from his presentations). If I may, I'd like to encourage all knowledgable Christian speakers to achieve a fine balance such as this. (Personally I find it tough to listen to an overconfident speaker). Thank you Doctor for the fine work you do in The Lord.
"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." - 2 Corinthians 11.14 (ESV) I would stick with the unambiguous Word of God, if I were you.
@@rubiks6 I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. The word of God was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and not In 17th century English.
Let me slightly correct you. The original hebrew said "there WERE evening, and there WERE morning the first day". In the original hebrew, there are actually two "weres" not one like the english translation says. The 2nd "were" is actually a divider in the hebrew. Therefore, when God said "and there WERE morning the first day" is a statement that attaches the phrase "day" to the morning only, and not the evening. What this is telling is is that there is first darkness, then there is morning which is the first day. This separates the possibility that the darkness can be apart of the timeframe of a "day". And God tells us that much himself when he says the day and the night are to be SEPERATE. 1. There was evening. 2. There was morning which is the start of the 1st day
@Janna Kruger you are correct that todays jews start their day at sunset and their sabbath at friday night. But if you think the bible taught them to do this, you would be wrong. Even the jewish encyclopedia states that the modern day jews adopted this MANMADE TRADITION from babylon and didnt start observing these traditions until the 3rd and 4th century AD. The bible, in Genesis 1:5, defines "day" as the period of the suns light. It then defined night as the period of darkness ruled by the moon. God then commanded that these two periods, day and night FOREVER REMAIN SEPERATE.
Which only shows that you have to really try hard to avoid the plain meaning of this text as understood by Christians for thousands of years. And you are still stuck with the 4th commandment, modelling our 6 days of work and one day of rest on the 6 days of creation. @@-kepha8828
@@epik9778 - Did you not read Adam's response? Perhaps it was exactly for this response that God chose His method of creating the woman. Also, remember - God is the best dramatist in the universe and it should be obvious to you that He is putting on a great drama for the benefit of men. This way of creating the woman is rather dramatic, wouldn't you say?
@@rubiks6 I was further emphasizing Jacob's response, put it in context. The Bible says nothing of Adam needing to recover, nor did Adam respond with anything in kind.
@5tonyvvvv i do hunt and fish and am always amazed at the wonderful nature that God gave to us for food but also for our pure enjoyment and amazement of his glory.
If the 7th day of creation is an undisclosed amount of time, then we have a huge problem with the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Luke 3, as we have an unbroken lineage (inclusive of a parallel account in Genesis which gives the ages of the earthly ancestors of Jesus found as far back in the book of Genesis of when they 'begat' and also their ages when they died) from 'Adam the son of God' 3:38, and Jesus The Son of God 3:23. Adam was created on the 6th day, therefore the 7th day being anything other than a normal 24 hour period throws the whole genealogy in Luke 3 asunder and makes the account of it, pointless.
Let's not be wholly certain about that. I can challenge Dr Ross that he cannot fortify his opinion with proofs that we live in the 7th day (period) of creation. For if that were true, why would Son of God work for our salvation during that day? Dr Ross is swooned with the science of Genesis, but forgets some theological points that are hidden inside that same text.
adysaxman77 Well we don’t really know how long Adam was in the garden before he was given eve and before they fell. Also, in the scriptures, “son of” does not always means the physical son, but can mean descendant , like a grandson or great grand son.
Not really, genesis is cteation which is of God... and after creation was man , on adifferent timeline after sin ...a thousand years as one day with the lord, before sin , and one day as a thousand years as God said...through sin the life time was shortened...
@@thepossessor coss then there would be an 8th day. The bible also says creation shows the glory of God. when I watch the Nature programs I cant belive anyone would belive that all happend with evalution.
@@thepossessor God repeated the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning" for the first 6 days. That's how God defined a day so that means the following days will obviously have morning and evening or day and night everyday until the earth dies
Philo, a Jewish scholar of the first century assumed that the days of Genesis 1 were symbolic of periods of time over which God worked. Origen and Augustine, arguably the most influential theologians in the early Christian church agreed that the “days” were not literal 24-hour periods. By the way, others did interpret the days literally, so I do not want to create the false impression that this was the only view. Nobody is adding or subtracting here. This is a complex issue that people can respectfully disagree on.
Yes he said six days was creation, but even God says in priphetic terms, one day with the lord is as a thousand years...adam alone in the garden with God was more than aday...as hugh ross suggested... the bible is up for interpretaion, but by the spirt we no the truth.as the spirit is truth...
Nobody is adding or subtracting words. We are just trying to get to the correct meaning of the word. The catholic bible did not consider the original hebrew text.
“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
@@hopefulheathen1079 Amazing how everyone is quick to chant "A day is like a thousand years with the Lord" but quickly forget the vice versa "A thousand years is like a day with the Lord". If we apply that, then The millennial rule of Christ will last only one day. After all, a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of the Lord.
I love this explanation and I see if very compatible with young earth science. Long period of time does not necessarily denote a 'millions of years' time frame. Having said that, I've never fully understood the whole concept of "day and night" in Genesis 1 but I'm learning. God bless and thanks for posting this.
Where did you get "young earth" from anything Dr. Ross stated?! The Earth is 4.5662 +/- 0.0001 BILLION years old. Young earth pseudo-science is nonsense! They are deceiving you for MONEY. There were NO dinosaurs on the Ark! Dino's died off some 66 MILLION years ago! The age of the Earth is NOT a salvation issue! YEC zealots make it an issue!
There was evening and morning a first day, second day etc. Very few had any problems understanding what that meant until some atheists told us to believe otherwise, and not based on evidence but an a priori commitment to atheism, which still doesn't work because there isn't enough time for evolution to happen anyway, abiogenisis, the Goldilocks zone etc.
I’m a year late for this reply, but… there are plants and animals that live in complete darkness now. Even if there wasn’t, you can’t assume that the first plants used photosynthesis like modern plants. Just go to your local garden center and you’ll see that different plants live in different light levels.
@@kevin8360 Friend, jus as in the end of Rev where we are told that God's glory (His light) outshines the sun, so too His light that shone upon the earth at day one would easily have supplied light for plants. However, this in no way gives excuse to misinterpret the Bible to say that each creation day is anything other than one rotation of the earth on its axis, which we know today as a literal 24 hours.
William Wilson's _Old Testament Word Studies_ says the following regarding the Hebrew word “yohm”: "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.”
@@jollyrancher521 How many days did Joshua march around the city of Jericho? How do we know how long a day was then? Isn't it because of context? The context in the Genesis creation narrative likewise tells us the days of creation were 24 hour days. The word yom is used 410 times in relation to a number. Every time it means an ordinary day. "evening and morning" are used 38 times in the Old Testament and each time it means an ordinary day. "evening and morning" are used 23 times without the word yom and each time it means an ordinary day. "night" is used 52 times without yom and each time it means an ordinary day. Because of the context of the creation days, "evening and morning", if these days represented vast periods of time, the either God is a untrustworthy idiot because he has conveyed something untrue, or he is a liar because he has conveyed that the length of the days is equal to the coming and going of the sun, while they were in fact vast periods of time. If the days of creation in Genesis 1 represent thousands to millions of years,and Adam and Ever were created during day 6, then one would have to believe they were thousands to millions of years old by day 7 unless youbelieve God created them at the last moment before sunrise on day 6. Moreover, since the passages describe the coming and going of the sun, one would have to believe the earth orbited the sun at a rate exponentially slower during the days of creation than immediately after. If you don't hold to that idea, then you have to explain why the days of creation represent vast ages of time and an exponentially slower moving earth than for day 7 and all days afterward. In the context, the word day in Genesis 1 refers to six 24-hour days. Every time it appears with “evening and morning” or with a number like “sixth day,” which is over 200 times, it refers to a 24-hour day. If the days represent cast periods of time, then God would have had to supernaturally placed all plants into a frozen state of stasis to wait for the sun to arrive the next "day" so that they would have sunlight. Plants can survive a couple of literal days without sunlight, but they cannot survive hundreds, thousands, or millions of days without light. If the days represent vast periods of time, the sun would have charred the earth into a dessert on each day that the earth rotated. Otherwise, one would have to believe each day represents millions of actual days, but this contradicts the statements of "and the evening and the morning were the X day". Because of the statements regarding the workweek and sabbath in Exodus, the creation days cannot be longer than 24 hour. Since death entered the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), all of the animals God created would have had to live for vast ages of time until Adam sinned. This forces Day-Age theorists to arbitrarily decide how long the creation days must be to fit their concept. Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament apostles read Genesis 1-11 as straightforward historical narrative. What is the genre of Genesis 1? Is it poetic or prophetic? Poetry is easy to recognize in Hebrew because unlike English poetry which often relies upon rhyme and meter, Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism: either synonymous or antithetical parallelism. Synonymous parallelism occurs when an idea is repeated using different words, often synonyms of the original. Consider Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” The ‘heavens’ and ‘sky’ basically mean the same thing, just as ‘declare’ and ‘proclaim’ basically mean the same thing. Both the first and second phrase have basically the same meaning: that the universe tells us something about God’s creative glory. Since this passage is poetic, the author did not intend to convey the idea that the sky literally talks. But nonetheless, we can learn something about God by observing the heavens as if they were speaking to us. We understand the meaning. Antithetical parallelism occurs when the second phrase is the alternative to the first - like two sides of the same coin. An example is seen in Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” The first part proclaims the positive aspect of reverential submission to the Lord: knowledge. The second part problems the negative consequences of a refusal to submit to the Lord - a lack of wisdom. Hebrew scholar Dr. Steven Boyd has conducted a statistical analysis of 522 Old Testament passages. He found that poetic and narrative passages could be categorized with a better than 99% accuracy based on the verb usage alone. Dr. Boyd’s analysis showed conclusively that Genesis 1 is narrative history, not poetry. This means the only way to interpret it properly is as history, looking for its straightforward, historical meaning. The immediate context of each appearance of day in Genesis 1 conclusively establishes their length. Each day is marked by “evening and morning.” A day lasting millions of years would have far more than one evening and morning. Throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, when evening and morning are used together, they refer to a normal-length day. Each day is also linked with a number (“first day,” “second day”). This construction occurs more than 300 times in the Old Testament, and with only a couple of potential exceptions, it always signifies a normal-length day. Furthermore, in the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:31 states that the final day of Creation Week was indeed the sixth day. If millions of years had passed, then Day Six could not have been the sixth day. Another important consideration, often overlooked, is the fact that the plural form of the word day (‘yamim’) is never used anywhere in Scripture non-literally. “Days” (plural) always means “days.” And yet it is the plural form of the word that is used in Exodus 20:11 which states, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them…” Since the plural form of days is used here, there can be no doubt that the author intended the indicate that God created literally in the span of six days. "Yom represents a revelational day. That is, in six literal days ( or possibly in a vision which represented to Moses the whole drama of creation in six visionary days ) God described to His prophet the mystery of how He had brought creation into being, and the stages by which He did so… This interpretation is perhaps tenable without surrendering the inerrancy of the Bible record. But it encounters several serious difficulties, chief among which is the complete absence of any hint or suggestion in the text of Genesis 1 that a mere vision is being described. It reads like perfectly straightforward history: In the beginning God created heaven and earth: on the first "day" He created light; on the second day He separated the waters into the upper and the lower, and so on." - Gleason L. Archer Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction." Moody Press, 2nd Ed, 1974, p.185
@@jollyrancher521 ‘… so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture. Exodus 20[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:[10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:[11] 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 31[15] Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.[16] Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.[17] It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Everytime I listen to Dr Ross, I am always getting the answers that Is very interesting. He is able to correlate Bible and Science ❤- which I knew from the past is parallel. May the good Lord continue to bless you with more wisdom and knowledge so we will understand God’s creation and WORDS thru you.
Yes indeed. And the Hebrew is in the singular - ereb boqer - so a single dark part, followed by a single light part of a day. One rotation of the earth on its axis before the light that shone on the earth from day one (from God - cross ref. to close of Rev. where again God is the sourche of light). Also, 'first' day - the hebrew word used is echad - often translated 'one' (as in Deut 6:4's shama. echad always comprises at least two parts - never is it the indivisible single. Put all this together and the Bible is absolutely referring to a single rotation of planet earth in the presence of the light God shone upon the earth. We currently experience one rotation of the earth as a 24 hour period, and have no reason to believe creation day one is any different.
I believe the reference to the scripture speaking of a day being like a thousand is a reference to His eternal existence. He has no beginning or end and He created time for us. We were created in a finite world and time was a dimension for our benefit and a limitation for us. The creation of a 24 hour day is a literal interpretation of the creation account. If there is any parallel comparison of the creation account to a Big Bang theory than it is not in balance with that theory. Sun, moon, and stars came after the creation of the earth does not hold with evolution theory or Big Bang theory. I cannot follow any other option than a literal 24 hour day creation. I do think we try to hold God to our understanding, in its limited and finite wisdom. I think this is a faith issue. We just have to trust what is in the Word and quit adapting our logic and limitations to it.
I agree. Check out this little theory. God does not live within the constraints of OUR time and space he created for us. He created the heavens (universe) and earth moments before he said let there be LIGHT. This was the light of our Sun and the stars. The actual measurement for our (time) 24 hour days and the rate and distance at which it travels, the speed of light. So cool how God gave us the science to see his Supernatural power. The vast expanse of the universe is his signature. This was for us to realise his power and glory. Both that are NOT of our understanding and yet the science he created is a tool for us. Not only use for every day life but to find him and realise his existence. Unfortunately, people want quantify Light years and Creation to something within their understanding.
Concerning the 6 days I discern a failure, on the part of advocates for a very young universe, to distinguish between God's original creating of the "heavens and earth" Gen.1:¹ (the material universe) and his later preparing of a more local "heavens" (sky) "earth" (terra firma) and "Sea" (ocean) for earth's inhabitants on Days 2 and 3. (Gen. 1:⁸-¹⁰.) These latter, local "heavens, earth and sea" (which contain birds, animals and fish) are what Jhvh created within the 6 Days as He describes in the 4th Commandment (Exodus 20:¹¹)..... and hence the prohibition on carved images of birds, animals and fish (in the 2nd Commandment. Exod.20:⁴) ....which inhabit these local "heavens, earth and seas". The original creation of the material Universe "heavens and earth" (Gen.1:¹) preceded, and is presented as outside of, the special 6 days starting in vs.3.
@e rawan - There was light on day three. It was brought into existence on day one. (Remember when God said, "Let there be light"?) It is similar to the light in Revelation 21; 23.
@@anthonydefreitas5734 - You can place the creation of the heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1; 1 in the indefinite past if you'd like but in between that event and the moment God said, "Let there be light," nothing happened. Nothing. Certainly, no evolution of life or the cosmos occurred during that period. That being said, your interpretation of Gen 1; 1 becomes moot. It accomplishes nothing. Your interpretation neither adds anything to nor takes away anything from the narrative. What's your point?
I really appreciate your desire to be faithful to all of Scripture. Some of your statements, however, are found wanting when checked. Around 4:18-4:25 you state that the Hebrew word 'hapam' means a long period of time and that "everywhere else it's used in the Old Testament it's translated 'at long last.'" The definition given in Brown Driver and Briggs (quote from the BibleWorks version) is "beat, foot, anvil, occurrence." It is used in Genesis 18:32 where it is typically translated "just this once" or similar. In Genesis 29:34&35, Exodus 9:27, and Exodus 15:3 it is translated "this time" by the ASV, ESV, NAS, and NKJ. In Genesis 30:20 and 46:30 it is translated "now" by those same versions. In Exodus 10:17 and Judges 6:39 it is translated "this once" by those same versions. In Judges 16:18 and 16:28 it is translated as "this once" or "again" or "once more." Now I will grant you that I have only searched the forms of 'hapam' that are identical to the form found in Genesis 2:23, but doing so is sufficiently establishes that your statement "everywhere else it's used in the Old Testament it's translated 'at long last'" is not accurate. Thank you for your effort to base your arguments in the authority of Scripture, for that I am grateful even though I differ with much of what you say.
@ShITYouWannaKNO Jesus is fully God(Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, Colossian 2:9). God loves us so much that He took on flesh as Jesus Christ and became the sacrifice for our sins, the innocent in place of the guilty, so that we can be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus. The Bible and the Christian church have always taught that Jesus is fully God.
Seriously? Does our 24 -hour day make sense to you? Do you think God was incapable of creating something in 24 hours? What about the rotation if our earth? Did God just stop and start it over and over and over to fit into the millions of years? Go figure?!
“Then we can move on to the next Church splitting controversy that has no bearing on salvation doctrine.” 😂 Keep this in mind before you start slashing your brother in the comment section.
Death before sin means Christ’s work was not significant. And that God would have called death “very good” Trust the Bible and read what is meant to be literal as literal and parable as parables.
@@hozn Stop with the misguided nonsense of YEC zealots! Go read Romans 5:12!! NOWHERE does it say death was brought to animals! Your dog CANNOT sin! Only people can sin! - fool!
I cannot believe some of the comments. Genesis 1 is the condensed version of Gen 2. There is no contradiction. The Lord created everything in six literal days. Why ?. 1- Gen 21Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. The Lord had finished His work. The sabbath was made for man. God neither sleeps nor slumbers. You will find this in your bible if you read it and it is not a corrupted version. Six literal days ?- 2... Read Gen 1:11-19... on the third day God bought forth the herbs, trees etc On the fourth day God made lights..the greater to rule the day (sun) and the lesser to rule the night (moon) Plants, trees, herbs will not last 1000 years without sunlight so it has to be a literal 6 days of creation. One of the problems is that people are influenced by what they learn in school or the carnal mind. Science will tell you that the age of the earth and universe is determined by the fact that a star is so many millions of light years away and so therefore the universe has to be billions of years old. God is a big God. He exists outside time because he is eternal. He spoke the universe into being and it was formed within an instant. The stars were put in their place within an instant. It did not take billions of years and there was no big bang. You cannot make something from nothing.
I think he is making more out of it than it really is, the scripture clearly states after every creation day, " so the evening and the morning were the first day" and so on throughout the creation narrative. The writer Moses, was explaining that it was a 24 hour period as we know a day to be..it wasn't some secret amount of time, just as Jesus healed people instantly, the blind man didn't have to wait for something special to happen, scripture also says that "a day is as a 1000 years" 2nd Peter 3:8 ...so a day is "as" a thousand years.. not that a day"is" actually a thousand years. Time is irrelevant to God, he made time and is not constrained to human boundaries. Our God is an awesome God. This professor/ author will find that out when he meet Him face to face.
This tension between literal interpretation of the Bible ( fundamentalism) and a more critical (careful study) of the Bible is ongoing. One is a more childlike love of the inspired word the other a childlike grown up love of same. Both trust scriptures as truth, the former content not to think about it the latter curiosity inclined. Temperament? Both are valid and yes both loved by God. The point is that both must forsake their non Christ like egos which only desire to be proven right and the other wrong. Let us all rejoice in the risen Lord and watch Him arise in all those who have been Born Again, either as a Fundamentalist or Liberal Christian. Blessings to you and your family ❤
@BlackRaptor31 - there is an excellent article that answers your questions directly here on their website. In summary - Based on the Hebrew word meanings, the following picture emerges. "In the beginning" God created the universe -- the Sun, Moon, stars, Earth and planets (1:1). In verse 2, the viewpoint changes to the surface of the Earth (the Spirit of God was hovering "over the waters").
God has gifted Dr. Ross with an incredible intellect. He puts to use that gift, not only in the investigation of science but in challenging the entire scientific community by showing that science and God's word are completely compatible. If God is, then science must be. If science is, then God must be.
1:40 the word YOM has 4 literal definitions: 1. a portion of daylight hours 2. all of daylight hours 3. the 24 hour period 4. a long but finite period of time. EARTH has five literal definitions, HEAVEN has three because biblical Hebrew were very few nouns, so if moses wanted to describe a long period of time he only had the word YOM available to him.
I can't correct all his mistakes but I'll try to answer some of his questions, first question was on ' yom' which means day I'll skip that for now, second he says it says g-d created Adam and Eve together later it says he created Adam then made eve. Most commentaries explain that Genesis 1 is a general story and genesis 2 goes into detail, he's question was on the word hapaam he comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew word הפעם means a long period of time. When Adam says "zos hapaam" he is talking about Eve nothing to do with the time. זאת הפעם. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּא אָדָם עַל כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְלֹא נִתְקָרְרָה דַעְתּוֹ בָּהֶם (יבמות ס"ג): זאת הפעם THIS NOW - This teaches that Adam endeavoured to find a companion among all cattle and beasts, but found no satisfaction except in Eve (Yevamot 63a).
Yes the pa'am there is just like me seeing something beautiful and exclaiming "Now, that's awesome!" The "now" there has absolutely no relationship with time.
It's truly sad that Ross believes this issue has "no bearing on salvation doctrine" (@6:22) when Jesus suggests quite the opposite in Jn 5. In effect, Jesus said that if you don't believe Moses, you aren't one of His. And twice, Moses summarized the creation week as 6 consecutive, literal, 24-hour days (Exod 20 and Exod 31). Anyone suggesting more than a simplified understanding on this passage has a ton of explaining to do. I'd be curious to understand from Ross how it is that death came through Adam's sin (Rom 5) and all creation groans because of sin (Rom 8) if we have all sorts of prehistoric death prior to Adam's creation on "Day 6". Billy Graham's right-hand man, Charles Templeton, became an atheist because of this issue. And if he did, rest assured, many others have and will. Sorry, but I really think Ross is off-kilter on this one.
I am neutral on this at the moment as I have little knowledge of it, but these people dont seem to not believe what moses wrote. They seem to believe enough to be tslking about it... People not believing it sound a lot different like jerks and mocking.... They dont usually spend a lot of time reading and explaining? Is interpreting something wrong not believing?
Tim Foster You’re basing all this off of assuming that you have the right interpretation of the Bible. Why is it those are fixed variables in their fax. Are you really implying that he’s not saying that because he doesn’t agree with your interpretation of what Moses says that means Jesus said that he’s not a follower of Him? Why don’t you provide some sort of explanation why it is Moses says the 60s or a literal six days. Can you just said why he said Moses does not believe they were six days. Because there was a morning and evening? Will that happen before sun. And also only human beings are made in the image of God and could not die. Plants could die. That’s what we ate. What do you think we ate? Do you think bacteria did not die or did not exist?
If you arent keeping Gods commandments Sabbath and holy days you dont understand the bible fully Pslalm 111.10. The Sabbath from creation week is a 24 hour period commanded to be kept every week. How can we keep a prolonged period of time when we are commanded to work the other 6 days. Professing to be wise they became fools. Jesus says He is Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2.27 28. And mathew 12.8. It is simple but disobedient leaders want to confuse you to follow them. To learn the truth on why catholics and protestants reject Jesus simple commands to keep his days and commandments. Mathew 19.16 17 read Satan's counterfeit Christianity booklet at lcg.org. you will have biblical secular and catholic history prove to you how satan deceives the whole world rev 12.9
im not sure about your first part, but the part about yom being used to describe the entire 7 days is correct and a good example, right alongside the scriptures we are interpreting, that yom is used to describe "a period of time" as well as a "24 period"
@@maync1 "And God rested" on the seventh [period of time] And he made the seventh [twenty-four hour period in the course of a week] holy. If they're the same Hebrew word then of course there will appear to be a discrepancy where there is none.
As for the word "yom". If God had spoken the grass & trees into existence on day three by the mere utterance of His voice (as He did with light on day one) then you could be on solid ground. But since He said let the earth itself bring them forth, then clearly there is substantial reason in this case to discern the word "yom" as a very long period of time. Moreover, as Dr. Ross also points out, Adam could not have possibly named all the animals in a mere 24 hours either !
Some versions of the BB theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.
Dr. Ross has written two excellent books on this topic that I would highly recommend for further study: A Matter of Days: lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/book-review-matter-of-days-resolving.html Navigating Genesis: lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/book-review-navigating-genesis.html
@MrHobiecat Genesis gives an account of creation that provides precious few details.It can be interpreted like those you refer to (Rabbis), but others like Dr Ross, have a different view. He, taking into consideration some of the modern scientific observations/theories, is making valid points and it's driving you insane. Whether his position is the truth or not remains to be seen. The bottom line is, the Bible gives very little info about it. Nobody can explain creation with complete confidence.
Yes, but he is correct about the timeline of adam being formed and God sending the animals to adam to name(noah ref)...and then putting him in the garden and then creating eve, it was in fact more than one day, truly opening my eyes, thanks , God bless...
So we should examine all uses of "day" in the Bible to determine in which meaning the word might have been used to refer to the 7 "days" in Hebrew. I add: Is there a pattern? And can the Bible be regarded as a single piece of narration by one author? Surely not. So variations on the theme should be expected. Someone kindly enlighten me, please. If days were a rather long period of time, then the 7th day might mean an extended holiday for all of us? I am totally confused and stuck here. Also, perhaps inconsistency across biblical narration (due to different authors, copy errors, lots of translations, etc, etc.) is preferable to a "forced" consistency imposed with a stretchable term. Is "day" used throughout with the meaning of "long period of time"? And how long might that have been? Isn't that pure conjecture? Research on the authenticity of different parts of the Bible might be in order. I should consult a Bible historians next.
what is the procedure of looking "at the context"? And what were the original Hebrew commentaries on interpreting Gen 1? Surely those would tell us the correct way to interpret?
@BlackRaptor31 - Initially, the Earth was dark (1:2). On the first "day," God caused sunlight to penetrate the darkness (1:3-5). On the fourth "day," God caused the Sun, Moon and stars to become visible from the surface of the Earth (1:19-20), having made them earlier (1:16) as part of His creative activity prior to the six creation "days."
Did they actually have 7 days in the days of this having been recorded? On the Dead Sea scroll? If not, how can we make sense of the scripture if we had lived then?
The argumentation ( and the original question) is fundamentally wrong. The description of the creation is not actual history. Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2, what anyone - whose mind is not made incapable of thinking by religious fundamentalism - can see. In Genesis 1 man is created at the end, and man and woman are created simultaneously. In Genesis 2 man is created before the animals and plants and woman is created after man. So the Bible manages to contradict itself in its second chapter (!!) therefore we shouldn't take neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 for real history.
pannonia77 just thought I'd add to the supposed 6000 years of time since creation, its a documented fact the last ice age ended 12000 years ago and there is history in Australia that aborigines were around during that ice age, 40000 years ago. If you study ice age history it reveals something very wrong with the christian interpretation of genesis. And yes, I'm a christian, but one who has taken the time to examine the facts. You are correct with what you say about the contradiction.
@e rawan This article is complete bogus. So someone said he discovered the Ark of Covenant, but no-one else has seen it. Are you so credulous that you believe this?
Apparently that happens a lot in the Bible due to who wrote the parts, the copying, personal preferences of the scribe, the errors, etc. Maybe best to go for the essence of creation and its great wonder and leave it at that.
@MrHobiecat Please explain the following: 1. What is the universe? 2. Did it have a beginning? 3. How did it begin? Three simple questions for your scientific mind to clarify. I await your answer. Peace.
The universe is all space matter and energy. It appears, from observation, that the universe had a beginning. We don't know that caused the expansion of our universe. Were those supposed to be hard questions?
@@worldgonemad5866 Anything that begins has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause. Time, space and matter came into being when the universe began. Therefore, whatever cause the universe cannot consist of time, space or matter...something timeless (eternal), something non-physical that doesn't require three-dimensional space to exist (spiritual). Sounds like a very good description of God to an honest man.
2 Peter 3:8 A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God. This could calculate a thousand year day within a day of a thousand years as a 1000 year squared day and thus as 1 million years in a day and so on. God can stretch and shrink time simultaneously as he likes. He can make all of time as one instant and one instant as all of time at the same time. He has done it, he is doing it, and he will do it.
I will look at it, but it depends on your definition of evolution. Are you talking about natural selection though out the universe and random mutation in a species or cause for the species?
Randy Foster Here is the facts that I'm referring to: 1) life has been on this planet for at least 3 Billion years and science has broken up and labeled these years into four distinct eras and twelve periods-verifiable and demonstrable FACT 2) Precambrian: single-celled microbes lacking a cell nucleus or cell membrane known as prokaryotes existed and nothing else for billions of years. We have never found a bear, bunny rabbit, kangaroo, human or any above multicultural life in the Precambrian- verifiable and demonstrable FACT 3) Mesozoic: All life during this time which includes, fish, amphibians, dinosaurs, reptile-like birds and a smattering of mammals (all of which do not exist in modern times) existed. We still have never found a bear, bunny rabbit, kangaroo, human or any other modern-day species.- Verifiable and demonstrable 4) Cenozoic is broken up into three periods and in each period you have specific life that gradually over time changes and there's still no crossover. The only life that exists at the beginning of each period exists until we gradually get closer to the next period and that still doesn't have any bear, bunny rabbit, kangaroo, human or any other modern life until we get to the modern period and only towards the end of that which is the last 150,000 years. Verifiable and demonstrable FACT There are plenty of other types of evidence such as chromosomal merges that exist in other primates in two chromosomes but merged in humans where we have both of them in one chromosome. Google Human chromosome #2 evidence for evolution. But much more evidence supports evolution that isn't listed here.
Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain the wide gap of the fossil record in the Cambrian explosion. And what was so important about Dr. Chen's presentation of the fossils found in China. And while you're at it explain to me how you could get anybody to believe DNA coding was the result of natural selection, and then send it to MIT, their mathematics department isn't convinced
@Randy Foster I apologize for the length of this reply, but these questions don't allow for a quick reply. Before I get started I have a question for you. With all the evidence of fossils you must recognize that life isn't stagnant. Without implying evolution, modern life hasn't always existed, species lived and went extinct, new life appears goes extinct, new life appears goes extinct....on and on. Is it your opinion that a God is snapping his fingers (figuratively) killing off one species and snapping his fingers again to create something new with almost the same body plan and doing this over and over until he creates humans and modern animals? Is that what you think is occurring, and if not how do you explain the specific life fossilizing in specific sedimentary layers? This is in no way an argument for evolution, I just want to understand your position on this one piece of evidence. I suspect that the wide gap you're referring to is the Precambrian / Cambrian gap. Two poorly explained components lead people to be confused. The first is people who improperly assume that the ”explosion" was instantaneous, and the reality is entirely different. The Cambrian era was 55 million years in the making. To give you some perspective, according to evolution, humans shared a common ancestor with Chimps and Bonobos just 6-8 million years ago, and there has been just as much evolutionary change happening in the past 55 million years as you get in the 55 million years of the Cambrian. The difference is that the Cambrian era is the first time we see, animal life. The second issue is at the core of the majority of the confusion people have with the ”Cambrian Explosion.” Why do we have only a handful of Precambrian fossils (an era lasting billions of years) and loads of Cambrian fossils (an era only lasting 55 million years?) This answer requires me to ask a rhetorical question. What types of lifeforms have the greatest chance to leave a fossil in the fossil record? The answer is an appearance of an explosion and not an actual explosion. It is less likely that soft-bodied structures will fossilize, and that is what we had at the end of the Precambrian and the beginning of the Cambrian. The lack of easily fossilizable life give the appearance of an explosion as they transition from soft-bodied to hard-bodied. In recent years a more complete record of soft-bodied Precambrian and early Cambrian fossils are being discovered, but they are probably never going to approach the diversity we see in the ”Cambrian Explosion” not because they didn't exist, but that soft bodies don't fossilize as often as hard bodies. "explain to me how you could get anybody to believe DNA coding was the result of natural selection.” Changes in DNA do occur but they are not the "result of" natural selection, and the Theory of Evolution doesn't say it is. If Natural Selection were a result of DNA coding occurring, I would be forced to admit that a God-like thing is a convincing answer and driving force behind it. The proper answer is that "random" mutations happen which can add, hinders or be indifferent to survivability. Natural selection can be a result of (environmental factor, but not limited them). Using an example might clear this up. A coding error occurs which leads to an individual rabbit that grows longer fur during a period where the average yearly temperature is 32 degrees Celsius or 90 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the rabbits to overheat and die before it can bread. The individual rabbit dies, but that species will survive. If it were 20 degrees Celsius, then that rabbit lives to bread, introducing the long fur characteristic into the population and now some of the rabbits in that population will have long fur. If the weather were to change to 10 degrees Celcius, the short fur rabbits freeze and die, and the long fur rabbits survive, which introduce a new micro-evolutionary change. This is a simple example of natural selection. (Evolution is a fact, the process of natural selection as a driving force is an educated and well-supported hypothesis.) I rarely get any resistance from creationists on microevolution. However, the problem comes from an issue with scripture when I introduce the theist to the obvious next step of macroevolution. Micro-evolution is one small change of millions and millions of changes to come. Those individual changes are micro-evolutionary changes which accumulate to become macro-evolutionary changes which take 1000s of generations. This is where the theist pounds his/her first and without evidence says ”No it ain't so! NO NO NO my God is perfect and my book is unerring and that's not what it says. I believe God created man in his present form. I believe it because my book says so.” Then I get accused of being an idiot for not ignoring the evidence. When I ask them how they know this when the evidence says otherwise, they claim, ”I know God because I have faith (trust) in God.” When I point out through demonstration that faith is a lousy way to understand anything they always resort to, ”it's only bad in every other case except for God, my God.” If you can't justify your beliefs with non-personal testimony evidence, you shouldn't accept it. Personal experience is evidence, but it's the worst evidence and scientifically unusable. People are easily fooled and impressionable. Once you have someone believing something, they're far more likely to associate positive outcomes as proof of God and forget the negative outcomes or associate it with Gods will. This gives people a false connection and leads them to accept anything positive as evidence for their beliefs and if that's not working, the threat of Hell keeps them in line. Is God possible? Maybe. Should we accept the claim a God is real as a fact? Of course not. Is God likely true? I'm still waiting to hear an argument that is valid that would support that assertion and if a miracle happened we still have a long way to go to get to the God you or anyone else believes. So until a miracle happens and someone offers me a valid argument for God I'll be withholding my belief.
Granted, slight changes can be attributed to natural selection for survivability but it doesn't explain the origin of the species. The gap you have to fill in if you planning on sticking with Neo-Darwinism and the gap only got wider when Dr. Chen offered his fossil finds. other wise you have all this new life and nothing to link it to old. And I didn't see your response to Dr. Murry Eden and company at MIT concerning genetic coding?
The LORD said, He thought before He created anything. The question is how long did He think before He spoke anything into existence . If He said let there be light, that would be 3 secs not counting time He was thinking. How long will you be simple, according to proverbs 1-8., really it is not complicated. Say away from all unclean things, dead things, study the Word, and keep your mind clean, He might reveal himself to you. Seek the LORD with all your heart(mind), soul, and spirit, He love you to praise, sing and dance and tell of His works, and if He reveals himself to you don't be surprise, just listen.
Either you explain the length of the creation day or accept that each day was 24hours. Almighty God does not leave us guessing, HE is not known to be ambiguous."god has not chosen the wise to see His glory and understand His nature. The Bible does not contradict itself. And most of the secular scientists are set on destroying God's Word. Is Hugh one of them by him putting one foot in their camp and one in the camp of the Creator? When God created Adam, was he a one day old baby or a grown man? Did God create his with time already built into him? Could He not then have created all of the universe with time already in them? And time and again secular scientists have been proved wrong but the Bible is infallible.
Ah, but you are projecting. You do not know the motive behind someone's beliefs. You may think you do, and you may have guessed correctly, but God actually knows. Earlier in my life I scoffed at non-six literal day creation interpretations as explanations trying to appease the world's scientific views. When I realized that immersion in the scriptures and studying the Bible actually led me to similar beliefs as those expressed in this video, I had to lay aside my earlier supposition and realize that honest seeking and digging into the Bible can and often does lead someone to these beliefs.
Genesis 1:1 says that God created the universe (including the sun) in the indefinite past. Genesis 1:2 states the surface of the earth was dark. Thereafter God said "Let there be light". Diffused light from the already-existing sun penetrated the earth's thick atmosphere and reached the surface of the earth. That was before vegetation, which is mentioned later in Genesis 1:12. When Genesis 1:16 says God "made" the luminaries (sun, moon and stars), the sense is that he "caused to appear". The Hebrew word translated "made" here is not the same word for "create" used in Genesis 1:1. In other words, God caused the sun to become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth, perhaps due to a gradual thinning of the atmosphere.
God can only reveal himself to us through the reality he created for us, in other words he created the physic of this world so he, through it, could be known by us. All the relationships understood by mankind are used by God to reveal his charter. For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife,and the two shall become one flesh. In this relationship we see the picture of Gods divine revelation to mankind.
Professor Nathan Aviezer (physicist, Bar Ilan University) wrote a book several decades ago called "In the Beginning", where the biblical account of creation is compared to what is know in science (including the Big Bang, Plate tectonics, etc.). When correctly read, there is no contradiction. Note, also, that the coming year (5784 since the Creation) measures the time from the END of creation, not the beginning..
@ShITYouWannaKNO The Son of God is fully God(Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, Colossians 2:9). When the Bible talks about Jesus as being "the firstborn" it is talking about His pre-eminence. In Jewish culture, the firstborn was the heir of all things, so to say that Jesus is the "firstborn" of all creation is talking about His pre-eminence over all things, and the fact that He is the heir of all things. If you read Hebrews 1, you will see that it teaches that Jesus is not angel, but God Himself.
I don't understand how being the firstborn of all creation doesn't mean that he was the first thing to be created. If Jesus is the word/wisdom of God in primordial past, then when God spoke, that means that he just created him. How can you misconstrue this? He's definitely connected to God and in a round about way is God/has been given His authority, he is at the end of the day subject to his Father. Because, Yeshua Jesus is basically a physical copy of God's software.
There are two ways to translate Hebrews 1:8. Instead of translating it as "Your throne, O God", some Bible versions translate it as "God is your throne" or "Thy throne given of God", meaning that God is the source of the Messiah's throne. The New Revised Standard Version has a footnote for Hebrews 1:8 that says, "Or [God is your throne].” The Good News Translation has the following footnote: "[or] God is your kingdom.” This translation would be more in harmony with the next verse, Hebrews 1:9, which says, "God, your God, has set you above your companions."
Why? he's selling his book of which I cannot dispute because I would never buy it to read it. He's come to twenty creation accounts wow; what is he trying to prove or disprove? How young or old the earth is, while fascinating to study most of his discussions sounds like conjecture to me. I can't dispute the archeologist but I've never actually seen a dig in person, Gobekli Tempi, neither Stonehenge, but I believe biblically that something could have occured between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I've obviously never trusted my public education of over fifty years but this I do know is that the devils will use anything and anyone to promote his lies, I'm not calling this man a liar I just making an individual statement. In my view Genesis 1:1 in a very independent statement, it does not say when the beginning was and here again take my very public education for what it is I am not an English major either. Additionally the Bible was not written in English or the King's English (ie the KJV) having said that I would need to here the original Hebrew language translation, at any cost I would reject the primise of twenty counts of Creation; I believe as Genesis 2:4 states these are the generations of the heavens and earth. I don't know much about the decalogues but Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 sounds closer to the same version of Creation One more detailed than the other.
No way. His theology is so poor and he believes science over Gods word. There are three places in The Bible where it states that God created the entire Universe in six days and Hebrew speaking Jews and Messianic Jews can teach how in the Genesis account it can only mean a 24 hour day. Hugh Ross is Apostate, stay well away!
From my understanding, the word "rest", could be equated to "the job is complete" or in a Creators case..."the creation process is complete", because (biblically) after the supposed "day of rest", the creator didn't go back to doing more creating. And there ya have it.
Keep it simple.If it is so complex I need another book outside of the Bible.Maybe it is not true.Those days were literal days not long periods of time.This planet is young.Evolutionary science wants a lot of time so they can hide.But the evidence unearthed is that this planet must be only thousands of years old not millions.This should no longer even be under discussion.I disagree with him but gotta love this guy.
what if God is still resting? he is watching us, our time is his 7th day, he is resting, he is not yet finish in creating our life. he is resting because he is watching us?? just curious
Tom Fuller a day mentioned in bible is not actual one solar day. how can we confirm? the answer is in bible itself. after 6 days of creation God rested on 7 th day... So what does it mean, if I work for company for 6 days and taking rest on 7th day then I would continue same job from 8th day that's what rest is. so god rested on 7th day and he took rest from creation so he is still on his 7th day, so when will he start creation again? answer is in revelation. after 1000 years of God's ministry there will be new earth and sky so god going to start creation again... So days from Genesis to revelation including nowadays are one day to god and it's still 7 th day for God
That is not what that versus referring to. Lol Read around that verse there’s more context. I’m not disagreeing that the earth is billions of years old that’s just not a defense of that. I think that versus referring to God’s timing being perfect and having patience
Wrong. How could the 24-hour day even be considered a specific period of time before the Earth was created, when it is the Earth's rotation speed which established the 24-hour day? It couldn't. The 24-hour day did not exist until the Earth did for the aforementioned reason. And each planet, depending upon it's rotation speed, establishes its own length of day.
Just a note to say thank you. I am embarrassed as a Christian when creation arguments are put forward and fact that fly in the face of facts (or at least such overwhelming science that they have no credence). So thank you for your work and your ability to put forth explanations that we can hold to and still think real thoughts. Gene
According to the Book of Genesis, God created vegetation on the third day and the Sun on the fourth day. If one day refers to a long period of time, how would vegetation survive for a long period of time without the Sun?
The day and the night were the first day, so the sun and moon and stars already exist...first you need land and water, then comes vegetation. Like putting a rock in a fish tank, and then starts to turn green...from light darkness and oxygen...
Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. These physical heavens included the sun, moon and stars. Genesis 1:2 says that there was darkness on the surface of the earth (this verse establishes the surface of the earth as the frame of reference for what happens on each successive day). When God said "Let there be light”, diffused light from the already-created sun began to penetrate the earth's thick atmosphere. Genesis 1:16 says that on the fourth day God "made" the sun, moon and stars, but that does not mean that God created the sun, moon and stars _ex nihilo_ at that time. The word for "made" in this verse is not the same word as "create" used in Genesis 1:1. God "made" the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day in the sense that he placed them in the sky, causing them to become distinctly visible as light bearers from the vantage point of the earth, perhaps due to a gradual thinning of the atmosphere.
Until you realize that Genesis 2 is more of a synopsis, and much less chronological than Genesis 1. Otherwise, they contradict each other, something that I'm sure Dr. Ross is keen to avoid.
I will even toss out the hardest one in the bible, for all you to figure out. Tell me how God made the sun and moon, stay in one location for joshua, and yes it can be proven, given we know the location they were at. It was even reported by the american indians, aztec and chinese historical witnesses, 1000's of miles apart.
Nectar production began on Day 3, nectar consumption occurred on Day 5.The simplest explanation is nectar production started 48 hours before nectar consumption.
@@maync1 Another problem with Ross, did the layers of sediment ascend over millions of years, or did the ocean recede over about 1 year ? Ross seems to avoid offending the Scholar's Union.
@Claude Rains You can't know the exact location of all of those people. Ancient cultures gave credit to all manner of gods to explain things they couldn't understand. Itscommon among the religious to not try to understand but to blame the supernatural. We have real science to explain things we don't need myths anymore.
On the contrary, as science learns more and more about the universe and the required fine tuning that holds it all together, what we are learning points more and more to intelligent design creation . . .what the Bible has told us from the beginning.
It does not say that there was no water but it says that there was no rain. Gen 2: 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
The beginning was the creation week. The word "Yom" means "day". God said "on that day, ye shall surely die" - proof that the term day means a literal day. In Gen 1:5"Yom" occurs in context with the word "night". outside of Gen 1, "night" is used with Yom 53 times, each time the text refers to a 24hr period. The plural of "Yom" which does not appear in Gen 1 is often used to communicate a longer period of time!
@@maync1 ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture. Exodus 20[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:[10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:[11] 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 31[15] Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.[16] Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.[17] It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
SO, that answers to the question of why the Egyptians farming in 6000 has no relevance to Noah's flood. Regarding the animals, every "species" didn't need to be saved, only every "kind", and then only the kinds that were essential to humanity (wild animals, livestock, birds, etc). Obviously, Noah didn't take whales or other sea creatures on board the Ark because those animals wouldn't need saving! Again, critical thinking must be applied when interpreting scripture (not "6 year old" logic).
@@theuniversewithin2065 No. I'm an atheist now. But back when I wrote this, I was interpreting the bible from the standpoint of science, and not from the standpoint of contradicting it.
@@captainbryce1 good you evolved. The Bible shouldn't be regarded as a science source either way. Anyone who uses it to prove a point have automatically lost.
How did the plants obtain photosynthesis for potentially 1,000 years without the sun? How does the fossil record exist before sin entered the world and brought death to all creation? We know the speed of light, but we do not know how fast the speed of light was when God spread out the heavens. God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. I will trust in the word of God, and if God deems it important to change my mind, He will reveal new revelation to me.
@kemalcs How could it not happen? Cultures and religions all over the world openly state that there was a global flood that destroyed nearly all of life.
There are many flood myths. Most of which contradict each other. How could all of these myths be evidence for the same event if they contradict each other?
And yet the the Bible says clearly ‘God separated the day from the night’, day in this context is 12 hours or less. Therefore, the term ‘day’ in the Bible ‘factually’ has no fixed, rigid value, it varies and it depends upon context. In addition, on the first ‘day’, God had neither created day or night so how does one interpret day in this context? 🤔🇬🇧🙏🌈♥️
What this guy calls "the second account of creation" is not a second account at all. It is merely an in depth recap of how God made man and woman. First God lays the foundation by describing what He did each day and then in Genesis 2 He tells how He formed His most beloved creature (Man). Also, they were literal 24 hour days because it clearly says "the evening and the morning". A thousand year period would had multiple days but that's not what the Bible is teaching us. To say that Yahweh a 1000 years for each act of creation is to limit His Power and His Power is not limited. God using six 24 hours days to create the universe paints a greater picture of Yahweh's Infinite Power. Now come on people, it's high time we start taking God's Word for what it is actually saying and not some man's opinion of what he thinks it means. Also, Genesis is the foundation for The Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you don't have a strong, true, or accurate foundation everything that is built upon it comes crashing down. Think about it people.
Hello, can you please explain this to me, I have an issue about free will in Christianity: 1. God created us knowing knowing beforehand who would "choose" not to believe Him, therefore God pre-elects people for heaven and eternal torture, removing "freewill" out of the question 2. Heaven or hell(eternal torture). Is that really a choice? Really?? There are people who prefers eternal torture??
It is a fact that the earth's spin has slowed down since its creation meaning that days and nights were shorter than the.24 hrs we now observe .let us just say that God is not constrained by time or space as as we are . and Dr Ross is an astrophysicist an astronomer a pasture among many other attributes and certainly we can learn from him .
A Day = 1000 years (Psalms 90:4). 2 Peter 3:8 A day = 1000 years as 1000 years = a day. Revelation 2:10 has 10 days of tribultion or 10 years. Then you have one year. Isa 24:5; Isa 34:8; Isa 61:1-2; Isa 63:4; Psalms 118; Jhn 6:39, 40, 44, 54; and in Isaiah with Kedar/Islam/Ishmael will be taken out in less than a year in which all = 2018. For 3 days and 3 nights = 72 hours. Jesus entered Jerusalem on a Sabbath, died in Wednesday, and rose on Sunday.
For those who say it was six twenty four hours I would like to say, how do you know? What's your evidence? Were you there? “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-11.
Exodus 20:9-11 is a major reason why I believe in the 6 24 hour days. Also, if the order of creation in Genesis is not a lie, then how did plants reproduce without insects?
"..be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." - 2Peter 3:8 According to this verse, one could conclude that 6 days of creation plus the 1 day of rest, is actually 7000 earth years.
"Every instance of it in the Bible which refers to a day is in reference to a 24 hr literal day" I can't give you the scriptures, but i know for a fact that is wrong! I heard it in a lecture where he quoted various scriptures through the Bible where the word "yom" was NOT used to describe a 24 hour period. Not to mention I think that is irrelevent anyway. It doesn't matter how they use it in other places, the only question is 1) can you use it in different ways 2) how was it used in Genesis
I don't think Dr. Ross was accurate about "hapaam" meaning "at long last" in Genesis 2:23. See 4 minutes and 12 seconds for beginning of his comment. I just did a Logos inline search for the Hebrew word in just Genesis and Exodus and found 8 more incidents of the word which in context meant at that moment in time. I excluded four which could have been interpreted as "at long last." Dr. Ross claimed that all incidents of “hapaam” means a long time.
In addition, I did a text comparison and found the English translation in various Bible translations. Tanakh JPS 1917 . . . This is now bone of my bones. . . Tanakh JPS 1985 . . . This one at last is bone of my bones. . . NASB95 . . . This is now bone of my bones. . . ESV . . . This at last is bone of my bones. . . NIV84 . . . This is now bone of my bones. . . NKJV . . . This is now bone of my bones. . . KJV . . . This is now bone of my bones. . . RSV . . . This at last is bone of my bones One can see that the word appears to be translated as either “at this moment in time” or “at long last.” Theology can influence translation. Also, an Answers in Genesis article points out that Adam could have named the animals in one day and then Eve could have been created on that 6th day. Adam did not have thousands of animals to name, necessarily, but only a limited number of “kinds,” the ones that God brought to him. So just as the case in the global flood, for example, there were not all of the cat species as we see today, but there was one cat kind pair of animals that contained all the DNA information to produce all of the species of cats in God’s timing. In addition, Adam had superior mental capacity as he had not yet experienced the noetic effect of the curse after the Fall.
And there is nothing in the bible to suggest that Noah's flood was anything more than a local flood like we see today. Again, the 04 Tsunami killed nearly a quarter million people! If that happened in ancient Mesopotamia 30 thousand years ago, that would encompass most of humanity (and land animals associated with humanity) being completely wiped out!
@@llllllllllllllIIlIllIIllIIIIll No, it's not wrong...it's correct (unless you actually have an argument that can point out exactly HOW it is wrong). Otherwise, your OPINION is noted.
One thing to remember is that outside the garden of Eden it was not Paradise... The rest of the Earth needed "subduing". You don't need to "subdue" daisies and butterflies. You need to subdue that which is out of control and opposed to God's ways. We know from Genesis 3 that Satan was already on the Earth, and even in the garden of Eden itself where he tempted Eve. How many aeons before did the event of Lucifer rebelling with 1/3 of the angels and being cast out of heaven occur? I don't think it is a stretch at all too conclude that the rest of the Earth was heavily influenced by demons, who perhaps had corrupted some of the animals into carnivores, etc. Adam and Eve were tasked with extending the borders of paradise, Eden, subduing the Earth.
The fall of man only concerns human death. Romans says because of the sin of Adam, death came to all men (for all had sinned). It’s not talking about animals because animals do not sin. The Bible never says that animals were meant to live forever, it only implies that Adam and Eve could by eating from the tree of life. When they sinned, God placed a cherubim at the entrance to the garden to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis says, man must not reach out for it and live forever. Animals were presumably not eating from the tree of life, so there would have been animal death before the fall. Animals were created before man (on creation day 5). They were fruitful and multiplied after their kind. Presuming that the creation days are indeed long periods of time, then some of these animals would have eventually died, and new ones born resulting in many generations of animal species.
Another confusion among religions is that they teach or believe that Jesus is God himself. The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God's son the first born in heaven. 1st john 4:15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God. And while teaching his followers how to pray, Jesus said: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.”-Matthew 6:9. The bible couldn't be more clear that God is a separate being. I say this with respect of other people's beliefs. Just showing a different viewpoint.
The hellfire idea makes people think God enjoys torture and pants a bad picture of him. They also rarely mention his name Jehovah. The trinity pretty much gives all the credit to Jesus. Which is not fair to God. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
The bible teaches that the world is flat, slavery is moral, you should stone people for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week, the fastest way to marry someone's daughter is to rape her, etc etc etc. Please the bible does not teach anything good.
Hugh… I’ve been following you for so many years. I’m a lover of science. My nephew died in 07 in Iraq. Your program got me through 6 months of intense sorrow. Thank you for all you do.
I am very sorry to hear about your nephew...I was in Iraq as a medic in 07 so even though I didn't know him he was my brother...I'll keep you in my prayers
Once again, brilliantly answered Dr Ross.... I never stop learning from you.... A clear, concise response so logically explained, even a lay person can understand.... May God continue to use and bless your unique ministry, and endue you with wisdom and knowledge.
So when Jesus told his deciples in the renewed covenant, that Adam was created in the beginning, you believe Jesus was lieing, because you claim each day was thousands of years? If each day was as long as you claim, was Adam created in the beginning? Nope!
@@-kepha8828 ua-cam.com/video/M9aztJneP6I/v-deo.html
@@ojara wrong. Genesis chapter 1 tells us how long a day is. It says when the sun goes up, morning, it is light, and when the sun goes down, it is darkness. He says THIS constitutes the time period of 1 day. That means no matter how much you want to justify a long creation, you CANNOT leave those parameters. Sorry. You tried to be fancy with words, but failed. You see, the hebrew language is far more detailed than the english language you go by. The Hebrew says day 1 was YOM ECHAD. This means that only 1 day can preceed it. And the bible already defines a day as the sun coming up, then the sun going down, millions of years in timespan cannot fit that definition no matter how deceiving you are.
You are wanting so bad for the earth to be extremely old, because that's all your manmade dating systems tell you to believe. The problem? The dating systems have already been proven to be wrong because they assumed the wrong half life.
@@-kepha8828 ok, then please tell me, how you calculate how old the earth is?
@@ojara I dont. I let Genesis stand on its word. God gave an exact genealogy of Adam to Yahushua. That genealogy is by far less than 6000 years. Now it's up to you to have faith in Gods word, or deny it and side with science. His son Yahushua said Adam and Eve were from the beginning. Which means the first week of creation. God defined a week as 7 DAYS. God defined a day as the period of LIGHT. God defined the night as the period of darkness that was seperated from the light. This is exactly what Dr Ross rejects. He wants to deny the parameters of what constitutes a "day" and a "night" so that he can expand their lengths to fit his scientific beliefs, his scientific faith. He put more faith into mans understanding than Gods.
If you cannot accept the very first chapter of scripture, that a day is 12 hours, that a night is 12 hours, but called "watches" in the Hebrew, and that consecutively these 2 phases of time equal 24 hours, not thousands of years, therefore establishing that there was 7 24 hour periods that constituted the beginning of creation, then my friend you have some pretty big issues with having faith in what God said. And if you lack faith in Gods word over mans, I promise you then you shouldn't be concerned with how old the earth is, you should be concerned about your faith.
I really thank Reasons To Believe and Dr Ross for such informed discussions on a fascinating topic
I've read most of Ayn Rand's books. She darned near ruined my thinking. Thank goodness I've recovered a bit. The God of the Bible has been a great help. Dr. Ross is as good at twisting reality as Ayn Rand.
The Bible speaks *_plain_* truth. Believe God, not Dr. Ross.
@Janna Kruger - Ayn Rand had a rough childhood and for that, she blamed God became angry at Him. Recognizing that the human experience did not work well without God, she invented a godless philosophy with Man as god and since her ideas could not exist in reality, she fictionized them. Howard Roark is that fictionalized man/god character.
Yes. The real Man/God is Jesus Christ. Unlike Howard Roark, Jesus Christ is quite unselfish and quite self-sacrificial. Jesus Christ is the exact antithesis of Howard Roark. Jesus Christ demonstrated that you gain the most by giving the most away. God's ideas are usually quite opposite of man's ideas. God's ideas are usually counterintuitive.
"There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death."
- Proverbs 14.12 (NKJV)
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
- 1 Corinthians 1.25 (NKJV)
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” Therefore let no one boast in men."
- 1 Corinthians 3.19 - 21a (NKJV)
its not informed,the bible is clear,there IS evening and morning,the first day,day 1-6 is undisputedly 24 hour day because it says there was evening and morning,God already created NIGHT and daylight in the first day,he already create light in the first day
Gen 2 does not say that Adam worked the Garden of Eden, it just says that was God's purpose for Adam, we don't know if Adam spent any time doing that yet; we also see that immediately after GOD gave Adam HIS instructions, GOD recognized that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Gen 2 also does not say that Adam named all the birds and animals in one day, it just says that Adam did that and it could have been over many days with Eve's help. I looked at Gen 2:23 and the word "pah'-am" does not necessarily mean a long period of time, it could mean "now". As for the seventh day, GOD could have rested JUST on that day, HE didn't tell us what he did on the 8th. Maybe starting with the 8th day he began HIS work of salvation. Also, we know that a Gen 1 day consists of evening and then morning, and the beginning of the 7th day would be evening, if GOD meant that the 7th day is a continuous period then you could only have one evening and one morning, so we should have seen a night lasting thousands of years and a morning lasting thousands of years. we also have to look at the context, if the first 5 periods could possibly be actual days, then it makes more sense that the 6th and 7th are also actual days. the purpose of scripture is to give us clear knowledge not confusion; why would GOD suddenly change the meaning of day when it's clear HE is using it as a standard unit of measurement? and then of course in Gen 5 we have the genealogy which gives us the elapsed time since Adam, and Exodus 20:11 again clarifies that creation was in six days and the 7th day HE called Sabbath Day, which we know is an actual day of every week.
Well said Dr Hugh Ross
😂😂😂😂
The evening and the morning are the first day. His said this to end this silliness
Exodus 20:11
Believe the bible for what it says, don't let science sway you from the Text! Remember the creation was created mature, just as Adam and Eve were.
Science is what made it possible for you to write a comment for everyone in the earth to see. Science has actually debunked some of the claims of bible. I still respect religious people, but i just dont want science to look like a bad thing.
@@notFakali Science doesn't contradict the Bible
@@chungusultimate , you have either not read the Bible or not read criticisms of claims made in the Bible, because the Bible is absolutely in contradiction with what we have discovered using the scientific method.
@@worldgonemad5866 the bible is not in contradiction in science- show me one unscientific thing in the bible
@@chungusultimate , let's start at the beginning. Your God supposedly speaks existence into being. What is scientifically accurate about that claim?
Besides the many explanations on (very) complicated matters dr Hugh Ross provides, I feel compelled to comment on his humbleness of character and the love he portrays through his tone of voice (from his presentations). If I may, I'd like to encourage all knowledgable Christian speakers to achieve a fine balance such as this. (Personally I find it tough to listen to an overconfident speaker). Thank you Doctor for the fine work you do in The Lord.
(ahem) Kent Hovind (ahem)
You're right. Sometimes its what you say *and* how you say it that achieves greatest reception.
"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
- 2 Corinthians 11.14 (ESV)
I would stick with the unambiguous Word of God, if I were you.
, yep, he's quite a salesman.
@@rubiks6 I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. The word of God was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and not In 17th century English.
"and the morning and the evening were the first day (yom)."
Morning and evening are the context for YOM.
Let me slightly correct you. The original hebrew said "there WERE evening, and there WERE morning the first day".
In the original hebrew, there are actually two "weres" not one like the english translation says. The 2nd "were" is actually a divider in the hebrew. Therefore, when God said "and there WERE morning the first day" is a statement that attaches the phrase "day" to the morning only, and not the evening. What this is telling is is that there is first darkness, then there is morning which is the first day. This separates the possibility that the darkness can be apart of the timeframe of a "day". And God tells us that much himself when he says the day and the night are to be SEPERATE.
1. There was evening.
2. There was morning which is the start of the 1st day
@@-kepha8828 it wasn’t long periods of time that’s the issue
@Janna Kruger you are correct that todays jews start their day at sunset and their sabbath at friday night. But if you think the bible taught them to do this, you would be wrong. Even the jewish encyclopedia states that the modern day jews adopted this MANMADE TRADITION from babylon and didnt start observing these traditions until the 3rd and 4th century AD.
The bible, in Genesis 1:5, defines "day" as the period of the suns light. It then defined night as the period of darkness ruled by the moon. God then commanded that these two periods, day and night FOREVER REMAIN SEPERATE.
Which only shows that you have to really try hard to avoid the plain meaning of this text as understood by Christians for thousands of years. And you are still stuck with the 4th commandment, modelling our 6 days of work and one day of rest on the 6 days of creation. @@-kepha8828
Adam had no sin or decay in his body at the time he was put to sleep, so why did he have to "recover"?
Also, God can create evereything but has to perform a humanistic "biopsy" from which Adam needs to recover? Way to put limitations on God.
Where is "recovery" mentioned in the narrative?
@@epik9778 - Did you not read Adam's response? Perhaps it was exactly for this response that God chose His method of creating the woman. Also, remember - God is the best dramatist in the universe and it should be obvious to you that He is putting on a great drama for the benefit of men. This way of creating the woman is rather dramatic, wouldn't you say?
@@rubiks6 I was further emphasizing Jacob's response, put it in context. The Bible says nothing of Adam needing to recover, nor did Adam respond with anything in kind.
@@epik9778 - Adam's response to God's act was, "This is now bone of my bones ...[ect.]" - Genesis 2.23
@5tonyvvvv i do hunt and fish and am always amazed at the wonderful nature that God gave to us for food but also for our pure enjoyment and amazement of his glory.
, how humble of you.
The last line was perfectly crafted and expertly delivered. 👍🏻👍🏻
If the 7th day of creation is an undisclosed amount of time, then we have a huge problem with the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Luke 3, as we have an unbroken lineage (inclusive of a parallel account in Genesis which gives the ages of the earthly ancestors of Jesus found as far back in the book of Genesis of when they 'begat' and also their ages when they died) from 'Adam the son of God' 3:38, and Jesus The Son of God 3:23. Adam was created on the 6th day, therefore the 7th day being anything other than a normal 24 hour period throws the whole genealogy in Luke 3 asunder and makes the account of it, pointless.
Let's not be wholly certain about that. I can challenge Dr Ross that he cannot fortify his opinion with proofs that we live in the 7th day (period) of creation. For if that were true, why would Son of God work for our salvation during that day? Dr Ross is swooned with the science of Genesis, but forgets some theological points that are hidden inside that same text.
adysaxman77 Well we don’t really know how long Adam was in the garden before he was given eve and before they fell. Also, in the scriptures, “son of” does not always means the physical son, but can mean descendant , like a grandson or great grand son.
adysaxman77 amen
After a long day we rest, same as God on the sabboth...
Not really, genesis is cteation which is of God... and after creation was man , on adifferent timeline after sin ...a thousand years as one day with the lord, before sin , and one day as a thousand years as God said...through sin the life time was shortened...
yep 24 hours. When the word 'day' is used with a number it is ALWAYS!!! a 24 hour period.:) thanks for your question :)
This has always been true otherwise "24-hour day" will not even be known by anyone because you've already incorrectly interpreted the word day.
I see your point, however how do you explain God not closing off the seventh day with evening and morning like he did with the rest?
@@thepossessor coss then there would be an 8th day. The bible also says creation shows the glory of God. when I watch the Nature programs I cant belive anyone would belive that all happend with evalution.
@@thepossessor God repeated the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning" for the first 6 days. That's how God defined a day so that means the following days will obviously have morning and evening or day and night everyday until the earth dies
@@caeoranger how can there be a 24 hr evening and morning on the first day with no sun and moon?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the, 6 day as we know them, don’t ad to the word of GOD and don’t subtract, God bless you
Philo, a Jewish scholar of the first century assumed that the days of Genesis 1 were symbolic of periods of time over which God worked. Origen and Augustine, arguably the most influential theologians in the early Christian church agreed that the “days” were not literal 24-hour periods. By the way, others did interpret the days literally, so I do not want to create the false impression that this was the only view. Nobody is adding or subtracting here. This is a complex issue that people can respectfully disagree on.
Yes he said six days was creation, but even God says in priphetic terms, one day with the lord is as a thousand years...adam alone in the garden with God was more than aday...as hugh ross suggested... the bible is up for interpretaion, but by the spirt we no the truth.as the spirit is truth...
Nobody is adding or subtracting words. We are just trying to get to the correct meaning of the word. The catholic bible did not consider the original hebrew text.
@@thetruthfornow6045 amen brother...
@@MichaelSeven7777that’s interesting. Both were first century or close to, so I wonder if that’s just when they came up earth the idea?
“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
context who needs it
@@hopefulheathen1079 Amazing how everyone is quick to chant "A day is like a thousand years with the Lord" but quickly forget the vice versa "A thousand years is like a day with the Lord". If we apply that, then The millennial rule of Christ will last only one day. After all, a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of the Lord.
@@Smasher77th You are so right. God is outside of time, but we re not. God created "time" for us!
I love this explanation and I see if very compatible with young earth science. Long period of time does not necessarily denote a 'millions of years' time frame. Having said that, I've never fully understood the whole concept of "day and night" in Genesis 1 but I'm learning. God bless and thanks for posting this.
Where did you get "young earth" from anything Dr. Ross stated?! The Earth is 4.5662 +/- 0.0001 BILLION years old. Young earth pseudo-science is nonsense! They are deceiving you for MONEY. There were NO dinosaurs on the Ark! Dino's died off some 66 MILLION years ago!
The age of the Earth is NOT a salvation issue! YEC zealots make it an issue!
There was evening and morning a first day, second day etc. Very few had any problems understanding what that meant until some atheists told us to believe otherwise, and not based on evidence but an a priori commitment to atheism, which still doesn't work because there isn't enough time for evolution to happen anyway, abiogenisis, the Goldilocks zone etc.
If you listen to him you misunderstand the day of genesis.
How many hours, or days can a plant survive in the darkness?
How many animals can 2 lions eat in 40 days in Noah’s Arc?
I’m a year late for this reply, but… there are plants and animals that live in complete darkness now. Even if there wasn’t, you can’t assume that the first plants used photosynthesis like modern plants. Just go to your local garden center and you’ll see that different plants live in different light levels.
a few weeks def. would have no trouble living a few days without light.
@@nolanmckain2061 Friend, I hope you have didcovered in your Bible that they were in the ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days and nights.
@@kevin8360 Friend, jus as in the end of Rev where we are told that God's glory (His light) outshines the sun, so too His light that shone upon the earth at day one would easily have supplied light for plants. However, this in no way gives excuse to misinterpret the Bible to say that each creation day is anything other than one rotation of the earth on its axis, which we know today as a literal 24 hours.
He's wrong. The word yom depends upon context. "the evening and the morening" are the cotext. It means a 24 hr day.
William Wilson's _Old Testament Word Studies_ says the following regarding the Hebrew word “yohm”: "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.”
@@jollyrancher521 How many days did Joshua march around the city of Jericho? How do we know how long a day was then? Isn't it because of context? The context in the Genesis creation narrative likewise tells us the days of creation were 24 hour days.
The word yom is used 410 times in relation to a number. Every time it means an ordinary day.
"evening and morning" are used 38 times in the Old Testament and each time it means an ordinary day.
"evening and morning" are used 23 times without the word yom and each time it means an ordinary day.
"night" is used 52 times without yom and each time it means an ordinary day.
Because of the context of the creation days, "evening and morning", if these days represented vast periods of time, the either God is a untrustworthy idiot because he has conveyed something untrue, or he is a liar because he has conveyed that the length of the days is equal to the coming and going of the sun, while they were in fact vast periods of time.
If the days of creation in Genesis 1 represent thousands to millions of years,and Adam and Ever were created during day 6, then one would have to believe they were thousands to millions of years old by day 7 unless youbelieve God created them at the last moment before sunrise on day 6.
Moreover, since the passages describe the coming and going of the sun, one would have to believe the earth orbited the sun at a rate exponentially slower during the days of creation than immediately after. If you don't hold to that idea, then you have to explain why the days of creation represent vast ages of time and an exponentially slower moving earth than for day 7 and all days afterward.
In the context, the word day in Genesis 1 refers to six 24-hour days. Every time it appears with “evening and morning” or with a number like “sixth day,” which is over 200 times, it refers to a 24-hour day.
If the days represent cast periods of time, then God would have had to supernaturally placed all plants into a frozen state of stasis to wait for the sun to arrive the next "day" so that they would have sunlight. Plants can survive a couple of literal days without sunlight, but they cannot survive hundreds, thousands, or millions of days without light.
If the days represent vast periods of time, the sun would have charred the earth into a dessert on each day that the earth rotated. Otherwise, one would have to believe each day represents millions of actual days, but this contradicts the statements of "and the evening and the morning were the X day".
Because of the statements regarding the workweek and sabbath in Exodus, the creation days cannot be longer than 24 hour.
Since death entered the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), all of the animals God created would have had to live for vast ages of time until Adam sinned. This forces Day-Age theorists to arbitrarily decide how long the creation days must be to fit their concept.
Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament apostles read Genesis 1-11 as straightforward historical narrative.
What is the genre of Genesis 1? Is it poetic or prophetic? Poetry is easy to recognize in Hebrew because unlike English poetry which often relies upon rhyme and meter, Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism: either synonymous or antithetical parallelism. Synonymous parallelism occurs when an idea is repeated using different words, often synonyms of the original. Consider Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” The ‘heavens’ and ‘sky’ basically mean the same thing, just as ‘declare’ and ‘proclaim’ basically mean the same thing. Both the first and second phrase have basically the same meaning: that the universe tells us something about God’s creative glory. Since this passage is poetic, the author did not intend to convey the idea that the sky literally talks. But nonetheless, we can learn something about God by observing the heavens as if they were speaking to us. We understand the meaning.
Antithetical parallelism occurs when the second phrase is the alternative to the first - like two sides of the same coin. An example is seen in Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” The first part proclaims the positive aspect of reverential submission to the Lord: knowledge. The second part problems the negative consequences of a refusal to submit to the Lord - a lack of wisdom.
Hebrew scholar Dr. Steven Boyd has conducted a statistical analysis of 522 Old Testament passages. He found that poetic and narrative passages could be categorized with a better than 99% accuracy based on the verb usage alone. Dr. Boyd’s analysis showed conclusively that Genesis 1 is narrative history, not poetry. This means the only way to interpret it properly is as history, looking for its straightforward, historical meaning.
The immediate context of each appearance of day in Genesis 1 conclusively establishes their length. Each day is marked by “evening and morning.” A day lasting millions of years would have far more than one evening and morning. Throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, when evening and morning are used together, they refer to a normal-length day.
Each day is also linked with a number (“first day,” “second day”). This construction occurs more than 300 times in the Old Testament, and with only a couple of potential exceptions, it always signifies a normal-length day. Furthermore, in the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:31 states that the final day of Creation Week was indeed the sixth day. If millions of years had passed, then Day Six could not have been the sixth day.
Another important consideration, often overlooked, is the fact that the plural form of the word day (‘yamim’) is never used anywhere in Scripture non-literally. “Days” (plural) always means “days.” And yet it is the plural form of the word that is used in Exodus 20:11 which states, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them…” Since the plural form of days is used here, there can be no doubt that the author intended the indicate that God created literally in the span of six days.
"Yom represents a revelational day. That is, in six literal days ( or possibly in a vision which represented to Moses the whole drama of creation in six visionary days ) God described to His prophet the mystery of how He had brought creation into being, and the stages by which He did so… This interpretation is perhaps tenable without surrendering the inerrancy of the Bible record. But it encounters several serious difficulties, chief among which is the complete absence of any hint or suggestion in the text of Genesis 1 that a mere vision is being described. It reads like perfectly straightforward history: In the beginning God created heaven and earth: on the first "day" He created light; on the second day He separated the waters into the upper and the lower, and so on." - Gleason L. Archer Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction." Moody Press, 2nd Ed, 1974, p.185
@@jollyrancher521 ‘… so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture.
Exodus 20[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:[10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:[11] 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 31[15] Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.[16] Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.[17] It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Everytime I listen to Dr Ross, I am always getting the answers that Is very interesting.
He is able to correlate Bible and Science ❤- which I knew from the past is parallel.
May the good Lord continue to bless you with more wisdom and knowledge so we will understand God’s creation and WORDS thru you.
Very humble Godly man
It says the, "Evening and the Morning" were the 1st day"
Yes indeed. And the Hebrew is in the singular - ereb boqer - so a single dark part, followed by a single light part of a day. One rotation of the earth on its axis before the light that shone on the earth from day one (from God - cross ref. to close of Rev. where again God is the sourche of light).
Also, 'first' day - the hebrew word used is echad - often translated 'one' (as in Deut 6:4's shama. echad always comprises at least two parts - never is it the indivisible single.
Put all this together and the Bible is absolutely referring to a single rotation of planet earth in the presence of the light God shone upon the earth. We currently experience one rotation of the earth as a 24 hour period, and have no reason to believe creation day one is any different.
I believe the reference to the scripture speaking of a day being like a thousand is a reference to His eternal existence. He has no beginning or end and He created time for us. We were created in a finite world and time was a dimension for our benefit and a limitation for us. The creation of a 24 hour day is a literal interpretation of the creation account. If there is any parallel comparison of the creation account to a Big Bang theory than it is not in balance with that theory. Sun, moon, and stars came after the creation of the earth does not hold with evolution theory or Big Bang theory. I cannot follow any other option than a literal 24 hour day creation. I do think we try to hold God to our understanding, in its limited and finite wisdom. I think this is a faith issue. We just have to trust what is in the Word and quit adapting our logic and limitations to it.
I agree
I agree. Check out this little theory. God does not live within the constraints of OUR time and space he created for us. He created the heavens (universe) and earth moments before he said let there be LIGHT. This was the light of our Sun and the stars. The actual measurement for our (time) 24 hour days and the rate and distance at which it travels, the speed of light. So cool how God gave us the science to see his Supernatural power. The vast expanse of the universe is his signature. This was for us to realise his power and glory. Both that are NOT of our understanding and yet the science he created is a tool for us. Not only use for every day life but to find him and realise his existence. Unfortunately, people want quantify Light years and Creation to something within their understanding.
Concerning the 6 days I discern a failure, on the part of advocates for a very young universe, to distinguish between God's original creating of the "heavens and earth" Gen.1:¹ (the material universe) and his later preparing of a more local "heavens" (sky) "earth" (terra firma) and "Sea" (ocean) for earth's inhabitants on Days 2 and 3. (Gen. 1:⁸-¹⁰.) These latter, local "heavens, earth and sea" (which contain birds, animals and fish) are what Jhvh created within the 6 Days as He describes in the 4th Commandment (Exodus 20:¹¹)..... and hence the prohibition on carved images of birds, animals and fish (in the 2nd Commandment. Exod.20:⁴) ....which inhabit these local "heavens, earth and seas". The original creation of the material Universe "heavens and earth" (Gen.1:¹) preceded, and is presented as outside of, the special 6 days starting in vs.3.
@e rawan - There was light on day three. It was brought into existence on day one. (Remember when God said, "Let there be light"?) It is similar to the light in Revelation 21; 23.
@@anthonydefreitas5734 - You can place the creation of the heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1; 1 in the indefinite past if you'd like but in between that event and the moment God said, "Let there be light," nothing happened. Nothing. Certainly, no evolution of life or the cosmos occurred during that period. That being said, your interpretation of Gen 1; 1 becomes moot. It accomplishes nothing. Your interpretation neither adds anything to nor takes away anything from the narrative. What's your point?
I really appreciate your desire to be faithful to all of Scripture. Some of your statements, however, are found wanting when checked. Around 4:18-4:25 you state that the Hebrew word 'hapam' means a long period of time and that "everywhere else it's used in the Old Testament it's translated 'at long last.'" The definition given in Brown Driver and Briggs (quote from the BibleWorks version) is "beat, foot, anvil, occurrence." It is used in Genesis 18:32 where it is typically translated "just this once" or similar. In Genesis 29:34&35, Exodus 9:27, and Exodus 15:3 it is translated "this time" by the ASV, ESV, NAS, and NKJ. In Genesis 30:20 and 46:30 it is translated "now" by those same versions. In Exodus 10:17 and Judges 6:39 it is translated "this once" by those same versions. In Judges 16:18 and 16:28 it is translated as "this once" or "again" or "once more." Now I will grant you that I have only searched the forms of 'hapam' that are identical to the form found in Genesis 2:23, but doing so is sufficiently establishes that your statement "everywhere else it's used in the Old Testament it's translated 'at long last'" is not accurate.
Thank you for your effort to base your arguments in the authority of Scripture, for that I am grateful even though I differ with much of what you say.
Well, that's why the 7 day definition given by Dr. Ross makes me a little skeptical.
This guy makes some interesting arguments.
This guy rejects the Word of God.
@@rubiks6 wrong
@@ethan532 - Whhhatever.
I was praying in the Spirit one morning and I realized if God never had a beginning; What must be up there? All around us?
@ShITYouWannaKNO Jesus is fully God(Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, Colossian 2:9). God loves us so much that He took on flesh as Jesus Christ and became the sacrifice for our sins, the innocent in place of the guilty, so that we can be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus. The Bible and the Christian church have always taught that Jesus is fully God.
What an excellent answer. I have never held to the 24 hour period. It just doesn’t make sense in the plane reading of the text
Seriously? Does our 24 -hour day make sense to you? Do you think God was incapable of creating something in 24 hours? What about the rotation if our earth? Did God just stop and start it over and over and over to fit into the millions of years? Go figure?!
“Then we can move on to the next Church splitting controversy that has no bearing on salvation doctrine.” 😂
Keep this in mind before you start slashing your brother in the comment section.
Death before sin means Christ’s work was not significant. And that God would have called death “very good”
Trust the Bible and read what is meant to be literal as literal and parable as parables.
@@hozn Stop with the misguided nonsense of YEC zealots! Go read Romans 5:12!! NOWHERE does it say death was brought to animals! Your dog CANNOT sin! Only people can sin! - fool!
I cannot believe some of the comments. Genesis 1 is the condensed version of Gen 2. There is no contradiction. The Lord created everything in six literal days. Why ?. 1- Gen 21Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
The Lord had finished His work.
The sabbath was made for man. God neither sleeps nor slumbers. You will find this in your bible if you read it and it is not a corrupted version.
Six literal days ?- 2... Read Gen 1:11-19... on the third day God bought forth the herbs, trees etc
On the fourth day God made lights..the greater to rule the day (sun) and the lesser to rule the night (moon)
Plants, trees, herbs will not last 1000 years without sunlight so it has to be a literal 6 days of creation. One of the problems is that people are influenced by what they learn in school or the carnal mind. Science will tell you that the age of the earth and universe is determined by the fact that a star is so many millions of light years away and so therefore the universe has to be billions of years old. God is a big God. He exists outside time because he is eternal. He spoke the universe into being and it was formed within an instant. The stars were put in their place within an instant. It did not take billions of years and there was no big bang. You cannot make something from nothing.
If God neither sleeps or slumber why did he rest on the 7th day or like Dr Ross said he did not create anything on or after the 7th day
I think he is making more out of it than it really is, the scripture clearly states after every creation day, " so the evening and the morning were the first day" and so on throughout the creation narrative. The writer Moses, was explaining that it was a 24 hour period as we know a day to be..it wasn't some secret amount of time, just as Jesus healed people instantly, the blind man didn't have to wait for something special to happen, scripture also says that "a day is as a 1000 years" 2nd Peter 3:8 ...so a day is "as" a thousand years.. not that a day"is" actually a thousand years. Time is irrelevant to God, he made time and is not constrained to human boundaries. Our God is an awesome God. This professor/ author will find that out when he meet Him face to face.
This tension between literal interpretation of the Bible ( fundamentalism) and a more critical (careful study) of the Bible is ongoing. One is a more childlike love of the inspired word the other a childlike grown up love of same. Both trust scriptures as truth, the former content not to think about it the latter curiosity inclined. Temperament? Both are valid and yes both loved by God. The point is that both must forsake their non Christ like egos which only desire to be proven right and the other wrong. Let us all rejoice in the risen Lord and watch Him arise in all those who have been Born Again, either as a Fundamentalist or Liberal Christian. Blessings to you and your family ❤
Genesis 1:1 is an opening summary statement. The days of creation are defined in the following descriptions. Genesis 2:4 is the closing statement.
Amazing answer, thanks alot Dr.Ross, you are a blessing to the Church, God bless you.
@BlackRaptor31 - there is an excellent article that answers your questions directly here on their website. In summary - Based on the Hebrew word meanings, the following picture emerges. "In the beginning" God created the universe -- the Sun, Moon, stars, Earth and planets (1:1). In verse 2, the viewpoint changes to the surface of the Earth (the Spirit of God was hovering "over the waters").
Shalom sister...
God has gifted Dr. Ross with an incredible intellect. He puts to use that gift, not only in the investigation of science but in challenging the entire scientific community by showing that science and God's word are completely compatible. If God is, then science must be. If science is, then God must be.
1:40 the word YOM has 4 literal definitions: 1. a portion of daylight hours 2. all of daylight hours 3. the 24 hour period 4. a long but finite period of time. EARTH has five literal definitions, HEAVEN has three because biblical Hebrew were very few nouns, so if moses wanted to describe a long period of time he only had the word YOM available to him.
And the evening and the morning were day 1. Can’t be more clear than that.
I can't correct all his mistakes but I'll try to answer some of his questions, first question was on ' yom' which means day I'll skip that for now, second he says it says g-d created Adam and Eve together later it says he created Adam then made eve. Most commentaries explain that Genesis 1 is a general story and genesis 2 goes into detail, he's question was on the word hapaam he comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew word הפעם means a long period of time. When Adam says "zos hapaam" he is talking about Eve nothing to do with the time. זאת הפעם. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּא אָדָם עַל כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְלֹא נִתְקָרְרָה דַעְתּוֹ בָּהֶם (יבמות ס"ג):
זאת הפעם THIS NOW - This teaches that Adam endeavoured to find a companion among all cattle and beasts, but found no satisfaction except in Eve (Yevamot 63a).
Yes the pa'am there is just like me seeing something beautiful and exclaiming "Now, that's awesome!" The "now" there has absolutely no relationship with time.
It's truly sad that Ross believes this issue has "no bearing on salvation doctrine" (@6:22) when Jesus suggests quite the opposite in Jn 5. In effect, Jesus said that if you don't believe Moses, you aren't one of His. And twice, Moses summarized the creation week as 6 consecutive, literal, 24-hour days (Exod 20 and Exod 31). Anyone suggesting more than a simplified understanding on this passage has a ton of explaining to do. I'd be curious to understand from Ross how it is that death came through Adam's sin (Rom 5) and all creation groans because of sin (Rom 8) if we have all sorts of prehistoric death prior to Adam's creation on "Day 6".
Billy Graham's right-hand man, Charles Templeton, became an atheist because of this issue. And if he did, rest assured, many others have and will.
Sorry, but I really think Ross is off-kilter on this one.
I am neutral on this at the moment as I have little knowledge of it, but these people dont seem to not believe what moses wrote. They seem to believe enough to be tslking about it... People not believing it sound a lot different like jerks and mocking.... They dont usually spend a lot of time reading and explaining? Is interpreting something wrong not believing?
Tim Foster You’re basing all this off of assuming that you have the right interpretation of the Bible. Why is it those are fixed variables in their fax. Are you really implying that he’s not saying that because he doesn’t agree with your interpretation of what Moses says that means Jesus said that he’s not a follower of Him? Why don’t you provide some sort of explanation why it is Moses says the 60s or a literal six days. Can you just said why he said Moses does not believe they were six days. Because there was a morning and evening? Will that happen before sun. And also only human beings are made in the image of God and could not die. Plants could die. That’s what we ate. What do you think we ate? Do you think bacteria did not die or did not exist?
If you arent keeping Gods commandments Sabbath and holy days you dont understand the bible fully Pslalm 111.10. The Sabbath from creation week is a 24 hour period commanded to be kept every week. How can we keep a prolonged period of time when we are commanded to work the other 6 days. Professing to be wise they became fools. Jesus says He is Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2.27 28. And mathew 12.8. It is simple but disobedient leaders want to confuse you to follow them. To learn the truth on why catholics and protestants reject Jesus simple commands to keep his days and commandments. Mathew 19.16 17 read Satan's counterfeit Christianity booklet at lcg.org. you will have biblical secular and catholic history prove to you how satan deceives the whole world rev 12.9
im not sure about your first part, but the part about yom being used to describe the entire 7 days is correct and a good example, right alongside the scriptures we are interpreting, that yom is used to describe "a period of time" as well as a "24 period"
So the 7th day allows us to rest for a million years?
@@maync1 "And God rested" on the seventh [period of time] And he made the seventh [twenty-four hour period in the course of a week] holy.
If they're the same Hebrew word then of course there will appear to be a discrepancy where there is none.
As for the word "yom". If God had spoken the grass & trees into existence on day three by the mere utterance of His voice (as He did with light on day one) then you could be on solid ground. But since He said let the earth itself bring them forth, then clearly there is substantial reason in this case to discern the word "yom" as a very long period of time. Moreover, as Dr. Ross also points out, Adam could not have possibly named all the animals in a mere 24 hours either !
Very good discernment
Some versions of the BB theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.
Dr. Ross has written two excellent books on this topic that I would highly recommend for further study:
A Matter of Days: lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/book-review-matter-of-days-resolving.html
Navigating Genesis: lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/book-review-navigating-genesis.html
Luke Nix I
But it did have a creator. It had to be built didn't it?
@MrHobiecat Genesis gives an account of creation that provides precious few details.It can be interpreted like those you refer to (Rabbis), but others like Dr Ross, have a different view. He, taking into consideration some of the modern scientific observations/theories, is making valid points and it's driving you insane. Whether his position is the truth or not remains to be seen. The bottom line is, the Bible gives very little info about it. Nobody can explain creation with complete confidence.
Yes, but he is correct about the timeline of adam being formed and God sending the animals to adam to name(noah ref)...and then putting him in the garden and then creating eve, it was in fact more than one day, truly opening my eyes, thanks , God bless...
So we should examine all uses of "day" in the Bible to determine in which meaning the word might have been used to refer to the 7 "days" in Hebrew. I add: Is there a pattern? And can the Bible be regarded as a single piece of narration by one author? Surely not. So variations on the theme should be expected. Someone kindly enlighten me, please. If days were a rather long period of time, then the 7th day might mean an extended holiday for all of us? I am totally confused and stuck here. Also, perhaps inconsistency across biblical narration (due to different authors, copy errors, lots of translations, etc, etc.) is preferable to a "forced" consistency imposed with a stretchable term. Is "day" used throughout with the meaning of "long period of time"? And how long might that have been? Isn't that pure conjecture? Research on the authenticity of different parts of the Bible might be in order. I should consult a Bible historians next.
@R5d4d2 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." - John 14:6
, he also said "slaves obey your masters".
@@worldgonemad5866 Jesus never said that
@@bucketsman9634 , you're right, that was Paul. Jesus praised the centurion for the obedience of his slave.
what is the procedure of looking "at the context"?
And what were the original Hebrew commentaries on interpreting Gen 1? Surely those would tell us the correct way to interpret?
Perhaps the hebrew word for morning could be translated better as dawning or beginning, and thus not actually be a literal 24 hour day?
@BlackRaptor31 - Initially, the Earth was dark (1:2). On the first "day," God caused sunlight to penetrate the darkness (1:3-5). On the fourth "day," God caused the Sun, Moon and stars to become visible from the surface of the Earth (1:19-20), having made them earlier (1:16) as part of His creative activity prior to the six creation "days."
Did they actually have 7 days in the days of this having been recorded? On the Dead Sea scroll? If not, how can we make sense of the scripture if we had lived then?
The argumentation ( and the original question) is fundamentally wrong. The description of the creation is not actual history. Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2, what anyone - whose mind is not made incapable of thinking by religious fundamentalism - can see. In Genesis 1 man is created at the end, and man and woman are created simultaneously. In Genesis 2 man is created before the animals and plants and woman is created after man. So the Bible manages to contradict itself in its second chapter (!!) therefore we shouldn't take neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 for real history.
pannonia77 just thought I'd add to the supposed 6000 years of time since creation, its a documented fact the last ice age ended 12000 years ago and there is history in Australia that aborigines were around during that ice age, 40000 years ago. If you study ice age history it reveals something very wrong with the christian interpretation of genesis. And yes, I'm a christian, but one who has taken the time to examine the facts. You are correct with what you say about the contradiction.
Please watch this in refutation of your comment.
ua-cam.com/video/ggC4lMhUU5o/v-deo.html
@e rawan This article is complete bogus. So someone said he discovered the Ark of Covenant, but no-one else has seen it.
Are you so credulous that you believe this?
Apparently that happens a lot in the Bible due to who wrote the parts, the copying, personal preferences of the scribe, the errors, etc. Maybe best to go for the essence of creation and its great wonder and leave it at that.
@MrHobiecat
Please explain the following:
1. What is the universe?
2. Did it have a beginning?
3. How did it begin?
Three simple questions for your scientific mind to clarify. I await your answer.
Peace.
The universe is all space matter and energy.
It appears, from observation, that the universe had a beginning.
We don't know that caused the expansion of our universe.
Were those supposed to be hard questions?
@@worldgonemad5866 - Not by any means were they meant to be difficult. But the answers do lead to a logical and probable conclusion.
@@RPM11111, what conclusion do you think they lead to? Is it Jesus? Because that doesn't follow.
@@worldgonemad5866 Anything that begins has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause. Time, space and matter came into being when the universe began. Therefore, whatever cause the universe cannot consist of time, space or matter...something timeless (eternal), something non-physical that doesn't require three-dimensional space to exist (spiritual). Sounds like a very good description of God to an honest man.
@@RPM11111 , I heard frank claim thst shtick many times and it still fails. Those are simply a set of assertions without any evidence to support them.
2 Peter 3:8 A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God. This could calculate a thousand year day within a day of a thousand years as a 1000 year squared day and thus as 1 million years in a day and so on. God can stretch and shrink time simultaneously as he likes. He can make all of time as one instant and one instant as all of time at the same time. He has done it, he is doing it, and he will do it.
I will look at it, but it depends on your definition of evolution. Are you talking about natural selection though out the universe and random mutation in a species or cause for the species?
Randy Foster Here is the facts that I'm referring to:
1) life has been on this planet for at least 3 Billion years and science has broken up and labeled these years into four distinct eras and twelve periods-verifiable and demonstrable FACT
2) Precambrian: single-celled microbes lacking a cell nucleus or cell membrane known as prokaryotes existed and nothing else for billions of years. We have never found a bear, bunny rabbit, kangaroo, human or any above multicultural life in the Precambrian- verifiable and demonstrable FACT
3) Mesozoic: All life during this time which includes, fish, amphibians, dinosaurs, reptile-like birds and a smattering of mammals (all of which do not exist in modern times) existed. We still have never found a bear, bunny rabbit, kangaroo, human or any other modern-day species.- Verifiable and demonstrable
4) Cenozoic is broken up into three periods and in each period you have specific life that gradually over time changes and there's still no crossover. The only life that exists at the beginning of each period exists until we gradually get closer to the next period and that still doesn't have any bear, bunny rabbit, kangaroo, human or any other modern life until we get to the modern period and only towards the end of that which is the last 150,000 years. Verifiable and demonstrable FACT
There are plenty of other types of evidence such as chromosomal merges that exist in other primates in two chromosomes but merged in humans where we have both of them in one chromosome. Google Human chromosome #2 evidence for evolution. But much more evidence supports evolution that isn't listed here.
Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain the wide gap of the fossil record in the Cambrian explosion. And what was so important about Dr. Chen's presentation of the fossils found in China. And while you're at it explain to me how you could get anybody to believe DNA coding was the result of natural selection, and then send it to MIT, their mathematics department isn't convinced
@Randy Foster I apologize for the length of this reply, but these questions don't allow for a quick reply.
Before I get started I have a question for you. With all the evidence of fossils you must recognize that life isn't stagnant. Without implying evolution, modern life hasn't always existed, species lived and went extinct, new life appears goes extinct, new life appears goes extinct....on and on. Is it your opinion that a God is snapping his fingers (figuratively) killing off one species and snapping his fingers again to create something new with almost the same body plan and doing this over and over until he creates humans and modern animals? Is that what you think is occurring, and if not how do you explain the specific life fossilizing in specific sedimentary layers? This is in no way an argument for evolution, I just want to understand your position on this one piece of evidence.
I suspect that the wide gap you're referring to is the Precambrian / Cambrian gap. Two poorly explained components lead people to be confused. The first is people who improperly assume that the ”explosion" was instantaneous, and the reality is entirely different. The Cambrian era was 55 million years in the making. To give you some perspective, according to evolution, humans shared a common ancestor with Chimps and Bonobos just 6-8 million years ago, and there has been just as much evolutionary change happening in the past 55 million years as you get in the 55 million years of the Cambrian. The difference is that the Cambrian era is the first time we see, animal life. The second issue is at the core of the majority of the confusion people have with the ”Cambrian Explosion.” Why do we have only a handful of Precambrian fossils (an era lasting billions of years) and loads of Cambrian fossils (an era only lasting 55 million years?) This answer requires me to ask a rhetorical question. What types of lifeforms have the greatest chance to leave a fossil in the fossil record? The answer is an appearance of an explosion and not an actual explosion. It is less likely that soft-bodied structures will fossilize, and that is what we had at the end of the Precambrian and the beginning of the Cambrian. The lack of easily fossilizable life give the appearance of an explosion as they transition from soft-bodied to hard-bodied. In recent years a more complete record of soft-bodied Precambrian and early Cambrian fossils are being discovered, but they are probably never going to approach the diversity we see in the ”Cambrian Explosion” not because they didn't exist, but that soft bodies don't fossilize as often as hard bodies.
"explain to me how you could get anybody to believe DNA coding was the result of natural selection.” Changes in DNA do occur but they are not the "result of" natural selection, and the Theory of Evolution doesn't say it is. If Natural Selection were a result of DNA coding occurring, I would be forced to admit that a God-like thing is a convincing answer and driving force behind it. The proper answer is that "random" mutations happen which can add, hinders or be indifferent to survivability. Natural selection can be a result of (environmental factor, but not limited them). Using an example might clear this up. A coding error occurs which leads to an individual rabbit that grows longer fur during a period where the average yearly temperature is 32 degrees Celsius or 90 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the rabbits to overheat and die before it can bread. The individual rabbit dies, but that species will survive. If it were 20 degrees Celsius, then that rabbit lives to bread, introducing the long fur characteristic into the population and now some of the rabbits in that population will have long fur. If the weather were to change to 10 degrees Celcius, the short fur rabbits freeze and die, and the long fur rabbits survive, which introduce a new micro-evolutionary change. This is a simple example of natural selection. (Evolution is a fact, the process of natural selection as a driving force is an educated and well-supported hypothesis.)
I rarely get any resistance from creationists on microevolution. However, the problem comes from an issue with scripture when I introduce the theist to the obvious next step of macroevolution. Micro-evolution is one small change of millions and millions of changes to come. Those individual changes are micro-evolutionary changes which accumulate to become macro-evolutionary changes which take 1000s of generations. This is where the theist pounds his/her first and without evidence says ”No it ain't so! NO NO NO my God is perfect and my book is unerring and that's not what it says. I believe God created man in his present form. I believe it because my book says so.” Then I get accused of being an idiot for not ignoring the evidence. When I ask them how they know this when the evidence says otherwise, they claim, ”I know God because I have faith (trust) in God.” When I point out through demonstration that faith is a lousy way to understand anything they always resort to, ”it's only bad in every other case except for God, my God.” If you can't justify your beliefs with non-personal testimony evidence, you shouldn't accept it. Personal experience is evidence, but it's the worst evidence and scientifically unusable. People are easily fooled and impressionable. Once you have someone believing something, they're far more likely to associate positive outcomes as proof of God and forget the negative outcomes or associate it with Gods will. This gives people a false connection and leads them to accept anything positive as evidence for their beliefs and if that's not working, the threat of Hell keeps them in line. Is God possible? Maybe. Should we accept the claim a God is real as a fact? Of course not. Is God likely true? I'm still waiting to hear an argument that is valid that would support that assertion and if a miracle happened we still have a long way to go to get to the God you or anyone else believes. So until a miracle happens and someone offers me a valid argument for God I'll be withholding my belief.
Granted, slight changes can be attributed to natural selection for survivability but it doesn't explain the origin of the species. The gap you have to fill in if you planning on sticking with Neo-Darwinism and the gap only got wider when Dr. Chen offered his fossil finds. other wise you have all this new life and nothing to link it to old. And I didn't see your response to Dr. Murry Eden and company at MIT concerning genetic coding?
The LORD said, He thought before He created anything. The question is how long did He think before He spoke anything into existence . If He said let there be light, that would be 3 secs not counting time He was thinking. How long will you be simple, according to proverbs 1-8., really it is not complicated. Say away from all unclean things, dead things, study the Word, and keep your mind clean, He might reveal himself to you. Seek the LORD with all your heart(mind), soul, and spirit, He love you to praise, sing and dance and tell of His works, and if He reveals himself to you don't be surprise, just listen.
Why can't I correct my words I misspelled? Say is meant for stay.
Either you explain the length of the creation day or accept that each day was 24hours. Almighty God does not leave us guessing, HE is not known to be ambiguous."god has not chosen the wise to see His glory and understand His nature. The Bible does not contradict itself. And most of the secular scientists are set on destroying God's Word. Is Hugh one of them by him putting one foot in their camp and one in the camp of the Creator? When God created Adam, was he a one day old baby or a grown man? Did God create his with time already built into him? Could He not then have created all of the universe with time already in them? And time and again secular scientists have been proved wrong but the Bible is infallible.
Ah, but you are projecting. You do not know the motive behind someone's beliefs. You may think you do, and you may have guessed correctly, but God actually knows. Earlier in my life I scoffed at non-six literal day creation interpretations as explanations trying to appease the world's scientific views. When I realized that immersion in the scriptures and studying the Bible actually led me to similar beliefs as those expressed in this video, I had to lay aside my earlier supposition and realize that honest seeking and digging into the Bible can and often does lead someone to these beliefs.
But God made the plants on the 3rd day so how could they live all that time before he made the sun ?
The sun was already there, this is a clearing of the sky
Genesis 1:1 says that God created the universe (including the sun) in the indefinite past. Genesis 1:2 states the surface of the earth was dark. Thereafter God said "Let there be light". Diffused light from the already-existing sun penetrated the earth's thick atmosphere and reached the surface of the earth. That was before vegetation, which is mentioned later in Genesis 1:12. When Genesis 1:16 says God "made" the luminaries (sun, moon and stars), the sense is that he "caused to appear". The Hebrew word translated "made" here is not the same word for "create" used in Genesis 1:1. In other words, God caused the sun to become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth, perhaps due to a gradual thinning of the atmosphere.
God can only reveal himself to us through the reality he created for us, in other words he created the physic of this world so he, through it, could be known by us. All the relationships understood by mankind are used by God to reveal his charter. For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife,and the two shall become one flesh. In this relationship we see the picture of Gods divine revelation to mankind.
Well said!
Frightening.
Professor Nathan Aviezer (physicist, Bar Ilan University) wrote a book several decades ago called "In the Beginning", where the biblical account of creation is compared to what is know in science (including the Big Bang, Plate tectonics, etc.). When correctly read, there is no contradiction.
Note, also, that the coming year (5784 since the Creation) measures the time from the END of creation, not the beginning..
@ShITYouWannaKNO The Son of God is fully God(Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, Colossians 2:9). When the Bible talks about Jesus as being "the firstborn" it is talking about His pre-eminence. In Jewish culture, the firstborn was the heir of all things, so to say that Jesus is the "firstborn" of all creation is talking about His pre-eminence over all things, and the fact that He is the heir of all things. If you read Hebrews 1, you will see that it teaches that Jesus is not angel, but God Himself.
Jesus is not god and the so called Jesus was called yahshua
I don't understand how being the firstborn of all creation doesn't mean that he was the first thing to be created. If Jesus is the word/wisdom of God in primordial past, then when God spoke, that means that he just created him. How can you misconstrue this? He's definitely connected to God and in a round about way is God/has been given His authority, he is at the end of the day subject to his Father. Because, Yeshua Jesus is basically a physical copy of God's software.
There are two ways to translate Hebrews 1:8. Instead of translating it as "Your throne, O God", some Bible versions translate it as "God is your throne" or "Thy throne given of God", meaning that God is the source of the Messiah's throne. The New Revised Standard Version has a footnote for Hebrews 1:8 that says, "Or [God is your throne].” The Good News Translation has the following footnote: "[or] God is your kingdom.” This translation would be more in harmony with the next verse, Hebrews 1:9, which says, "God, your God, has set you above your companions."
How long does it take heaven to rotate 360°?
Hugh Ross deserves more attention than Ken Ham.
Noé André maybe people find him to be a better speaker.
But ken hamm does so much good.
@@worldgonemad5866 Not really. He’s causing people to leave Christianity.
Why? he's selling his book of which I cannot dispute because I would never buy it to read it. He's come to twenty creation accounts wow; what is he trying to prove or disprove? How young or old the earth is, while fascinating to study most of his discussions sounds like conjecture to me. I can't dispute the archeologist but I've never actually seen a dig in person, Gobekli Tempi, neither Stonehenge, but I believe biblically that something could have occured between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I've obviously never trusted my public education of over fifty years but this I do know is that the devils will use anything and anyone to promote his lies, I'm not calling this man a liar I just making an individual statement. In my view Genesis 1:1 in a very independent statement, it does not say when the beginning was and here again take my very public education for what it is I am not an English major either. Additionally the Bible was not written in English or the King's English (ie the KJV) having said that I would need to here the original Hebrew language translation, at any cost I would reject the primise of twenty counts of Creation; I believe as Genesis 2:4 states these are the generations of the heavens and earth. I don't know much about the decalogues but Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 sounds closer to the same version of Creation One more detailed than the other.
No way. His theology is so poor and he believes science over Gods word. There are three places in The Bible where it states that God created the entire Universe in six days and Hebrew speaking Jews and Messianic Jews can teach how in the Genesis account it can only mean a 24 hour day. Hugh Ross is Apostate, stay well away!
From my understanding, the word "rest", could be equated to "the job is complete" or in a Creators case..."the creation process is complete", because (biblically) after the supposed "day of rest", the creator didn't go back to doing more creating. And there ya have it.
Keep it simple.If it is so complex I need another book outside of the Bible.Maybe it is not true.Those days were literal days not long periods of time.This planet is young.Evolutionary science wants a lot of time so they can hide.But the evidence unearthed is that this planet must be only thousands of years old not millions.This should no longer even be under discussion.I disagree with him but gotta love this guy.
what if God is still resting? he is watching us, our time is his 7th day, he is resting, he is not yet finish in creating our life. he is resting because he is watching us?? just curious
This gives me chills. Maybe because it is true?
So perfect, so clear, concise. Great light-hearted ending too! :D
you are so much appreciated and loved.....השם יברך
2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget one thing dear friends, with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day."
Tom Fuller a day mentioned in bible is not actual one solar day. how can we confirm? the answer is in bible itself. after 6 days of creation God rested on 7 th day... So what does it mean, if I work for company for 6 days and taking rest on 7th day then I would continue same job from 8th day that's what rest is. so god rested on 7th day and he took rest from creation so he is still on his 7th day, so when will he start creation again? answer is in revelation. after 1000 years of God's ministry there will be new earth and sky so god going to start creation again... So days from Genesis to revelation including nowadays are one day to god and it's still 7 th day for God
Tom Fuller Exactly.
That entire passage was speaking of end times, not creation, and was metaphor to boot.
He was not talking about creation
That is not what that versus referring to. Lol Read around that verse there’s more context. I’m not disagreeing that the earth is billions of years old that’s just not a defense of that. I think that versus referring to God’s timing being perfect and having patience
Wrong. How could the 24-hour day even be considered a specific period of time before the Earth was created, when it is the Earth's rotation speed which established the 24-hour day? It couldn't. The 24-hour day did not exist until the Earth did for the aforementioned reason. And each planet, depending upon it's rotation speed, establishes its own length of day.
God bless this brilliant man
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
No, yom is not used with 3 meanings in Genesis. Every instance of it in the Bible which refers to a day is in reference to a 24 hr literal day.
Just a note to say thank you. I am embarrassed as a Christian when creation arguments are put forward and fact that fly in the face of facts (or at least such overwhelming science that they have no credence).
So thank you for your work and your ability to put forth explanations that we can hold to and still think real thoughts.
Gene
According to the Book of Genesis, God created vegetation on the third day and the Sun on the fourth day. If one day refers to a long period of time, how would vegetation survive for a long period of time without the Sun?
The day and the night were the first day, so the sun and moon and stars already exist...first you need land and water, then comes vegetation. Like putting a rock in a fish tank, and then starts to turn green...from light darkness and oxygen...
Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. These physical heavens included the sun, moon and stars. Genesis 1:2 says that there was darkness on the surface of the earth (this verse establishes the surface of the earth as the frame of reference for what happens on each successive day). When God said "Let there be light”, diffused light from the already-created sun began to penetrate the earth's thick atmosphere. Genesis 1:16 says that on the fourth day God "made" the sun, moon and stars, but that does not mean that God created the sun, moon and stars _ex nihilo_ at that time. The word for "made" in this verse is not the same word as "create" used in Genesis 1:1. God "made" the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day in the sense that he placed them in the sky, causing them to become distinctly visible as light bearers from the vantage point of the earth, perhaps due to a gradual thinning of the atmosphere.
Until you realize that Genesis 2 is more of a synopsis, and much less chronological than Genesis 1. Otherwise, they contradict each other, something that I'm sure Dr. Ross is keen to avoid.
Correct! Dr. Ross has written some 23 books. Read answers in Genesis.
The word says a thousand years is as one day to the Lord, to us its a thousand years to God it is only one day.
But when it uses numbers to describe the days, the first, the second etc. It means a 24 hour day does it not?
I will even toss out the hardest one in the bible, for all you to figure out.
Tell me how God made the sun and moon, stay in one location for joshua, and yes it can be proven, given we know the location they were at. It was even reported by the american indians, aztec and chinese historical witnesses, 1000's of miles apart.
Interesting. Can you tell me the full story, I've never heard this.
Excellent...!
I love him but I think it’s so funny that no matter what he says he always points back to a book he’s written. It makes me laugh every time
Nectar production began on Day 3, nectar consumption occurred on Day 5.The simplest explanation is nectar production started 48 hours before nectar consumption.
Are these facts in the narration. Seems logical. I amnot sure I can agree with this stretchy version of days, esp the consequences of Day 7 for us??
@@maync1 Another problem with Ross, did the layers of sediment ascend over millions of years, or did the ocean recede over about 1 year ? Ross seems to avoid offending the Scholar's Union.
@Claude Rains You can't know the exact location of all of those people. Ancient cultures gave credit to all manner of gods to explain things they couldn't understand. Itscommon among the religious to not try to understand but to blame the supernatural. We have real science to explain things we don't need myths anymore.
On the contrary, as science learns more and more about the universe and the required fine tuning that holds it all together, what we are learning points more and more to intelligent design creation . . .what the Bible has told us from the beginning.
Was there water on Earth before the flood? or did mankind have no need for water before the flood?
It does not say that there was no water but it says that there was no rain. Gen 2: 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
I really admire the humility of Hugh Ross, I wish I had that kind of temperament...
Canadian with universal health care.
The beginning was the creation week. The word "Yom" means "day". God said "on that day, ye shall surely die" - proof that the term day means a literal day. In Gen 1:5"Yom" occurs in context with the word "night". outside of Gen 1, "night" is used with Yom 53 times, each time the text refers to a 24hr period. The plural of "Yom" which does not appear in Gen 1 is often used to communicate a longer period of time!
So the 24 hour literal interpretation would be the preferred one, right?
@@maync1 ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture.
Exodus 20[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:[10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:[11] 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 31[15] Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.[16] Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.[17] It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
SO, that answers to the question of why the Egyptians farming in 6000 has no relevance to Noah's flood. Regarding the animals, every "species" didn't need to be saved, only every "kind", and then only the kinds that were essential to humanity (wild animals, livestock, birds, etc). Obviously, Noah didn't take whales or other sea creatures on board the Ark because those animals wouldn't need saving! Again, critical thinking must be applied when interpreting scripture (not "6 year old" logic).
You're still clinging to your belief that Noah's Ark is a true story?
@@theuniversewithin2065 No. I'm an atheist now. But back when I wrote this, I was interpreting the bible from the standpoint of science, and not from the standpoint of contradicting it.
@@captainbryce1 good you evolved. The Bible shouldn't be regarded as a science source either way. Anyone who uses it to prove a point have automatically lost.
How did the plants obtain photosynthesis for potentially 1,000 years without the sun? How does the fossil record exist before sin entered the world and brought death to all creation? We know the speed of light, but we do not know how fast the speed of light was when God spread out the heavens. God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. I will trust in the word of God, and if God deems it important to change my mind, He will reveal new revelation to me.
This is so hard to pay attention to.
@kemalcs How could it not happen? Cultures and religions all over the world openly state that there was a global flood that destroyed nearly all of life.
There are many flood myths. Most of which contradict each other. How could all of these myths be evidence for the same event if they contradict each other?
Hugh Ross is refuted in the book "Refuting Compromise".
And yet the the Bible says clearly ‘God separated the day from the night’, day in this context is 12 hours or less. Therefore, the term ‘day’ in the Bible ‘factually’ has no fixed, rigid value, it varies and it depends upon context. In addition, on the first ‘day’, God had neither created day or night so how does one interpret day in this context? 🤔🇬🇧🙏🌈♥️
What this guy calls "the second account of creation" is not a second account at all. It is merely an in depth recap of how God made man and woman. First God lays the foundation by describing what He did each day and then in Genesis 2 He tells how He formed His most beloved creature (Man). Also, they were literal 24 hour days because it clearly says "the evening and the morning". A thousand year period would had multiple days but that's not what the Bible is teaching us. To say that Yahweh a 1000 years for each act of creation is to limit His Power and His Power is not limited. God using six 24 hours days to create the universe paints a greater picture of Yahweh's Infinite Power. Now come on people, it's high time we start taking God's Word for what it is actually saying and not some man's opinion of what he thinks it means. Also, Genesis is the foundation for The Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you don't have a strong, true, or accurate foundation everything that is built upon it comes crashing down. Think about it people.
Hello, can you please explain this to me, I have an issue about free will in Christianity:
1. God created us knowing knowing beforehand who would "choose" not to believe Him, therefore God pre-elects people for heaven and eternal torture, removing "freewill" out of the question
2. Heaven or hell(eternal torture). Is that really a choice? Really?? There are people who prefers eternal torture??
It is a fact that the earth's spin has slowed down since its creation meaning that days and nights were shorter than the.24 hrs we now observe .let us just say that God is not constrained by time or space as as we are . and Dr Ross is an astrophysicist an astronomer a pasture among many other attributes and certainly we can learn from him .
A Day = 1000 years (Psalms 90:4). 2 Peter 3:8 A day = 1000 years as 1000 years = a day. Revelation 2:10 has 10 days of tribultion or 10 years. Then you have one year. Isa 24:5; Isa 34:8; Isa 61:1-2; Isa 63:4; Psalms 118; Jhn 6:39, 40, 44, 54; and in Isaiah with Kedar/Islam/Ishmael will be taken out in less than a year in which all = 2018. For 3 days and 3 nights = 72 hours. Jesus entered Jerusalem on a Sabbath, died in Wednesday, and rose on Sunday.
For those who say it was six twenty four hours I would like to say, how do you know? What's your evidence? Were you there?
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-11.
Exodus 20:9-11 is a major reason why I believe in the 6 24 hour days. Also, if the order of creation in Genesis is not a lie, then how did plants reproduce without insects?
"..be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." - 2Peter 3:8
According to this verse, one could conclude that 6 days of creation plus the 1 day of rest, is actually 7000 earth years.
It's "As" not "Is" also the numbers from 1 million and upward were not really known, more of hundreds to hundred thousand were known.
I love watching the Doc make stuff up.
"Every instance of it in the Bible which refers to a day is in reference to a 24 hr literal day"
I can't give you the scriptures, but i know for a fact that is wrong! I heard it in a lecture where he quoted various scriptures through the Bible where the word "yom" was NOT used to describe a 24 hour period.
Not to mention I think that is irrelevent anyway. It doesn't matter how they use it in other places, the only question is 1) can you use it in different ways 2) how was it used in Genesis
Great Video
I don't think Dr. Ross was accurate about "hapaam" meaning "at long last" in Genesis 2:23. See 4 minutes and 12 seconds for beginning of his comment. I just did a Logos inline search for the Hebrew word in just Genesis and Exodus and found 8 more incidents of the word which in context meant at that moment in time. I excluded four which could have been interpreted as "at long last." Dr. Ross claimed that all incidents of “hapaam” means a long time.
In addition, I did a text comparison and found the English translation in various Bible translations.
Tanakh JPS 1917 . . . This is now bone of my bones. . .
Tanakh JPS 1985 . . . This one at last is bone of my bones. . .
NASB95 . . . This is now bone of my bones. . .
ESV . . . This at last is bone of my bones. . .
NIV84 . . . This is now bone of my bones. . .
NKJV . . . This is now bone of my bones. . .
KJV . . . This is now bone of my bones. . .
RSV . . . This at last is bone of my bones
One can see that the word appears to be translated as either “at this moment in time” or “at long last.” Theology can influence translation.
Also, an Answers in Genesis article points out that Adam could have named the animals in one day and then Eve could have been created on that 6th day. Adam did not have thousands of animals to name, necessarily, but only a limited number of “kinds,” the ones that God brought to him. So just as the case in the global flood, for example, there were not all of the cat species as we see today, but there was one cat kind pair of animals that contained all the DNA information to produce all of the species of cats in God’s timing. In addition, Adam had superior mental capacity as he had not yet experienced the noetic effect of the curse after the Fall.
And there is nothing in the bible to suggest that Noah's flood was anything more than a local flood like we see today. Again, the 04 Tsunami killed nearly a quarter million people! If that happened in ancient Mesopotamia 30 thousand years ago, that would encompass most of humanity (and land animals associated with humanity) being completely wiped out!
captainbryce1 wrong
@@llllllllllllllIIlIllIIllIIIIll No, it's not wrong...it's correct (unless you actually have an argument that can point out exactly HOW it is wrong). Otherwise, your OPINION is noted.
How could there be death of animals before the creation and fall of man
One thing to remember is that outside the garden of Eden it was not Paradise...
The rest of the Earth needed "subduing". You don't need to "subdue" daisies and butterflies. You need to subdue that which is out of control and opposed to God's ways. We know from Genesis 3 that Satan was already on the Earth, and even in the garden of Eden itself where he tempted Eve.
How many aeons before did the event of Lucifer rebelling with 1/3 of the angels and being cast out of heaven occur?
I don't think it is a stretch at all too conclude that the rest of the Earth was heavily influenced by demons, who perhaps had corrupted some of the animals into carnivores, etc. Adam and Eve were tasked with extending the borders of paradise, Eden, subduing the Earth.
The fall of man only concerns human death. Romans says because of the sin of Adam, death came to all men (for all had sinned). It’s not talking about animals because animals do not sin. The Bible never says that animals were meant to live forever, it only implies that Adam and Eve could by eating from the tree of life. When they sinned, God placed a cherubim at the entrance to the garden to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis says, man must not reach out for it and live forever. Animals were presumably not eating from the tree of life, so there would have been animal death before the fall.
Animals were created before man (on creation day 5). They were fruitful and multiplied after their kind. Presuming that the creation days are indeed long periods of time, then some of these animals would have eventually died, and new ones born resulting in many generations of animal species.
, because plenty of life forms lived and died before humans were ever around.
Another confusion among religions is that they teach or believe that Jesus is God himself. The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God's son the first born in heaven. 1st john 4:15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God. And while teaching his followers how to pray, Jesus said: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.”-Matthew 6:9. The bible couldn't be more clear that God is a separate being. I say this with respect of other people's beliefs. Just showing a different viewpoint.
The hellfire idea makes people think God enjoys torture and pants a bad picture of him. They also rarely mention his name Jehovah. The trinity pretty much gives all the credit to Jesus. Which is not fair to God. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
***** are u two jehovahs whitnesses?
I was raised as one at least.
***** so u are one or not?
The bible teaches that the world is flat, slavery is moral, you should stone people for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week, the fastest way to marry someone's daughter is to rape her, etc etc etc. Please the bible does not teach anything good.