วีดีโอ

I'm sorry but that is the worst argument I have ever heard for long ages. Let's look at the first problem. You are claiming that Hebrews, a book written in Greek, is explaining a passage in Genesis, a book written in Hebrew, and your reasoning is that the Hebrew terms can be used in more than one way? That is terrible reasoning. At the same time, Hebrew Scholars would universally disagree with the application. While studying Ancient Biblical Hebrew at the Israeli University of Biblical Studies, I asked my professor the question of the interpretation of YOM and its applications. Not only is the application universally understood to be a day, but it is also universally understood to be a day of 24 hours. I asked the same question to Dr. James Allen, professor of Hebrew language at Dallas Theological Seminary, who does not believe in the young earth theory and he agrees that it can only mean a day of 24 hours. As for the reason why there is no mention of sunrise or sunset on day 7 is because the pattern had already been established in the previous 6 days. I am curious where you found the support for this view? Was it a published commentary, a denominational view, or something that you came up with on your own?

If do not think the complete Bible is the Word of God. OK. In Genesis 2:4. The entire time span of God’s creative activity is called a “day”. If you do not want to enter into the 7th day as the Bible ask OK.

So, just to be clear, are you assuming that because I do not view a passage the way you do, you think I do not believe the Bible is the Word of God? That is a very strong claim about someone you have never met. But, setting that aside, you are still wrong. Context matters, and clearly, you are not paying attention to it. As you mentioned in your first comment, Yom can mean different things depending on the context of the passage it is used in. Genesis 2:4 does not use Yom as a 24-hour day; it uses it in a general sense, such as "In my father's day." If, as you are assuming, it were to mean a regular day, then you would also be assuming that all of Genesis 1 is false because, according to you, Genesis 2:4 says god created in one day. This is clearly not the case. So, in view of the very clear context of the passage, Genesis 2:4 is using the word in a general sense and not in the sense of a 24-hour day. This is also made clear when you examine additional translations that render the passage as "When the Lord God made" NLT, "at the time the Lord made" (HCSB). If you examine the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, you will find it referenced as a generic usage of time. As I said, context matters.

Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains" Young Earth creationist "no that is not what it says. Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." Young Earth creationist "no that is not what it says, science (the study of everything God made) is the enemy of the Bible and God. Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God. Young Earth creationist no the stars in the heavens deceive us. The speed of light is wrong and deceives us. And on and on. I have yet to hear from a Young Earth creationist that has entered into the 7th day and trust the Bible. Young Earth creationist are followers of Ken Ham, not Jesus. YEC rather than trust the Bible, trust Ken Ham, and says the Earth is young, 6,000 years, and that there are only two views: Ken Ham YEC and atheism evolution. Truth there are many old Earth Creationists, that do not believe in evolution, and Ken Ham says they do not exist.

Wow, young earth creationists are followers of Ken ham… that’s rich… and completely ignorant. Do you have any evidence for this? Have I invoked the “word of Ken” at any point? The answer would be no. I became a creationist because of science, long before I even knew who Ken Ham was. As for the passages you claim to site. Ancient mountains do not hurt the young earth view. Romans 1:20 has no effect of the topic at all other than telling us that creation testifies to its creator. As for the speed of light, also known as the horizon problem, it is an issue, and every secular scientist will tell you the same thing. The speed of light, rather you believe it or not, is still being debated on many levels. So, other than tossing out scriptures you take out of context, making accusations with no evidence to back them up, and tossing out a ridiculous claim of the venerable ending 7th day, do you have any evidence to support your claims other than your opinion?

I am sorry you feel that way. With your question in mind, what is your evidence that the Bible was written by primitive people? Each Author of scripture is well documented and achieved high levels of education within their day. Paul, author of 13 New Testament books, was one of the most educated of his day. Most were also fully aware that the earth was round, as scripture indicates. In fact, the flat earth theory came from the Middle Ages of Europe, not the Middle East. At the same time, what is your evidence that biblically based evidence is not evidence? Archeologists have used the Bible for many hundreds of years to find items, and even entire civilizations, the Hittites for example, that "modern" scholars didn't believe existed. Sodom and Gomorra, thought to be fictitious, were found by secular archeologists right where the Bible said they would be. So again, I would ask, what evidence do you have to support such accusations?

Greetings, not cowardly at all. When was the last time a productive conversation happened in the comment section of a video? The information is out there, you can watch it or not. Entertaining trolls who just want to be argumentative and insulting is nothing I am interested in, but I do enjoy deleting their comments.

Hello there, what a great question. To put it in the simplest terms, the word "of" is not actually in a direct word-for-word translation of the passage. It was placed in the translation to make the sentence flow more naturally in English. If you were to read the Greek, it would sound more like "Having gone, then disciple all nations." That would sound odd to us, but in Greek, it was a normal writing style. Depending on the type of translation being worked on, the translators will take a few different approaches in order to make the text more understandable to modern readers. This is both good and bad, as some translations are done with great care, and others are heretical disasters. As a pastor, I read several translations of any text I study in order to see the various translation approaches and how they may affect the text. I tend to lean om the NKJV, ESV, and the CJB as my main texts. For instance the CJB renders Matthew 28:19 "Therefore, go and make people from all nations into disciples." The wording does not change the meaning f the text, but it does make it very easy to understand that we are to take the Gospel to the world with the intention of making disciples in all nations. A helpful tool that you may be interested in is an Interlinear Bible. They take a little getting used to but having access to the original language and how they read is a very powerful study tool. Something I remind all of my students when it comes to the Biblical text is this: "While the Bible was written for us, we must remember that it was not written to us. So, as students of the word it is important to always remember that the Bible cannot mean to us what it could never have meant to those it was originally written to. Our goal is to learn what it meant to them first, then we will know how it applies to us today." Hope this helps, blessings. Pastor George

would an absent, of writings, universally, suggest that the said event, did not happen...

@@philipbuckley759 Deniliguin impact crater is one of the largest impact craters on Earth at 520 km in diameter and is about 30 km deep. It has been revealed by magnetic and seismic readings - It is believed this impact sent the Earth into an ice age and wiped out 85% of the life on Earth. Back then, the asteroid hit the Gondwana continent. The Vredefort impact crater is less massive at 300 km diameter. Chicxulub is "only' 150 km. diameter, but it was sufficient to wipe out the dinosaurs. This is what the majority of geologists and paleontologists believe. As a creationist, I have to believe that God's timeline includes asteroid impacts. The surface of the Moon has many visible impact craters, and it makes sense that Earth would not have escaped similar asteroid impacts. The Theia impact is the biggest and created the Moon. God's timeline on Earth is absolutely amazing and worth researching.

There you go again trying to place what man has said happened with what the Word of God says. They say that dinosaurs lived 65+ million years ago but dinosaur soft tissue including blood vessels, blood cells, collagen, erythrocytes and even partial DNA have now been found on five continents with over 140 peer reviewed articles on the subject. Deep time is a myth.

Greetings, I am sorry if you feel that way. Is there a specific scientific or logical objection you have that we could discuss? While you are considering that, I do have a question about your claim of mythology and magic, which, outside of its obvious literary errors, is a gross oversimplification. Biblical creation research uses and validates all of the observational sciences. The difference is not in the science but in the interpretation. To say it simply, if you are looking for Darwin, that's what you will see, and the same is true for the biblical views. all scientists with a creation worldview freely admit this. Many PhD-level scientists have published peer-reviewed articles, research projects, and best-selling books such as "Traced," a study of genetic links between people groups throughout history, written by Nathaniel Jeanson, a Harvard Ph.D. in cell development and bioinformatics. These are highly respected researchers in their fields with a number of significant discoveries to their credit using the Biblical model with great success. No mythology or magic is involved. At the same time, on the Darwinian side of the argument, claims such as the quantum vacuum, the Oort Cloud, dark matter and dark energy, the multiverse theory, the formation of stars, random unguided accumulation of genetic information, mutation as the engine of evolutionary gains, and a host of other unproven claims with little more than wishful thinking as their support continue to be used as though they are well established, but knowing full well that they are not. This has been true for many decades. For example, Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist, mathematician, and an evolutionist, said, "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp... moreover, for the most part, these experts have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." Dr. Edwin Conklin, a prominent evolutionist and former professor of biology at Princeton, said this almost 70 years ago, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop." Lastly Dr. David Burlinski, an agnostic referred to the modern theory of evolution as "just a mess." It is pretty clear that even among the leaders in the field, there has been, and continues to be, a serious and growing doubt in foundational assumptions holding up the theory. One by one, as scientific understanding of the natural world grows, the old Darwinian paradigms are being tossed out, and the secular models of origins are beginning to look more and more biblical. This clearly being the case, I would have to agree with Dr. Duane Gish: "Evolution is a fairytale for adults". I would also put forward the idea that hanging onto a theory being decimated by its one research is not a scientific pursuit, it is a religion doomed to destroy itself. If you are interested in a civil conversation, let me know.

"Science uses facts and proof" LOL. Where's the missing links?

Hi there, flannel and Chili day is really just an excuse for a fall potluck. People bring in their favorite chili recipe, wear a comfortable fall flannel shirt, and we all hang out after service for lunch and fellowship...;0)

​@@inthebeginning...4061OK. Thanks for the clarification.

Hi there. While I understand the premise and appreciate your comment, we do need to keep one thing in mind. We have only landed on one comet. Multiple flyby missions throughout the years, but only one landing. While the data recovered was useful and showed that the material comets are comprised of includes more than just ice, which was always understood to be true, it also showed it contains large amounts of ice in various forms. The mission increased the understanding of the composition of some comets, but it did not change the general understanding of Comets in general. NASA, the ESA, and other agencies still refer to them as "Dirty Ice Ball" in publications as recent as July of 2023. So, agreeing with that long-held understanding is not a compromised position for creationists to hold to, especially given the very limited amount of contrary data.

@@inthebeginning...4061 NASA and the ESA are not my authorities. I don't care what these agencies refer to anything as. And yes, agreeing with a long-held WRONG understanding is a compromised position for creationists to hold. We have landed on zero comets where we have determined that they are dirty ice balls. In fact, the only evidence that they were made of ice is that they have a tail that is perpendicular to the sun and it was assumed the tail was caused by heat from the sun, so that tail must be water. But, like I said, the tails flare up in the outer reaches of the solar system too, so they aren't kinetic. I feel that any agreement with ANY understanding, long-held or not, is a compromise if that understanding is based on any number of assumptions. Period. Look how much secular science has wrong in Geology. Practically every single thing that comes out of the mouth of a secular geologist is flat out false. Provably so. But hey, the Smithsonian says, so if we just believe in all of it, we aren't compromising.

Greetings, @andrewwhite1318; while this content has nothing to do with the posted video, and to be plain, I do not think this is the appropriate platform to try and push 7th-day / Davidian theology, I will take a few moments to answer some of the issues in your view. There are several inaccurate assumptions you are making that are leading you to bad conclusions that require attention. In order to be precise, I will work through your comment section by section. Your original comment will be in quotations, and I will follow in bullet points. I will leave this up for about a week so you have time to respond if you choose, then I will take it down as this is not what this platform is for. “God is a physical being according to Scripture.” The first problem here is that your use of “physical” is vague. This is to be expected, considering that this was written in the early 1800’s. Are you saying physical as we are physical, meaning a part of this material universe or physical in another sense? When a person is viewing theology from a flawed foundation, it inevitably ripples through the rest of their thinking. James Whites's concept of the physical God is one such severely flawed view, that caused him to misinterpret much of scripture. God is the creator of the universe we live in, Genesis 1:1. This is a universe of space, time, matter, and energy. These are what comprise our physical temporal existence. In order to have created this universe, God would have to be outside of space and time, immaterial as we understand material, and unbound to what we know as energy. So, to say God is “physical” is an inaccurate foundation on which to build an argument. If God has a form, it would be in relation to His existence beyond our material world. Trying to define that existence is speculation at best. “Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. Revelation 19:4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.” Here, you are referring to visions. Visions are not, by any means, physical realities. Visions are given by God to the one He chooses to receive them in a manner that they will be able to understand and comprehend. We know this to be true because there are several visions of the throne room of God throughout scripture, and they all describe it differently. Daniel 7:9 was part of a dream given to Daniel, not a physical representation of heaven. It was a prophecy of what was to come, not a glimpse of Gods physical nature. The revelation of John was given to “show what must soon happen,” so the visions were not of heaven, but they were prophetic in nature to help us recognize the workings of God when they occur. To turn these passages into proof of a physical God is to ignore their intended purpose and bend them into an interpretation they were never intended to give. “The angels are also spirits, yet have bodies. Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. Genesis 19: 1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; Numbers 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. Angels, which are spirits, can be invisible to mortal sight. However God can open our eyes to see these spirits. There is a huge difference between being immaterial and being hidden from mortal sight. Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” - The idea of angels being physical as we are physical is by no means a correct way to see these passages. For instance, in order to interact with a physical world, it makes sense that the angels would take on the physical form required for that task. This is clearly seen throughout the scriptures. But then they return to their spiritual existence. Spiritual beings moving in and out of our physical world is not a new thing. This by no means makes them physical; it makes them beyond the physical, more commonly known as supernatural. “I look forward to seeing the face of God. John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.” Here Jesus makes it clear that his Father has a shape. Thus God is a physical being.” - Again you are incorrectly assuming a great deal. Having a shape does not mean having a physical form as we have physical form. It simply applies to having “A”form. What form does a spiritual being take? We do not know; we do not exist where He exists. So, this does not show God as a physical being; it just shows how much we do not know about existence beyond this life. Jesus is saying that the Father has borne witness to who Christ is, but no one there knows the Father as He truly is. “Psalm 139: 1 «To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.» O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. 2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. 3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. 4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. 5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. We see here in Psalm 38 that God is everywhere by virtue of his omniscience. Notice that God was afar off from David as he knew his thoughts.” - This only makes sense if God is immaterial and exists outside of our space/time. A being not bound by our limited material existence, literally outside of the physical universe, can see all of physical existence at the same time, even move back and forth through it. He would know all, see all, and be able to interact with everything and anything at any point in history. This is not a physical being, it is an immaterial being. "God is in heaven. This we are taught in the Lord’s prayer. “Our Father which art in heaven.” Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2. But if God is as much in every place as he is in any one place, then heaven is also as much in every place as it is in any one place, and the idea of going to heaven is all a mistake. We are all in heaven; and the Lord’s prayer, according to this foggy theology simply means, Our Father which art everywhere, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is everywhere." James White, The Personality of God, pg. 4 This is an incredibly flawed view. Even if heaven were just a “realm outside of our vision” which it is not, it would still be “a different place”. You are forgetting that in the Lords prayer we also ask “thy will be done on earth… as it is in heaven” these are two different places. One place where Gods will is carried out without question, and the other is this physical world where the rebellious heart of man resides. These views are not only wrong from the very start; they are bad theology built on a bad foundation. I hope you can see that. I would welcome any continued conversation if you are willing.

It is interesting that you are commenting on a video posted on a public platform that you willingly watched even though you clearly knew going in that you would disagree with the content. Yet, in your comment, you asked to be left out of these kinds of conversations. So, you willingly violated your own standard while trying to impose it on others. That's not a very consistent position to take if you are trying to make a reasonable argument. Yet, you interjected your own reasoning into a discussion you claim to not be interested in, even repulsed by. At the same time, you make a few very inaccurate, borderline naive assumptions about people who hold to a Biblical Worldview. No one would believe that lightning is God's wrath; that is a childish argument that shows a severe lack of understanding of the topic at hand. The information Dr. Lisle presents is by no means archaic as he is one of the top researchers in his field, as are the rest of the hundreds of Ph.D. researchers who hold to a biblical view of origins. You should look into the "Darwin list" and see the growing number of scientists from around the world walking away from Darwinian theory. Obviously, not all promote the creation view, but many do, and the list is growing. Clearly, the material is far beyond archaic to the point that unguided, random chance views of Darwinism are becoming the archaic view of the origin question as science grows in its understanding of the insurmountable level of complexity of life. While I appreciate your "approval" of allowing those who believe to explore their faith to its fullest extent while leaving others out of it, it is demonstrably clear that you have no desire to hold yourself to that standard; otherwise, you would have simply scrolled past the video. At the same time, neither do we. We will preach the message of the Gospel to any and all who will listen, using every available platform, including TH-cam, for as long as they are available. We do this because the message is too important not to. The difference is that we are also more than happy to dialogue with those who disagree. To spend time looking at the questions of life, meaning, morality, and death without the need to belittle and berate those who hold different views. In that light, do you have a logical or scientific question or objection from the video that we can discuss?

@@inthebeginning...4061 It is interesting that you are commenting on my comment by disagreeing that my comment is valid on the grounds of content. At no stage did I ask to be left out of the conversation, but merely the preferred conclusion arrived at by those of choice without evidence. So, no, I did not violate anything nor did I impose anything. I do not care if others follow critical thinking or not, or follow agnosticism nor atheism, it is there for those who wish to do so, just as you wish to follow Christianity. That is my consistent position on reasonable argument, whether you accept it or are offended by it. Again, it is the conclusion without evidence I'm interested in, not the discussion, and you Interject repulsion without my mentioning. You say my statement about lighting is childish and severley lacks understanding...let's put that to the test shall we? Do you believe that the earth, solar system, the milky-way and the universe was made: 1) in that order or simultaneously 2) in six days And 3) about 6,000, years ago I know already what you should say, but what you actually say is going to be interesting to see.

@rickallen9167 • 21 hours ago @inthebeginning...4061 It is interesting that you are commenting on my comment by disagreeing that my comment is valid on the grounds of content... - I never actually said that. "At no stage did I ask to be left out of the conversation, but merely the preferred conclusion arrived at by those of choice without evidence. So, no, I did not violate anything nor did I impose anything." - Actually, you did say that "Just leave those of us that didn't receive that supernatural information out of it." - If that is not what you meant, then I recommend being more specific with your language. - Also, to ask others to leave you out of a conclusion while pushing your own is by nature to impose your views on others while exempting yourself from the same standard. - At the same time, to claim you are asking to be "left out of a conclusion" while being part of a discussion is not a logically consistent request in any area of rational debate. To be involved in a conversation is to be subject to a conclusion that you may disagree with; whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. This is the very root of what a reasonable debate is. - To claim that those who hold to a creation viewpoint do so by choice without evidence is not only wrong, you are also doing what you are accusing them of doing. Do you have proof (evidence) that the creation view is without evidence? I have hundreds of books in my own personal library filled with hundreds of years of observations that not only support the biblical view but contradict the evolutionary view. The hundreds of Ph.D. researchers who do hold to a view of supernatural, or design origins would disagree with you, and rightfully so. They would also note that in every area of scientific discipline, evidence is just the start: evidence must be interpreted. Interpretation will always begin in the worldview of the one reviewing it. Try Creation.com, ICR.org, or even the Discovery Institute (which is agnostic) for 10's of thousands of peer-reviewed, published articles on the subject. These papers cover every scientific discipline. Another good resource is the video "Evolutions Achilles Heel." Most of the scientists in that video were staunch evolutionists. Religion did not change their mind, the science did. So, to claim that there is no evidence is just inaccurate. It is there for those who are willing to look. "I do not care if others follow critical thinking or not, or follow agnosticism nor atheism, it is there for those who wish to do so, just as you wish to follow Christianity. That is my consistent position on reasonable argument, whether you accept it or are offended by it." - I would argue that your claim here is not consistent with your actions. - The very fact that you are commenting on material that you already know you are biased against shows that you not only care but that you have a hostile bias toward those who do not have the same views that you claim to have. Otherwise, you would have asked questions to help in your understanding or simply scrolled on. You did neither; this makes your claim that this is "your consistent position on reasonable argument" to be observably false. "Again, it is the conclusion without evidence I'm interested in, not the discussion, and you Interject repulsion without my mentioning." - If I inferred repulsion incorrectly, then I would withdraw the comment. However, your continued comments seem to validate my assumption. - Once again, you claim that those who hold to a view of supernatural or design sources of origins have made a conclusion without evidence, without offering any evidence for your own conclusion. - Do you have a logical or scientific objection that you feel no evidence has been offered. I can easily supply you with ample resources from peer-reviewed, published materials for any material question you may have. - At the same time: Has the question of abiogenesis in light of the law of biogenesis been resolved in relation to Darwin's single common ancestor claim? Has the mystery of genetic and epigenetic programming to the degree of over 90% immutable material been solved? Has the divide between the observable microevolutionary and the never-be-observed macroevolutionary processes been resolved? Has the Big Bang been replaced with a more viable theory now that the Webb Telescope has thoroughly destroyed it? Has the conundrum within the discovery of soft tissue, blood vessels, and intact genetic material in dinosaur fossils supposedly 60-100 million years old finally been reconciled? - As much as you may want to believe that those who hold to a supernatural view of origins are the ones lacking evidence, it is simply not the case. The question is whether you are willing to honestly look at the other side of the argument or just continue to belittle it from a distance. If you are being honest when you say that the "conclusion without evidence" is what you are interested in, then you would be willing to research the opposing evidence "You say my statement about lighting is childish and severley lacks understanding...let's put that to the test shall we? Do you believe that the earth, solar system, the milky-way and the universe was made:1) in that order or simultaneously 2) in six days And 3) about 6,000, years ago. I know already what you should say, but what you actually say is going to be interesting to see." - We both know that you have no actual interest in an honest dialogue here in regard to this topic. You are simply looking for an opportunity to mock and belittle. This is of no value to anyone. My position is very clear, and I make no apologies for it, as I am sure you make none for yours. Engaging in a fruitless back-and-forth is of no value to me, so I will simply decline. With that, I will step away and leave you with your views and I with mine. If you ever decide to have an honest conversation around these topics, I am always open, but arguing for the sake of arguing serves no purpose. I wish you well and that one day your eyes will be opened.

@@inthebeginning...4061 "It is interesting that you are commenting on a video posted on a public platform that you willing watched even though you clearly knew going in that you would disagree with the content." And that my friend is not only an attempt at censorship, it's also one of exclusion, and arrogance(my opinion valid, yours is invalid). So yes actually you did say that, whether you wriggle or jiggle or not. I don't actually know if you can understand what the difference is between the epistimological or proselytising positions of faith and those that on inquiry and conclusion choose not to believe, but I'll try and assist you. It is your duty of the church(Bishop at head lead) and your practice to convert. Matt. 28 Verses 19 to 20 [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. The evolutionist or non-theist makes no claims either for, or on behalf of others. Is that finally clear to you? Oh yes....and by the way.... Brilliantly dodged on my question of YEC.. but predictable.

Wow, wrong again on three counts. No, you were not censored, or excluded. I simply pointed out the obvious logical conflict in your statement. The only person claiming an opinion was invalid was you, the only arrogance on display is yours. The platform is, and remains, open to all… so wrong in point 1. As far as you attempt to define the ministry of the gospel, epistemological proselytizing as you put it and the apparent non existence of the atheistic or evolutionary version of proselytizing. Wrong again. While the church does, without hesitation, bring the message of hope and salvation through the forgiveness of sin to any and all who are willing to listen, and on any platform available in all corners of the world. The simple fact that you are going to such effort in something as simple as this post proves how completely inaccurate your claim of neutrality is. Not to mention people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and thousands of others who regularly put out regular calls to “bring the message of scientific atheism into the world”. So wrong on point 2. To your almost sincere question: nothing was dodged at all: if you watched the video, my position is very clear. So, wrong again… Dr Lisle did a great job laying out the argument. So I have to ask: did you even watch the video or are your comments just blindly added without any understanding or context?

*Didn’t

Hello there, that's an interesting question. Unfortunately, I am not really sure. Your best bet is to contact Dr. Lisle directly at BiblicalSciensInstituite.com

Hello there, That's a common and honest question. The answer is no, this is not an error. One of the things we have to understand about the Scriptures is that while they are inherent, they are also written within a cultural context. For example, the orchid seed would not have meant anything to those hearing Jesus speak. In their cultural context, the mustard seed was the smallest seed that they knew. The truth of the statement is found in its application to life and faith, not in the context of global agriculture understanding. One of the foundations I try to keep in mind is that the scriptures were not written "to us," but they were written "for us." Therefore they can never me to me what they could never have meant to those it was originally written to. The goal is to find the timeless truth within the text by understanding the relevant cultural application to those it was originally written to. The process is typically called Hermeneutics. The danger we often run into is when we read the scriptures with the mind of 21st Century Western Christians and force our cultural norms onto the text. We forget that the scriptures were written to 1st century and earlier, eastern believers using their cultural, social, and political norms. The goal is to first understand them, then we can rightfully apply those truths to today. Hope that helps.

Greetings, sorry for the delayed reply. I understand the issue with the way some churches have misrepresented the Gospel. However, like listening to a bad cover band, you don't blame the original artist.

Hello there, go to biblicalscienceinstituite.com and it is in the store.

Six 24 hour days. Literally. Really. Miraculous. Dontcha think?

@@marciamcgrail5889 Yes miraculous. just keep in mind from where you have got your vocabulary and for what you normally use it, when you try and describe something miraculous. It is no longer your kitchen or your week in spain we are talking about.

​@MrWeezer55 you're a Born Sinner nobody ever had to teach you or any other child how to lie, cheat, or steal and yet we all did it. Guilty!.

​@MrWeezer55 you're a Born Sinner nobody ever had to teach you or any other child how to lie, cheat, or steal and yet we all did it. Guilty!.

And in reality the vast majority of Christians accept that Evolution is a proven scientific fact.

@@walkergarya Interesting that you ask for proof. What specific proof are you looking for? What proof has evolution provided that you think is so airtight that it cannot be questioned? You claim to live a moral life, but what standard are you using to declare yourself moral? Is it your own subjective reasoning that allows you to rationalize whatever you want at the moment, or is it a higher authority, and if so, where did that authority come from, and what makes it worth obeying?

How about a third alternative: I reject the gospel and have no need for "salvation," but I choose to live in accordance with the sensible moral code agreed upon by millions of us, which excludes the same bad behaviors prohibited in the bible as well as some condoned by the bible, such as slavery, killing disobedient children etc.. "Sin" is merely transgressing against religious rules, and as a non-adherent to any religion, I find that sin is a meaningless concept. It is like telling a carpenter that welding is prohibited.

NCIC,.....This is because you love deception. You love your false manmade religion of scientism.

@@paulhaynes3688 ,...What is fiction, science fiction, is your 100% false manmade science fiction religion of scientism. God has blinded your evil eyes and has steeped you in darkness. The Bible is the only truth the world has, and it is only understood by the few Jesus came to save, Gods chosen ones, his elect. To the rest, the brute beasts of the earth, the truth of God and his word the Bible is foolishness. 2 Peter 2:12 "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" Jude 1:10 "But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."

Jason Lisle is one of my favorite apologists. I love listening to Chuck Missler as well.

Amen!

@@paulhaynes3688 What is in reality superstition, fables of Godless men, and ignorance, is everything that goes against the truth of the Bible. The Bible was written by God, it has nothing to do with men, and is the only truth the world has. You have only proven the Bible to be true by your brute beast ignorance, but are too blind to understand what you have done. But those few who have eyes to see can easily see what you have done. God has blinded you to the truths of the Bible. There is nothing you can do to be able to understand the Bible because as the Bible tells you, you are spiritually dead and cannot make yourself spiritually alive. You were created to be a brute beast and a vessel of wrath to show those few God has made spiritually alive what they would be like without God. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!

⁠@@seedsower678literally bible says different to you… scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it’s definitely written by men. Every book on earth was written by a human.

@@seedsower678you are very cynical… obviously the message of salvation in the bible, which is a gift to the whole world has gone over your head.

@@seedsower678god doesn’t blind people, people chose to be blind. Because the light of the Bible tells man who he really is and he runs from the light because his deeds are wicked.