ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มี.ค. 2024
- What does the Bible actually say about the age of the Earth? If Genesis 1 says God created the earth in 6 days, who are we to say he didn't?
But what if that is the wrong question to ask? What if the creation story in Genesis is telling us a different story? A story not about "What?" and "How?" but "Who?" and "Why?"
Phil Vischer takes us through the history of the Creationism debate and helps us understand how the Ancient Israelites would have thought about creation and why order and function matter more in Genesis 1 than material and matter.
Interested in learning more? Check out our series, "How to Read Genesis 1" with John Walton and Skye Jethani www.holypost.com/genesis
For more content like this, check out the Holy Post Podcast
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
www.holypost.com
![คณะขวัญใจ - นางสาวขวัญใจ [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a8zn5pGlRUY/mqdefault.jpg)
I've always thought that since God made animals, plants, and people fully grown, or at least that's what it seems like based on Genesis 1, then God would've made the earth already fully grown, seemingly an "adult" version of the earth like the adult people and animals. So, it makes sense to me that the earth would seem to be older than 6000 years even if it was created then. Just one perspective though.
Your "perspective" is a correct one.
god can't lie, if he made us think the earth is older than what it actually is, then he would be decieving us, and God can't do that. Only the devil decieves. So if we see the earth is old using the reason that god gave us (and it is old, and its undeniable), then god's word can't contradict god's work. YEC is not only a butchering fo scripture wanting to attribute stuff that it doesn't claim, its just plainly wrong.
@@marcel87688 ,...You have spoken in complete ignorance, it is your ignorance and unsaved, blind, lost, and deceived state that is undeniable. Everything you just stated in not only wrong, but it is also 100% unbiblical.
The earth is only a few thousand years old. Period. You know nothing and are not a Christian. Repent!
@@marcel87688 God's Word is indeed inerrant in terms of truth but why is God deceiving us by creating the universe with an inherent history? He isn't deceiving us because He has told us exactly what He created and how long it took. He makes no mention of the time period before the creation of the world other than 'the beginning' which He says was formless and empty. It is only deceitful to add a pre-history if He then says that He didn't add such a thing. To say that our interpretation of it means He deceived us is because it doesn't mention a pre-history only means that our interpretation of it is wrong, not that God was trying to deceive us. As you correctly stated, God cannot lie, in Him is only truth.
The more I have thought about this pre-history over the years, the more it makes sense. Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? When they cut down trees, would they have had rings? Did Adam and Eve already know how to do gardening, know how to speak, the list goes on and on. The answer is clear if you reckon on there already being a history. Without any of that the arguments rage on and on but God does not require of us understanding of all that He has done, only that we believe in faith.
Thanks for your comments, they are food for thought as indeed are all the various ideas I hear from both Christians and non-Christians regarding the beginnings of our universe. The one thing I simply cannot reconcile is the argument that nothing became something and that the something became more and more complex in total defiance of science.
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Much like the story of Noah's Ark.
EXCELLENT!! "down to earth" presentation for popular consumption. Unfortunately, the dear Christian brothers and sisters around me are so hung up on an extreme "literal" understanding of the Bible that our conversations cannot get past that. And unfortunately, any attempt to compare the Bible with other ancient literature is seen as a claim that the Bible simply copied from other nations and, therefore, is not from God. It is very difficult to bring people to a different understanding. But that being said, thanks for this presentation because it has given me some ideas for new approaches to this issue.
I feel your pain. I take one thought as consolation that I hope will do as well for you. That is, there is no test on this content. It is truly by trusting Jesus that one has eternal life. However, that said, all the great content brought out today by Phil & the Bible Project show that there is so much rich discovery and God is not done showing us more about Him to those who truly have eyes to see. Cheers!
It's hard to remain a strict literalist once you've actually studied how the Bible was formed. I find that the most dogmatic are often the most ignorant of their own faith, probably as a means of protecting themselves from being exposed as ignorant of their faith.
@@jonathonpolk3592 it’s usually a taught problem, where someone is brought up with strict dogma with the intent of ensuring that they are controlled and predictable.
Being able to recite long memorized passages without understanding what they mean gives the appearance of education without any of the actual empowerment that comes with education.
@@jonathonpolk3592. What an absolute crock! There’s no reason to fight over this stuff. And no reason to belittle fellow Christians. Both sides have perfectly reasonable arguments that should be debated in a respectful manner.
And Phil is just plain off about the Creation story, which he presents as merely an Ordering story. In the beginning God created (using a verb that means ‘to create’ and not ‘to order,’ and using a verb to which only God can act as its subject) the Heavens and the Earth. It is “ex nihilo” creation and is utterly distinct from other ANE creation myths. The Spirit does not hover “over the face of the deep” until after the oceans are created.
The fact doesn’t really weaken Phil’s argument…and STILL he finds the need to be dishonest about it. Why is that?
"Down to earth" lol 😂 I appreciate that pun
This is probably the best explanation of this theological position I've ever heard. It's nice to grow up and find that, even though my perspectives have changed a lot since childhood, some Christian figures I grew up with (Phil Vischer) are still doing good work and being a good influence to fellow Christians.
You think this because you, like the guy in this video, are completely Biblically illiterate, unsaved, outside of the kingdom of God, and are totally blind, lost, and deceived. Repent!
Nifty to see you here. :D I agree
@@_Niddy_ You are both completely steeped in deception. You are not Christians, you are the accursed of God. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
This is just another example showing how creationists are forced to manipulate and aggressively reinterpret their scripture in order to mold it to fit the science and morals we have today. Why on earth would god just leave us a book? A book is up to an individual is interpretation, hence why there’s so many denominations of the Christian faith. Shouldn’t god have sent us very clear and precise rules to follow? Why would god wait 198,000 years into human history to reveal the truth? There are ancient civilizations that we have recorded that predate any Abrahamic faith. Are all of those people going to heII even though there is no way for them to have received the “truth” because gif hadn’t yet bothered to send them his book lol? Was god procrastinating the whole thing??
@@Ruder6163 ,...The fake christian in this video is just another example of how totally apostate the church is. The people of the church are every bit as blind, lost, and deceived as are those in your ignorant religion of atheism/scientism.
You have spoken is absolute ignorance showing yourself to be exactly what the Bible tells us you are, a brute beast made only to be destroyed. You have only proven the Bible to be true.
"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;" 2 Peter 2:12 KJV
"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." Jude 1:10 KJV
the fact is, you know nothing, and everything you have been indoctrinated/deceived to believe is wrong and mothing but fake manmade nonsense. The Bible is the only truth the Godless world has. Repent, how long will you remain completely steeped in ignorance?
Skye's interview with Dr. Walton never addressed Exodus 20:11 where Moses says the Israelites should work 6 days (literal) and rest on 1 literal day, he states the REASON is because God worked 6 days to create the heavens and the earth (the "stuff") and then rested. Scripture itself seems to backup the Genesis 1 account of a 6 day creation.
What about the seven year Sabbath for the land?
So a fable in a book of fables proves another fable in the same book..😂
So, going by that logic since England and France are real places mentioned in King Arthur's tale, then both King Arthur and Lancelot are also real people...🤔
A wonderful explanation. Thank you
Absolutely. The Scripture will always stand accurate.
@@jameswood231 .....🤣
Yes! The Bible that we know and love is not a 20th-21st century history and science text book. Insisting that it be does great injustice to God's word and to His creation, including ourselves.
Having actually read the Bible - I think you have the word injustice placed in the wrong place. Just reading the first 5 books demonstrates a narcissistic, genocidal thug of a deity that destroyed the earth, promised Canaan to the forefathers of the Israelites - then find out that Jacob lied to steal Easau’s birthright - two no-nos in the 10 Commandments but nothing happened to him - not like Lot’s wife who was turned into a pillar of salt for having the audacity to look at - wait - the destruction that this maniacal deity brought on - but then turned a blind eye to Lot’s daughters getting him drunk - and can’t mention what happens next because this could be read by children. Oh, look what happened to the Moabites and Midianites (also god’s creation -but he never appeared before them)…..and how they met their end - again the Bible not fit for children’s eyes - so you’ll have to trust me…….then let’s move past the first 5 books and read about what happened to Jephthah’s daughter - whose crime was walking out of the house to greet her father - just wow. Then god - who traces his son’s (who somehow is also him) lineage to David - I guess just saying I’m god it isn’t good enough - you have to say - I’m god and I’m related to David. David, the king who took Bathsheba (and yes took is a very nice word for what is a crime)…..then sent Bathsheba’s husband - who did follow this god’s laws - off to battle and did god protect him? Hell no, he died in battle - then when Bathsheba gave birth - god took out the baby - probably had it coming - but at least he let it be born - because you know, he’s pro life……except when you read what husbands were allowed to do when they just thought their wife was unfaithful - and make them have - well we’re not allowed to say what happened but it would force a non-birth…..all done in the tent that god was supposed to be hanging out in……And how god also was good with slavery - because as god - you can’t say - don’t own people (wait why wasn’t this in the 10 commandments)…..sounds like there is a lot of injustice done by god…..it’s almost as if people that lived hundreds of years after the “events” were to have happed just made the whole thing up - in the Bronze Age.
The Bible has been altered 30,000 times it's not accurate and not the word of God
You have spoken in total ignorance, repent!
it is a history book. science didnt begin till 1600s, whats funny, is science confoirms bible. AS a 12 year old i plotted death ages after flood, probably because god wanted me to say this and created me for that purpose. IT's a geometrical decline, which shows a natural process, but we didn't know about that 1600s with Descartes, a christian, invention of analytic geometry.
also people like tyou scoffed at history aspect, then we found out hitties empire actually existed like bible said. the paroash from moss was thutmoses III, who after moses decimated his kingdom (not commenting on name there) at right time stopped wars against foreign countries and had his mother's name removed from all monuments
Got to love the "A Sound of Thunder" reference with the Dinosaur and Butterfly. Don't know if it was intentional or not, but I liked it.
Holy Post, can you add this to the educational playlist. Thanks
Phil, our family loves your "What's in the Bible" DVDs.
Walton's analogy of building a "home" (immaterial) vs. building a "house" (material) is helpful here.
Haven't heard that? in what way is it helpful?
I know what is very helpful. Reading the Bible and believing every word. That alone will make you wiser than all your teachers! 💪🙏🤣
What kind of theo-babbling nonsense are you promoting here? Nothing to do with scripture or science whatsoever!!
@@jimhughes1070 Except the bible contradicts itself, sometimes even on the same page. So you can't believe every word.
Sounds interesting, unfortunately I can't find it on the Internet.
@MarielleilonaLinthorst
Could you share with us a notable example of the Bible contradicting itself?
Growing up I was forced by my parents to go to church and I’ve always been a free will independent person even as a child so since I was forced I resented their decision and never really developed a connection with God but I still believed in him. Years later into my late teen years I started to question and make fun of the church and how everyone pretty much denied modern science because it challenges and rejects scriptures in the Bible. Stuff like the earth is only 4,000 years old, dinosaurs aren’t real, earth is flat, evolution. And this would go on until I was 18 and graduated high school and left for the army and there without anyone forcing me to go to church or trying to shove their teachings down my throat I picked up the Bible probably for the first time in my life and said I’m gonna figure this stuff out on my own. Fast forward a few years later and I feel like I’m the closest with god I’ve ever been.
I feel like this is why a lot of people dismiss the Bible because since it was written 3,000 years ago people take what it says too literally and deny any type of science that contradicts and challenges the Bible. But what I never hear anyone say is how cool it is that God made the universe so incomprehensibly big with billions of unexplored planets even though we will never even leave our own solar system. Science doesn’t contradict the Bible it makes it infinitely more badass.
The Bible is filled with ridiculous stories that can be disproved with science, but honestly it should be common sense.
For instance, Noah's Ark. The fact anyone could believe that nonsense makes me embarrassed that I'm the same species as something so utterly asinine.
@@troywest7045who said the animals were fully grown? The smaller they were, the less space and food they required.
*Stop being so arrogant in your ignorance.*
I'm glad you chose a non-controversial topic this time.
😂
"non-controversial" Jesus
What does the original Hebrew text reveal about Genesis 1-11? - Dr. Steve Boyd th-cam.com/video/3txmpHQJ520/w-d-xo.html
@@pieshoYeah, what about Him?
@@Orthosaur7532 Him? "Jesus" is an expression
Thanks for telling the truth, I hope you don't get tossed out of your church for that!
You know that happens right?
What's really dumb are people that say they believe in a supernatural God that feel compelled to explain an example of His omnipotence (creation) through their infinitesimally small understanding of "science" as they know it.
Thanks goodness, I found an expert on the subject, which book will give me the answer.
Yet, science can't explain the most fundamental theories of life. How it began.
@@johnwollenberg3623 We're in agreement. That's my point.
@@johnwollenberg3623 All their facts, are fiction, they know nothing about anything. If it sounds good, they write another book. Their intellect is gained by reading everything, and treating us as mere mortals, The absolute truth is replaced on a regular basis by a millions, trillions of years details of what and how something happened.
@@amessenger3208Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.
Thank-you for recording a short shareable video on this topic, Phil! Well said. Well done. It's a much better story to be told!
Except that this video is against the Holy Bible: Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
There was no "chaos" here before God started creating.
@@statutesofthelordno Christian says that God did not originally create everything from nothing. Just that Genesis 1 is not about material creation.
@@missinglink_eth Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
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.
@@statutesofthelord what’s your point?
@@missinglink_eth Nate/missing, already given.
Genesis 1 is the true history of our world and its creation.
What I like about Gen. 1 is it starts in the garden…. Then, we go to Rev. 22 and the garden is revealed again. God is good… all the time.
Thank you.
Repent!
Not super a christian, Not distracted. Bills still need to be paid. Water is still wet, Ice is still slick, Gravity still works, the Rapture still happens on a Hollywood set when filming conditions are optimal.
Lincoln, Nebraska🌱
As a former Orthodox Jew, I have to say that this is an excellent analysis of the creation myth.
I have a good friend that reads, and speaks Hebrew very well and his explanation about creation in the language of Hebrew is excellent. His definition answers a lot. Yet many fundies rail against learning Hebrew or even Greek. I have had those debates and the fundies are more than glad to assign me to hell.
@frankmckinley1254 , it's very fine to think your advocate before the Father might be some "good friend that reads and speaks Hebrew very well", whose "explanation about creation in the language of Hebrew is (no doubt, in your humble but expert opinion) excellent"? I wish you well.
But, with several thousand years of scripture scholarship and many hundreds of competent translations having been made in your own mother tongue (not to mention the testimony of God's Own Spirit bearing witness to every human heart--including yours), one could see where your 'authenticating council' may seem a bit slim to "the fundies".
Fortunately, whatever our faith may appear to others, it is before our own Master that we stand or fall. Therefore, my sole concern is whether my own thoughts, words and deeds will bear me up on the last day, for those are the only substance I could lean upon...apart, that is, from those of the Lord in my stead.
I literally can't tell if you're supporting or attacking the original commenter. Since this is a religious discussion, I'm going to assume you're attacking him - it's usually the only time people comment.
@VinnieBartilucci , literally: "My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins."
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you."
“'My son, do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives.' Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
"Attacking"? Cite these, and I trust you entirely to draw a sober conclusion.
The ancient Hebrews had no actual "hell" as we know it. Only a sort of limbo in which souls walked around aimlessly with nothing really to do, until the Messiah comes along and redeems them, at which point many will go to heaven and the rest will continue to be separated from God. Which should be hellish enough.
Hebrew and Greek are great, but the meaning of terms (regardless of language) is still determined by context. You don't have to learn Hebrew to see that "Day" (Hebrew: yom) is a literal day in Genesis 1, based on the context. After all, "Day" is the time of the "light" (Gen 1:5), and "Night" is the time of "darkness" (Gen 1:5). And these periods of light/darkness are governned by a great light during the day, and a "lesser light" at night (1:16). These are the sun and moon, clearly.
The only reason anyone disputes that the days are literal is because we are more concerned with reconciling the Bible with science, which is our true Authority, not God. The speaker in this video clearly considers Geology, etc. authoritative, but the Word of God not.
I get a similar picture reading older scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, John L. McKenzie, and others. The amazing thing is that you still have to explain this. Of course, there are a number of other creation texts in the Bible which provide different conceptions of creation.
You mean it's amazing that Christians read the Bible but not older scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, John L. McKenzie, and others? That's not amazing, it's encouraging.
@@TimWismer Huh! You made a division between reading the Bible and reading biblical scholar, not me. Are you saying that Phil Vischer and the scholar he refers to, John Walton, do not read the Bible? Biblical scholars try to figure out what the biblical texts meant to the authors and their audience. You rely on translations by other scholars.
I also pointed out very gently that Genesis 1 (and 2) are not the only creation texts in the Bible. You might try to find Bernhard W. Anderson's Creation in the Old Testament, which will point you to other biblical texts with differing conceptions of creation. Or do you not actually want to read the Bible?
I have read some of these other creation stories from tribes around the Israelites. There are often parallels or similarities. We often see 6 or 7 layers or levels of creation (not always days and not always in the same order). For example the Chaldeans start each step with "Isn't it delightful..." which is akin to the Hebrews ending each step with "...and saw that it was good".
They all have a variant of the flood story. And the Tower of Babel appears often as well. Along with a story about whose offering is the best (though these are sub gods rather than the children of the first men - and a hint of different lifestyles back then, Nomad vs Farmer vs Hunter Gatherers (the people of Nod)).
We also do not get a mention of the Israelites until Abraham is instructed to build his nation in Genesis. Abraham came from Ur, a Mesopotamian city an area where a lot of these stories were found.
So what can we make of it?
If we think about it logically, should we be surprised that these various Semitic tribes have similarities in their creation stories even if none exactly match each others? Of course not.
People in that region in ancient times would have recognized these similarities despite having different languages and cultures. And their explanation for this would probably have been the The Tower of Babel story.
The idea of order from chaos is a neat idea. If I make something, I assemble materials from just about anywhere (chaotic) and assemble them into an artifact (order). So a God being above everything (which is what the Hebrew god is), bringing order out of chaos fits very well.
What's the purpose of the genealogy in Genesis 5?
Look up the meanings of their names... All heavily symbolic. For example, Methuselah died in the year of the great flood, and Methuselah can be translated "Upon death, judgement follows".
@@OffbrandDrPhil - Yes, I have researched the names. They are interesting. But don't overlook the obvious fact that this is a straightforward genealogy. Two relevant facts are the ages of each father, which can be readily used to calculate years back to Adam's creation, and the other fact is that every man except Enoch died, demonstrating the consequences of sin.
Why do you think God included genealogies allowing us to calculate the age of the creation? The obvious answer is, that's exactly what He wanted us to be able to do. The creation is roughly 6000 years old - according to God's Word.
@@rubiks6 I'm somewhere in-between a young and old-earth creationist and grew up young-earth. I'm just not seeing how the age of the earth really ties into being a critical doctrine, so I think there's room for different interpretations. I do fail to see, however, how one could believe in theistic evolution as death is said to have come about as a result of sin. Hence why I'm still definitely a creationist.
@@OffbrandDrPhil - For me, the tie in is simply whether I believe God or not. The saying goes, "A man's word is his bond." Can I trust God's Word or not? I do.
In Genesis 15.6 we are told that Abraham _“believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”_ This passage is cited by New Testament writers.
@@rubiks6 I agree with holding fast onto God's Word as the ultimate goal. I also believe in not trying to make it say something it doesn't. These are the two considerations I'm currently trying to balance as I weigh the options.
I know a lot of Christians who get hung up on the old earth/young earth theories when in reality that discussion does nothing whatsoever. The discussion that MUST happen for all Christian believers (and yes, I am one of them) is regarding pre-sin death. If creatures were living and dying before the fall, then death is not, as Scripture claims, the punishment for sin. Extrapolate that out and you inevitably come to the result that the Gospel is no longer good news at all. If death is not the punishment for sin, Jesus could not die for the sins of the world and His death on the cross achieved nothing whatsoever. It is a nonsense to talk about how certain people wrote poetry a few thousand years ago as though that amounts to a hill of beans. It amounts to nothing whatsoever. If All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, then the Bible is not about the people who wrote it or their poetic predilections, it is about the God who inspired men to write exactly what He wanted them to write, not only for people a couple of thousand years ago but for the people of the 21st century too. God is eternal and His Word is written from His perspective, not ours. It isn't about whether the Bible puts a date on when it all kicked off, it is about God getting His message across to His people throughout history. That is the Who and Why that really does matter :)
Please note, I claim no scholarly insights here and I utterly respect all that is said in this video and the person saying it. I am not up for an argument, that is sheer folly. I simply believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stand on the Word of God with this regard :)
If the Bible is what you claim it is, why did God "write it" in ancient languages? In addition to ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, why didn't God just inspire the same automatons who wrote down God's verbal dictation in their own languages to also make marks on paper they had no way of understanding so that there would already be a version for us in perfect English, modern French, Spanish, German, Chinese (all several thousand different dialects), etc.? After all, the difference between languages is more than just substituting vocabulary words in one language for vocabulary words in another language. It's more than the difference in syntax and grammatical structure. It's even more than the difference in cultural understandings based on the collective experiences of all who use each language.
Most fundamentalists don't have a clue that there are people living *right now at this very moment* in other places on this planet in cultures who do not see the world the same way they do, who do not think in the same categories that they do, and who are not concerned with the same questions they have. What chance do they have to understand that those living in the ancient world don't also think like 21st century Westerners? Or even more specifically, like 21st century American Evangelical Christians who can't tell the difference between Jesus Christ and our politicians on both sides of the divided aisle?
@@michaelclark9762 Interesting comments though clearly you've intended them from a pejorative paradigm. I must first correct the comment you made about God dictating the Scriptures. He didn't dictate them, He inspired them. People naturally wrote in the language that they would originally have been read. Are you saying that we can't translate things accurately today or that this is just an example of a cosmic fun and games exercise in which God plays with those little earthlings He's created? Sorry to be flippant but it's clearly not reflecting what the Bible says at all.
As for people thinking differently, absolutely, and so they should. After all, you don't have to be from a different culture and language base to think differently to each other, you and I speak the same language and possibly share quite a lot in common culturally but we clearly differ in how we think. If you look at a Bible written in English, Urdu and Japanese, do they not say the same thing but in a way that is understood by people of those language cultures? They are remarkably accurate in the way they read.
Well, I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of the validity of the Bible but do at least read it and see what it actually says. Good place to start :)
@@robbarron8635three documents written in English, Urdu, & Japanese CAN NOT say the same thing because those three languages ARE NOT based on the same ideas, cultural backgrounds, etc. The differences between how two 21st century Americans, even if one is a right wing radical & the other is a left wing radical, is relatively minor compared to the cultural and linguistic gulf between either and a Japanese speaking person.
@@robbarron8635 No, I am not writing from any perjorative point of view. I respect the scriptures enough to recognize that ANY translation from the original languages will lose a bit in translation, not only because of the differences I the two languages, but also due to the gulf in the differences in culture and the different worlds in which the ancient writers lived and modern readers live. There is no English translation of any book of the Bible that fully conveys to a modern 21st Century Western (i.e. Culturally descended from Hellenistic thought, not Eastern/Semitic thought) what the text meant to those who wrote it. To claim that any English translation says "the same thing" as what the ancient texts say is ludicrous. Then there's the issue of what, exactly, the ancient texts actually said. We have no autographs of any part of the Bible. The "earliest" manuscripts we have are at least a thousand years and who knows how many hand copied generations removed from any "originals". There are numerous variations among different strains of manuscripts. Most aren't very consequential to theological interpretation, but some are.
Thank you for articulating this so well. I agree completely.
I think you do a good job of describing how the creation story might have been more abstract in nature, but the 6000 year calculation is pulled from the Biblical genealogies. So it would be helpful to detail how the writers viewed family trees and whether there might be flexibility in interpretation there
That's why the days in the story go from Evening to Morning. The story is about moving from Chaos to Order.
The Jewish day begins in the evening. Which came first?
@@SuperpopeGaming Well yeah, but for poetic reasons. As the time passes from Night to Day, so does the Universe from Chaos to Order.
It's because it was dark before it was light. That's why the evening is first.
@@morganedwards839 yeah, chaos to order.
Let's believe the Holy Bible that there was no chaos before Day 1.
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Great video, thanks! I’m unsure if you answered the question of the age of the Earth. In my experience a YEC would look at what you said and reply “Yes, God did all that in 6 24hr days (‘cause that is what the Bible literally says!) and than those literal genealogies we have in 5-11 tell us 6000 years or so for the age of the Earth. You didn’t address the Yoms of creation or the nature of those genealogies, which I think is the foundation for the young earth position, not a material v. Functional creation. I hope that makes sense lol. Thanks!
The genealogies are more indicative about the age of civilization than about the age of the earth itself. Which, interestingly, does historically trace itself to around 6000 years ago (there’s some evidence it may be older, but not by that much)
@@mikerivera373I agree, just wanted to point out this wasn’t addressed in the video lol. I would also say the genealogies are more about theological messaging than historical
@@BaijoGosum how do you know that? Archaeological and scientific discoveries are proving the accuracy of the Bible on a monthly basis in our lifetime. The Bible tells us not to add to or subtract from the Word of God. God called light day and darkness night. Nothing to do with time. The fourth creation day God established the solar system cycle which which determined the length of time the earth received sunlight while turning on it's axis. We know the earth rotation is slowing down, so only God knows the time involved. We don't even know what time is, yet we argue about it and cause devision. Let's leave it that light is day and darkness night. It has spiritual meaning which is more important. Maranatha
In the beginning YAH created the heavens and the earth…the earth was without form or void
Of a truth from that piece of scripture tells us earth was made but not how long it took OR how long between the creation of earth to the time he started day 1.
But if I was a betting man I would lean towards it was all done at the same time meaning He creates earth and then gets right to work in bringing order and function to the creation.
@@mikerivera373this is a very euro centric perspective that ignores the far east. I would say we have evidence of civilization back to 8000 years ago at least and some evidence points to even older
Genesis is 100% prophetic/typology for 1st century events...ie John starting his gospel "In the beginning" 7 days are mentioned in John's gospel! :)
Orthe author of John had read Genesis and copied the words.
@@ziploc2000 Of course he did. The gospels all relate to the Old Testament to show that Jesus is the continuation and fulfillment of its creed.
Your outstanding communication skills are on full display again. Race in America made me cry, and now this! I’d love to talk with you about it one day, but one thing especially jumped out at me-the Bible was written for us, but not to us. When applied, that simple truth refutes the Calvinistic view of predestination.
I’m almost a year older than you and have no desire to build a platform, but I know too many people who have been damaged by the teachings of Calvinism to stay quiet. Will you please consider reading the the intro to my book that provides exegetical analyses of TULIP with a little bit of memoir thrown in? You might find yourself wanting to read more. I’ll be happy to send you a PDF copy.
- well individuals were saying that they were created at Grateful Dead concerts back in the late 1960's and early 1970's -but not all of them though
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.
‘… 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.
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 you believe 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.
"The idea that humans lived before Adam was first put forth by a Roman Catholic named Isaich la Perere in a book titled Apologie de la Peyrere (Men before Adam) in 1655. He claimed that scientific data from Greenland and China proved humans lived as long ago as 50,000 B.C. This book was very influencial to Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic educated by the Jesuits, who is considered the father of textual criticism. Simon attacked protestant Christianity, saying, "The great changes that have taken palce in the manuscripts of the Bible since the first originals were lost completely destroy the principle of the protestants. If tradition joined not to scripture, there is hardly anything in religion that one can confidently affirm." - Boyd, specialist in biblical Hebrew, Semitic languages, and Old Testament studies. He has a BS and MS in Physics from Drexel University, a ThM in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a PhD in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.
The idea that the earth is older than the Bible tells us it is came into the modern era from the 18th century from Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old, and from Pièrre LaPlace, and from Jean Lamarck. The idea of millions of years came into being from secular geology through men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell. Their ideas were in defiance of scripture and based upon uniformitarian, false interpretations of the physical characteristics of the lithosphere of the earth.
What an incredible presentation and study. Thank you.
Dr. Boyd is a Christian creationist though, he's not Jewish, so of course he's going to come to that conclusion. Jewish scholars have a completely different interpretation of their ancient writings.
@@wrinkleneckbass If you stop trying to interpret the texts in a way as to say something they do not convey with a casual reading, you will see glaringly that the events in Genesis are expressed quite plainly.
You said,
"Jewish scholars have a completely different interpretation of their ancient writings."
That is not true. It is so not true that it is remarkable that anyone would dare say it. They do not. University Hebraists (experts on the Hebrew language) are in almost 100% agreement that the texts describe events just as we read them. By the way, virtually every scholar of Hebrew at a Jewish university is in agreement with Boyd and Bar! I have never even heard of a scholar of Hebrew that disagrees. If there are any, they must be countable on one hand. Do yourself a favor: try finding some. Not scholars who have studied Hebrew, but scholars OF Hebrew - the experts who's career is built on knowledge of ancient and present-day Hebrew. Give it a shot.
If you had read my post, you would have seen Dr. Barr and Dr. Boyd testify to that fact:
‘… 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.
@@legacybuilder9664You're welcome.
So what you're saying is that, up until we had scientific ways to measure the age of the earth, man was ignorant as to its true age? Sounds about right.
I guess the question I still have, as someone who can be back and forth between young and old earth, if we are looking at genesis one this way, how do we see chapter two, three and four? Creation story is intertwined with Adam and Eve story, and I can take this story allegorically, but then what do I with Adam and Cain and Seth being included in genealogy? And then what do I do with the genealogy where people live multi-century? Maybe all of Genesis is non-literal, what do you think? It’s hard to wrap my mind around it.
I'll go with actual science and carbon dating and other isotopes. I prefer the Lord of the Rings for my fantasy.
These seem like good (and honest) questions. But your problem is deeper than you think. Making all of Genesis non-literal isn't enough. You have to make the entire Bible non-literal, because Luke (see Luke 3:38), Paul (see Acts 17:26; Rom 5:12-14) and Jesus (Mt 19:4) also talk about Adam and Eve as if they are literal, and they build their teachings on this belief. Also, Jude argues from a statement of Enoch, who is "seventh from Adam" (Jude 14). Jude takes the geneology of Genesis literally.
The type of reasoning demonstrated in this video is never ending, because there is no shortage of scholars, no shortage of discoveries about ancient cultures, and no shortage of new scientific theories to displace the old ones. You have to take the whole Bible as true, or none of it. If you really want to know the truth, ask God to reveal it to you, and He will do it (please see Prov 2:3-7). But if you just want to be comfortable in this fallen world, then you have to dump the Bible and Christianity entirely.
I'll be praying for you tonight.
Credit deeper Christian
"In Genesis 5 there appears to be a seemingly unimportant genealogy of Adam. We realize this is significant as it relates to the line of Jesus (see Luke 3), but why take the time to mention all the details of each individual?
What is profound is when you begin to look at the meaning of each of the names.
Adam: man
Seth: appointed
Enosh: mortal, frail, or miserable
Kenan (Cainan): sorrow, dirge, elegy
Mahalalel: the Blessed God (coming from Mahalal: blessed or praise | El: name for God)
Jared: this is from the verb which means “shall come down”
Enoch: commencement or teaching
Methuselah: his death shall bring (coming from Meth: death | Shalach: to bring/send forth)
Lamech: despairing (root of this word is where we get our English word lament or lamentation)
Noah: comfort, rest (derived from nacham: to bring relief or comfort)
What may appear as an insignificant list of names becomes an incredible picture of the Gospel of Christ.
Man (is)
appointed
mortal
sorrow; (but)
the Blessed God
shall come down
teaching (that)
His death shall bring
the despairing
comfort, rest
When you read the meaning of the names (as it would have been understood to a Hebrew listing the genealogy) you see how God, even at the very beginning, weaved a picture of the coming Messiah even into the names/lineage of the first ten people through whom that coming Christ would be birthed through."
Almost the entire bible is non-literal and meant to be such. So yes all of Genesis is as well. They are stories, parables with morals. The entire message is to better ourselves in preparation for the after life. So our current life in insubstantial relatively speaking, and likely the reason why much of it rarely ever focuses on the physical real world beyond giving messages from God. The only times the bible _might_ be meant to be taken literally is when it gives more precise details. Such as giving the actual size dimensions of a building, etc. Does it give us precise details in how Adam and Eve was created? No. Does it give us precise details what Adam and Eve did from day to day? No. They are there for the messages and morals. And yes to provide allegory, some of which I suspect we no longer even get today. For instance like as was presented here in this video with the Genesis creation story.
@@robynlinquist7239so your faith is in science, which by history, everything in it will or has been proven wrong. carbon dating relies on c14:c12 isotopes being fixed at current levels as ONE assumption and even then only accurate to 30,000 years, as too low to measure beyond that due to short half life. They should really teach science history in school to give you an idea how wrong science has been. And no it does not improve, it revolutionizes with new ideas with new ideas the older generations try to suppress as they have staked careers supporting old ideas. Einstein took 25 years to get accepted for instance, as he overthrew Newton.
Excellent video !
But here IS an interesting question to contemplate..
Our primary “scientific “ means to dating fossils and organic material .. is through carbon 14 dating ( deterioration).., But , since we do Not know the percentage of carbon 14 at the time of the beginning of the universe…. Does that fact eliminate any legitimacy inherent in carbon 14 dating ??
I like the clear explanation of the thinking of the physical and material development versus the thinking - order from chaos. That does account for the actual age of the planet being so much older. But I don't think humans have done much to add more order to things in conjunction with God, we basically disrupt the natural order everywhere we go. But, we have created so much disruption now we keep trying to play catchup so we don't make it worse.
The older I get the more comfortable I am with "not knowing". I have my leanings but I don't understand the in-fighting over this stuff. Either God did it, or God didn't. If I agree that God started it and so does someone else that's the basis.
I definitely lean toward the points in this video while also holding room in my brain that if God wanted to create all this in 6 days He could.
I'm secure in God's way even if I don't know what it was ❤
How it happened has little bearing on how I love my God and my neighbor.
Things like evolution have an impact though as they are useful in understanding disease and agriculture so they have an impact on how I interact with my neighbor.
The 7th day Sabbath shows conclusively that God created everything in 6 days.
He commands us to keep it too from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
Not sure why it's irrelevant or not worth fighting over whether God did or didn't. The passage is clear. If the Bible says it happened in 6 literal days (which it does), but it actually happened over millions of years, then the Bible cannot be trusted. If it can't be trusted, then what is the basis for the salvation of any Christian? That's why it matters.
@@Justanotherconsumer
The reason it has bearing is because the Bible can be understood without scholarship and degrees and "science", or it can't. If not, then the scholars and scribes will inherit the Kingdom of God, not the rest of us. And if regular people can't understand the Bible, then they can't know how to love God or their neighbor either. It may seem obvious how to do that, but according to the Bible, it's anything but (e.g. Jer 17:9; Prov 14:12).
@@TimWismer Exactly true, Tim. God bless.
Great video, before I gave it a like though I had to look over my shoulder to make sure Ken Ham wasn’t there 🤣
😂😂😂 same
Are you willing to share what (specifically) you take issue with Ken Ham about? My family and I were graced to see and hear him last year at G3, and it was very biblical & edifying.
@@patrickc3419 I was raised on creationists from the generation before Ken Ham but they teach mostly the same thing. It was finding out for certain that Young Earth Creationism isn't true that is the reason I'm not a Christian anymore. I'll agree that what Ken Ham teaches is Biblical. I believe the Bible really does teach a young Earth and a global flood that wiped out all but 8 people about 4370 years ago. The problem is that it didn't happen. Do you still want to know specifics?
I’d be interested in hearing your specifics/story. What has made you “certain” and how did that discredit your Christian faith?
@timmatter1058
Thanks. That was a very interesting and enlightening discussion of Genesis.
What does the original Hebrew text reveal about Genesis 1-11? - Dr. Steve Boyd th-cam.com/video/3txmpHQJ520/w-d-xo.html
Good video and I appreciate any attempt to educate regular Christians about actual Bible scholarship. It's a bit weird that you overlook the ground-breaking work of great scholars like Herman Gunkel and John Day in favor of Kim and Walton, though.
I'm a Gen X'er and this young earth stuff came out of left field to me. I grew up in a conservative church but never heard anything like it until I was an adult. A group from my church organized a field trip for the kids to the Ark Encounter and I did some research, and found that it contained explicit anti-science propaganda. In addition, I found some of our homeschool textbooks would also try to discredit things like carbon dating and attempting to justify the young earth position. And of course there was the pandemic and all the anti-vaccine sentiment. I'm disturbed at how many in the church want to pit religion against science, far more likely to drive people away from the church than towards it. It's a trend that needs to be reversed.
From one Generation Xer to another, I wanted to ask you something, since you brought up the importance of science:
How many genders are there?
A false presupposition leads to a false conclusion.
Either the scriptures are true or they're fiction.
@@larrybedouin2921 Likewise, believing the scriptures actually say what you wish to impose upon them is a fool's game. Presupposing that a collection of writings created over a period of thousands of years will somehow meet the standards of a modern history and science text is a bad place to start.
Maybe instead of imposing your expectations of "correct" and "true" on them, how about letting God decide what truths He chooses to reveal to us and what truths he chose not to reveal because he gave us enough sense to eventually figure it out on or own, if he even thought some of the things we are so concerned about were even important enough to talk about.
@@michaelclark9762
You're a hypocrite.
I can understand why this disturbs you if the goal is to drive people into the church, rather than away from it. I would have to agree that insisting on the literalness of the Bible even when it disagree with science, does indeed drive most people away from church.
But the Bible says that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). The truth of the gospel is, by its nature, against the wisdom of this world (e.g. "science", "scholars", media, etc.). This video attempts to reconcile the Bible with secular science & scholarship. But according to the Bible the two cannot be reconciled (1 Cor 1:20-21). The Bible says that "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:20), and even that God has "hidden these things from the wise and intelligent" (Luke 10:21).
So the approach taken in this video may, in fact, reconcile the churches to the secular world. But if you take that approach, then the world is your Authority. On the other hand, if you reject the clear teaching of Scripture, then you have rejected the Authority of God in your life, and your "Christianity" is worthless.
The Creation Story in Genesis 1 reads like an account of the building of an ancient temple. It follows that format. And in the position, within that format, in which the image of an ancient deity would have been erected in the temple, we are made in the image of God. It tells of our purpose, which is to express the glory of God and thus, to promote worship. If we can take this understanding to heart, we can be motivated to do a better job of cherishing & protecting Creation. (It is God's temple, after all.) We can also see, more clearly, why human sin is so awful. (It's the exact opposite of our purpose, and it defiles the most sacred aspect of God's temple.) And we can sense, more clearly, the reason that God's values should be our own.
Yep! Well said! Skye talks about that very concept with Dr. John Walton in our "How To Read Genesis 1" series
@@HolyPost
I do not know if I am speaking to either Phil, or Skye, but can you share why you feel why a literal understanding of creation is not possible but the virgin birth and resurrection are?
Certainly 2 Timothy 3 says that all (ALL) scripture is breathed out by God, so I was curious as to how you decide what is allegorical and what is literal.
@@patrickc3419the writing of genesis and the gospels are completely different, so it makes sense to read them differently.
It's not a theological argument, but I've always wondered about the fact that the gospels (or books like Kings) document history and are often part of an eye witness testimony. During creation, no human was present! The story of creation was probably given to a human via vision. There was no human who was watching from day 1 through 6; the story was given to provide an understanding of God and creation that's true, as opposed to what the other ancient religions at the time were teaching.
@@pastorofmuppets8834
So Genesis, as the rest of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were physically written by Moses, from the inspiration/guidance of God.
@@patrickc3419 most likely, though as far as I'm aware I don't think we know for sure who wrote Genesis. Most would have been written down after years of verbal communication given that very few would have been literate back then.
Ok good, I'm SO GLAD Vischer went beyond the debate and into the actual message of the Bible itself. The title is a bit clickbaity then, but the video itself is worth a watch and maybe a save for future reference.
"And how can we have day and night on day one . . when there's no Sun until day four"?
Maybe God made some light on day one, as the Book says, to start a day count.
(Maybe, just maybe, an Entity that could make the Sun, could also make some photons ; )
He also didn’t create Adam and Eve as babies but as adults. God’s ability to create isn’t limited on time or point of development of His creation.
Adam and Eve were created as adults and so were the animals that God created. So why do we think the earth was created as if without mature development?
Where do you find support for that view? What verse?
@@albertmiller3082jus by going on what is done Adam mature,so is Eve and all else created,so its logical to assume the universe is created with a semblance of maturity
@@mlafi7 Maturity biologically follows directly on adolescence, which follows childhood, which follows infancy.
If you don’t apply scientific standards, you can believe “God” made people fully mature. You can believe pigs fly, too. You can believe in unicorns and fire breathing dragons too. You can believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus. Or Zeus, Neptune and Thor. Beliefs are all over the board.
There is no direct Biblical reference to the age or stage of life Adam and Lilith and Eve were conjured up out of thin air. You are simply trying to apply your 21st century sensibility to Iron Age hand-me-down stories, ten times translated.
My question to you is simple: What difference does it make either way? Whether born young, or as teenagers or as adults, what difference does it make to the story that’s told about the Fall?
@@albertmiller3082 God does not follow mans way of understanding thats why man still has no clue how life came about,we just hypothesis ,if we can believe people like Homer,Socrates,Herodotus, I see no reason to doubt few more Jewish old men on their account of this story ,specially if we have others outside the circle attesting to events in the same book
@@mlafi7 Homer, Socrates and Herodotus did not claim to suspend the basic laws of nature. Christians like you insist the story where a homeless illiterate from a Jewish tribe was unique among earthly people and could suspend the enduring laws of nature, of time and of space simply by wishing for something?
That claim of being “uniquely holy and divine” cannot be compared with a poet like Homer telling a story in verse about imaginary people like “Odysseus”.
If you believe “God doesn’t follow man’s way of understanding” then how the hell DO YOU claim to understand this unknowable “God” and then SPEAK for that “God” as if God needed your explanations in order for me to understand God.
You are God’s Translator? Because you read a book? Help me understand why that isn’t an extraordinarily silly claim?
How long did it take to fall?
How long does it take to realize that trying to date the works of a God, who is outside of time, is a fool's errand?
The christian bible basically says that to god time is irrelevant..... but we now know that history goes much further back than 6000 years.....
@@Donathon-qx8kq
The question isn't whether time is irrelevant to God, but whether He intends to communicate to us or not. God knows that time is not irrelevant to us, so if He makes it clear that morning and evening are defined by light and darkness and day and night and "the greater light" and "the lesser light", but in fact He created in millions/billions of years, then He is not trying to communicate to us, but rather deceive us.
This was exactly the position of not just Christian scholars but all of Christendom. Which is why it took 1650 years for anyone to try to add it up. The ancients would have scoffed at the notion.
I just subscribed. I love you Phil. My family and I really enjoy "What's in the Bible with Buck Denver." It was great material for helping to disciple young and old. On this matter I don't agree with every detail you presented but I do agree that the focus should be on the "Who?" and "Why?"
The "Who" question with regard to Genesis 1 must be answered by: "a deceiver", and the "Why" question answered by: "in order to deceive," if we are to accept the reasoning of this video. After all, Genesis 1 is incredibly clear about the days being literal.
You can't say that God wrote Genesis 1 "for" us in the modern times, and at the same time dismiss the fact that God defined the seven days in terms of "evening and morning", "light and dark," "day and night", all governed by a "greater" light during the day, and a "lesser light" at night. These are incredibly clear descriptions of literal 24-hour days.
If God went to such lengths to describe a literal 7 day Creation, when in fact it was done over a few billion years (since science says the earth is 4 billion years old last time I checked), then God is either deceiving us, or He tried to make the Bible accurate but failed to do so. If God's revelation is not trustworthy, then why bother studying it? In this case, how will you disciple young and old? We can only obey the command to make disciples of Jesus if the revelation concerning Jesus in the Scriptures is trustworthy.
Please pray this through and ask God to reveal to you the truth about His Word.
@@TimWismer Again, Phil is right that the questions should be who? and why? However, his answers to these questions are in error. You should probably spend your time figuring out how he should have answered these questions rather than coming up with what you probably think is a clever way of insulting him and perhaps me as well.
As far as your assertion that these were 24 hour days, there is no indication in the Bible that hours and minutes as we know them had been invented. Even in Daniel the word translated as hour could have easily been translated moment.
That being said, I happen to agree with you that the Bible describes literal days. And the truth is, there is no way of proving that they were not literal days or that the world is any older than about 6000 years. Phil actually admits this as well. The historical research mentioned at the beginning of the video is the best historical accounting of the age of the earth available other than the Bible itself. However, Phil’s rather elementary historical account of the geology and other sciences is very one sided. The whole truth is that there was always a great deal of oppositional science that disproved the early geological theories as well as subsequent theories. Ultimately, there is no way to test the millions/billions of years theories. Even if there was a scientific way to accurately measure the age of artifacts, rocks, or a planet (which there isn’t, and carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate) there would be no way to check the validity of such a measurement due to the fact that we have no historical records past the aforementioned 6000 years.
There have always been plenty of scientists who do not believe in the “old Earth” theories and they say there is no reason to assume millions and billions of years in order to continue doing good scientific research. Phil is also wrong in assuming that most christians had accepted the “old Earth” assumptions. Actually the vast majority of Christians did not even know that such an option was available as they did not read the scientific publications and were as skeptical of the news media as we are today. Most did not bother reading Scofield either.
While I personally believed for many years that either theory could fit with the Bible, as does Phil, now I no longer believe that. It does not make sense that a perfect God would create chaos. This is the assumption of “gap theory” as Phil describes it. Where Phil sees chaos, I see order. I see Darkness on one side of creation while the Spirit of God hovers on the other side. This gives us and our ancestors a sense of spiritual order. We should not use other sources to interpret meaning from the Bible. Instead we should use the Bible to interpret and determine the validity of the other sources.
As for Phil’s other work, I have indeed found both Veggie Tales and Buck Denver useful in teaching children and adults about God and the Bible. Sometimes the teaching includes pointing out the differences between his work and what the Bible says. I believe Phil is a Christian Brother and that while we disagree on the interpretation of this particular passage We can continue in Christian Fellowship one with another and hopefully help each other grow closer to our Heavenly Father. My word of warning to anyone watching this video as well as to those who made it is that we should rely on the Word of God and the Holy Spirit for the interpretation of the Bible and not fallible human sources.
Please pray for me and I will in return be praying for you as well. Thank you
@@TimWismer If we try to fit the literal view with science, we end up whacking our head into a lot of other fanciful stuff that is neither stated in bible nor via science.
I think the Genesis story is simply to tell us that God is above everything, he is eternal and just is. Phil talked about comparison with other peoples that surrounded the Israelites and these peoples had their own pantheons of gods with stories of them coming from the Heavens (Anunnaki) , or water gods (Apsu & Taimat) sun and moon gods (Shamosh & Sin) etc...
So equally the Genesis story tells us that the Hebrews "Elohim" (the first God like word to appear in the Hebrew Genesis scripts) was above them all too.
And the story ties in neatly with a 6 day working week and a rest day.
I've read a lot of these ancient texts and there are lots of parallels in their creation stories being split into 6 or 7 parts too. And the bible provides links to the Babylonians (The tower of Babel, Abraham coming for Ur, very similar flood story etc..).
Dude, I Love the Bradbury/butterfly reference.... Sound of Thunder??? Right????
Great video! Keep em coming!!
Michael Jones with Inspiring Philosophy is the one who first introduced me to John Walton and help provide a consistent and convincing way to look at Genesis. I can’t wait to see the interviews between John Walton and Skye.
What your pastor didn't tell you has many videos on Genesis with several scholars, including Walton. You might enjoy that.
I might be thinking of someone else, but doesn’t inspiring philosophy believe in a literal genesis account? And very apologetic?
@@Hanszimmerpianoguys He's a theistic evolutionist, but he does take the Bible very literally.
- Condemn the truth if you have the heart, but only after you have examined it. - Tertullian 197AD
Saganism (Billions of Years) Refuted
th-cam.com/play/PLcRrhA0JL0i5hHvyrvXN7eMnI7bK7oc5D.html
Carbon (Radiometric) Dating Refuted
th-cam.com/play/PLcRrhA0JL0i5oGuOvF4t-m9u6vDFE9dNS.html
Dinosaurs Explained
th-cam.com/play/PLcRrhA0JL0i708XddVAhqHQ7gZmz0I25j.html
Jones is absolutely off the mark when it comes to Genesis and eschatology.
I think we have more important things to worry about like the salvation of souls
1:00 in and you say there was no reason to miss trust the Bible as factual before archeology. This even though textual critics will tell you that there are ways to see references to other middle eastern and west Asian myth stories in the Torah.
This video needs to be retitled “How to not answer a question in
12 minutes “. Honestly man, 12 minutes!
It amazes me that in order to understand the bible, one has to constantly read between the lines. If God wants people to come to him, why make is so vague that it's open to so many different interpretations. That's why there are so many different Christian denominations in the world. This is what God wants?
There's a scripture that says it's for us to know the mysteries. A few others that say the fear of god is the beginning of knowledge and understanding. Jesus said he teaches thru parables on purpose to confuse those who would try to use his teachings for bad purposes. And lastly, except that God gives it to us, we wouldn't know (I paraphrased all this). I believe that God wants us to have a relationship with him and not just figuring it out on our own. Going to him has the benefit of us staying in constant communication (which is healthy in every natural relationship, i.e. wife/husband) and building trust and gaining wisdom from God. If we lean hard into translation/interpretations/denominations, we aren't seeking him, we're seeking the comfort that those things bring instead of the hard truth that God has for us.
@@RonaldHolliman God is all powerful and all knowing. Why would God worry about those who would try to use his teachings for bad purposes. Is it even possible to use the teachings of God for bad purposes? Isn't that impossible? Also, didn't God create those people who he fears would use his teachings for bad purposes. Wait, Does God fear? Maybe concerned would be a better word. But why would he even be concerned his teachings would be used for bad purposes. The result of not laying it out plainly is 40,000 plus Christian denominations worldwide. Doesn't that mean there are 39,999 plus denominations that will not make it to heaven? Did God do that on purpose? Anyway, I have two more question. First question. Out of the 40,000 plus denominations, which denomination has it right? Second question. Will God's chosen people make it to heaven even though they do not accept Jesus as the Masiah, son of God?
I’m not sure what you’re wishing God had done instead. Should he have taught calculus and astrophysics to Moses?
Do you really think this story could be written in a way that prevented guys from think too hard and making up weird theories surrounding it?
@iancampbell1316Heaven is closed, a 747 flew into the side of it.
im not understanding. So did God come across earth and heaven full of chaos? He first created chaos to bring order to it?
Material energy is eternal - ergo the Universe has ALWAYS existed. The Supreme Power/God's role is to reverse the law of entropy that causes the natural decline from new to old, order to chaos. He is the "point source of energy outside the Universe" that Einstein believes must exist to reverse the law of entropy and renew the world. It can only happen when the story of Time has completed eg. we reach the tipping point of chaos - then God acts. I'd say we are fast approaching that point.
No - Phil is saying that the Hebrew understanding of God was that He brought order out of chaos. He is explaining the cultural context behind why the text says what it says, not necessarily making any claims about what actuallt happened.
Also, that Cycle of Time is 5000 years, from new to chaos to new again - 5000 years.
Humans seem to me to have a tendency to believe things simply because they can imagine them. God mentions this many many times in the Book, but most people who read it don't seem to even notice . .
I believe in the genealogy calculation of 6,000 years from a week of creation and resting on the Sabbath. They were raw vegans and lived almost 1,000 years.
Very, very good! This realistic and foundational explanation makes complete sense. The problem is, of course, is that we interpret Scripture with our modern lens. This results in more problems than just Genesis!
What does the original Hebrew text reveal about Genesis 1-11? - Dr. Steve Boyd th-cam.com/video/3txmpHQJ520/w-d-xo.html
What happens to the meaning in the Bible if you start reading it all from a perspective of relationships?
Who knows where it could go. What does the original Hebrew text reveal about Genesis 1-11? - Dr. Steve Boyd th-cam.com/video/3txmpHQJ520/w-d-xo.html
It starts making a lot more sense, for one thing.
The Bible is primarily historical and focuses on relationships. Of course, those relationships and connections etc need to be - historically true.@@michaelclark9762
@@michaelclark9762 that's not what I was ever taught. Good to keep learning.
Awesome interpretation! I was following this path by myself for a while too!
I agree 💯 %
The bible say a bat is a bird and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, and the ant has no leader and a lion is strongest of all beasts, they forgot about the elephant.
It does not, unless one treats it literarily and tries to patch up the inconsequences by adding up the years in an origin story that were never meant to be added up.
Ugh. Thank you for this. Believing in an old earth and believing in an inerrant, infallable Bible are NOT mutually exclusive. The thing that frustrates me about those who defend a young earth -- which everyone just took for granted was true in the churches I grew up in -- is the assumption that if one believes in an old earth, then they *must* then believe in macroevolution of humans. Why is it not considered a possibility that the universe could be very old, but humans a more recent capstone addition? The typical response that I get from others is, "because death couldn't have existed before the fall of man". But is that actually true? Is it not possible for one to interpret passages such as Romans 5:12 and 6:23 to mean that death came to *humans* after the fall, and that other things within creation could have been experiencing death before then? Humans were NOT the first beings to commit sin. Otherwise, how would one explain the presence of the serpent in Genesis 3? Wasn't he already committing sin by trying to deceive Eve into questioning what God had told her?
I do not know a single Christian who does not believe in micro evolution. It absolutely is factual (i.e. there were not, aboard Noah’s Ark, two wolves, two coyotes, two dingoes, two foxes, two dogs. There were simply two wolves, or wolf-like animals).
A Christian certainly can not believe in macro evolution; the unbiblical belief that species become other species, in fact, all species, and I would call any self professed Christian who claims otherwise to repent and believe the Gospel. Theology matters.
The Bible can be infallible, our interpretation of it is very, very fallible.
The churches of traditional Christianity never consider that possibility because they generally overlook all of the passages that reveal that (1) Lucifer and the angels that were put under his command were here first and (2) the rebel angels launched their rebellion from this planet. Traditional Christianity's understanding of Gen. 1 is based on the false premise that this is God's world, and it never has been. Christ said so Himself before His arrest in John.
Very well put
Repent, and learn what the truth of the Bible actually is.
Thank you so much! this is such a better story!
This fake christian has no idea what he is talking about. Repent!
I love how Phil Vischer's works in VeggieTales ministered to me as a kid, and now these videos are ministering to me as an adult and are super healing for a lot of the fundamentalist upbringing I had. Phil truly knows how to minister to Gen Z lol
Undermining the trustworthiness of the Scriptures is not a "ministry" to believers. Beware, because many of Satan's "ministers" masquerade as "ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor 11:14-15, NKJV).
It's just about making money instead of teaching truth
Interesting to bring up Paul's letters to Timothy, because the scholarly consensus (I'm borrowing heavily from Dan McClellan here! Sorry!), is that those letters weren't written by Paul. I'm not trying to attack Phil here at all (in fact, I think quite well of him!). But I do want to point to something that's frustrated me, and that is that Evangelical scholarship of the Bible only goes so far.
There's a whole deep ocean of Biblical scholarship that the Evangelical community seems to avoid. I have pondered a lot as to why that is. Are they afraid of what it might reveal? Does it challenge Evangelical dogma? Please understand, I was deep in the Evangelical world most of my life. I know that world well.
While there are scholars who don't think Paul wrote the letters to Timothy, there certainly isn't scholarly consensus on that. 19th century German literary critics were the first to doubt Pauline authorship. It's been a while since I've looked at this in more depth, but a weighty argument for me was that the early church fathers wouldn't have accepted them if there had been doubt that they were genuinely written by Paul.
@@user-rm6rj2nx7h As far as I can tell, most scholars currently dispute Pauline authorship for the pastoral epistles. Of course, this doesn't mean that it's an irrefutable fact that they're forgeries, but most people who study this seem to think that they are.
@@pnwmeditations Looks like that's a fair assessment of the current scholarly landscape. It seems to be mostly based on textual evidence (Paul couldn't have written in this particular way). When I studied this (about 20 years ago admittedly) the other argument I found compelling was that the way we speak or write often changes significantly depending on who we're addressing. You'd expect a letter sent to a whole church or group of churches to look quite different from something written to a close friend struggling to lead a church.
@@user-rm6rj2nx7h "...a weighty argument for me was that the early church fathers wouldn't have accepted them if there had been doubt that they were genuinely written by Paul."
You're placing your own expectations for what should and should not be accepted as valid based on your experience as a 21st century Westerner upon those who lived 1800-1900 years ago in a non-Western culture. For them, it didn't matter if Paul personally penned them or not. Did they emerge from the Pauline community? Were they edifying for the church? Did they contain useful truth for the church? Did God inspire them?
@@user-rm6rj2nx7h Even when writing different types of correspondence to different audiences, people tend to use the same vocabulary and syntax. It's not the content contained in the communication, it's the structure upon which that content is hung that can point to different authorship.
A great video!
Except the first part where you say people argue about a lot. In order to argue, one must provide evidence, and when one can not provide evidence of God or the bible saying the age of the Earth ... that is not really a debate. Argument? Perhaps but not really a debate. For instance one can claim it took God 7 days to create as per Genesis. Except do we know how a spiritual supreme being that is everywhere and in everything would measure time, or how long their 'day' would even consist of. What would those seven days actually be or consist of, or if they are as per our time reference or the spiritual God time reference. One can not say or answer at all, so it is a pointless argument to even attempt to guess.
Title Q.
No, more like 7500 or 7200 years old, depending on a LXX Genesis 11 with or without the Second Cainan, and depending on other interpretation choices after the Exodus, like it was either 1693 or 1510 BC, between Syncellus and Historia Scholastica, reprised in the Roman Martyrology for Christmas day.
The Bible does claim a 6,000 year old (or thereabouts) Earth. Luke 3:23-38 traces every single generation, name by name, from Adam down to Jesus. No gaps.
How do you know that
That would mean a 6,000 year existence of humans, not the earth. You're using apples to count oranges.
6000 yrs of the line of Israel, not all mankind
So . . . either we are interpreting it wrong or Luke was making stuff up . . . hummmm.
That still doesn't prove there was only 6 literal days before the birth of Adam. Yom is the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis. But Yom also means "Era" or also "Unspecified length of time". Not to mention there's an unspecified time period during the development of the cities of Cain. 6,000 year old earth is not only unbiblical, but unscientific and unchristian.
Thanks Phil
So was young earth only 1500 and on? What did the church believe before that?
In Christianity and proto-Christianity before about 1850, almost everybody accepted the Biblical creation story as an historical fact. The myth still permeates much of Christianity still today. For example, the justification for Jesus dying on the cross is to forgive mankind for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, a couple that never existed.
@@4305051 Religion and ignorance do tend to coexist together, which is EASILY proven. Just ask my dog, for even HE knows.
Genetics suggest that all humanity came from the one female. Genetic entropy suggests that this one female was fairly recent and in keeping with the straight forward interpretation of Genesis as an historical account.@@4305051
The early church fathers were almost all believers is Genesis being an historical account and a recent creation. Dr Ken Johnson explores the beliefs of the early church fathers.
@@4305051 except.....science. Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. Science just refuses to believe they existed at same time and were in Africa. btw, end of the world, end of 6th day, around 2030 when global government and global currency was predicted, that can't happen right?
- well I'm not barking up the wrong tree like the other cats -as someone once said
What you said is true. But you missed most of it. Ge 1 is a Hebrew thought rhyme. While english poets rhyme words at the ends of phrases, ancient Hebrews rhymed thoughts. Each day is a stanza in the poem. What God formed on day n, he filled on day n + 3. Now read again. Next you missed the repetition of phrases in each stanza. At the end of each day is the phrase, "And there was evening and morning, day N". We read that phrase at the end of days 1 thru 6. But the phrase does not exist for day 7. Why? Because day 7 is still occurring. Day 7 continues to this moment, for even "now you can enter God's seventh day rest". Heb 7:4. (Therefore a Genesis day is not a 24 hour period.)
You also missed the Hebrew language nuance that only days 1 and 6 are "first" and "sixth". The other days are "a day 2", "a day 3", etc. In other words, the days 2 thru 6 are not in chronological order. Now order the days as the rhyme goes: 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6. A scientist would even agree that order is indeed the cosmological and evolutionary record.
You also missed that Ussher wrongly assumed that the generations in Bible genealogies are back to back. The genealogies are not back to back. Ancient Hebrews telescoped genealogies. They deliberately omitted unimportant generations. For example, Jesus son of David. You will find that the genealogies have multiples of 4, 7 or 10 generations. 4, 7 and 10 is a literary device meaning "fullness". Ussher was ignorant of this.
Ussher did not study Hebrew or ancient Hebrew literature.
Thank you. Instead of a battle between religion and science, this view puts the emphasis back on the relationship between God and humanity, which is the ultimate story of all of Scripture.
I've heard this line of argumentation articulated several times recently, and admittedly it has a sort of self-authenticating appeal. I do feel though that we need to pause first and examine all of the presuppositions presented here - and the list is large - lest we fall into the trap of reading scripture exclusively through the lens of 21st century theologians from California or Illinois. There are other legitimate conservative views that deserve thorough consideration.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the author was also explaining to ancients who thought one god created one aspect of the world - one diety created the sun, another created the sea, yet another created man, etc. - that it was the other way around: one God created everything.
Gap Theory: When you don't have a clue, fill in the gap from your imagination, which has no bounds.
Adam was certainty not 1st man. Scripture means what it says & says what it means. So when Jesus said from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female’.. Gen1:1 Mk10:6 Matt19:4 Mk13:19 Heb1:10
This act which Jesus referred was:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male & female created he them & God blessed them’, & God said to them, “Be fruitful, & multiply, & Replenish the EARTH, & subdue it: & have dominion over the fish of the sea, & over the fowl of the air, & over every living thing that moves upon the EARTH & God said, Behold, I have given you
EVERY. ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive )
herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, &
EVERY tree, ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive)
In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR F O O D.” Gen1:27-29
But when God made Adam & placed him in GARDEN God was very specific ;
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil, thou shalt NOT EAT of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. & the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him... Gen2:16-19
Adam was specifically told v2:17 NOT eat of Tree knowledge of good & evil.
Gen1 & Gen2 are separate accounts. Time betwixt these 2events remains unspecified.. A GREAT error comes when one equates Gen1&Gen2 for they are very different events
Jesus was clear, For He did not say from time of Garden He made Adam & Eve. But rather Jesus said:
from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the "beginning" made them male & female
Not Adam & Eve, not from dust, not from the time of garden. Jesus meant what was said & said what he meant, Adam, Eve,& garden were not in the creation... scripture means what is said and says what it means,, Eden was not earth nor was earth watered by a mist NOT as garden Eden that was watered by a river.
Man in Gen1 was made From nothing Ex-Nehlio... Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Yet Adam in Gen2 was formed from dust of ground & Eve was formed from Adam's rib... thus Adam & Eve of Gen2 are not made Ex-nehlio, from nothing, as were the man & woman in the beginning. Man & Woman of Gen1 were given dominion over all earth that was watered by a mist neither did Gen1 have dietary restriction as given Adam & Eve in a garden watered by rivers. Gen1 & Gen2 are completely different events, scripture does not err.
Jesus drew a line into the sands of time at Luke 16:16 The law & the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, & every man presseth into it.
There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John. "Behold the Lamb slain from foundation of this world." When was this present sinful world founded? but in the day of ADAM'S sin. For then Adam&Eve were clothed in skin of slain lamb & a redeemer promised. there remain 3k years from Jesus death.. John 2:19 Jesus answered & said unto them, Destroy this temple, & in three days I will raise it up. The final event is specified. Rev21:22-23 & I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty & the Lamb are the temple of it. & the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, & the Lamb is the light thereof.
Time between Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified but finite. To equate Gen1&Gen2 as same events leads to great confusion There are many many facts to prove earth age is in excess of 6000Y BP, wiki article "earth age" refutes young earth cult like psudoscience... and wiki cites just the most blatant proofs, there are others.
Yes - that is the reason !!!! I would love to know who slept with the NEANDERTHALS!!!! Lol 😂 😂😂😂 a guess he is going to say that one of them was a Neanderthal!!
So you're saying "God of the Gap" should be used when you do not have a sufficient answer about creation.
Do you actually believe that crap???@@otisarmyalso
@@otisarmyalso Genesis 2 revolves around the creation of Man (Adam means Man) while Genesis 1 focuses on a general overview of all creation. If Adam is NOT the first man, then there must have been others. Which means that Adam's sin in the garden must have cursed others who had no sin. But God has said that sin is passed down through the fathers. Without Adam as being the start of all human kind, and Eve being formed as outlined in scripture, salvation through Christ is either worthless, or unnecessary. "Through one man all sinned" so also "through one man will will be saved". Christ is described as the second Adam for precisely this reason: He is the solution to Adam's original sin. We have scripture given to us by God, which is sufficient. Anything else is based on guesswork and so not scriptural, especially regarding origins.
thanks for clearing that up 😁
@9:59, I disagree because it's human nature to question "When". They're human just like we are and it's one of, if not the biggest question people still have thousands of years later..."who, what, where, WHEN? and why". When something significant happens, the biggest question is almost always "When"? Hence why do many people want to know When this all happened...
The dates he was doing was adding up the age of the people mentioned in the bible and that's how he got his date...
There's a lot more too it than that, though, because there are biblical periods (like the Judges) that don't provide specific time spans, and you also have to anchor the chronology to externally verified events. Typically, you would start with the destruction of Jerusalem and work backward. (But I don't think that date was known in Ussher's time.)
Didn't even answer the click bait title question
He did, but it's more complicated than yes or no.
@@AresAlpha No its not is it complicated if they say is AresAlpha INSERT YOUR NAMETHERE older than 25? it is either a yes or no
Is my dog 8 years old? yes / Is he older than seven? yes / Is my dog less than ten years old? yes /Is my dog 9? no
Amazing how reality works compared to mental gymnastics
@@cravenlestat7006 Fine. About 10:50 is where he answers yes/no.
@@cravenlestat7006wow, confining God to a yes or no of what we as humans understand as the age of the earth or length of a day… the thing I hate the most about YEC isn’t the idea of it. Its the fact that we have to limit God to what we as humans think a day is.
I appreciate this explanation. The creation of the earth is complicated and hard to figure out. I, also, have always believed that Genesis wasn't trying to tell us how God did it. He was trying to tell us that He did it.
Did YT really turn auto play back on today? AGAIN?
I didn't click on this video.
Edit: turns out the algorithmSPY knows what I like and I stayed to watch the video.
Question:- is the earth just the planet or is it the planet that supports life as we know it. My understanding is earth is the planet that supports life. If it cannot support life it is not earth. Has this planet always been earth?
Strange comment.
Interesting comment.
Beautifully said - thank you! Learning to ask the right questions is so important!
Some days including myself place creation at around 5551 BC. Or 7575 years ago. This calculation is based on the Samaritan Pentatuch and Greek Septuagint dates in Genesis 5 and 11. Yes these are literal genealogies.
For any Christian that believes in Millions or Billions of years, when did the fall happen, and when did death enter the picture. If there were millions of years prior to the fall, then there would have been death before the fall, unless the animals all lived to be millions of years old.
A 6 day creation is the most logical, and most accurate translation of Genesis.
So when the New Testament refers to Jesus as the 'Son of David' it is perfectly clear that there are absolutely, positively, without a doubt, zero gaps in the generations listed between King David and Jesus? How about when it calls Jesus the 'Son of Man'? No generations skipped between Adam (The Hebrew word for "Man") and Jesus? Is that about right?
Calling Jesus the “son of David” simply means that he is a descendant of David. It then lists the genealogy proving that ancestry. There are three names technically missing from that, but for a specific reason, Joram married a pagan woman and the prophet said that no one from that household would sit on the throne until the 4th generation, skipping those three. Fulfilling prophecy.
“Son of Man” is even simpler. The term is used often in scripture. It simply means a human.
What "order" are you referencing here?
It's just incoherent nonsense attempting to support other incoherent nonsense... you know, apologetics?
@@leftsmith280 Well said.
Order is the opposite of chaos. Israel understood that God brought order to the world, so they could trust Him. Again think like an ancient, not a modern. All the other cultures around them had similar stories of a god bringing order to the chaos. I recommend you checking out the free podcast and videos of the Bible project related to this topic.
@@mjmallek I recommend you check out historic texts and see that everyone in the ancient past clearly accepted a material creation based on various deities. Try thinking like an ancient person using superstitions to explain the natural world...then imagine how you might try to explain reality.
@@mjmallek Thank you for your thoughtful response. It's refreshing to read a response devoid of religious bombast. Though I do not hold to Christian or other monotheistic reglion's dogmas, I weclome your invitation to further explore the subject. THank you and be well.
Please, everyone... Don't lose sight of the purpose of this video. It is not as much about convincing you of his point of view, but rather to make it clear that young earth probably isnt true (and that most Christians in history have not believed in it), and MOST OF ALL, stop putting so much emphasis on it and fighting over it.
That may be his point, but the reason people put emphasis on it is this: If you undermine the Creation account as a literal event, with literal days, then you have undermined the credibility of the whole of Scripture. At that point, why read it at all? Which is exactly the point. As Satan said in Genesis 3:1, "Has God truly said . . .?"
@@TimWismer if I interrupt Genesis 1 as poetry and not literal, why does that undermine the rest of scripture? The point of the scriptures is to reveal who God is and reveal his character. A non literal creation story does that and sets the tone for the rest of Scripture. The God of the universe reveals himself through the scriptures, but that does not mean that the creation story in Genesis one is literal, God may have inspired the authors to write it as poetry like they did to reveal His plan for all creation. God never owed any of us an explanation as to how he made all things. Genesis 1 simply establishes Yahweh and the one true king over all creation. Just like when Jesus came, he was established as the Christ/Messiah/King over all creation. The firstborn of all creation. None of that requires Genesis 1 to be literal.
This whole hubbub seems to tap dance around calling a spade a spade - that is, that Genesis (and much of the Bible) is specifically NOT literal. Take the Flood story for instance. It's FILLED with hyperbole that most likely would have been recognized by its ancient audience as a figurative description of an event in order to produce an effect and make a theological point, and NOT an example of ancient journalism or accurate science.
Yes, the Bible is very literal. It actually is the Word of Yahuah. If you don't understand it, it is about you, not the truthfulness of Him.
@@jannaswanson271As soon as you claim that you show your religion to be false.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu No, it does not. There are many things that men claim that are false. The Scriptures help us see those lies. It is the plumb line of the world.
@@jannaswanson271 The Bible is full of probably false stories from a mythical creation story to Gospels which are not eyewitness accounts. It's also a book of questionable morality from exhortations to kill women and children, the subjugation of women, a failure to condemn slavery and oppression of gay people.
There's nothing hyperbolic about the Flood when God told Noah that He was going to put an end to _all_ flesh. God says what He means and means what He says. If God simply wanted to make a theological point, He wouldn't have had Noah spending 100 yrs of his life building an ark that was capable of surviving flood waters for over a month.
Love it! Thanks, Holy Post!
How do i "interpret" John 3.16?
Genesis 1:6-7 (NRSVUE) - "And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so."
Genesis 1:14-17 - "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth."
Hmmm... God created a dome in the sky, took water from the earth and placed it above the dome, then created the sun, the moon, and the stars and placed them in the dome.
Is that literal, scientific, metaphorical, mythological, or what?
And in regard to discussing science, there isn't any dome above the earth - thus, any Christian who would take a Bible verse (like these) and claim that the idea that there is a dome above the earth (and that the sun, the moon, and the stars are in the dome) is "scientific" because "God said so" would literally be demonstrating the nonsensical nature of the rhetoric of religion-based pseudoscience, in so many ways, in a nutshell.
Crazy to point out Issac Newton but not his scientific conclusion: which was that he could prove 6000 year old earth by his calculations.
It doesn't matter what any human claims they can or cannot prove. The only thing that matters is that the Bible is the only truth the world has. And the Bible clearly tells us that the earth that God made is a flat stationary plane that is only a few thousands of years old.
This the religion of the Bible. Anything that deviates from this, is the false manmade religion of the Godless world. Everyone either has their faith in the Bible or their faith in the men of the world. There is no proof of either, as both religions are 100% based on faith, and not on proof.
Still wrong. Newton believed some batshit crazy nonsense.
Yes! Thank you Phil. This is very well done.
Trouble is, the earth has been destroyed by disaster many times in the past.
This is a beautiful presentation of the creation story.
LOL.
Thanks for this. My sole complaint: no mention of Michael S. Heiser.
The legend.
100% agree!
Does the Bible say the earth is sferical? If you "dont know" what push is the first images of that..
This guy is more intelligent than fundamentalists, he realises that the Earth is much older than just 6000 years. (He mentions that people realised this by the end of the 18th century.) Since he does not want to admit that the Bible is not inerrant, he has to reinterpret Genesis 1. And actually what he says about how the ancient Israelites interpreted the creation story makes sense. He is also right that the creation starts from chaos. Interestingly, fundamentalists, who hold on to a literal interpretation of a six-day creation never address the point, that according to Gen 1:6 God created a solid firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. Has any fundamentalist seen a solid firmament above the Earth, or waters above the "firmament"? They are cherrypicking, holding on tenaciously to those details that they have cherrypicked, while ignoring the details that they cannot explain away.
Kind of feel like this could also be called “How to talk around truth, so you can still fit in with your secular friends.”
COMPROMISE...😢
So the world is fixed, immovable, flat... as the Bible teaches.
Right.
No compromise pls.
Oh... lets not forget windows in the (firm) firmament for flood rains to tumble down.
Got it.
No compromise... indeed
@@daveoseas Nowhere does the Bible say that its flat. It is very clear however that the earth does not move
@veler6049 Google, pls, does the Bible teach a flat earth... plenty of verses show authors believed in a flat, fixed, immovable earth.
R u saying you believe that planet earth doesn't move? If so, Sir Isaac Newton believed likewise... I think.
@@daveoseas the earth is 6000 years old
th-cam.com/video/Xq6kUbLzYCc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=eYK1Ir_OyyJ5cf13
OT scholar here: I strongly disagree with Walton.
In fact, Walton should disagree with Walton.
His assumptions about the ANE writings are... questionable, but the way he uses those to reinterpret Genesis 1:1-2 is methodologically unsound. According to his own methodology (which I read and applied in my own Ph.D. where I compare ANE writings to early Genesis).
You cannot simply assume that the ancients (Babylonian or Hebrew) had no concept for "nothing", that is a baseless, and dare I say, arrogant, assumption.
Also, the real theological question isn't how old the earth is, the real question is about pain, death, suffering, including murder and cannibalism among early humans, took place before sin entered the world. Most strikingly, I simply see no way around Romans 8:22 (read in context).
Exactly. The issue is of the bible's claim about death not the age of the planet or universe. But if death is as old as the world and not the result of sin, then well... what is the point of christ's sacrifice?
I don’t question your expertise in the OT but I do question your grasp of Walton’s arguments. Because what you’ve said is at best a straw-man of his position but really it just doesn’t sound like his position at all.
@@The116thDoctor it forms the whole basis for why "bara" can never mean "create out of nothing".
All his other musings are circumstantial and based on inference, but this is his only actual argument.
are you speaking about the death of mankind or also of plants, animals, insects, etc.? There is a difference.@@glenn_r_frank_author
One doesn’t need to assume the ancients had no concept of nothingness to believe Walton is right. Only that the ancients saw existence and creation as pertaining just as much or even more to assigning of function than material creation.
Just because other religions had certain beliefs it does not mean the scriptures are answering their questions,
The text speaks quite clearly on its own
Al these philosophies are trying to get along with evolution
"order out of chaos"? 10:15 "void" is not "chaos".