The absolute best quote I heard about this and it was recently on a podcast, and can’t remember which (it might have been this one?) about people who resist God and church, because so many Christian’s are hypocrites is: if there’s a pianist who plays a Beethoven song, and they do it terribly. They add things, take things away, would you get mad at the pianist, or Beethoven? You’d get mad at the pianist! Why would someone get mad at Beethoven for someone else playing his music poorly?
I highly recommend watching “Is Genesis History”. They use observable science and the Bible to argue that the earth is around 6,000 yrs. They tackle many theories. It’s a great watch
creationism is stupid and it's time people stopped trying to squeeze god into science. check out the diver trials lectures, this is the dumbest of the dumb, the only upside is it is so dumb that it makes more atheists than i ever could, lies and deceit are not a good look for god eh?
I love the fact that you're addressing Christian apologetics Allie, it's such an important issue, if we don't have reasons for believing, then why believe?
yes without apologetics there would be lots of people thinking god might be immoral, i mean he kills a lot of people over trivia - if it weren't for apologists lying their backsides off and covering up god's psychopathy then more people would wonder, is religion a good thing? or just an excuse to bully people you don't care for?
Yep. This annoyed me. Get the facts right even if you don't agree w Ken hams stance. They are very clear on the earth being around 6700 years old and they explain why
I am not sure he wants to legitimize Ken Ham’s stance.Ken’s theory makes very little sense, the creation museum is a building of pure confusion and twisting of science and twists Bible. He thinks Dinosaurs were on the Ark. It’s embarrassing.
I definitely lean more towards young earth, but it also says in the Bible that to God 1000 years is like a day and a day is like 1000 years. I do also think God can do more than we think and He could have chosen to reveal the beginning of the earth to the author of Genesis in a day time frame to make it more understandable. This is definitely not a salvation question, though, and that's what's important.
So, are you saying that 1000 years is a day is arguing that the earth is really just 6 days old? I think that the writer's real point is that God lives outside of time.
@@roblangsdorf8758 lol, how long has that silliness been going on? the earth is billions of years old, science has confirmed it, if it doesn't fit with the bible it's because the bible is tripe and has nothing to do with science anyway, and really because gods are myth and you're all mistaken. like you would say all hindus and muslims are mistaken.
The problem with this perspective is that day and night was the first thing God created, meaning every part of creation happened after the establishment of the 24-hour earth day.
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:11 How can this mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day as it is used in this context? Interpret the Bible with the Bible!
@@HarryNicNicholas I'm sorry for you, dear man, made in the Imago Dei. If only you could grasp all the Love that could be yours. . .It will be a sad day when you meet the Storyteller.
Sean is awesome! I actually read one of his father's books around the same time I started watching his TH-cam channel and didn't make the name connection for like a year😂🤦♀️ I've learned a lot from Sean and hope to learn even more. I loved the questions Allie asked and the conversations throughout! THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF YALL. We need more apologetics teachings in our churches and Christian communities. The way you respond as a Christian could be the difference between eternal life and death for a favored child of God - so we all need to be prepared for the time God trusts you enough to act as an extension of His love, peace, compassion, grace, etc with the purpose of saving someone
why? i've always been atheist and i never needed an apologist to bolster my knowledge that gods are myth and jesus is dead and staying dead. isn't god a personal friend of everyone? why do you need sean to lie about god's immorality, can't you make up excuses for yourself, or ask god directly? what's this "personal relationship" if it's not personal?
Genesis ? Look to Exodus. Exodus 20:11 is a legal command from God. Six days is the legal justification for the Sabbath law which all the Hebrews (even today) clearly understood as six literal days and followed. Six days which if not true would legally invalidate the Sabbath law.
Coelacanth fossils are said to be 65 million years old. The fish was said for centuries to be extinct and was claimed by evolutionists for almost a century to be an intermediary species - who ceased to exist because it’s offspring grew legs, turned into a lizard and walked on land… then we found it in the Cape of South Africa in the 1920s - alive and well, and physically identical to its “65 million year old” fossil relative. That’s just one of today’s living fossils for whom “evolution paused.” Carbon dating is also just horribly inaccurate. It assumes a constant rate of decay, which cannot happen on the earth. Things like volcanic activity and solar radiation can speed up decay so much l, and so non-uniformly that it can make 1 part of an animal date to 10s of millions of years old and another part to thousands of years old. The only reason scientists NEED the earth to be old - and therefore are happy to interpret data and run tests in whatever way gives them the most time is because they NEED that much time to accumulate enough random beneficial mutations to give us the healthy, diversity of life we have today. So they ask the science leading questions, always pushing the date out further. But no matter how many times you throw millions of letters up in the air, those letter will never land in the order of a book - let alone millions of very different books in very different genres. But as it is, I care a lot less about the age of the earth than I do about the Genesis 6 explanation for the fossil record vs the secular explanation for the fossil record. If an animal dies on land, the idea that it will just be left alone by scavengers and bacteria for millions of years as layers of sediment slowly bury it, eventually pressurizing it enough to create fossils where bones once were is a completely unscientific fairy tale. The idea this slow burial can happen to flowers, bees in flight, and delicate sea anemones is even less scientific. When people say they want to keep the “science” - it’s the same brand of “science” they latch on to for gender identity, abortion rights, masks for toddlers, and 72 vaccines before legal adulthood… aka, not pure science as a process - but science as an ideology. It becomes a situation of trying to serve 2 masters. Those that want to serve “The Science™️” cannot serve the One True God.
Read your whole thing. I agree..i watch a lot about this stuff and have always been curious. When I was younger I remember asking my dad (who had become a Christian as a young adult) lots of questions. He is very science minded and had lots of the same questions I had..he was always okay with me asking and liked to explain different theories. When I read your comment, I thought, "I like you!" haha
there is no god mate. sorry but you're not very bright. science always wins and always has won, name ONE event that was shown to be supernatural and i'll show you a dozen supernatural events turned out to be natural. to preserve MY free will your god doesn't allow ANY kind of evidence of his existence, to say there is is really the dumbest thing a religist can come up with, you're defying god.
I saw a 'short' where a young discussed with his 'scientific self' and 'Christian self' about the age of the earth. The interesting thing he said at the end (as his Christion self) was 'why couldn't God have created the universe already old?'. I thought that was a pretty interesting philosophical concept. I'm agnostic btw.
Yes I have thought this sometimes, couldn't God create an Earth already in progress? Or, if God did something like make a mountain, would it necessarily look any different than a mountain created by erosion? I wouldn't press the argument too much though, because it could become an easy cop-out.
4:19 _"It's not even _*_trying to_*_ give us a specific scientific account"_ It is definitely trying to give us a _historic_ account, though. Young Earth is about as much about Genesis 5 and 11 as it is about days of Genesis 1. If you add up ages at birth of relevant son in those chapters, Abraham was born between 1600 and over 3000, but not over 3500, years after Adam was created. Abraham visited Egypt.
@@ramigilneas9274 Nothing in historical accounts contradict what _we Catholics_ know about how reality works. It may very well contradict what _you_ think is how reality works.
@@hglundahl Well… it certainly contradicts what we can objectively DEMONSTRATE about how reality works. But it’s irrelevant if in your subjective opinion it doesn’t contradict what you BELIEVE about how reality works.
If you weaken God’s account of creation we also weaken gender, marriage, sabbath etc. We must take God at HIS word! Why is it so hard to believe God’s power to do as He said He did! We are not smarter than God!
I've really enjoyed listening to Sean on a number of podcasts, but I do have to take exception with the way he framed the old Earth/young Earth argument. He said there are a lot of really smart Young earthers, and there are really smart scientist in biblical scholars who make a case for an old Earth. This shows that he has not really studied the debate very carefully. There are a lot of very smart scientist with PhDs in astrophysics, geology, biology and the other scientific disciplines, who do research in the field, who make a case for a young Earth, people such as Dr Jason Lyle, Dr Georgia Purdom, Dr Russ Humphries, Dr Andrew Snelling, Dr Steve Austin, and many others who fall into the young earth camp. None of these people claim that it's a requirement to believe in a young Earth to be saved.
Deuteronomy 29:29 These three scriptures 2 Corinthians 10:5-5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. Proverbs 3:5-6-5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. I’m just using these scriptures for short conversation and remember , study to show thy self approved.
I’m really happy to see Christians acknowledging that you don’t have to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old to be a real Christian who honors God’s Word. I hate hearing atheist scientists referring to all Christians as “idiots.” You don’t have to be an idiot to be a Christian and have a correct view of God’s Word. Ken Ham said to me that I was undermining the authority of God’s Word, blaspheming the character of God, and undermining the Gospel. Saying that God would create an earth that looks old but is really young makes God a liar like “Allah”. A man at our church ( who happens to be a PhD) gave me the best compliment I had ever received. He said, you clearly explain the Gospel.
For me, the biggest obstacle to some views regarding creation is the omisiion of what the Bible says about death. According to the bible death was not part of the world of creation before Adam's sin and death entered because of sin. So how could there be a world of dinosaurs and rampant death everywhere before Adam?
Yes, it does: The earth is 6027-years old (from 4004 BC to present) -- the bible precisely timelines the age of the earth. I go by the holy Word of God.
I am in the young earth camp and currently do not know any old earth Christians that have at least done some homework on the topic to land where they have. Those Christians who land in the billions of years old camp, how do you guys understand dating and/or history before the fall of man when sin entered the world? Do you believe there was death, decay, breaking down of elements, etc... prior to the curse? What did "aging" look like prior to the Fall or was there "aging"? Like, did things just grow to maturity then level out. Just trying to figure out how the billions of years old earth viewpoint fits together.
check out the dover trials lectures, you're clearly ignorant of why you have creationism in the first place, it has nothing to do with the bible, it was a ruse to get more god taught in class, and it failed, it was proven false in court.
god kills everyone in a flood cos they are sinners, right, but he doesn;t kill adam and eve, he could have started over at that point and made sure the apple was protected rather than waiting till the planet is full of sin, kills everyone then, and bingo we still have sin. god is the dumbest person on the planet, ANYONE will put a fence around a tree they want protected. if god is real he's as dumb as a snail.
So, in a nutshell, my 1st was born vaginally after an induction. It was beautiful in so many ways, but I was left feeling much like you with your c-sections. My 2nd was birthed more naturally. I labored at home & delivered at the hospital 2 hrs after arrival. I ended up deciding on getting an epidural and that was a regret for me. I regretted not having a doula to enjoy my laboring at home more & having the support to be strong enough to deny the epidural. For me, the birthing process is so empowering & beautiful. I wish I had videos & pictures while I was laboring. But my point of all this is to show an example of how I had two vaginal births and still felt like I was sort of missing out on something. My sister chose 2 C-sections. Loved the experience and has 0 regret or feelings of missing out. I think it comes down to having a birthing vision and wanting to experience that. I always wanted a home birth. I was scared of complications so I chose the hospital, but my heart would be full with a healthy home birth. At the end of it all though, a healthy baby at the end of it all is all my momma heart really and truly cares about.❤
6:38 _"Very much smart scientists and Biblical scholars who make a case for the old earth"_ I have seen a few of them, none that I cannot refute pretty soundly. Or, there were very many smart Pharisees who made a case against Jesus being the Christ .... smartness is actually not barred from apostates.
Neutral,@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 ? La Ferrassie 1, a Neanderthal woman, is dated to c. 40 000 BP. Are you neutral to whether Neanderthals were people descending from Adam? Are you neutral on whether Adam transmitted the Genesis 3 story over a credible number of intermediates up to Abraham and then Moses? I'm not.
Moses could literally talk to God though. He wouldn't necessarily have to get the account from Adam down through Abraham. He could have asked God what happened or what to write.
Could does not equal did,@@nicolepettit5120 . We know from the Bible he talked with God about the commandments on the stone tablets, and also about arranging the Exodus and lots of smaller laws. We know from tradition, he had a vision of the six days (Book of Jubilees says it was more detailed about the spirit world than the account in Genesis 1). We have neither tradition nor Bible for his talking to God about what happened at the fall, and, if he actually had done so, where did he get such flimsy data for Genesis 5 and 11 from? Hardly from God, right?
Sean is a great apologist but he’s wrong about the importance of taking God at His plain word. He is also wrong for pointing the finger at YEC, claiming that some YEC make it a salvation issue. It’s not and nobody says it is. But indirectly both sides know that the topic can affect the way people trust in the Lord. If you can trust in theoretical science and love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, then that’s wonderful. But if that trust in man’s naturalistic ideas hinder you from doing that, it’s better to cut off your attachment to assumptions and theories and believe fully in God, who saves. Again, I appreciate his great work but like most of the college kid based apologists, they rightfully reject evolution but not the millions of years required by evolution. Thanks for your great work Allie. My wife and I love your faith and your show.
Same earth different ages . This age has its measured time . I don't believe in rapture theory but neither of these things are what we should focus on . Keep working to serve our Lord Jesus Christ till our end here . John 14:9 KJV Bible !!!
Hmm I disagree with the first point. It does matter about matching science and the Bible… it matters a lot because you have to know you can trust the Bible on all accounts. If you can’t trust the science of the Bible and you try to contort it to match secular beliefs, how are you gonna trust it on the “heavier” topics like believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved? Why is the question even about millions of years? Because of secular society. Don’t try to make the Bible fit the world.
the bible has no science in it, and science totally conflicts with the bible and ALL religions, there s no free will for a start, there is no mechanism for souls to do anything, dead people are dead, there is nothing to suggest an afterlife, never mind a heaven or hell, nothing about religion can be confirmed using science, in fact the opposite, science will debunk ANYTHING religion can throw at it - cos gods are imaginary
Very sad that Sean McDowell gets it wrong about believing the Bibles accuracy on young earth creation. Notice the Biola sign in the background. Don't send your kids to Biola or they will learn that the word of God is fallible. Instead send your kids to the masters university where they will receive accurate biblical teaching on all things
Why is it sad for someone to have a different view on the age of the earth? Not believing the earth is young is not a question of the Bible's accuracy. Interpretation maybe, are the ages & years given in Genesis literal or symbolic? You being of the belief that they're literal & Sean being of the belief they must be symbolic (based on science that tells us the earth is old) doesn't mean he's questioning the Bible's inerrancy. Also, even if people who believe the earth is old are wrong it doesn't really matter. Topics such as this that don't have anything to do w the Gospel shouldn't so divide Christians that they're dismissing or bringing into question each other's salvation. I'm a Christian who doesn't believe the earth is only 6000 years old & who questions the concept of a global flood & other things. It doesn't mean I believe the Bible is fallible.
@@brittneyzarwel6242 like most religious people you seem to think you can ignore reality, make up anything you like about science and your kettles will still boil. the importance of the truth of matters seems to have escaped you, religions are crap, gods are myth and science has proven religions wrong over and over, and continues to do, until you can find a way to make god fit science, doing it the other way round just results in you lot looking dumb and people not signing up to god anymore - check out pew polls and gallup - the "nones" are second generation - they don't even know they are atheist, that's how irrelevant god has become - cos you try to bad mouth science - science works , religions don't.
I recently learned that the earth's magnetic field has a half life of about 1400 years. That means that the earth's magnetic field was at least 16 times greater than today. What impact would that have had on the creation of carbon 14?
I feel like this is a dumb hill to die on. God created the world however he saw fit, and chose to write genesis how he saw fit. He could have easily created the earth looking a billion years old if he wanted to, while it was really only 10,000 years old. It really just doesn't matter. God created the earth. There's no debate there. And that's really the only part of it that matters
well actually the universe is the way it is cos of the physics of it, god doesn't even matter, the universe gets along quite nicely without any creator.
@HarryNicholas God created the universe. God created physics. Without God their is neither. And before you tell me I'm delusional for believing in a higher power, just remember that you're saying it somehow makes sense for everything to have come from nothing, instead of coming from a creator.
Ummm... when intellectually honest people leave church because the Church ignores the real origin and history of the universe as spoke about in Genesis; that's an enormous problem; because if Scripture is not infallible from the start (which it is), then how did it "all the sudden become infallible" with later OT Scripture or the Gospels?
@@Remy4489Are people leaving the Church because they're being taught young earth creationism? Because in my experience some leave when told they can't believe the Earth is old.
@@Remy4489which version of The Science ™️ would you sell your soul for? True science isn’t a belief system. It doesn’t present infallible, settled facts. It’s a way of understanding. It is not unchangeable. And people worshiping the Science™️ is leading to the cessation of the scientific process as well as the tyranny of “the experts.” If you obey “The Science” you have traded one Pope for another.
12:42 Mark being the first Gospel: * contradicts tradition * got a big boost during the Kulturkampf, because Roman Catholics in Germany were pretty successfully arguing papacy from Matthew, so one had an interest to see Matthew as containing "later accretions" ...
As a non Christian, Jesus and his ministry existed but the virgin birth and resurrection are myth. Gospel of Mark, which the most reliable, never mentions a resurrection but just an empty tomb that Mary found.
I think the crucial questions are do you believe in a supernatural God, most would say yes. So the method and evidence we see can be essentially explained by the reality of it as God could create it anyway he saw fit. I always think of creation and time. If he creates the earth and ecosystems and trees, and you cut down that tree in the first hour, how many rings would it have? One would assume that the ecosystem needs all the elements to float together that we see today for it to work, so the tree would show hundreds of years old even though it theoretically was just created. Why wouldn't rivers and rocks and mountains all show evidence of ages and eons of time even though they could have just been created that way instantaneously given supernatural. If Jesus throws from the dead supernatural phenomena can explain anything. If God created the heavens and the earth, he could do that in any such way and how we see or view the ages of that creation is meaningless given the capabilities of supernatural. Again like a tree, a created tree in the midst of a forest and a flowing ecosystem isn't going to be cut down and show that it was only minutes old. The tree would appear if you looked at the rings as if it was whatever adult age it was visible as. A rock won't show that it was created, nor a mountain or a canyon carved, they'll show the age that they were created to show.
2:26 _"but they are areas in which Christians can disagree"_ I'd say that might have been that about 100 years ago. Given what we know about language and humanity, we cannot accept that Adam had non-human parents. Given what we know about humanity, we cannot say he had parents somewhere between human and non-human. Given what Adam _is_ we cannot accept he had human parents. Therefore, Adam having no ancestry except his Creator is an essential. Given that Genesis is history, we cannot accept Adam lived 750 000 years ago, as William Lane Craig suggested (credits to him for admitting Adam had no ancestry and is himself ancestor to both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, and I'd obviously add Denisovans and Erectus -- as to Heidelbergians and Antecessor, I think they are synonyms for Denisovans). Given what we know of carbon dates, we cannot have a recent Adam in an old universe. Especially not on an old earth. Adam (and his Neanderthal and Denisovan descendants) can well have lived not all that long ago, if the carbon 14 level was still very much lower than today (like I'd say Neanderthals and Denisovans, except mix race samples on the mainly "Sapiens" Ark population, died out in the Flood, and carbon 14 was 1.625 pmC back then, giving us 34000 extra years and add that to a Flood that was really 5000 years ago, gives 39 000 BP). But it cannot have been much lower than today if C14 had been forming in the upper atmosphere for 100 000s or millions of years before that. Therefore a pre-Adam prolongation of the Biblical timeline has to go too.
When I became a Christian, Campus Crusade for Christ was using the Scofield Reference Bible. Between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 it had a footnote that inserted billions of years. Later I learned that verse 2 was connected with an "and" term that didn't allow any time between these verses. It probably took me 15 years to begin to discover how young our earth is. Now it is very clear that old earthers are leading people astray by misrepresent what God has said in his Word.
Hi,@@roblangsdorf8758 ! Haydock comment is like Scofield in design, but two differences. Overarching, it's Catholic. In this context, no insert of extra time!
I'll skip a few of your favourite vocabulary,@@HarryNicNicholas, but the core issue is, you are _no good_ as a source of judgement about sources of information. In more elaborate gobbledigook, a k a academese, "you don't have a proper epistemology" ...
If an essential is that God’s Word is true and reliable and infallible….then believe God at His Word! I was disappointed that both of you didn’t start with the fact that God does not and cannot lie!! Pls believe His simple clear explanation of how old the earth is! If we can’t trust God in the explanation He gave us in Genesis, then why even believe the rest of His Word?? Why teach our kids to doubt the history in the OT….then it’s just a small jump for them to discard also the supernatural miracles and all important gospel message in the NT. He gave us enough history and exact genealogies. There are thousands of young earth creationist scientists that show the science clearly supports the best eyewitness in history! God! Please search out Answers In Genesis….Is Genesis History ….Institute for Creation Research….Biblical Science Institute. Tons of great info about how evolutionary ‘science’ has lied and misled so many! Who are we going to trust…God’s Word or man’s word ??
What about, scripture it’s self 2 Peter 1:20-21-20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Now either God’s word is true or it’s not it’s that simple. And as God’s saints, it’s not our job to convince any one To show by scripture yes and let God do his part !
The Bible does talk about Dinosaurs, the word dinosaur is a new word, first used in 1841. Before that, scientist used dragon. Which in the Bible Leviathan is used which means dragon. Also tannyim, i probably spelled that wrong but it means sea monster or serpent. And also Behemoth, which when they decribe it in the Bible sounds like a brachiosaurus.
- Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ...And the elemental processes began with all the probabilities within the possibilities as towards the finite with now so in an infinite
5:53 Answering for the unbeliever I could have been (if I had matured without becoming a Christian at 9) and am not. 1) You state that Jesus is God. God is all knowing. In Mark 10:6, your God said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Adam and Eve are closer to nearly just when Jesus spoke than at the beginning of Earth's timeline. 2) You state that Adam did sth very important and ominous, in Genesis 3. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you cannot deny there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens around 40 000 years ago: a) if they descend from Adam, Genesis 3 is not recorded and transmitted history b) if you say Genesis 3 was revealed to God, that's not in either Bible or tradition, only Genesis 1 is by tradition held to have been a vision Moses had on Sinai c) also on "very old Adam" hypothesis, Genesis 5 and 11, by being stated as basically complete history and being grossly incomplete become lies within the book you call God's word d) on the hypothesis of a very much more recent Adam: i) all men being Adamites is indefensible (Amerindians and Aborigines would only partly and thanks to Europeans descend from him) ij) him being the first man is indefensible (Neanderthals in Shanidar were human, well before him) iij) original sin coming from him to all of mankind is therefore also indefensible. 3) If you think Adam had evolutionary origins, and uphold that only man can properly speaking speak, that's part of what makes us God's image, then it would follow Adam was a feral child, and God was cruel to him before he sinned. If you hold he only became human as an adult, this would change the thing, but involve him having a trauma from previous animal life into human life, unless God gave him amnesia, which in and of itself is a bad thing, which again makes Adam suffer evil before he sinned. 4) Not to mention animal suffering over millions of years before there were men and before the Earth was cursed for Adam's sin. Some Church Fathers held animals could have died, as food for carnivores, none that they would have been exposed to harsh prolonged suffering, before he sinned. And actually, this also answers for why _as a believer_ I find Old Earth either inconsistent by pretty big inattentions, or showing a lack of faith in the Christian revelation.
Charles Spurgeon "But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God."
Morning Allie... Completely off topic... You've had a Leather Made Sponsor in the past. Can you pass on their name & Coupon Code? I'm wanting to order wallets for Christmas. Thank You & God Bless your Faithfulness to Him & the kingdom! ❤
Until it is acknowledged we are not on a spinning globe 🌎🥴 the rest doesn’t matter. That’s the original greatest lie ever told bc it disputes where we are, and denying Jesus existence is the second greatest lie and disputes who we are 👌🏻
Funny how he talked about the age of the earth and then basically said it doesn't matter. Let's go on to something else because that's not a hill to die on. Well, I agree a person isn't saved by if they believe in a young earth. But believing in original sin is an important part of the gospel story. And while the age of the earth isn't important there are some things old earthers believe that mess up the whole gospel story. What was the world like when God created it and called it good? Was it full of destruction, violence, and animals tormenting and eating each other? People who believe humans and dinosaurs didn't live together by default believe there was suffering, death, and even extinction before humans came and God called that good. Some say the fall only affected modern man, but then what about Romans 8:19-23 that talks about creation being subject to death because of the fall. So, while I don't think it matters how old the earth is, it very much matters what the world was like before humans brought sin into the world and what it will therefore be like when Christ takes sin out of the world. A promise of a better world, not one basically the same as we have now, is the hope.
So is the young earth/old earth debate a salvation issue. I hope not because I've been trying to learn how to become a Christian and I can't force myself to believe the earth is 6000 yrs old. Surely this is not a salvation issue.
I believe in a young Earth, but will tell you that is NOT a salvation issue. Please just start with Jesus, why He came, and why He had to die, which was the shed His pure, innocent human blood to pay the penalty for for the rest of humanity's sin. We are all guilty and unable/unworthy to pay the price for our own unrighteous/rebellious nature. After He died, He was resurrected, which guaranteed that we will have everlasting life through Him, but you do have to accept, and believe in Him for His sacrifice to cover the cost of your sin.
The Roman Catholic always brought about Rationality and Faith. “I believe so that I may understand.” - St Augustine. The RCC had scientists that founded the Big Bang Theory and even the Scientific Method. My dear Protestant friends, please educate yourself on the History of Christianity.
Yes. The RCC has been for 600 years trying to invalidate the Bible with “science.” Monkey men and men that are women - fully embraced by your vicarious Christ
The biggest question with the age of the earth is does what you believe put death before sin? If death came before sin, then the wages of sin is NOT death, the Bible is not true and God is a liar.
Animal death, unlike human death, did not result from sin. Romans 5:12 says that sin came into the world through one man and spread to the human race, not to the animal kingdom. When God declared that his creation was good at the end of the sixth day, he must have had in mind the complex relationships within ecosystems, where predators, prey, scavengers, and pollinators all play specific roles. The life cycles of animals, including birth and death, contribute to the overall functioning and health of the earth’s ecosystems. Psalm 104:21 describes how “young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.” Lions are carnivorous predators, which means they primarily eat meat from prey. That is how God designed them. 2 Peter 2:12 says that animals are “creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed.” Humans, on the other hand, are different. We were made in God’s image. We have the potential for eternal life through faith in Christ. Being creatures of instinct, animals are unable to put faith in Christ and receive eternal life.
uh oh, the YEC'ers are at it again, lol. The books of the Torah are books of prophesy. Only one human being who has ever lived understood them as they were originally delivered by God, and that's the prophet Moses. He then delivered them orally to the Israelites in the language that he understood, which was informed by his understanding of the universe based on his experience at a particular point in human history in a particular part of the world, and it was an oral tradition for quite some time before it was written down in the ancient Hebrew and then translated into Greek, then Latin, then eventually European vernaculars like English. Understanding that these books were never meant to be understood as the literal words of God, but divinely inspired, doesn't detract from their holiness or from one's faith. In fact, it strengthens it because it brings it out of the restrictive, abstract realm of understanding and puts it in the living world, in living history, where it should be.
moses never existed mate. i love how religists claim they have some evidence that something is wrong using evide3nce of something else that is wrong, it's laughable. atheists know more about your religions than you do.
Jesus did not override the Sabbath. This is used as an argument by Sunday keeping Christians that Jesus changed the Sabbath but He did not. Yes He has the authority over it but never charged it. Remember the Sabbath is the command. Don’t forget. 13:52
Does the Age of the Earth Matter? 1) To enter heaven no. 2) Young earth creationists putting up blocks to Jesus for Scientists, yes. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ).
- Genesis 1:2 ...Was as the re-positioning and re-forming of the Earth in that of domestication so that as the sons of God and the morning stars in human form for to dwell from generation to generation
Jesus did not break any of the laws. That is actually heretical to say such things. The bible says Jesus kept the laws to the t. The pharisees are the ones who added and Jesus had a problem with that because they overburdened the people with their laws.
Wow. Talk about wishy washy! Do some simple research. A day has always been a day. Why not interview Ken Ham. He can explain in a simple way. Also get this guy back on at the same time so maybe he can be helped at little.
She did and many people in the comments section thought it went so badly that they begged her to interview Dr. Hugh Ross and the pastor who did a reaction video, Dr. Gavin Ortlund( who is a reformed Baptist like her). Dr. Sean Mc Dowell is highly respected and a solid apologist.
@Wentletrap213 Gavin is a notorious lib conpromiser, and McDowell is no better. Ken Ham is undefeated on this subject. I'm looking forward to singing God's praise in Heaven for demonstrating these worldly wise to be bumbling fools.
has a day always been a day though? I mean, there are two ways to understand a day from an astronomical standpoint: either the time it takes for the Earth to make one full rotation on it's axis, or 1/365th of the time it takes the Earth to make a full revolution around the sun. Now, the latter definitely contextualizes the concept of a "day" in relation to the presupposed existence of the sun. The former need not necessarily do the same, but our entire human understanding of the concept of a "day" is based on the time during which the sun is visible in our sky at any given vantage point on Earth. I bring all this up because, if you read the creation account in Genesis carefully and take it literally, you'll notice that the sun does not exist until Day 4... so what was a "day" for 1-3?
@@jammystarfish First of all, they are all conservative as am I. Secondly, the uncharitable way you hurl accusations and ad hominem attacks make you sound just like the leftists in the comment sections of conservative videos. Don’t become the monster you are trying to fight.
How so,@@Uk.wildman ? Bc you prefer Ussher or Syncellus? Or Jewish calendar? OK, I can respect that. But if you consider YOUNG Earth to mean "10 000 -- 12 000 years" I am sorry to say you are ill educated about the Bible and chronological issues in it.
I think Engels already was,@@HarryNicNicholas -- if not in orientation, at least in ideas. Comparing Young Earth Creationism to "last thursdayism" is so disingenious. I have personal memories from this summer or from years ago before this. No man has a record, written in a year known from a common chronology of historic record to be 8000 years old. Let alone millions or billions.
5:07 _"We don't have time ... to divide over issues like this"_ Hence, those who _do_ take a strong position get marginalised for not taking the mark of Sean McDowell ... either on hand or forehead.
It's not a gospel issue. It's not salvation by grace, sola Scriptura, or the deity of Christ for instance. It's important sure but it's a secondary issue and we shouldn't be dividing brothers and sisters over it.
I'm sorry,@@myjesusisall3192 ... the question is _when_ one can be considered as divisive. Salvation is by grace, and not from works, but as certainly into works. Sola Scriptura is an error to a heresy, depending on what kind of authority the Council of Trent intended in defining the alternative. The Deity of Christ actually _is_ indirectly involved. A) bc of how Jesus did His miracles B) bc of what He said in Mark 10:6 about the relation between age of the world and of mankind C) bc of a Church He founded which all the time up to 1830's was Young Earth, whatever position it had on the days in Genesis 1.
I don't mind marginalizing certain perspectives if those perspectives themselves are corrosive to the larger project of avoiding marginalization. There's nothing wrong or contradictory about that.
Unless,@@Jimmy-iy9pl , it precisely _is_ wrong in your choice of _what_ you marginalise. I think some Jews didn't want to get marginalised in their own country by the Romans, and found Jesus a liability. Now, they were not considering Him as God anyway, even if they should have, so, to them, that was "marginalising a mere man" ... who for tactical reasons, they thought, should be marginalised. They ended up crucifying God (through the Romans), calling Caesar their only king (to the exclusion of God), and getting their city sacked.
Another question I would ask YEC'ers is, how many of you are also Dispensationalists? I know those two doctrines are distinct, and I suppose one need not necessarily believe in one to believe in the other, but in my experience it seems to me that there is a massive overlap between the two. Anyway, the point being, if you take the book of Genesis literally and in plain text, as the infallible word of God, do you not also do the same for the book of Revelation? I ask because there are a lot of things mentioned in the book of Revelation that are CLEARLY meant to be taken as metaphorical and/or allegorical, and most Dispensationalists do exactly that when they, for instance, try to assign current nation-states to the various mythical kingdoms or animals mentioned in the text, amongst other things. But wait, you gotta take every word literally and in plain understanding, right?? So does that force you to believe in multi-headed sea monsters swimming around in the ocean, waiting for the antichrist to come?
Nobody believes everything in the Bible is literal. But we believe that you should be able to decide what is literal and what is not with the context, otherwise the Bible is useless. When Jesus says, he is the door, it is obvious that he is not really a door. In the same way if I said that my bed had been swimming in my tears, you would understand that my bed was not actually floating on a river of my tears, but that I was just saying that I was crying a lot. The creation account in Genesis, and every time the creation is mentioned, there is no reason in the context to believe that it was not literal.
@@jay144k lol, all religions are a joke, yo claim to have a personal relationship with a god who apparently doesn't pass on any information, and when he does it conflicts with some other persons revelation - it's TRIPE all of it.
@@jay144k god ought to be able to do anything, right? except things like eradicate sin, or intervene in wars, or cure cancer altogether instead of one at a time - funny how religion seems to just mimic natural events and god apparently does nothing, until one you say he did something, but there;'s no way to demonstrate it was god at work - it's LIES. it's sad, sick lies.
adam and eve are myth and if you had half a brain you'd see the story is evidence of why there is no god, cos the god who created adam and eve was an incompetent idiot who couldn;t even protect an apple.
I would like to respectfully state that Jesus did not “override the Sabbath”. He overrode the pharisaical burdens placed on the Sabbath. Since the Bible defines sin to be the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), and Jesus was sinless, then He kept the law perfectly including the fourth commandment. Jesus shows us how to truly keep the Sabbath.
To say that actually shows that you've never seriously looked into resources such as ICR, Answers in Genesis etc. Sounds like you're saying "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up." That's an indication of stubbornness, and stubbornness is as the sin of idolotry (1 Sam 15:23)
I wouldn’t go quite that far, but it’s pretty close… Of course the earth is round, not the center of the universe, and is way WAY more than 6k yrs old. Plenty of evidence. And doesn’t contradict a correct reading of scripture.
I love Dr Sean McDowell. He’s so wise, gracious, humble, and lovingly bold. Thanks for this interview.
The absolute best quote I heard about this and it was recently on a podcast, and can’t remember which (it might have been this one?) about people who resist God and church, because so many Christian’s are hypocrites is: if there’s a pianist who plays a Beethoven song, and they do it terribly. They add things, take things away, would you get mad at the pianist, or Beethoven? You’d get mad at the pianist! Why would someone get mad at Beethoven for someone else playing his music poorly?
That might’ve been Frank Turek, I’ve heard him use that example before!
@@bridgetgolubinski I think you’re correct.
Hmm good one !
@@bridgetgolubinski
Yes, it was Frank Turek
@@theparadigm8149 frank the bible salesman? frank the carnival act? he says so much tripe he probably did say it.
I highly recommend watching “Is Genesis History”. They use observable science and the Bible to argue that the earth is around 6,000 yrs. They tackle many theories. It’s a great watch
creationism is stupid and it's time people stopped trying to squeeze god into science. check out the diver trials lectures, this is the dumbest of the dumb, the only upside is it is so dumb that it makes more atheists than i ever could, lies and deceit are not a good look for god eh?
not all science they use is good. They assume that the laws of physics have altered.
I love the fact that you're addressing Christian apologetics Allie, it's such an important issue, if we don't have reasons for believing, then why believe?
yes without apologetics there would be lots of people thinking god might be immoral, i mean he kills a lot of people over trivia - if it weren't for apologists lying their backsides off and covering up god's psychopathy then more people would wonder, is religion a good thing? or just an excuse to bully people you don't care for?
Young earth creationists, such as Ken Ham, do not believe the earth is 10,000 years old. They believe the earth is about 6,000 years old.
Yep. This annoyed me. Get the facts right even if you don't agree w Ken hams stance. They are very clear on the earth being around 6700 years old and they explain why
There's a lot of other YECs that think more around the 10k mark but they aren't perhaps as Internet prominent.
It's 4 5 billion years old
I haven’t heard any convincing arguments for old earth. I’m in the young earth camp and see how that lines up perfectly with DNA evidence and science.
I am not sure he wants to legitimize Ken Ham’s stance.Ken’s theory makes very little sense, the creation museum is a building of pure confusion and twisting of science and twists Bible. He thinks Dinosaurs were on the Ark. It’s embarrassing.
I was so encouraged listening to this conversation! Thank you Allie and Sean!
I definitely lean more towards young earth, but it also says in the Bible that to God 1000 years is like a day and a day is like 1000 years. I do also think God can do more than we think and He could have chosen to reveal the beginning of the earth to the author of Genesis in a day time frame to make it more understandable. This is definitely not a salvation question, though, and that's what's important.
So, are you saying that 1000 years is a day is arguing that the earth is really just 6 days old?
I think that the writer's real point is that God lives outside of time.
@@roblangsdorf8758 lol, how long has that silliness been going on? the earth is billions of years old, science has confirmed it, if it doesn't fit with the bible it's because the bible is tripe and has nothing to do with science anyway, and really because gods are myth and you're all mistaken. like you would say all hindus and muslims are mistaken.
The problem with this perspective is that day and night was the first thing God created, meaning every part of creation happened after the establishment of the 24-hour earth day.
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:11 How can this mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day as it is used in this context? Interpret the Bible with the Bible!
the bible is stories, nothing more. crap stories at that.
@@HarryNicNicholas I'm sorry for you, dear man, made in the Imago Dei. If only you could grasp all the Love that could be yours. . .It will be a sad day when you meet the Storyteller.
Sean is awesome! I actually read one of his father's books around the same time I started watching his TH-cam channel and didn't make the name connection for like a year😂🤦♀️ I've learned a lot from Sean and hope to learn even more.
I loved the questions Allie asked and the conversations throughout! THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF YALL. We need more apologetics teachings in our churches and Christian communities. The way you respond as a Christian could be the difference between eternal life and death for a favored child of God - so we all need to be prepared for the time God trusts you enough to act as an extension of His love, peace, compassion, grace, etc with the purpose of saving someone
why? i've always been atheist and i never needed an apologist to bolster my knowledge that gods are myth and jesus is dead and staying dead. isn't god a personal friend of everyone? why do you need sean to lie about god's immorality, can't you make up excuses for yourself, or ask god directly? what's this "personal relationship" if it's not personal?
Genesis ?
Look to Exodus.
Exodus 20:11 is a legal command from God.
Six days is the legal justification for the Sabbath law which all the Hebrews (even today) clearly understood as six literal days and followed.
Six days which if not true would legally invalidate the Sabbath law.
Coelacanth fossils are said to be 65 million years old. The fish was said for centuries to be extinct and was claimed by evolutionists for almost a century to be an intermediary species - who ceased to exist because it’s offspring grew legs, turned into a lizard and walked on land… then we found it in the Cape of South Africa in the 1920s - alive and well, and physically identical to its “65 million year old” fossil relative. That’s just one of today’s living fossils for whom “evolution paused.”
Carbon dating is also just horribly inaccurate. It assumes a constant rate of decay, which cannot happen on the earth. Things like volcanic activity and solar radiation can speed up decay so much l, and so non-uniformly that it can make 1 part of an animal date to 10s of millions of years old and another part to thousands of years old.
The only reason scientists NEED the earth to be old - and therefore are happy to interpret data and run tests in whatever way gives them the most time is because they NEED that much time to accumulate enough random beneficial mutations to give us the healthy, diversity of life we have today. So they ask the science leading questions, always pushing the date out further. But no matter how many times you throw millions of letters up in the air, those letter will never land in the order of a book - let alone millions of very different books in very different genres.
But as it is, I care a lot less about the age of the earth than I do about the Genesis 6 explanation for the fossil record vs the secular explanation for the fossil record. If an animal dies on land, the idea that it will just be left alone by scavengers and bacteria for millions of years as layers of sediment slowly bury it, eventually pressurizing it enough to create fossils where bones once were is a completely unscientific fairy tale. The idea this slow burial can happen to flowers, bees in flight, and delicate sea anemones is even less scientific.
When people say they want to keep the “science” - it’s the same brand of “science” they latch on to for gender identity, abortion rights, masks for toddlers, and 72 vaccines before legal adulthood… aka, not pure science as a process - but science as an ideology. It becomes a situation of trying to serve 2 masters. Those that want to serve “The Science™️” cannot serve the One True God.
@@maddy-zzz ALL dating methods have to assume starting amounts of mother- and daughter elements. No dating methods are reliable.
Genesis isn't literal history.
Read your whole thing. I agree..i watch a lot about this stuff and have always been curious. When I was younger I remember asking my dad (who had become a Christian as a young adult) lots of questions. He is very science minded and had lots of the same questions I had..he was always okay with me asking and liked to explain different theories. When I read your comment, I thought, "I like you!" haha
there is no god mate. sorry but you're not very bright. science always wins and always has won, name ONE event that was shown to be supernatural and i'll show you a dozen supernatural events turned out to be natural.
to preserve MY free will your god doesn't allow ANY kind of evidence of his existence, to say there is is really the dumbest thing a religist can come up with, you're defying god.
@@mjmh7050 the bible is stories. for goodness sake it's just folks telling just so stories.
I saw a 'short' where a young discussed with his 'scientific self' and 'Christian self' about the age of the earth. The interesting thing he said at the end (as his Christion self) was 'why couldn't God have created the universe already old?'. I thought that was a pretty interesting philosophical concept. I'm agnostic btw.
Yes I have thought this sometimes, couldn't God create an Earth already in progress? Or, if God did something like make a mountain, would it necessarily look any different than a mountain created by erosion? I wouldn't press the argument too much though, because it could become an easy cop-out.
@@nicolepettit5120 there is no god is the reason.
4:19 _"It's not even _*_trying to_*_ give us a specific scientific account"_
It is definitely trying to give us a _historic_ account, though.
Young Earth is about as much about Genesis 5 and 11 as it is about days of Genesis 1.
If you add up ages at birth of relevant son in those chapters, Abraham was born between 1600 and over 3000, but not over 3500, years after Adam was created.
Abraham visited Egypt.
lol. it's STORIES ffs.
do you mean fiction,@@HarryNicNicholas?
what is your criterium for distinguishing fictional accounts from historical ones?
@@hglundahl
Historical accounts don’t contradict what we know about how reality works.
@@ramigilneas9274 Nothing in historical accounts contradict what _we Catholics_ know about how reality works.
It may very well contradict what _you_ think is how reality works.
@@hglundahl
Well… it certainly contradicts what we can objectively DEMONSTRATE about how reality works.
But it’s irrelevant if in your subjective opinion it doesn’t contradict what you BELIEVE about how reality works.
If you weaken God’s account of creation we also weaken gender, marriage, sabbath etc. We must take God at HIS word! Why is it so hard to believe God’s power to do as He said He did! We are not smarter than God!
Genesis is a myth
Great way of putting! Better than I put it
It is so hard to believe because we know that a lot of the stories didn’t happen as described or didn’t happen at all.
I've really enjoyed listening to Sean on a number of podcasts, but I do have to take exception with the way he framed the old Earth/young Earth argument. He said there are a lot of really smart Young earthers, and there are really smart scientist in biblical scholars who make a case for an old Earth. This shows that he has not really studied the debate very carefully. There are a lot of very smart scientist with PhDs in astrophysics, geology, biology and the other scientific disciplines, who do research in the field, who make a case for a young Earth, people such as Dr Jason Lyle, Dr Georgia Purdom, Dr Russ Humphries, Dr Andrew Snelling, Dr Steve Austin, and many others who fall into the young earth camp. None of these people claim that it's a requirement to believe in a young Earth to be saved.
Deuteronomy 29:29
These three scriptures
2 Corinthians 10:5-5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
Proverbs 3:5-6-5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.
I’m just using these scriptures for short conversation and remember , study to show thy self approved.
I’m really happy to see Christians acknowledging that you don’t have to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old to be a real Christian who honors God’s Word. I hate hearing atheist scientists referring to all Christians as “idiots.” You don’t have to be an idiot to be a Christian and have a correct view of God’s Word. Ken Ham said to me that I was undermining the authority of God’s Word, blaspheming the character of God, and undermining the Gospel. Saying that God would create an earth that looks old but is really young makes God a liar like “Allah”. A man at our church ( who happens to be a PhD) gave me the best compliment I had ever received. He said, you clearly explain the Gospel.
For me, the biggest obstacle to some views regarding creation is the omisiion of what the Bible says about death. According to the bible death was not part of the world of creation before Adam's sin and death entered because of sin. So how could there be a world of dinosaurs and rampant death everywhere before Adam?
Wouldn’t this be an obstacle to evolution/old earth theories, not creation?
Yes, it does: The earth is 6027-years old (from 4004 BC to present) -- the bible precisely timelines the age of the earth. I go by the holy Word of God.
Cool can you scientifically prove that?
@thorpeaaron1110 can you disprove it?
@@wjdyr6261yes science proves the earth is billions of years old
@@Uk.wildman who witnessed this?
Pure fiction.
Great vid, thanks for showcasing apologetics!
I am in the young earth camp and currently do not know any old earth Christians that have at least done some homework on the topic to land where they have. Those Christians who land in the billions of years old camp, how do you guys understand dating and/or history before the fall of man when sin entered the world? Do you believe there was death, decay, breaking down of elements, etc... prior to the curse? What did "aging" look like prior to the Fall or was there "aging"? Like, did things just grow to maturity then level out. Just trying to figure out how the billions of years old earth viewpoint fits together.
check out the dover trials lectures, you're clearly ignorant of why you have creationism in the first place, it has nothing to do with the bible, it was a ruse to get more god taught in class, and it failed, it was proven false in court.
Death didn’t come to the earth until sin did…right? So, how could life and death have come before Adam and Eve, for example, dinosaurs? Just asking….
I'll give you the answer Adam and Eve never existed.
god kills everyone in a flood cos they are sinners, right, but he doesn;t kill adam and eve, he could have started over at that point and made sure the apple was protected rather than waiting till the planet is full of sin, kills everyone then, and bingo we still have sin. god is the dumbest person on the planet, ANYONE will put a fence around a tree they want protected.
if god is real he's as dumb as a snail.
"I'm going o shift the question" 6:38 In other words, as Sean and so many apologists do...he's going to dodge the question.
So, in a nutshell, my 1st was born vaginally after an induction. It was beautiful in so many ways, but I was left feeling much like you with your c-sections. My 2nd was birthed more naturally. I labored at home & delivered at the hospital 2 hrs after arrival. I ended up deciding on getting an epidural and that was a regret for me. I regretted not having a doula to enjoy my laboring at home more & having the support to be strong enough to deny the epidural. For me, the birthing process is so empowering & beautiful. I wish I had videos & pictures while I was laboring. But my point of all this is to show an example of how I had two vaginal births and still felt like I was sort of missing out on something. My sister chose 2 C-sections. Loved the experience and has 0 regret or feelings of missing out. I think it comes down to having a birthing vision and wanting to experience that. I always wanted a home birth. I was scared of complications so I chose the hospital, but my heart would be full with a healthy home birth. At the end of it all though, a healthy baby at the end of it all is all my momma heart really and truly cares about.❤
6:38 _"Very much smart scientists and Biblical scholars who make a case for the old earth"_
I have seen a few of them, none that I cannot refute pretty soundly.
Or, there were very many smart Pharisees who made a case against Jesus being the Christ .... smartness is actually not barred from apostates.
Why do Christians want to obsess over this topic. Not that important. I keep changing my positions and was obsessed with it but now I am neutral
Neutral,@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 ?
La Ferrassie 1, a Neanderthal woman, is dated to c. 40 000 BP.
Are you neutral to whether Neanderthals were people descending from Adam?
Are you neutral on whether Adam transmitted the Genesis 3 story over a credible number of intermediates up to Abraham and then Moses?
I'm not.
Moses could literally talk to God though. He wouldn't necessarily have to get the account from Adam down through Abraham. He could have asked God what happened or what to write.
Could does not equal did,@@nicolepettit5120 .
We know from the Bible he talked with God about the commandments on the stone tablets, and also about arranging the Exodus and lots of smaller laws.
We know from tradition, he had a vision of the six days (Book of Jubilees says it was more detailed about the spirit world than the account in Genesis 1).
We have neither tradition nor Bible for his talking to God about what happened at the fall, and, if he actually had done so, where did he get such flimsy data for Genesis 5 and 11 from? Hardly from God, right?
You think you can refute Hugh Ross “Pretty Soundly”? Best of luck with that.
Sean is a great apologist but he’s wrong about the importance of taking God at His plain word. He is also wrong for pointing the finger at YEC, claiming that some YEC make it a salvation issue. It’s not and nobody says it is. But indirectly both sides know that the topic can affect the way people trust in the Lord. If you can trust in theoretical science and love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, then that’s wonderful. But if that trust in man’s naturalistic ideas hinder you from doing that, it’s better to cut off your attachment to assumptions and theories and believe fully in God, who saves. Again, I appreciate his great work but like most of the college kid based apologists, they rightfully reject evolution but not the millions of years required by evolution. Thanks for your great work Allie. My wife and I love your faith and your show.
The Bible has been proven wrong about the world.
we atheists love to see you argue over what god really said, every time you do an angel turns queer.
Same earth different ages . This age has its measured time . I don't believe in rapture theory but neither of these things are what we should focus on . Keep working to serve our Lord Jesus Christ till our end here . John 14:9 KJV Bible !!!
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6)
Hmm I disagree with the first point. It does matter about matching science and the Bible… it matters a lot because you have to know you can trust the Bible on all accounts. If you can’t trust the science of the Bible and you try to contort it to match secular beliefs, how are you gonna trust it on the “heavier” topics like believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved? Why is the question even about millions of years? Because of secular society. Don’t try to make the Bible fit the world.
the bible has no science in it, and science totally conflicts with the bible and ALL religions, there s no free will for a start, there is no mechanism for souls to do anything, dead people are dead, there is nothing to suggest an afterlife, never mind a heaven or hell, nothing about religion can be confirmed using science, in fact the opposite, science will debunk ANYTHING religion can throw at it - cos gods are imaginary
Very sad that Sean McDowell gets it wrong about believing the Bibles accuracy on young earth creation. Notice the Biola sign in the background. Don't send your kids to Biola or they will learn that the word of God is fallible. Instead send your kids to the masters university where they will receive accurate biblical teaching on all things
Why is it sad for someone to have a different view on the age of the earth? Not believing the earth is young is not a question of the Bible's accuracy. Interpretation maybe, are the ages & years given in Genesis literal or symbolic? You being of the belief that they're literal & Sean being of the belief they must be symbolic (based on science that tells us the earth is old) doesn't mean he's questioning the Bible's inerrancy.
Also, even if people who believe the earth is old are wrong it doesn't really matter. Topics such as this that don't have anything to do w the Gospel shouldn't so divide Christians that they're dismissing or bringing into question each other's salvation.
I'm a Christian who doesn't believe the earth is only 6000 years old & who questions the concept of a global flood & other things. It doesn't mean I believe the Bible is fallible.
So you want to live in an echo chamber?
biola is just a certificates factory, get an easy PhD and sound like you know what you're talking about. sean is full of horse poop.
@@brittneyzarwel6242 like most religious people you seem to think you can ignore reality, make up anything you like about science and your kettles will still boil. the importance of the truth of matters seems to have escaped you, religions are crap, gods are myth and science has proven religions wrong over and over, and continues to do, until you can find a way to make god fit science, doing it the other way round just results in you lot looking dumb and people not signing up to god anymore - check out pew polls and gallup - the "nones" are second generation - they don't even know they are atheist, that's how irrelevant god has become - cos you try to bad mouth science - science works , religions don't.
God Jesus Christ our King and Savior matters that’s about it 😀
I recently learned that the earth's magnetic field has a half life of about 1400 years. That means that the earth's magnetic field was at least 16 times greater than today.
What impact would that have had on the creation of carbon 14?
i think you're talking nonsense and you really don;t understand how maths works, or magnetic fields.
- it is the carnal interpretation and perspective of time that complicates this
- and it was that of Michael that sat right outside the sepulchre and spoke towards
I feel like this is a dumb hill to die on. God created the world however he saw fit, and chose to write genesis how he saw fit. He could have easily created the earth looking a billion years old if he wanted to, while it was really only 10,000 years old. It really just doesn't matter. God created the earth. There's no debate there. And that's really the only part of it that matters
well actually the universe is the way it is cos of the physics of it, god doesn't even matter, the universe gets along quite nicely without any creator.
@HarryNicholas God created the universe. God created physics. Without God their is neither. And before you tell me I'm delusional for believing in a higher power, just remember that you're saying it somehow makes sense for everything to have come from nothing, instead of coming from a creator.
- the battle is the Lords and its against the sons of God - and this is the why
- the song THEY NEED A MILLION (Billion)/Scorpions
100% agree with Sean - the age of the earth is not, nor should be, a dividing issue.
Ummm... when intellectually honest people leave church because the Church ignores the real origin and history of the universe as spoke about in Genesis; that's an enormous problem; because if Scripture is not infallible from the start (which it is), then how did it "all the sudden become infallible" with later OT Scripture or the Gospels?
@@Remy4489Are people leaving the Church because they're being taught young earth creationism? Because in my experience some leave when told they can't believe the Earth is old.
@@Remy4489It's fallible
@@Remy4489which version of The Science ™️ would you sell your soul for?
True science isn’t a belief system. It doesn’t present infallible, settled facts. It’s a way of understanding. It is not unchangeable. And people worshiping the Science™️ is leading to the cessation of the scientific process as well as the tyranny of “the experts.”
If you obey “The Science” you have traded one Pope for another.
we atheists love to see you argue over what god really said, every time you do an angel turns queer.
12:42 Mark being the first Gospel:
* contradicts tradition
* got a big boost during the Kulturkampf, because Roman Catholics in Germany were pretty successfully arguing papacy from Matthew, so one had an interest to see Matthew as containing "later accretions" ...
any idea who wrote mark? cos it wasn't anyone called mark.
any idea where you have your stuff from,@@HarryNicNicholas?
cos it very well may have been a guy called Marx. I don't mean Groucho or Adolph Bernhard.
As a non Christian, Jesus and his ministry existed but the virgin birth and resurrection are myth. Gospel of Mark, which the most reliable, never mentions a resurrection but just an empty tomb that Mary found.
I think the crucial questions are do you believe in a supernatural God, most would say yes. So the method and evidence we see can be essentially explained by the reality of it as God could create it anyway he saw fit. I always think of creation and time. If he creates the earth and ecosystems and trees, and you cut down that tree in the first hour, how many rings would it have? One would assume that the ecosystem needs all the elements to float together that we see today for it to work, so the tree would show hundreds of years old even though it theoretically was just created. Why wouldn't rivers and rocks and mountains all show evidence of ages and eons of time even though they could have just been created that way instantaneously given supernatural. If Jesus throws from the dead supernatural phenomena can explain anything. If God created the heavens and the earth, he could do that in any such way and how we see or view the ages of that creation is meaningless given the capabilities of supernatural. Again like a tree, a created tree in the midst of a forest and a flowing ecosystem isn't going to be cut down and show that it was only minutes old. The tree would appear if you looked at the rings as if it was whatever adult age it was visible as. A rock won't show that it was created, nor a mountain or a canyon carved, they'll show the age that they were created to show.
2:26 _"but they are areas in which Christians can disagree"_
I'd say that might have been that about 100 years ago.
Given what we know about language and humanity, we cannot accept that Adam had non-human parents.
Given what we know about humanity, we cannot say he had parents somewhere between human and non-human.
Given what Adam _is_ we cannot accept he had human parents.
Therefore, Adam having no ancestry except his Creator is an essential.
Given that Genesis is history, we cannot accept Adam lived 750 000 years ago, as William Lane Craig suggested (credits to him for admitting Adam had no ancestry and is himself ancestor to both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, and I'd obviously add Denisovans and Erectus -- as to Heidelbergians and Antecessor, I think they are synonyms for Denisovans).
Given what we know of carbon dates, we cannot have a recent Adam in an old universe. Especially not on an old earth. Adam (and his Neanderthal and Denisovan descendants) can well have lived not all that long ago, if the carbon 14 level was still very much lower than today (like I'd say Neanderthals and Denisovans, except mix race samples on the mainly "Sapiens" Ark population, died out in the Flood, and carbon 14 was 1.625 pmC back then, giving us 34000 extra years and add that to a Flood that was really 5000 years ago, gives 39 000 BP).
But it cannot have been much lower than today if C14 had been forming in the upper atmosphere for 100 000s or millions of years before that. Therefore a pre-Adam prolongation of the Biblical timeline has to go too.
When I became a Christian, Campus Crusade for Christ was using the Scofield Reference Bible. Between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 it had a footnote that inserted billions of years.
Later I learned that verse 2 was connected with an "and" term that didn't allow any time between these verses.
It probably took me 15 years to begin to discover how young our earth is.
Now it is very clear that old earthers are leading people astray by misrepresent what God has said in his Word.
Hi,@@roblangsdorf8758 !
Haydock comment is like Scofield in design, but two differences.
Overarching, it's Catholic. In this context, no insert of extra time!
it's bollocks stories mate, why you bang on about this crap beats me, even if god were real the bible is still crap as a source of information.
I'll skip a few of your favourite vocabulary,@@HarryNicNicholas, but the core issue is, you are _no good_ as a source of judgement about sources of information.
In more elaborate gobbledigook, a k a academese, "you don't have a proper epistemology" ...
If an essential is that God’s Word is true and reliable and infallible….then believe God at His Word! I was disappointed that both of you didn’t start with the fact that God does not and cannot lie!!
Pls believe His simple clear explanation of how old the earth is! If we can’t trust God in the explanation He gave us in Genesis, then why even believe the rest of His Word?? Why teach our kids to doubt the history in the OT….then it’s just a small jump for them to discard also the supernatural miracles and all important gospel message in the NT. He gave us
enough history and exact genealogies. There are thousands of young earth creationist scientists that show the science clearly supports the best eyewitness in history! God!
Please search out Answers In Genesis….Is Genesis History ….Institute for Creation Research….Biblical Science Institute. Tons of great info about how evolutionary ‘science’ has lied and misled so many! Who are we going to trust…God’s Word or man’s word ??
What about, scripture it’s self
2 Peter 1:20-21-20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Now either God’s word is true or it’s not it’s that simple. And as God’s saints, it’s not our job to convince any one
To show by scripture yes and let God do his part !
The Bible does talk about Dinosaurs, the word dinosaur is a new word, first used in 1841. Before that, scientist used dragon. Which in the Bible Leviathan is used which means dragon. Also tannyim, i probably spelled that wrong but it means sea monster or serpent. And also Behemoth, which when they decribe it in the Bible sounds like a brachiosaurus.
drivel. this topic really draws the loons eh?
- Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ...And the elemental processes began with all the probabilities within the possibilities as towards the finite with now so in an infinite
5:53 Answering for the unbeliever I could have been (if I had matured without becoming a Christian at 9) and am not.
1) You state that Jesus is God. God is all knowing. In Mark 10:6, your God said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Adam and Eve are closer to nearly just when Jesus spoke than at the beginning of Earth's timeline.
2) You state that Adam did sth very important and ominous, in Genesis 3. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you cannot deny there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens around 40 000 years ago:
a) if they descend from Adam, Genesis 3 is not recorded and transmitted history
b) if you say Genesis 3 was revealed to God, that's not in either Bible or tradition, only Genesis 1 is by tradition held to have been a vision Moses had on Sinai
c) also on "very old Adam" hypothesis, Genesis 5 and 11, by being stated as basically complete history and being grossly incomplete become lies within the book you call God's word
d) on the hypothesis of a very much more recent Adam:
i) all men being Adamites is indefensible (Amerindians and Aborigines would only partly and thanks to Europeans descend from him)
ij) him being the first man is indefensible (Neanderthals in Shanidar were human, well before him)
iij) original sin coming from him to all of mankind is therefore also indefensible.
3) If you think Adam had evolutionary origins, and uphold that only man can properly speaking speak, that's part of what makes us God's image, then it would follow Adam was a feral child, and God was cruel to him before he sinned. If you hold he only became human as an adult, this would change the thing, but involve him having a trauma from previous animal life into human life, unless God gave him amnesia, which in and of itself is a bad thing, which again makes Adam suffer evil before he sinned.
4) Not to mention animal suffering over millions of years before there were men and before the Earth was cursed for Adam's sin. Some Church Fathers held animals could have died, as food for carnivores, none that they would have been exposed to harsh prolonged suffering, before he sinned.
And actually, this also answers for why _as a believer_ I find Old Earth either inconsistent by pretty big inattentions, or showing a lack of faith in the Christian revelation.
Charles Spurgeon
"But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God."
Morning Allie... Completely off topic...
You've had a Leather Made Sponsor in the past. Can you pass on their name & Coupon Code?
I'm wanting to order wallets for Christmas.
Thank You & God Bless your Faithfulness to Him & the kingdom! ❤
Until it is acknowledged we are not on a spinning globe 🌎🥴 the rest doesn’t matter. That’s the original greatest lie ever told bc it disputes where we are, and denying Jesus existence is the second greatest lie and disputes who we are 👌🏻
Funny how he talked about the age of the earth and then basically said it doesn't matter. Let's go on to something else because that's not a hill to die on.
Well, I agree a person isn't saved by if they believe in a young earth. But believing in original sin is an important part of the gospel story. And while the age of the earth isn't important there are some things old earthers believe that mess up the whole gospel story.
What was the world like when God created it and called it good? Was it full of destruction, violence, and animals tormenting and eating each other? People who believe humans and dinosaurs didn't live together by default believe there was suffering, death, and even extinction before humans came and God called that good. Some say the fall only affected modern man, but then what about Romans 8:19-23 that talks about creation being subject to death because of the fall.
So, while I don't think it matters how old the earth is, it very much matters what the world was like before humans brought sin into the world and what it will therefore be like when Christ takes sin out of the world. A promise of a better world, not one basically the same as we have now, is the hope.
So is the young earth/old earth debate a salvation issue. I hope not because I've been trying to learn how to become a Christian and I can't force myself to believe the earth is 6000 yrs old. Surely this is not a salvation issue.
I believe in a young Earth, but will tell you that is NOT a salvation issue. Please just start with Jesus, why He came, and why He had to die, which was the shed His pure, innocent human blood to pay the penalty for for the rest of humanity's sin. We are all guilty and unable/unworthy to pay the price for our own unrighteous/rebellious nature. After He died, He was resurrected, which guaranteed that we will have everlasting life through Him, but you do have to accept, and believe in Him for His sacrifice to cover the cost of your sin.
The Roman Catholic always brought about Rationality and Faith. “I believe so that I may understand.” - St Augustine. The RCC had scientists that founded the Big Bang Theory and even the Scientific Method. My dear Protestant friends, please educate yourself on the History of Christianity.
Yes! Good science and good religion can coexist. All truth is God’s truth.
@@GratiaPrima_ amen 🙏
@@GratiaPrima_I may no longer be Catholic but I appreciate the Catholic Church's advancement in science
Yes. The RCC has been for 600 years trying to invalidate the Bible with “science.”
Monkey men and men that are women - fully embraced by your vicarious Christ
Orthodox checking in. This is a hill I will gladly fight side by side with the Catholics on. YEC is rubbish.
The biggest question with the age of the earth is does what you believe put death before sin? If death came before sin, then the wages of sin is NOT death, the Bible is not true and God is a liar.
Animal death, unlike human death, did not result from sin. Romans 5:12 says that sin came into the world through one man and spread to the human race, not to the animal kingdom. When God declared that his creation was good at the end of the sixth day, he must have had in mind the complex relationships within ecosystems, where predators, prey, scavengers, and pollinators all play specific roles. The life cycles of animals, including birth and death, contribute to the overall functioning and health of the earth’s ecosystems. Psalm 104:21 describes how “young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.” Lions are carnivorous predators, which means they primarily eat meat from prey. That is how God designed them. 2 Peter 2:12 says that animals are “creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed.” Humans, on the other hand, are different. We were made in God’s image. We have the potential for eternal life through faith in Christ. Being creatures of instinct, animals are unable to put faith in Christ and receive eternal life.
- it is women who have the covering
uh oh, the YEC'ers are at it again, lol. The books of the Torah are books of prophesy. Only one human being who has ever lived understood them as they were originally delivered by God, and that's the prophet Moses. He then delivered them orally to the Israelites in the language that he understood, which was informed by his understanding of the universe based on his experience at a particular point in human history in a particular part of the world, and it was an oral tradition for quite some time before it was written down in the ancient Hebrew and then translated into Greek, then Latin, then eventually European vernaculars like English. Understanding that these books were never meant to be understood as the literal words of God, but divinely inspired, doesn't detract from their holiness or from one's faith. In fact, it strengthens it because it brings it out of the restrictive, abstract realm of understanding and puts it in the living world, in living history, where it should be.
moses never existed mate. i love how religists claim they have some evidence that something is wrong using evide3nce of something else that is wrong, it's laughable. atheists know more about your religions than you do.
@@HarryNicNicholas what the hell are you babbling about, one month after the conversation ended?
Jesus did not override the Sabbath. This is used as an argument by Sunday keeping Christians that Jesus changed the Sabbath but He did not. Yes He has the authority over it but never charged it. Remember the Sabbath is the command. Don’t forget. 13:52
I mean, come on, even our Lord and Saviour, God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, spoke in parables...
Does the Age of the Earth Matter? 1) To enter heaven no. 2) Young earth creationists putting up blocks to Jesus for Scientists, yes. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is:
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ).
Study up on Evolutionary Biology 🧬 then have an opinion so many people have opinions and don’t know what it truly is on Both sides
- Genesis 1:2 ...Was as the re-positioning and re-forming of the Earth in that of domestication so that as the sons of God and the morning stars in human form for to dwell from generation to generation
Jesus did not break any of the laws. That is actually heretical to say such things. The bible says Jesus kept the laws to the t. The pharisees are the ones who added and Jesus had a problem with that because they overburdened the people with their laws.
So how is this McDowell any authority on anything that we are believe his judgment
Wow. Talk about wishy washy! Do some simple research. A day has always been a day. Why not interview Ken Ham. He can explain in a simple way. Also get this guy back on at the same time so maybe he can be helped at little.
Um, she did a 2 part interview with Ken Ham about 3 months ago
She did and many people in the comments section thought it went so badly that they begged her to interview Dr. Hugh Ross and the pastor who did a reaction video, Dr. Gavin Ortlund( who is a reformed Baptist like her). Dr. Sean Mc Dowell is highly respected and a solid apologist.
@Wentletrap213 Gavin is a notorious lib conpromiser, and McDowell is no better. Ken Ham is undefeated on this subject. I'm looking forward to singing God's praise in Heaven for demonstrating these worldly wise to be bumbling fools.
has a day always been a day though? I mean, there are two ways to understand a day from an astronomical standpoint: either the time it takes for the Earth to make one full rotation on it's axis, or 1/365th of the time it takes the Earth to make a full revolution around the sun. Now, the latter definitely contextualizes the concept of a "day" in relation to the presupposed existence of the sun. The former need not necessarily do the same, but our entire human understanding of the concept of a "day" is based on the time during which the sun is visible in our sky at any given vantage point on Earth. I bring all this up because, if you read the creation account in Genesis carefully and take it literally, you'll notice that the sun does not exist until Day 4... so what was a "day" for 1-3?
@@jammystarfish First of all, they are all conservative as am I. Secondly, the uncharitable way you hurl accusations and ad hominem attacks make you sound just like the leftists in the comment sections of conservative videos. Don’t become the monster you are trying to fight.
Witch bible they are several
3:13 Young Earth _proper_ : Earth is 7222 years old this year, was 5199 years old when Christ was born.
How ill educatated
How so,@@Uk.wildman ?
Bc you prefer Ussher or Syncellus? Or Jewish calendar?
OK, I can respect that.
But if you consider YOUNG Earth to mean "10 000 -- 12 000 years" I am sorry to say you are ill educated about the Bible and chronological issues in it.
it was brought into existence last thursday actually.
@@hglundahl we atheists love to see you argue over what god really said, every time you do an angel turns queer.
I think Engels already was,@@HarryNicNicholas -- if not in orientation, at least in ideas.
Comparing Young Earth Creationism to "last thursdayism" is so disingenious.
I have personal memories from this summer or from years ago before this.
No man has a record, written in a year known from a common chronology of historic record to be 8000 years old. Let alone millions or billions.
5:07 _"We don't have time ... to divide over issues like this"_
Hence, those who _do_ take a strong position get marginalised for not taking the mark of Sean McDowell ... either on hand or forehead.
It's not a gospel issue. It's not salvation by grace, sola Scriptura, or the deity of Christ for instance. It's important sure but it's a secondary issue and we shouldn't be dividing brothers and sisters over it.
I'm sorry,@@myjesusisall3192 ... the question is _when_ one can be considered as divisive.
Salvation is by grace, and not from works, but as certainly into works. Sola Scriptura is an error to a heresy, depending on what kind of authority the Council of Trent intended in defining the alternative.
The Deity of Christ actually _is_ indirectly involved.
A) bc of how Jesus did His miracles
B) bc of what He said in Mark 10:6 about the relation between age of the world and of mankind
C) bc of a Church He founded which all the time up to 1830's was Young Earth, whatever position it had on the days in Genesis 1.
I don't mind marginalizing certain perspectives if those perspectives themselves are corrosive to the larger project of avoiding marginalization. There's nothing wrong or contradictory about that.
Unless,@@Jimmy-iy9pl , it precisely _is_ wrong in your choice of _what_ you marginalise.
I think some Jews didn't want to get marginalised in their own country by the Romans, and found Jesus a liability.
Now, they were not considering Him as God anyway, even if they should have, so, to them, that was "marginalising a mere man" ... who for tactical reasons, they thought, should be marginalised.
They ended up crucifying God (through the Romans), calling Caesar their only king (to the exclusion of God), and getting their city sacked.
Btw,@@Jimmy-iy9pl , check the issues I enumerated in the comment previous to yours.
He thinks Jesus knew who he was? Or that’s just absolutely crazy. Of course he knew who he was Dumbo
Getting evidence from a book writin almost 2000 years ago is crazy town.
Another question I would ask YEC'ers is, how many of you are also Dispensationalists? I know those two doctrines are distinct, and I suppose one need not necessarily believe in one to believe in the other, but in my experience it seems to me that there is a massive overlap between the two. Anyway, the point being, if you take the book of Genesis literally and in plain text, as the infallible word of God, do you not also do the same for the book of Revelation? I ask because there are a lot of things mentioned in the book of Revelation that are CLEARLY meant to be taken as metaphorical and/or allegorical, and most Dispensationalists do exactly that when they, for instance, try to assign current nation-states to the various mythical kingdoms or animals mentioned in the text, amongst other things. But wait, you gotta take every word literally and in plain understanding, right?? So does that force you to believe in multi-headed sea monsters swimming around in the ocean, waiting for the antichrist to come?
Nobody believes everything in the Bible is literal. But we believe that you should be able to decide what is literal and what is not with the context, otherwise the Bible is useless.
When Jesus says, he is the door, it is obvious that he is not really a door. In the same way if I said that my bed had been swimming in my tears, you would understand that my bed was not actually floating on a river of my tears, but that I was just saying that I was crying a lot.
The creation account in Genesis, and every time the creation is mentioned, there is no reason in the context to believe that it was not literal.
@@jay144k lol, all religions are a joke, yo claim to have a personal relationship with a god who apparently doesn't pass on any information, and when he does it conflicts with some other persons revelation - it's TRIPE all of it.
@@jay144k god ought to be able to do anything, right?
except things like eradicate sin, or intervene in wars, or cure cancer altogether instead of one at a time - funny how religion seems to just mimic natural events and god apparently does nothing, until one you say he did something, but there;'s no way to demonstrate it was god at work - it's LIES. it's sad, sick lies.
4:08 "days = extended periods BUT Adam lived 7222 years ago, and no humans lived before him"
WAS an option in 1909.
IS NOT an option now.
adam and eve are myth and if you had half a brain you'd see the story is evidence of why there is no god, cos the god who created adam and eve was an incompetent idiot who couldn;t even protect an apple.
if you had anything like a heart@@HarryNicNicholas, you might have seen that God ended up protecting the apple He really cared about.
I would like to respectfully state that Jesus did not “override the Sabbath”. He overrode the pharisaical burdens placed on the Sabbath. Since the Bible defines sin to be the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), and Jesus was sinless, then He kept the law perfectly including the fourth commandment. Jesus shows us how to truly keep the Sabbath.
any idea who wrote john, cos it wasn;t anyone called john.
Young earth creationists are not much different than flat-earthers.
To say that actually shows that you've never seriously looked into resources such as ICR, Answers in Genesis etc. Sounds like you're saying "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up." That's an indication of stubbornness, and stubbornness is as the sin of idolotry (1 Sam 15:23)
🤡
I wouldn’t go quite that far, but it’s pretty close…
Of course the earth is round, not the center of the universe, and is way WAY more than 6k yrs old. Plenty of evidence. And doesn’t contradict a correct reading of scripture.
Wow, that's such a thoughtful and powerful argument. Were you educated in a government school?
Ad hom