The Origins of Young Earth Creationism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ม.ค. 2022
- This is the history that young earth creationists do not want you to know about. The truth of what Christianity has believed about the age of the earth and creation has long been forgotten by a recent rise of young earth creationism. In reality, there is a lot of evidence that prior to the 1960s most Christians believed the earth was much older than 6000 years.
A special thanks to historian Ronald Numbers and Philsopher philosopher Joshua Moritz for reviewing this video.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
National Science Foundation - ncse.ngo/young-earth-creationism
Dr. James R. Mook - The Early Church on Creation
answersingenesis.org/church/t...
Lita Sanders - How does the Bible teach 6,000 years?
creation.com/6000-years
Dr. John D. Morris - How Old Is The Earth According To The Bible?
www.icr.org/article/how-old-e...
St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies, book 5
Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho
Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, book 6
Philo of Alexandria - The Creation of the World
St. Athanasius Four Discourses Against the Arians, book 2
Origen - Against Celsus, book 6; On First Principles, book 4
St. Augustine - The
Literal Meaning, book 1, 4, 5
St. Basil - Hexaemeron, Homily
St. Ambrose - Hexaemeron
St. John Damascene, - De Fide Orthodoxa
William of Conches - The Dragmaticon Philosophia
A. C. Sparavigna - "Robert Grosseteste's Thought on Light and Form of the World." International Journal of Sciences
Vol.3, April 2014 (4)
L. Piccardi & W. B. Masse - Myth and Geology
Reijer Hooykass - Religion and the Rise of Science
B. Ferngren - Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction
Ronald Numbers - Darwinism Comes to America
Ronald Numbers - The Creationists (Expanded Edition)
D. N Livingstone - Darwin's Forgotten Defenders
J. R. Moore - The Post-Darwinian Controversies
B. Zon & B. Lightman - Evolution and Victorian Culture.
Michael Ruse, Robert J. Richards - The Cambridge Companion to the 'Origin of Species
B. B. Warfield, B.B - Evolution, Scripture, and Science: Selected Writings
The 1957 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine:
www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/q...
George McCready Price - Back to the Bible, 3rd Ed.
George McCready Price - Selected Works of George McCready Price
George McCready Price - Geology and the Recapitulation Theory: A study in Circular
Reasoning
creationconcept.info/gmprice1...
George McCready Price - The Phantom of Organic Evolution
George McCready Price - "The White and the Brown," from Price Papers
Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. (June 1964), "Reply to Reviews," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 16, 59-61
Ronald Numbers - The Maritimes Birth of Creation Science. Lecture:
• Ronald Numbers - The M...
#Genesis #Darwin #Science - บันเทิง
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 52 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZLgYjtGQpbc/mqdefault.jpg)
I have a question for any young earth creationists willing to respond.
Hypothetically, If macro evolution is proven to be undeniably true, would this make you an atheist?
Yes, I expect it would, as that would show that the Bible is wrong.
However, I do question how an unobserved event from the past could possibly be proven to be undeniably true.
@@PJRayment Interesting.
If you don't mind me asking another question. Why would evolution disprove the bible rather than just your interpretation of the bible? I mean plenty of theistic evolutionists exist why wouldn't it just lead to joining that group instead of atheism?
No
It's not just my interpretation. It's what the Bible plainly says.
1) It explicitly says that creation took six days (Exodus 20:11), basing our week on creation week.
2) What occurred on each of those days is listed in Genesis 1 which repeatedly points out that they were normal days (comprising an evening and a morning).
3) The top scholars on the language agree that it means ordinary days, and that the flood was a real, global, flood, and that you can add up the ages in the chronogenealogies.
4) Jesus affirmed the timescale by mentioning that man was created at the beginning of creation (i.e. not billions of years later).
5) The order of creation is very different to that proposed by evolution.
6) Man was not the offspring of an ape-like creature. Genesis clearly says that man was created from the dust of the ground, and Eve from Adam, and Luke traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, then God, not Adam, then a pre-adamic creature.
7) Death is the result of sin, which of course was committed by Adam, so there was no death before Adam. Evolution not only has death before man, but relies on death to produce the variety of life, which contradicts both that death is an enemy and that God cares even for the sparrows.
8) Following 7), if death is how we came to be here, then what is the point of death being the consequence of sin and therefore Jesus' death taking our punishment?
They're just the things I can think of off the top of my head.
Yes, there are plenty of theistic evolutionists, but some have admitted that 6-day creation is what the Bible appears to teach, but don't believe it because of the (supposed) scientific evidence. That is, they don't get that from the Bible.
"why wouldn't it just lead to joining that group instead of atheism?"
Because I don't like to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. Evolution is an explanation based on explaining the variety of life without God. It makes no sense to say that God used a method that doesn't need Him.
@@PJRayment interesting. That's all I wanted to ask. Thank you for your time.
When I became a Christian, the first question skeptics always asked was, "How old is the earth". After the third time I came up with a routine. I would excitedly reply that I knew exactly how old the earth was. I would would flip through my daytimer. I would then read, "The earth is exactly as old as it should be". I realize this is not evangelism. However, they seemed really out of line by picking on a baby Christian.(and it shut them up)
I have no idea what you’re trying to say
@@moma8518 I supposed it's kind of like me saying - in regards to Revelation and the pre\post millennialism debate - I am a pan-millennialist. It will pan out however it is supposed to.
That attitude reminds me a bit of Gandalfs sassiness tbh haha
Mmmmmm IP lied quite a bit.
th-cam.com/video/TTkwsqiFW9A/w-d-xo.html
That's not really an answer though, if you don't care (or don't care to argue, at least) then you can just say that.
Thank you so much for making this video. I have been a fan since I stumbled upon your videos but just found this one today. I actually was an atheist most of my adult life. I was raised in a Christian home as a child. I had a love of figuring out how things worked and this lead me to studying science. I ended up rejecting Christianity because of young earth creationism and all of the evidence supporting evolution and geology. But about 4ish years ago I read the bible cover to cover for the first time because of a girl I was trying to date. That ended, I didn't get the girl but it sparked a search for the truth that hasn't ended. Your video makes a ton of sense and explains a lot. Keep up the good work we need more people like you in Christianity.
I thought reading the Bible from cover to cover will make you an atheist
Lost thirdsuo dragon Lloyl lordlyddd
YEC seems to be anti-evangelization. I know of no examples of it drawing more people to the faith, only driving current ones away or being accepted by those that already believe.
@@celestialsatheist1535 Not in the slightest, I was an atheist until I read the Bible. It wasn't really until I read the prophets that I really understood and began to truly believe.
@@celestialsatheist1535 If you read the bible with the intention to remain an atheist then you will remain an atheist, If you are actually open to other ideas and try to understand the Bible and Christianity you would accept christianity
The Ireneaus quote around 4:20 isn't saying that the Creation Week was six thousand years, it is teaching the ancient doctrine of Chiliasm, where the seven days of Creation were prophetic and signifies that the entire history of the world would be seven thousand years, with Christ returning after six thousand years for the Sabbath Millennial Reign.
Amen! Exactly! Irenaeus, and the other early chiliasts, also interpreted the creation days as literal, 24-hr days, as is evident in the quote that Michael himself provides. I'm really glad to see other people pointing that out, and I really wish he would address it.
I'm not so sure. Ireneaus uses figurative meaning when needed. We can see it in this chapter of Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 23) ;
(...) Thus, then, in the day that they ate, in the same did they die, and became death's debtors, since it was one day of the creation. For it is said, There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day. Now in this same day that they ate, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he ate. For God said, In that day on which you shall eat of it, you shall die by death. The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death. And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, 2 Peter 3:8 he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. Whether, therefore, with respect to disobedience, which is death; whether [we consider] that, on account of that, they were delivered over to death, and made debtors to it; whether with respect to [the fact that on] one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of the creation); whether [we regard this point], that, with respect to this cycle of days, they died on the day in which they did also eat, that is, the day of the preparation, which is termed the pure supper, that is, the sixth day of the feast, which the Lord also exhibited when He suffered on that day; or whether [we reflect] that he (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit - it follows that, in regard to all these significations, God is indeed true (...)
Similar comment could be made about most what was said in the video.
@@renaudfabre4791 Yep :)
I wish more Christians and critics would learn church history. Today’s church has some fringe ideas taken as standard.
I know this is old, but... from what I remember churches wouldn't teach church history or talk about the science problems. Churches were more concerned about getting people to behave how they liked or emotional moments or prosperity. At least during the 1990s; I imagine it's still that way.
6 day creation in Genesis is standard orthoxy. This feature is being economical with the truth, a right hash.
With 30,000+ denominations, someone has some wrong ideas -- perhaps even ALL of them. Truth doesn't care about our evidence or interpretations. None of us is omniscient, so we will *_always_* have more to learn. Most Christians I've met don't have enough humility to be perpetual students.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
They won’t. It’s not profitable. You make more money if you tell the masses (especially evangelical christians) they’re being lied to by some big scary conspiracy by Satan. Which gives Satan quote a lot more credit than he deserves hahaha. Anyways, yea that’s just my understanding. You make more money playing fantasy than you do keeping it real and in this reality
@@1969cmp
Not really. Numerous church father had wildly different thoughts on the matter. 6000 year old earth makes little sense to those with an IQ above 80
Fascinating work. That "the age of the Earth was not a big issue in the early church" is the most important take away. This was never a point of theological division in the past and should be one today either.
Salve!
I think there may be two reasons t why "the age of the Earth was not a big issue in the early church.”
First, as you said, this is not a topic that should fight over.
Second, YEC was the universal standard until recently, the past 500 years or so. Therefore. There was nothing to argue about.
th-cam.com/video/TTkwsqiFW9A/w-d-xo.html
IP gets set straight
@@Brandon-yb8py Nope.
@@misterauctor7353 did you even watch it?
19:08 An important lesson to be learned in this story is that Bernard Ramm's attempts to exaggerate facts in order to make a true point led to people discrediting him and going the other way towards a falsehood. You cannot use lies and exaggeration in the name of the truth, this is inherently self-defeating.
It was just ineffective satire.
There is also an element of "in your face"ism and a pride that comes from being mocked or persecuted for believing something that is so outlandish to the average educated person. I came across this growing up in a cult. Members were so fixated on being different to "the world" that they welcomed these crazy theologies or theories if they made them stand out from the crowd. Jesus said they will know us by our love, not by our beliefs.
What group did you grow up in?
@@jefflinahan5853 JW
@@lostinvictory8526
I’m assuming you’re a Christian by you saying they will know us by our love. If so, you (and I) worship Someone who conquered death… physically and literally… rose from the dead to live forevermore.
Wake up, you still believe in things that are “outlandish” to the “average educated person” (whatever that means).
Don’t be so quick to mock your brothers and sisters that also believe in a literal creation and flood account (as well as many others accounts) or write them off as being proud.
@@scwienert Educated person is not an exact definition, but in this case I would apply it to someone who has finished high school and followed the state schools science curriculum from start to finish and thinks they know enough about science to judge whether the latest science stories are fact of wishful thinking.
@@lostinvictory8526 what do these state school curriculums state about the ability to come back to life from the dead and then live forever in a glorified body that will never see corruption again?
Hi, I’m a YEC. I’ve been watching IP’s videos pretty much since he started his channel. I like a lot of his videos, and my comment is in no way motivated by malice towards him or his ministry. I just want people to understand that he has greatly misrepresented what the ante-Nicene Christians (Christians before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325) believed about creation.
IP emphasizes that if Genesis is to be understood properly then it has to be understood in its historical context, yet he doesn’t understand the context and beliefs of the ante-Nicene Christians. Most of them were young earth creationists who interpreted Genesis literally just like modern creationists, but they had peculiar views on prophecy that were based in their understanding of creation.
They called themselves chiliasts (we would call them premillennialists) and they believed God created everything in six literal 24-hour days and then rested on the seventh literal 24-hour day (just like modern creationists), but in addition to seeing the creation days as literal they also saw them as being prophetic symbols telling us that all of earth history would last 6,000 years, and then Christ would come back and establish his kingdom on the earth for a thousand years represented by the seventh day of rest.
This idea is clearly spelled out by Irenaeus in the quote that IP himself provides in this video! Just pause the video and read it carefully and you’ll see that IP doesn’t understand this doctrine and as a result is reading Irenaeus incorrectly.
“For in as many DAYS [not millennia] as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded.” He’s clearly saying that just as everything was created in six days, so shall creation last for six millennia. Just because he referenced “the day of the Lord is as a thousand years” doesn’t mean he’s interpreting Genesis 1 like Hugh Ross! His point isn’t that the days of Genesis represent thousand-year ages, his point is that in addition to being literal they’re also prophetically telling us the length of creation until Christ’s kingdom gets established.
The assertion that Irenaeus was reading Genesis allegorically is false. The allegorical interpretation was the product of the Alexandrian school of thought, and promoted by Origen (184-253), but the chiliasts (like Irenaeus) were AGAINST that interpretation! These early Christians also thought they were living in the last days and that Christ would soon come back and establish his kingdom because they used the genealogies of Genesis to conclude that the earth (in their day) was almost six thousand years old (NOT twelve thousand, like IP wrongly says in his video). So you see that they used OT genealogies to calculate the age of God’s creation just like modern creationists do! The reason they were so off in their calculations is because they used the Greek OT (the Septuagint) where the genealogies are messed up.
But don’t’ take my word for it! Old Earth Creationist, Davis Young wrote, “But the interesting feature of this patristic view is that the equation of days and millennia was not applied to the creation week but rather to subsequent history. They did not believe that the creation had taken place over six millennia but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation.” That’s from his book, ‘Christianity and the Age of the Earth’, pg. 20.
I’m not sure where IP got his wrong view of Irenaeus, but I think you can all see that he’s clearly misunderstood and misrepresented his theology. He also asserts that Just Martyr interpreted Genesis 1 in a day-age fashion. Wrong! Justin interpreted Gen 1 just like Irenaeus. You can also find examples of this interpretation in the Epistle of Barnabas (which many early Christians believed was written by Paul's companion), Papias (quoted by later writers), Hippolytus, Methodius, Lactantius, Victorinus, etc.
So there are actually many quotes that could be given from the writings of very early Christians who clearly articulated a literal young earth creationist interpretation of Genesis. So if IP wanted to really give us an unbiased history of the origins of YEC (as he repeatedly claimed on twitter) then why didn’t he include any of those quotes from the Christians I just listed with an explanation of their historical context so that people could understand their doctrine? In fact, I’m probably going to take my own advice and make my own video doing just that.
I think IP has the responsibility to at least fix his misrepresentation of Irenaeus, and properly learn what the early Christians actually believed if he’s going to reference them in his videos.
you're right that some of this is wrong. E.g. Irenaeus taking the days of creation to be 6 1000 yr periods. BUT you are also wrong in interpreting the church fathers as advocates of a historical-literalist approach to Genesis. That is absolutely false. They saw double meanings in the texts (e.g. Genesis 24 hr creation days AND 1000 year eschatological days) and it was the spiritual meaning - derived from their neo-platonism - that was most important NOT the historical-literal. YEC invert such a priority.
@@damodevo Forgive me, but I don't think you really disagree with anything I said. I think I made it pretty clear that they read the creation days both as literal days and as prophetic symbols. Yes, Ken Ham, for example, doesn't read the creation days prophetically, but to me that difference in eschatology isn't relevant. I don't know, maybe that's just me.
Are you saying you don't see a hermeneutical difference between Origen and other members of the Alexandrian school and Irenaeus and other non-Alexandrians?
Do you agree that Irenaeus believed the creation to be less than 6,000 years old in his day, or not?
@@thewolfes146 no the differences btw the Alexandrians (I thought Irenaeus was one 🤔) and the antioch school etc has been greatly exaggerated. Virtually none of them adhered to the historical-grammatical method. Hence its farcical for the YECs to claim them as support.
@@damodevo I'm far from an expert on this topic, and if I'm wrong I want to know it. So if you could please show me HOW I'm wrong, rather than just asserting THAT I'm wrong, I'd love for you to do so that way I can correct my errors and embrace the truth. You already agreed with me that Irenaeus interpreted the creation days literally and believed in a young earth, “you're right that some of this is wrong. E.g. Irenaeus taking the days of creation to be 6,000 yr periods.” I appreciate that, because that's the main thing I wanted to prove, and would like Michael to fix about his video. I don't see how anything else you brought up would undermine that, but I'll still address the issues you've raised.
You said that “the church fathers” held to “neo-platonism”, that it's “absolutely false” that “the church fathers” were “advocates of a historical-literalist approach to Genesis”, and that “the differences btw the Alexandrians...and the antioch school etc has been greatly exaggerated.” I don't know what evidence you have to support those claims, but I'll contrast the theologies of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria to show just how different these two schools of thought were from each other. I chose those two because Michael gives the impression in his video that they have very similar theologies and methods of interpreting the Bible. I think that's a false impression (and is something else he should fix.)
One major difference is that Justin was a chiliast (premillennialist) and Clement was an amillennialist, as such, Justin believed that Christians will inherit the restored land of Israel in our resurrection bodies, while Clement believed we live forever as disembodied souls in heaven. Quite different, wouldn't you say?
In his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” (which Michael gives as a reference for his video) Justin writes, “But I and others, who are right-minded on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.” See how he's taking the OT prophecies of the restoration of the land of Israel literally?
In “Stromata” book 4, chapter 6, Clement writes, “'Those, then,' says Plato, 'who seem called to a holy life, are those who, freed and released from those earthly localities as from prisons, have reached the pure dwelling-place on high.' In clearer terms again he [Plato] expresses the same thing: 'Those who by philosophy have been sufficiently purged from those things, live without bodies entirely for all time. Although they are enveloped in certain shapes; in the case of some, of air, and others, of fire.'”
Another huge difference is that Justin argued against the Greek philosophies of Plato and Pythagoras, while Clement argued that one has to embrace Greek philosophy to correctly understand the Bible! In the fragments that we still have from Justin Martyr's book on the resurrection (which some think are inauthentic), in chapter 10, he argues against the immortality of the soul and then says, “For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us?” Justin is saying that Plato taught the immortality of the soul, but Jesus taught something DIFFERENT: the resurrection of the body!
In Justin's “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” Justin writes, “For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians.” So here Justin goes so far as to condemn the Platonist Christians, who deny the bodily resurrection and believe our souls will live forever in heaven, as blasphemous and not real Christians!
Now compare what Justin says about the Greek philosophical influence on Christians to what Clement said about Greek philosophy. “Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring 'the Hellenistic mind,' as the law, the Hebrews, 'to Christ.' Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.” Quoted from “Stromata”, book 1, chapter 5.
“...so that philosophy does not ruin life by being the originator of false practices and base deeds, although some have calumniated it, though it be the clear image of truth, a divine gift to the Greeks; nor does it drag us away form the faith, as if we were bewitched by some delusive art, but rather, so to speak, by the use of an ampler circuit, obtains a common exercise demonstrative of the faith.” Book 1, chapter 2, of “Stromata”.
I think you can see that Justin and Clement could not be more polar opposite! One interprets prophecy literally and argued against Greek philosophy, while the other interpreted prophecy allegorically and embraced Greek philosophy! Are you really going to continue to insist that their differences have been greatly exaggerated? If so you're going to you'll need to back that up with some evidence. And that's just comparing two people! We could go over the works of Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Papias, Methodius, Victorinus, etc. and compare them with Origen, Augustine, etc. and continue to see the same kind of extreme differences. But I think I made my point.
@@thewolfes146 hi you've written a lot there. The key point to remember is that we are products of the enlightenment and therefore care about historical and scientific accuracy. The church fathers and biblical authors not so much. The CF were not concordists. They did not see Genesis as teaching us science. This doesn't mean it's false of course.
As being a Christian since a young age. I must say you have opened my understanding to bible tremendously . Keep it up my friend
Glad to help
@@InspiringPhilosophy 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
@@seal9390 And was also dead for 3 days.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hey Mike, just quickly how would you respond to the creationist claim that Exodus 20:11 implies that the creation was six literal 24 hour days?
@@jacobtesta2765 Yeah, I used to think about that one a lot, until I realised that Deuteronomy’s version of the Decalogue uses the Exodus from Egyptian slavery as the reason for the Sabbath. Therefore, it’s just an analogy. Not a literal parallel. So just as the Israelites took much longer than one day to reach the Promised Land, and were in Egypt for many more than six, so God didn’t need to have created the entire cosmos as we see it today in only one Earth week so that He could rest on the seventh day. The point is that God rested, and therefore the Israelites were told to rest too.
Wow. Your progress in video editing in 6 years is stunning
I only recently heard the declaration that Christianity, by and large, has not held a young Earth/Universe model, and upon looking for a history of the YEC movement, found this video. Thank you for putting this together!
Old earth is nonsense developed to marry evolution with the bible, to try and make it more palatable for the masses. Riddle me this!? Can you believe Jesus rose from the dead, if you can't believe that same God can't create the world in 6 days? If your honest and consistent in your thinking, you can't. The video is a pile horse manure.
...only that the presenter is incoherent in his argument. Irenaeus and most of the early church fathers were young earth creationist as well as pre-millenialist (the presenter is a preterist). It's doubtful that the SDA started the 'modern creationist movement', it has been acknowledged that the fathers of the modern scientific movement were creations in the Biblical historical sense - Kepler, Newton, Joule, Pasteu, Mendel etc.
As far as a movement goes, in the 60s a book was published looking at flood geology as being the better explanation for our geology challenging the uniformitarian model for everything. Uniformitarianism were developed by Hutton and Charles Lyell with that later indicating that he wanted to rid Moses out of science because if one can discredit Genesis then The Gospel can be eroded and all we are left with is allegorist and pretty much gnosticism.
You have much better answers on creation.com
Cheers, ex-atheist. (I'm not SDA...)
Unfortunately IP has done a bunch of cherry picking. The Encyclopedia Britannica, the oldest English language encyclopedia, explicitly stated that the creation of the world was 4007 BC. The fist edition was in 1771. This position was maintained until the 8th edition, 1852 to 1860, when the influence of Hutton and Lyell began to put pressure on the young earth view.
Moreover, Ernst Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, stated, "The [Darwinian} revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6,000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.” Ernst Mayr, “The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution,” Science, vol. 176 (2 June 1972), 988. If the church did not hold to a young earth view at the time of Hutton and Lyell what then was the "avalanche" that Mayr was referring to, if not the revolution that attacked a young age?
digital.nls.uk/encyclopaedia-britannica/archive/188090419#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=592&xywh=-1074%2C0%2C4569%2C3387
Super helpful and informative. Thank you for this. Like some have said, your presentation was super well done and was easy to understand. :) Looking forward to the next video. :)
Looking forward to this, IP is the one who prompted me to actually examine my views on creation. Before, I would not budge on my stance that the earth is only 5 thousand years old, but now, I am willing to acknowledge the limits of my knowledge and hear different views, thanks IP!
But make allowance for the limits of the knowledge of the other parties, too.
You had it so well, don't throw it away. God is no liar.
Remember, essentially everything was created with apparent age.
Though if you think hard enough and look close enough, there are some indications that time cannot stretch infinitely into the past:
- Polonium halos in granite
- Human population levels
- Erosion rates
- Rotation rate of the earth
- And countless other systems not yet in equilibrium
@@NICEFINENEWROBOT God isn’t a liar because He uses Divine allegory. That’s you imposing your own wisdom into things higher than you
@@keenanmiller6231 that is you imposing your "divine allegory" on the plain statements of God and attempting to pervert His Wisdom.
In other words, you began to doubt the Word of God because of IP... sad.
Your videos are helping me with my seminary paper. Thanks so much for the sources!
As a geologist, AND someone who was raised in The worldwide Church of God (a Seventh-day Adventist offshoot), I can relate to this from more than one side.
Before learning the science, I use to entertain the “science” of young earth creationists because I was brought up believing in a strict literal interpretation of the creation account. Like many others, in college I was forced to reconcile my beliefs with the rock solid evidence for a very old earth and even evolution. And like many others, it led to doubts about my faith. Thank God I came across Christian intellectuals like John Walton, Tim Mackie, Inspiring Philosophy, and others who made me understand the creation account in a different, more accurate way.
Now, as a geologist who understands the science and has seen it for myself in the field, I can say that the evidence is overwhelming for an earth that is billions of years old, and I can clearly see the ways that young earth creationists distort and cherry pick the science to fit their worldview. Not that secular scientists don’t sometimes do the same thing - there are extremists on both sides.
However, it saddens me to see so many young people lose their faith because they are told they have to choose between the science and a strict, contradictory interpretation of the Bible. It saddens and even angers me that this is a monster of our own creation. We in the body of Christ are responsible for creating it, and so we must also be responsible for subduing it.
Thank you for what you are doing, IP.
Yea somwehow the creationist leaders convinced their followers it is either young earth creationism or atheism, and that could not be further from the truth. Pretty ironic that such supposedly devout christians cannot even respect the 10 commandments. THat tells you a lot about their cult.
I had almost the exact situation as you. I almost left Christianity because I failed to realize that this was more than just a black-or-white issue. I’m so glad I took the time to read books and learn from creators like IP in order to learn about the syntax and culture of the Bible. Ironically, believing in an old earth ended up strengthening my faith.
when God created a tree , it did not appear "one day old" , when God created a rock , it did not appear "one day old" .... When God created the Earth , it did not appear "one day old" .... Therein lies the problem ..... I think of the planets as "art" , God did not create "blank spheres in the heavens" , the moon had craters upon creation , that was His "painting of a Moon" for us , or maybe I should say "sculpture" ..... All of you people think everything was a "blank" and then "it took billions of years to do this or that" , that's not even logical to begin with ..... Even your models , surely you guys don't think all planets and moons were just some "perfectly flat smooth sphere" with NO Geological variances like hills , valleys , erosions , NOTHING just one perfectly smooth sphere of what ???? When you see anything you think "well this took millions of years to create" , any mountain , any trenches , canyons , beaches , cliffs , everything took millions of years , so you basically say "The Earth was a perfect sphere like a plastic ball , totally smooth all over" and then all the changes happened over millions billions of years .... The Earth was created as a paradise perfect world , Noah's flood was a mega tectonic catastrophe and flood , that reshaped the entire Earth in a year , it was catastrophe beyond imagination , Mt St Helens times a million
@@shure46 yea Noahs flood never happened we know that for a fact. There is not even enough water on earth for that to happen
@@daftwulli6145 ocean floors sank after the flood and drained the water , Earth was not as extreme as it is now , mountains not as high , ocean floors not as deep , the flood catastrophe changed the entire planet , it was a massive event of plate tectonic changes ..... You do not understand what happened , you think it just "rained" , it was not like that , it was more like THIS - th-cam.com/video/QCKi8Dw4wAU/w-d-xo.html
Dude, the quality of your video presentation is amazing. The transitions, pictures, imagery, and overall graphic design is just phenomenal. It feels so premium. Excellent content, by the way. God bless.
Coul you tell me What software would that be?
You are why Christianity is dying everywhere people can read.
@@benjaminjohnson6118 Hades itself will not and is not to triumph over His Church.
Arguing for a proper interpretation of scripture is not attacking the Church.
@@alist755 Say whatever lies make you feel more comfortable Christ burden. Generation Z knows your black heart and refuses you whole cloth.
@@benjaminjohnson6118 what stupidities is talking this man? Gen z just want sex and porn, that's why they reject christianity
I've been waiting for this for a long time.
I will say, growing up in the general 80s/90s Christian sub-culture...though it wasn't hammered by our church - I had no clue there were even other conceptually valid theories on creation - other than YEC. And, it was always presented like the only view that had ever been thought of. So yeah, finding out much later where it came from, and how differently many historic church figures thought - not to mention that there are legions of believers who do not hold to the young earth view...I mean, Steve Jobs Mind-Blown Gif. - basically. I still maintain that it isn't really the YEC view that I have much problem with - but the idea that it is the ONLY valid one for Christians to hold and anything else is basically siding with El Diablo. If we want to get into the Devil's work here, I believe that teaching specifically (that any other view is heretical, or anti-God), is actually a long-game faith-nuking time-bomb. It needs to be exposed. though gently and carefully.
Very important points. Also, too me it seems to be an influenced by intellectual materialism, which lead to thinking exclusively of the possibility of literal (vs. symbolic interpretation), which was easy prey for the new atheist types.
Now that I think more about it, I don't know how anyone who read the Bible can think that (YEC). Almost(?) all direct teachings given are undoubtedly symbolical! Why would Genesis not be?
Every lie and confusion and false belief is by itself wrong and comes from the Devil himself. There arent multiple right ways to interpret this issue, they are all mutually exclusive. But I agree with you that starting to hate and question somebodies salvation and honesty based on this issue is also wrong and comes from the Devil. Engaging in a friendly discussion or debate about the topic is okay and it should be done in brotherly love, respect and all piousness from both sides fully aware that they should not question somebodies salvation based on this issue, but only on someones true repentance and faith in the Lord.
@@johannakunze3300 because its written in prose and because the border between the symbolical and literal is blurred (where to draw the line? Should we interpret 7 days symbolically but Adam and Eve and the rest literally? Or should we draw the line after Adam and Eve but before the flood? Or is the flood also symbolical but everything that transpires after including tower of Babel literal? If not should we draw the line before Abraham Isaac and Jacob or are they symbolical too like all the stories before them? Or if not there, maybe the line should be drawn before Moses? Or is the entire "Israelites in the Egypt" symbolical as well? Is the conquest literal too? And so on and so on and then you finally come to some historically proven and reliable stories about the kings of Judah and Israel where you cant read them symbolically because even the extra-biblical historical sources talk about those events and persons. Now you just have to look back and think again if there is any place where the text indicates you should draw that line between historical and mythological.)
@@magnificentuniverse3085 Yes. You stopped before the really interesting questions though. In any case, maybe check out Jonathan Pageau if are interested in symbolism.
Great video dude. Dr. John Whitcomb was one of my weekly guest professors at Word of Life Bible Institute a decade ago. Even at the time, as a YE Creationist myself, his book came off as a BIIIGG stretch
I am glad i was not the only one thinking that.
I'm glad you put your sources in the description.
Always do
Could God have created the earth in six seconds - yes. Exodus 20: 9-11 provides interesting commentary on what seven days literally meant.
Why would he create the earth over thousands of years ?
@GershomDeol He could have done it in no time, I believe.
@@jamiehudson3661 cool 😎 me too. I just feel like if it was a long period of time he would have just told us ? But he said he did it in 6 days and the 7th day he rested. I don't divide the body of Christ over these issues cuz they are not crucial to the faith . I don't think people who believe in mikes view are not saved , I love all my real bros and sis'
I was reading St Athanasius' "On The Incarnation" recently and found it interesting how he took it for granted that natural death predated the Fall.
can you quote please?
Love the animation used in the video keep up the good work man
Adam died spiritually when he ate from the fruit. Not physically.
How is "becoming like gods, knowing good and evil" a spiritual death?
@@lancediduck6278 Becoming like gods?. Was lucifer actually telling the truth?
@@lancediduck6278if you actually read the Bible, you'd realize it was half truth, half lie...(which is even more deceptive)
The truth was that their eyes WE'RE open and that they knew the knowledge of right/wrong like God right after they ate from the fruit... They realised instantly and knew they were naked and unsophisticated from the feelings of "Shame" and "Guilt" that started manifesting within their being after eating... And God asked them why they were hiding in the bushes and covering their private areas, and their response was that they knew they were naked... And God scratched his head like... "Whaaa?? Who told you that you were naked??“ and they both said that no one told them they were naked, they just automatically knew after they both ate from the fruit in which the serpent told the woman to eat from, and then told her husband to eat as well...
And also the other true part was that they did NOT die on that very day... But instead they went on to live many many years afterwards and had many children as the decades went by... The Bible said Adam went onto live 930 years... That was the true part....
The LIE from a naive and innocent mind's understanding... was that a piece of fruit from the tree of knowledge was going to give them "god-like powers" to become powerful independent deities themselves, having a form of God-ship over all creation and being equal with God himself (because that was Satan's own personal inner desires projected onto the unsuspecting Women for being created in a form that was subservient to her Man/Husband counterpart, this was the reason for the serpent secretly communcating with the Woman first and NOT with the Man first... Adam wouldn't have seen a talking serpent as natural, for God gave Adam Headship over all the animals of the earth and knew each one of them by name, for he named them)
@@lancediduck6278and yes, it was also a spiritual death as well... Because they were forbid to continue eating from the OTHER tree in the garden called The Tree of Life in which produced fruit that allowed them access to eternal life if continued eating under God's Blessings... And since they were no longer in God's Favor, they were driven out of the Garden and there was a Cherub Angel with a Sword made of Fire, guarding the east entrance of the Garden to prevent them from re-entry (The West Side of the Garden was probably over a Rocky Cliff, probably over an ocean)
@@mickme8914Lucifer is a liar.
You made the animations? Are amazing. Excellent video as usual. Regards from Mexico
Outstanding work. Love this new animation format.
I'm so glad videos like this exist. When I was younger, there were so many videos, from Christians, talking about how everything in Genesis must be 100% literal, but that just wasn't logical, and I believed we had a logical God who gave us a logical world, so it was really hard to maintain my faith. Thanks for going into the history of all this stuff as well.
This was beautifully done! Extremely informative and enjoyable. Thank you for this good work!
And quite faulty and misleading.
See my separate comment from eight days ago.
@@PJRayment Liar for Jesus.
2:12 I just read the Mook article you mentioned. If Mook had written that the early church unanimously held to a young earth in its first 16 centuries, I would agree with you that he contradicts himself. But he didn't claim that - he didn't use the word "unanimous." In fact, later in the same article he starts a paragraph saying "Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history." That to me proves that Mook does not believe the church was unanimously young earth. If he believed the church was unanimously young earth, I think he would have have started with "All" instead of "Most."
Love the infographics, Michael!
You should use these more often!
They take a while to make. We’ll try to make more videos like this, time permitting.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
I think they’re too much and kinda distracting lol. If it makes videos take longer to make, you don’t have to use them
@@imlafonz8047 it's professional looking, so its cool
@@thequandlecultiston3157
it’s making me think of prageru lol
Editing is fantastic!!! Great work Mike👍🏾
The silmarillion is a helpful read, in which there is an eteranal song that sparks the universe. Imagine starting to argue that, well, since the description of the song isn't infinitely long, then it was just occurring for a little while, and then the story in middle earth is much longer, so that means the song is just a little thing long in the past. No, the point is they are both two sides of the same thing. Eternity cannot be illustrated in story form without allusion. The song is eternal, not necessarily linear, even though a story must be, the story in middle earth is part of the song, as seen from one point in the song, let's say. And a very important thing is that it is though the souls of creatures the song is sung and takes shape into corporeal reality. And this is the point of genesis, that the human is in the middle, mediating between the waters above and the waters below, between heaven and earth. It first sets up the light and darkness, then the above and below, then the land and vegetation appears in the middle, then the stars and birds, and then fishes in the sea. The birds and fishes are not our modern scientific birds, they are representatives of above and below. Then animals appear again in the middle, and then humans are places in the middle of the whole picture, and by living into the imagery of the text, we see that humans are central to the whole, fulfill the central role. This is the point. We were there the whole time, in God, partaking in the song, the creation, into which we live, through the breath of life that God put in us. To argue about the scientific merits of the text is to just miss the whole thing. It is a retelling of the creation myths that were circulating at the time, and it's telling an important thing using that language. We are so used to living with the main point of it, that we don't even react to it, and start arguing over other details. What we are actually then doing is reimporting from the ancient context something the text isn't trying to convey to us, but a context it has to start off from in order to say anything at all to the people of the time.
Your content offers so much clarity and hope to those with faith in a seemingly hopeless time.
For actual* clarity you should watch him get utterly exposed for lying in this video
th-cam.com/video/TTkwsqiFW9A/w-d-xo.html
@@Brandon-yb8py Lying about what. pray tell? The divinity of Christ? I highly doubt it.
Very informative, I've learned alot from this channel, thank you so much for all the work you do, keep it up!
You are welcome
@James Henry Smith yeah, you've been saying that for quite some time now. Apparently 'now' doesn't mean 'now', now does it?
"But still i am sad that earth's age have become the doctrine that divides real christians from "not true" christians."
Well, some people think that, but knowledgeable creationists don't think that. That is, creationists point out that not believing in a 6,000-year-old earth does not mean that one is not a (true) Christian. Indeed, many biblical creationists were once theistic evolutionists themselves, and believe that they were Christians before they became creationists.
However, not being a salvation issue doesn't mean that it's not an important issue.
The illustrations are phenomenal and the content is even better!
This is a topic I did not know I wanted covered - thank you
Really liking this new animation style.
Also really surprised to see you not cite Aubrey Lackington Moore, a contemporary of Darwin who affirmed evolution. His work is incredible.
Really great stuff! I got my MA in Science and Religion and this video personally blesses my soul. It's right on!
I have 10 PhDs in genetics, biology, geology, philosophy...and it did NOT bless my soul.
But the Creator said "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”
And he also said:
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Romans 12)
And yet the Bible has lots of chronological information. It seems that God thought that it was important.
@@lesliewilliam3777 I would definitely advise getting one more Ph.D (or even an M.A.) in Biblical exegesis and it might change 🤷♂
@@PJRayment Scripture does lay out key elements that can be traced via archeology and things of that nature which is amazing. Those who have denied the historicity of Israel, its kings, people, and events have been put to shame with these wonderful (yet PTL unsurprising) discoveries. However, genealogies, in particular, carry specific points related to a theological and/or cultural point by the author. As one notices throughout the various genealogies in the OT and NT, they are different based on the authors' points.
@@banmancan1894 Note the ellipsis in my degree list. I have 2 PhDs in biblical theology and this disingenuous and intellectually dishonest piece of excrement you term a blessing still did not bless my soul.
But only an obdurate heretic, like yourself, would think you require a PhD to understand Exodus 31.
Very well-spoken and the animation is awesome! Thank you! Brother
Wow, thank you for putting this together. Very enlightening!
You continuously outdo yourself with the quality and composition of your videos. Kudos man. Glad to have been inspired by you and your work, to really think about my faith and for reviving the deep meaning in the text that my ancestors enjoyed.
It is a fearsome responsibility to teach others and those who do will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). While you are debunking young earth creationism (rightly or wrongly, who is really to know?), you seem to make a strong statement of your own alignment with the current aging of the earth/heavens. However, where does scripture support such a claim? While young earth creationism may come from a position of conjecture (given the multiple different interpretations of Genesis throughout the ages), the rebuttal of it by accepting the current scientific position is also just conjecture. Should then this be taught in such a way as it is a presumed fact? Last time I looked, God's word was the only thing that should be trusted. When I went to school, scientists were warning of an ice age to come. Now they warn of global warming. No doubt, the next theory is just on the horizon. I agree with your comments on the SDA movement and its teachings. But I can't get around the fact that it was only in day 4 that the sun, moon and stars were created. Day being a day or 1,000 years doesn't matter. God's word has set an order which debunks the current scientific position. What then are you going to believe?
Are you serious? The Scriptures don't *need* to support any estimate of the age of the earth whatsoever. That wasn't their purpose. The Bible isn't a science textbook.
@@jasonspencer8558 No, the Bible isn't a science textbook. However, it does have a lot of _history._ That _history_ is at odds with modern 'scientific' claims. I put 'scientific' in quotes, because it's actually based on a position of naturalism: i.e. that when trying to explain things, such as the origin of the earth, only natural explanations are acceptable, even if the evidence says otherwise. Science typically involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability, none of which can be done on unique past events. So claims about the age of the earth are not only based on a presumption of naturalism, they barely qualify as science.
And the fact is that the Bible _does_ provide a lot of information about the age of the earth, those being mainly the repeated, explicit statements about creation happening in six ordinary days, and the chronogenealogies that allow one to add them up to determine a time from creation through to Abraham and beyond.
With evolution you have death before sin. Death did not enter the world until Adam sinned against God. Therefore evolution is not biblical and I will trust the scriptures before I trust any theologian, Scholar or scientist. Death is a curse, God created a perfect world without death. It was never intended for man or even the animals to die. Why would God create death and suffering and call it good? Death and suffering are not good. They are a curse because of sin. The soul that sins shall die. The day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die. The ground is cursed, now we sweat and work the fields, there is pain in child birth. It's beyond me that there are those that put so much over thought into the Simplicity of Genesis. God created in 6 24hr days and gave a day of rest on the 7th. How could each day be 1000 years? Does man work 6000 years then rests 1000 on the sabbath? Scripture will interpret scripture if you let it. By all means, if you want to cram humanistic godless evolution into the bible you can try but, it will fail. Good day. 🤷
God’s alleged word is not a debunking & you misunderstand what a refutation is too. 😂
So interesting!
Thank you for all the research 💗🙏
Fascinating! Thank you for your revealing time and research 💪🏼💭😀
I'm happy to see this videos. Some of the views of early notables is the same views I have had for a while but never really bring up to anyone because so many people are bent on the young earth idea. Even my pastor who is my father is. A long time ago I realized that the days in genisis probably wasn't an actual day and have considered them to be more of an era but the "God day" view is very interesting! I going to have to study that one.
Love the animation, but the content and information even more-so. Great job!!
your quality of videos gets better and better!
16:30 “George McGredy Price “ *No relation to Kent Hovind* LOOOOOL that caught me off guard.
Great video as always IP, I personally don’t have a strong position on this but I always appreciate how informative and well put together your videos are. I would especially love to see more “history of Christianity in America” and how doctrines evolved.
Even for non Christian groups like JW, and Mormons
Super excited about this one
Thank you for your work. I was raised in a church that held to YEC, promoted Answers in Genesis, and were quick to condemn any Christians who thought otherwise as at best misguided and at worst as dangerous heretics. I too held to that view, until I started to study both Astronomy & Paleontology as hobbies. I gradually began to wrestle with my faith as I had been taught that only YEC was orthodox Christian theology. Thankfully through much prayer, contemplation, and studying both the scriptures & Christian history I discovered much of what you presented here (& in your other videos). Thankfully I'm still a devout Christian, even though I don't hold to YEC anymore. I'm not angry against the church for its view. I'm only saddened that they taught that view exclusively along with vilifying of all other Christian perspectives.
Study evolution and let’s see if you’re still a Christian
Your opinion on earth creation date doesn’t matter, that’s not how you attain salvation.
So true
@@cloudthekell The view that human nature changed because of the sin of the first humans, is incompatible with evolution.
"I was raised in a church that held to YEC, promoted Answers in Genesis, and were quick to condemn any Christians who thought otherwise as at best misguided..."
Which they are, given that the Bible is absolutely clear that God created in six days. In fact God Himself wrote that in stone.
"I too held to that view, until I started to study both Astronomy & Paleontology as hobbies."
So the secular view convinced you that the Bible was wrong?
"I had been taught that only YEC was orthodox Christian theology."
Again, given that God clearly and unambiguously said that He created in six days, it seems that you were taught correctly.
"Thankfully through much prayer, contemplation, and studying both the scriptures & Christian history I discovered much of what you presented here (& in your other videos)."
What is presented here is wrong, as has been pointed out both in numerous comments and a rebuttal video. You can even see one example yourself with the quote from Irenaeus which he shows on the screen but which doesn't match how he presents it!
"I'm only saddened that they taught that view exclusively..."
You're saddened that they taught the biblically-correct view. God said that He created birds before land animals, fruit trees before fish, the earth before the sun, and many other things that contradict the secular view. So why don't you believe what God said?
Great stuff. Love what u did graphically.
Wow! Your editing style has improved significantly! Did you learn a new type of video animation? Or did you hire a video editor?
I'm a Seventh Day Adventist and a fan of your channel. Too bad you misinterpreted a few SDA teachings.
1) No, we do not believe that Sunday worshippers have the mark of the beast. We believe that, in the future, Sunday will be used as tool to take importance from the Sabbath day. And people will know openly that sabbath is on saturday, but the people who for convenience reject this are the ones who will get the mark of the beast.
2) No, we do not believe that Ellen White's writings are on the same level of that of the Bible. This is completely untrue. Not even Ellen White said that, she actually called herself as a minor light and the Bible as a Major light.
Also, we don't hold Ellen White to be infallible. She didn't even saw herself as infallible. "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible." Selected Messages, book 1, p. 37.
This always tends to happen when a Christian youtuber tries to interpret SDAs teachings and doctrines. They mostly misinterpret or try to make things match their narrative.
I also like IP on a number of topics mostly historical in nature. However by clearly misinterpreting our teachings and beliefs I find it hard now to take this video seriously… and since this is the case with this video now I’m wondering if I’m being misguided by some of his other videos.
@@JosueWithContext yep am at your stage aswell
I'm not a SDA. My kids attend a SDA school in the Philippines and I absolutely LOVE the Bible based education they're getting! It's absolutely fantastic.
This video was amazing. I learned so much I've never heard before!
Learn how much he lied about here lol
th-cam.com/video/TTkwsqiFW9A/w-d-xo.html
Great video Michael, thanks for taking the time to make this.
Bro, I love your videos!
Thank you, I appreciate that!
Old earth, young earth... we will know for sure only in heaven.
The important thing is.. Jesus.
God became a human being and sacrificed Himself to save us.
Love from Israel.
You are why Gen z is the least Christian in history. They know your black heart
@@benjaminjohnson6118 Pre Christ, most of the worlds population did not know the God of the Bible. After Christ, there was a massive and rapid growth in belief but still the majority do not know. Gen Z is possibly the least Christian generation in western power history, I’ll give you that. But that’s a few hundred years, nothing new. Why do you say black heart? Are you talking specifically to this TH-camr or Christians in general? It’s not offensive to me, I realise you may have good reason to say it.
Very excellent. Thank You. It's about time someone on TH-cam even mentions that there is such a person as an Old Earth Creationist who has no problem with Evolution being taught in schools.
So exited for this! I love a good history lesson. I've always wanted to know about his stuff but didn't know where to start.
IP, sorry for the off topic comment, but will you ever talk about the dating and authorship of books like Daniel and Isaiah?
Amazing work! Thank you for all that you do.
When I was growing up I didn't even know what Young Earth creationism was let alone the other theories of Genesis 1 and 2
This is a very different visual style; I like it. Is this a one-off or are you planning to continuing to evolve your style?
We will do more like this, just not all the time, as it is very time consuming
That would be _inteligently designing_ the style, not letting it evolve by chance!
I love the graphics in this video! Great work!
I was very against old earth theory, and I really didn't understand how people could say Genesis is allegorical, until I read the words of St Paul about Agar and Sarah and he says that the story is an allegory, and then I started figuring out that some parts of bible can totally be allegorical and that's not a bad thing
One step more and you'll see that all that is mythology.
@@ThomasKundera all that what?
@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 : The Bible.
@@ThomasKundera lol, are u kidding me? Some parts are allegoric, but that's not equal to mythology, and of course not all Bible is allegorical.
@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 :
How you call stories about the Egyptians gods? Mythology.
How you call stories about the Greek gods? Mythology.
How you call stories about the Roman gods? Mythology.
How should we call stories about the Jewish gods? Same.
See any reason for anything else, but something like "for no reason, the religion I was indoctrinated to at childhood is the only real one while all other gods are mythology"?
Me neither.
I’d love to see you have a discussion with Bishop Barron, Jonathan Pageau or Jordan Peterson. You stand with all of them and I thoroughly enjoy your videos and content
I can see my future conversations on YEC ending with me sharing this video. Been needing it for a long time... Finally received it in a stunning, visual presentation. Great work IP! It was better you than I doing a video on the topic because it brings back foul memories.
Share it out!
It left so much out of thr history hat as a young earth creationist it wasnt very convincing
"I can see my future conversations on YEC ending with me sharing this video."
I can see it ending with the biblical creationist pointing out the errors in this video.
Thank you for making this video. So I've got two main questions. Firstly what is the correct biblical interpretation of Genesis 1? What was the author of the book of Genesis aiming to convey. Secondly is there any empirical evidence to support either young earth creationism and is there any empirical evidence to support the idea that the earth is billions of years old? God bless you.
Very well done! That took some work to put all that together and I’m glad people like you are helping educate us. I didn’t even know the history of this movement. Thank you!
Question for you IP... A big part of Old Earth, is the "Local Flood." Why would Noah need 100 years for the ark when he could have simply moved to the country over? Why would he need 2 of every kind, including birds? They could have simply ignored the Flood and Noah and flown to the next town over or followed their migration path as usual. I'd appreciate if you got back
Here's my view - read Gen. 1 three times and then read the flood account. The literary overlaps you can see between the accounts show that the flood is a hyperbolic account of judgement and recreation of the cosmos. This means the account isn't meant to be a scientific hyrogeological account of the flood, but rather it's a rhetorical theological interpretation of a local flood being presented as judgement of the cosmos.
@@taylorj.1628 That's an interesting perspective.
@@taylorj.1628 Very well said, I agree. Hyperbole would have been a useful tool to emphasize the importance of the event. Afterall, story telling was the main mode of passing down wisdom and history. It makes sense that its exaggerated. I do however believe that it was based on a real catastrophic event that happened all over the world at the time. All coastal civilizations would have been wiped out.
I dont think we should attempt to give a scientific explanation of the flood story because thats not the mindset of the ancient people who wrote it.
Heres one issue of being overly scientific: the story says the highest mountain was covered with water. Is that implying that Noah survived Mt. Everest level altitudes and temperatures for several months in an unpressurized vessel? See what a dumb question that even is? Its not the point of story lol
See here: th-cam.com/video/2BzkoFpnAVk/w-d-xo.html
@@taylorj.1628 What's your thought on Jonah being swallowed by a sea creature?
0:40 You may be shocked to find that that particular modern Young Earth movement has a parallel in Catholic theologians.
From Lyell to the 1890's there were Catholic theologians publishing three possibilities.
Not just gap theory, not just day-age theory, whichever of them you might have accepted, but precisely young earth creationism and Flood Geology.
The reason that Flood Geology and with it YEC was by and large abandoned as a mediatic concern of new publications, i e as a movement, is, _"Pyrenees are older than Himalayas and even Pyrenees are too high to have been covered by Flood waters considering today's water volumes"_ ... sth which the modern (and mostly Protestant) YEC movement have found technical answers too, like "no Pyrenees didn't rise the same way much longer ago, then get worn, they rose a different way, also after the Flood" ..
I stumbled on your channel because of your shorts, and I am glad I did.
They almost got me. Thanks for this Video. Very informative. I’ve heard of this one other time, but…this video went much deeper.
Coming from a secular background, I leaned OEC when I first became a Christian. It wasn't until I came across presuppositional apologetics, understood how our worldview shapes how we interpret evidence, and realized that the Bible is authoritative over all things, including my philosophical framework, that I finally became a YEC. Moreover, I found that one of the key reasons I previously held and others currently hold to the OEC position is not because of the text, but ultimately stems from the fear of man (e.g. if I was a YEC then the cool kids might mistaken me for a Fundy!)
Great point. We use the Bible to interpret our world, not our world to interpret the Bible.
You clearly misunderstood presupositional arguments. What you describe is pretty much the opposite of the valid form of coherence based epistemological justification of presupositions. You don't "presuppose" conclusions and then filter info in light of the conclusions. You examine a set of parsimonious propositions through formal logic (usually disjunctive normal form) to determine whether the consequent is a complete and coherent system. YEC fails on this front by the way. "Presupositional arguments" != "your worldview determines what's true." This second proposition of the inequality is something more akin to solipsism or some kind of epistemological nihilism.
We see others here who admit to having similar experiences: peer pressure to believe in OEC or macro-evolution.
@@jasondubya2775
"The Bible being authoritative doesn’t necessarily equate to YEC belief."
So-called YECs actually use the term _biblical creationist_ precisely because their goal is not to promote a 'young' earth, but to follow what the Bible says. And the Bible _clearly_ teaches that the world is young. So unless it's not authoritative, then yes, it does equate to 'YEC' belief.
@@joshg1420
"You don't "presuppose" conclusions and then filter info in light of the conclusions."
And yet that is precisely what mainstream scientists do when it comes to origins. _Methodological naturalism_ says that their explanations for things (e.g. the origin of the earth) _must_ be natural ones, even if the evidence points the other way.
The editing and production value is excellent. Keep up the good work!
Well done. Nice motion graphics and production value too
This is such an amazing channel
I was raised in the Seventh day Adventist church and your explanations are on point. Adventists not only hold to young earth creationism to uphold Ellen White's visions, but also to hold to their interpretation of Sabbath being created literally on the seventh day of creation for humanity (while White also said that the angels and universe celebrate sabbath before earth's creation, an apparent contradiction). They also teaches that the world was formed in seven days, not six days, as sabbath was created on the seventh. Ironically, they tied up Christians that worship on Sunday to Evolutionist that they believe refuses to worship God as creator on saturday Sabbath. If you don't believe in Sabbath and keep it, you rejected God as creator. If you reject the literal interpretation of Genesis, you rejected Gos as creator. Both are tied up together for them. Literalistic interpretation of Genesis also played a part on their eschatology. So if you believe in six/seven day creation but refuses to keep the seventh day sabbath, you still have the mark of the beast. You should believe both of them to be 'safe' from having that mark.
It is even one part of the Adventist Gospel (Three Angels Messages) which they proclaim and spread everywhere. The literal interpretation of Genesis is paramount to their existence as a sect due to their prophetess Ellen White and their interpretation of Sabbath.
prove it. she never said that.
There are around 20 million sda with several hospitals
How do they all keep The Sabbath?🧐
Impossible ‼️
SDA is heretical from the false prophet miller and white
Teaching and preaching that the old covenant MUST be kept‼️
(Even though this is impossible)
Jesus is The Spirit of prophecy
HE said
The end of the old covenant age was coming in that generation
And HE did come in judgement on the clouds in 70 ad
Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning for eternity in and from Heaven
Hi, I 'm a membre of French adventist church, and what you're described is a caricature of an american adventist. We are not the same. Debating is okay in my church. It's not a sect.
@@P.H.888 All the adventist are not robots who follows an simply vision. A lot of them work the Sabbath in hospital for saving lives, like Jesus did when he kept the Sabbath.
@@Toto-um8sp Hi. Good for you brother. Unfortunately not all experienced the same intellectual freedom to question and doubt Ellen White and church teachings as your church did. From where I come from (Asia), that is something "punishable by death". It is true freedom to disagree with fellow believers while maintaining faith and trust in Christ. God bless!
Who would like to see inspiring philosophy debate Ken Ham? We need to make this a reality.
I want him to debate who he wants to debate: Jason Lisle. But I think we all know that's never going to happen.
No, Ken ham follows the “Village Idiot” God sculpted with mud pies philosophy. Although I love InspiringPhilosophy, he takes the Atheist Science approach when it comes to time.
Pure unadulterated science says it’s all a digital simulation. Ah, so gods a programmer, at least as far as we can comprehend.
Times & space are relative. How long did it take the simulation to load? A second? A minute? 6 days?
I want to see him debate a Christian Simulation Theorist, lol
Amazing editing as always
I typically agree with your theology and assessment about the fallacies of YEC. This comment may be better saved for your Noah's ark video but it also applies here.
I'm curious what you think of the use of "world" in Matthew 24:14 vs. what is meant by "world" being used in the Noah's ark story.
With the exception of specifically saying "all the nations", it's tough to say that in one spot "world" means the known world and in another place it really means all the world...
thanks for any constructive thoughts.
Matthew 24:14:
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Great video! Did not know that William Jennings Bryan was only opposed to only humans having evolved at the Scopes Trial, him having no objection to anything else evolving or an old earth seems to get left out of that discussion.
I agree with you but at least some Jewish authorities believed in a young earth. Josephus mentions it. So I don't think modern Christians are totally culpable .
@BuddyTheRookie True.
@BuddyTheRookieDo you just read your Bible without being influenced at all by your culture?
Absolutely fascinating. Gotta drop a sub for this one. Just discovered your channel
The ECF'S did often believe that the days were allegorical. However those same ECF's believed in an instantaneous universe which was by definition a young earth viewpoint.
Yeah as a Catholic I had never even heard of this until some atheist was like "HA HA YOU BELIEVE THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD".
I was like 🤨😬
So as a Roman Catholic you believe an ape is your ancestor?
It’s not an “ape” is our ancestor; human beings are apes, and we share common ancestry with modern primates. Saying we descended from apes is analogous to saying you descended from your cousin. It’s a total misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory states.
@@europason2293 what? Did you just say "humans are apes"? Well so clearly we have nothing to talk here about and clearly you aren't a Christian bur "evolutionist".
We are no cousins to apes either. Humans are not animals although very often they behave as animals or ever worse.
Evolution never happened as a "macro evolution" as Darwin promoted and "micro evolution" isn't really an evolution but group or processes within one kind of species.
That was too pretty much my own position as a cradle Catholic; then, I left the Faith - and as I made steps to come back, I started to take YEC more seriously. All the mockery and 'denialism' and so on aside, it is far more reasonable to consider the Earth being a few thousand years than the mainstream culture makes it to be...
Same these protestants really had to embarrass the Christian name smh
This was a great video. Virtually everyone I know, family, friend and church associates are YECs, so I use all the material I can get.
I'm feeling your pain. YEC are factories of many TH-cam Atheists.
Here’s some more material for you bud!
th-cam.com/video/TTkwsqiFW9A/w-d-xo.html
God bless you brother for the work that you do!! 🙏🏽😇
No bitches???
Brilliant work man!
okay, you ANIMATED a 25 minute video. that takes a WHILE
I will also add a word of caution that the beginning of the end for mainline churches was to forgo the authority of scripture specifically with this issue. They wanted scripture to be compatible with modern scholarship and eventually they compromised so much, their beliefs wound up being contrary to scripture and historical Christianity rather than in line with it. I could write more, but I'll leave it at that.
Yes
I was able to read Whitcomb's thesis at the Grace Theological Seminary Library in Warsaw, Indiana many years ago. I heard Morris speak at the Cincinnati Bible Seminary when I was a student there. His ability to quote Scripture was amazing.
Hi IP. I was wondering if there was a particular bible translation that you would recommend for more cultural context and better translation? IP or any others have a recommendation?
This feels like ShoddyCast going over Elder Scrolls lore
Too bad Shoddycast channel isn't putting out as much content
The thumbnail alone is straight 🔥
Wait until you see the video, my man.
My man!
This is such a relief to know! Another way to help bring people who reject Christianity on a rational basis around to Christ
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌎 *The Misconception of Universal Young Earth Belief*
- Common misconception that young earth belief is an essential Christian doctrine.
- Historical evidence contradicts the idea that all Christians historically adhered to a young earth.
- Introduction to the modern definition of young earth creationism by the National Center for Science Education.
01:04 📜 *Definitions and Organizations of Young Earth Creationism*
- Definition of young earth creationism: Earth less than ten thousand years old, six 24-hour creation days.
- Mention of organizations like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research.
- Variations among young earth creationists on the exact age of the earth.
02:26 📚 *Early Christian Views on Genesis 1 Interpretation*
- Saint Irenaeus' interpretation: Days of creation as 1,000-year periods, not literal 24-hour days.
- Saint Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria's non-literal readings of Genesis.
- Early church fathers' diverse views on the interpretation of the creation account.
05:12 ⏰ *Figurative Interpretations of Genesis 1 in Early Christianity*
- Clement of Alexandria's belief in an instantaneous creation and figurative days.
- Influence of Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria on non-literal readings.
- Saint Augustine's concept of God-divided days rather than sun-divided days.
06:47 🌐 *Non-Literal Readings Persist through the Middle Ages*
- William of Conches's non-literal interpretation in the Middle Ages.
- The chaos restitution interpretation: Unspecified time of chaos before creation.
- Various theologians supporting interpretations allowing for an older earth.
09:21 🌍 *Diversity of Interpretations Before Modern Geology*
- Limited evidence and diverse views on the age of the earth before modern geology.
- Bishop Ussher's date of creation not universally accepted among Christians.
- The gap theory gaining popularity, suggesting an unspecified time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
11:44 🌋 *Christian Response to Geological Discoveries*
- Geologists embracing geological evidence and countering deistic eternalism.
- Irony in using Charles Lyell's arguments against geology in the 20th century.
- Resistance to Bishop Ussher's strict timeline, and the emergence of diverse Christian views.
13:54 🔄 *Evolution and Christianity in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries*
- Early Christian acceptance and accommodation of evolutionary theory.
- Theistic evolutionists like B.B. Warfield coexisting with Christian fundamentalism.
- Evolutionary views in the American South and church-related colleges.
15:38 🔄 *Rise of Young Earth Creationism in the 20th Century*
- The seven-day Adventist movement's charismatic beliefs and vision of Ellen G. White.
- George McCready Price's flood geology and ideas influencing modern young earth creationism.
- Bernard Ram's unintended encouragement of young earth creationism in his book.
18:43 📖 *Genesis Flood Book and Creationist Organizations*
- John Whitcomb Jr. and Henry Morris co-authoring "The Genesis Flood" in 1961.
- Formation of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research.
- Adoption and popularization of young earth creationism despite scientific criticism.
22:29 📢 *Young Earth Creationism: From Niche to Mainstream*
- By the 1990s, "creationist" became synonymous with young earth creationists.
- The impact of "The Genesis Flood" on the creationist movement.
- Transformation of a minority view in the 1920s to a major group by the 1970s.
24:53 🔄 *Young Earth Creationism: A Recent Interpretation*
- Young earth creationism not pivotal to Christianity before the 20th century.
- The shift towards young earth creationism driven by specific historical events.
- The modern dogmatic adherence to a young earth traces back to the visions of an alleged prophetess.
That’s the biblical view! IP stop pushing a unbiblical idea. If you don’t hold to a literal Genesis account it also affects the gospel because why Jesus need to come to saved the elect of Genesis is not literal?
???
That has been answered.
@Mister Auctor and what is the answer then? Don’t say it has been answered and you don't give me the answer.
None of these arguments you made matters. Its just how various people have interpreted creation in the past. In the end what the bible says is what holds. And that is all that matters.
Anyway what does the bible says about the period of time of creation?
1. What many Christians don't realize is that the bible does not give room for anyone to define what a day is or how long it is. The Genesis 1 defines a day clearly and that is what we must go with.
Gen 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God *called the light Day*, and the *darkness he called Night*. And the evening and the morning were the *first day.*
The scripture above makes it all clear.
God associated the day with the light. The word day in hebrew is *yôwm*
Strong's definition
*יוֹם yôwm*, yome; from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term)
So we can simply say a day is define as the warm hours.
Now the darkness is called Night. The word night in hebrew is *layil*
Strong's definition
*לַיִל layil*, lah'-yil; or (Isaiah 21:11) לֵיל lêyl; also לַיְלָה laylâh; from the same as H3883; properly, a twist (away of the light), i.e. night; figuratively, adversity:-(mid-)night (season).
So we can say night simply means *opposing the day* or not day. basically something like that.
Now, what about the word evening, The word evening in hebrew is *ereb*
Strong's definition
*עֶרֶב ʻereb*, eh'-reb; from H6150; dusk:- day, even(-ing, tide), night.
we can say evening simply means dusk. which is the opposite of morning (hebrew word means dawn)
So from the verse above, we see clearly that A day (i.e. first day) is made up of warm hours and opposite of that. Morning beginning the warm hours and evening beginnng the Night. So there you have it. God didn't leave the definition open. By associating light with day and darkness with Night and making the statement "And there was evening and morning, the first day", He is telling us that A complete day of creation, is made up of A period of light (day, when God did the work of creation) and a period opposite that (Night, When God did nothing probably rested or planned) with the entire day ending the following morning. Which also begins a new day.
So there is no room for anyone to come and insert a 1000 years for that one day period of creation. There no room at all for that.
Thank you.
th-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi.html
@@michaeldaniel2022 I have watched the first and second video. What exactly do you want me to see.
How could there be warm hours and cold hours on the first 3 days if the sun wasn’t made until the 4th day?
@@Sehon13Ultd Did you read the verses at all? God created light and called it day (warm hours). Light existed on the first day. So right from the first day Light was in existence
nana kojo if light caused those warm hours, what caused the cold hours? Do you think the light magically disappeared for 12 hours at a time?
Outstanding presentation! Thank you!
Perfect video.
With that video I've officially subscribed :)